HardyBoy

This thread appears to be a bit of a blind squirrel looking for its nuts

I mean I haven't seen a breakdown of the play calling vs you're going up against a Ben Johnson offense without any game planning and you really need to game plan and play as a cohesive unit against his offense, even one where Johnson likely just played vanilla stuff and didn't game plan either. Especially where the Bills played really well in that joint practice...I think someone earlier in the thread (I read it somewhere and it was a good point) that the Bills were likely trying to get players on islands and seeing how they would react and what choice they would make in that situation...especially where there might not be a correct answer, cause Johnson is trying to make it so no matter what you do individually you're wrong...which is why you need to play as a cohesive unit in general, but especially against that offense. Long way of saying I'm sure there could be more than one explanation for it...like the Bills have had a lot of success playing highly vanilla defenses, even if they have struggled in the playoffs (Caleb Williams isn't Joe Burrow right now)...they disguised and rolled coverages really well during that time...I'd love to know if the defense had the ability to audible at the line and the real issue was they were intentionally sending in play calls that might not win early in the game and seeing if the play was properly diagnosed and audibled...obviously they didn't game plan, but Joe Marino was talking about a play where they blitzed and they ended up with Codrington on DJ Moore either for a td or a big first down...that seems like a situation that might call for an audible...

Seriously? They brought in a few new coaches who are super familiar with press man and blitzing...plus some of the free agent signings and drafting Harriston...a bunch of talk all off season has been around how the bills seem to be shifting their defensive philosophy. They aren't going to install new stuff in front of a bunch of fans and such

Yes, they should totally run their new defensive system in a meaningless preseason game for the first time so the Ravens can prepare for it... that's a fabulous idea

Not gameplanning against a Ben Johnson offense isn't ideal, lol Remember the bills starters dominated the joint practice...that matters a lot more than this

I think this deserves it's own thread down the line, but the NFL should have lost a collusion case around limiting guaranteed contracts...yes the RB market is severely lower than that of WR...also the timing of Cook's hold out happened after a lot of the reporting around how the league and nflpa prevented the document detailing the specifics of the case and the questionable ruling by the arbitrator came out. Just saying...

Cool, I've been watching football for 35+ years, doesn't mean I have any illusions I have any idea on the nuance on what I'm watching. Even pro film people have to take guesses and make assumptions because they don't know what a specific play call is and what the responsibility of a specific player is on any given play...only way to know that is by being on the team basically. Also, if you've been watching the NFL for that long, you should know that the preseason is completely worthless in terms of telling you anything, and week one is horrible in terms of telling you anything as well, but the preseason is totally worthless...not having that lesson learned...I actually think you likely very much do know that, you've just got some very strong biases at the moment and are looking for anything to support those biases, even if it's awful and worthless data/observations. It's a human nature thing, not a you personally thing...just be aware that maybe, just maybe it's possible that that is happening and it's altering your world view on this topic...it just seems like a visceral reaction that is almost hiding from feeling feelings instead of being driven by a feeling...

Did you watch the all 22 film? What are you basing them not winning 1 on 1 battles on? Do you know what they were asked to do? Do you realize you're using logical fallacies?

Are you comparing them to the regular season last year or to the first preseason game last year? Cause I have a feeling you're comparing it to the regular season You can't have gleaned any insight from that preason game at all...like they likely were intentionally doing that style of defense to make opponents think they were gonna play a similar style this season...but there's no scheme, there's no gameplanning, and there's players trying to avoid getting hurt... Like it's scary to see how willingly people with an agenda or a preconceived opinion will take the absolute worst data and use it to run with in a mob mentality...it really is kinda wild

Polly Anna

I mean we'd save a lot of thread pages if we just said this happened primarily because of his foot and refusing surgery...

