Thurman#1

No, not at all. First the Bills had a contract with protections. https://www.buffalorumblings.com/2018/9/17/17869020/buffalo-bills-can-recoup-nearly-all-vontae-davis-contract-money-following-retirement-signing-bonus He also went right up to the FO within a few days and wrote them a check returning nearly all the money he'd been paid. Vontae played extremely fair with the Bills on this. It was an extremely weird story but was not a ripoff.

Yeah, this is the way it looks to me. You could definitely be right here, but equally, Elam might be the reason they don't give Rasul another contract. I don't think it's as predictable as you say here. But we'll see.

You're living in the past. For about two years it looked like offensive coaches were far more valuable. The pendulum is well into a swing back the other way, towards equality. And the sample sizes on that chart are way too low. Interesting but not significant.

Yup, this. Oh, and Mikie, you're wrong about that stat. Paul Brown coached plenty of years during the SB era and never made a Super Bowl. Blanton Collier too. George Halas a couple of years. As for Schotty, go back and check how those teams Marty coached did the year before Marty arrived and the year after he left. Hint: not well. Schotty was a terrific coach who made decent rosters into excellent teams. Only had a legit contending roster maybe one or two years. LaFleur and McDermott have plenty of time to go. McDermott, at age 50 probably has 15 years or so left. He'll make it way before then.

True. But it goes beyond just having Josh. We also have a front office duo that puts the right pieces around Josh. Look back through history and you find a lot of terrific QBs having years where their team isn't good even when the QB is healthy. Look at Favre in '99 and '00 and '05, Rodgers in '17 and '18, Marino in '86 - '89, Brees in '07, '08, '12 and '14 - '16, Roethlisberger in '12 and '13, Elway in '90 and '92 to '95. Hell, look at Kurt Warner's career. So far since Allen put it all together, we've been competitive every single year. Even this year when it didn't look like they'd have the team to do it.

Dang. My nine-year-old daughter broke her wrist yesterday in our jiu-jitsu class as well. I sense an astral connection of some sort with Keon.

In one opinion, presumably PFF's? Sauce is, again, a very good player playing in a crappy environment. Put him in a defense that's firing on all cylinders and he'd look much better than he's looking now. If you think Benford has been better, well, that's maybe something reasonable people could disagree over. But Sauce is all hype? Not even close. This is pretty reasonable. And it sure looks like you're on target about the QB. Which couldn't happen to a nicer team.

I get you're maybe joking. But it doesn't mean that. By that measure, having Josh Allen as our QB means we'll lose, since Josh was the QB every year we didn't make the Super Bowl. What beating the Chiefs in the regular season would mean is that we have a slightly improved chance to beat them in the playoffs as the seeding chances would improve a bit.

I know. I have to keep fighting that off. Too early, but it does feel good.

Agreed. Guy's got a big heart despite coming through experiences that could have soured him.

IMO the Jets group is just a bit better, with the possible exception of Benford, who has taken another major leap forward. But the Bills group is also very good. But the Jets system is holding back those players while the Bills system is supporting theirs and producing improvements, on and off the field. It's hard to improve in a team sport with a crappy environment.

8/17ths ain't half. There is no half anymore, in the NFL season. Or quarters of a season either. They lost that when they went to 17. It's an under-appreciated result of that move, and it's a drag, But more money, which trumps everything for the owners.

Your mom's at the top of the stairs calling you. Time to clean the toilet.

19 against Tennessee. 38 against Seattle. It's in Pro Football Reference, under Game Logs. Yes, both of these.

Hunh? Thanks for your kindness about the rest, but I absolutely addressed that trade from Dallas to Cleveland