Is the issue the lack of drafting receivers in the first and especially the second round, or is it the fact that some of the d line picks busted or didnt match their pick value and then they had to spend more money on edge rushers instead of receivers. I think it's fair to assume most receivers take two years before they are really hitting their stride in year three and onward. Yes a rookie contract has value, but you're also in a lot of ways loosing two years of that value by drafting a receiver, where you can bring in high upside players on two year deals and hopefully maximize their skill set...Brown and Beasley for example...hopefully Palmer this year...plenty that haven't really worked out either for sure...but is the reason that it isn't working because of the roster building philosophical approach or selecting the wrong players or bad injury luck? Like there is a time to ROI component in this as well I'd have to imagine...btw, I'm not saying I think this is right or your comment is wrong, I think it could be interesting to discuss.

Let's say you have a two year contract for $100m with a $20m guarentee...first year salary is $20m, second year salary is $80m...saying that contract has a $50m AAV instead of a $10m AAV is wildly misleading. The player will be cut or renegotiate their contract. Obviously those numbers are high for example purposes, but players rarely play out the last year of their deals, and contracts are regularly back loaded when the guarantees are gone. I stand behind my statement that AAV based on the total value of a contract, instead of the guaranteed amount is highly misleading and isn't realistic. I'd argue for a rAAV metric, (realistic AAV), where the likelihood that a player stays on the deal is calculated, based on how much guaranteed money is left as a proportion of unguarenteed salary per season.

The AAV amount is largely meaningless because it's not based on the guaranteed amount, is the point I'm making.

Omg, just seeing this after a few drinks, I'm crying right now, so good!

$108m guaranteed over three years

I don't understand why that gets reported as $41m/yr...it's 95% most likely not going to be that...they should report it as $36m/yr...and even then, without having looked, I'm gonna assume it's a two year deal with a void year even if there isn't a void year...like he'll restructure or be cut after the second year most likely as a pre workout bonus designated as a post June 1 cut or something? But yeah, why do they report average yearly salary based on the total value and not the guaranteed value or at least give it as two values: the guaranteed/yr and the max value/yr. It's not just a small annoyance either, people use that to calculate % of cap at signing and such and it drives narratives and pro bowl/all pro voting, etc.

The percentage of players making hundreds of millions of dollars incredibly low...after you take out taxes and agent fees and how much it costs to stay in shape for football year round...and think that most players in the league are making near minimum salaries and that their careers are like under 3 years on average...and then they leave the league at like 25 years old with likely debilitating life long injuries that are likely going to keep them from working, especially if the only job someone might be qualified for is a trade job, which no knock on trade jobs in the slightest, incredibly important and respectable and appreciated work...just hard to do that type of work with joints that don't work in a degenerative sense at 25 and you potentially don't have health insurance

Haha, your avatar checks out! Today is my wife's birthday and the anniversary of their last show ever...oh wow, 30 years right?!

I can tell the queen of diamonds by the way she shines... Come to daddy on an inside straight, well I've got no chance of losing this time

What kind of dosed Kool aid we talking here?

Haha, to be fair I never said that, nor did I say the sky was falling. All I'm saying is people cheering that it's "only" a hamstring...a hamstring injury might be something that needs to be accounted for the rest of one's career I think it's the overall general idea where people might be cheering for something initially, but then in the long run it ends up being worse than the thing they were initially cheering against...like that as a general concept is kinda tickling my brain a bit...like from a Shakespearian/Greek tragedy/film noir perspective

Except a hamstring can never truly fully heal...my understanding is no muscle can after there is any form of tearing, which is what a pull or a "tweak" is, albeit small. Kinda like when you get a cut and your skin doesn't grow back exactly the same (you get a scar)...obviously a very small tweak is better than a huge tear, but my understanding is the nature of the hamstring muscle makes it much easier to happen again once there is scar tissue...I'd be really happy to learn this isn't the case with very small hamstring pulls. I'm not saying it's gonna be a big issue, but it's like people hearing someone had a minor meniscus injury that just needed a "clean up" and being like, phew, that's good news that it's not an acl...when over the long term an acl might be less impactful.

It's not about the healing time, it's about how after the first one they can start happening again over and over.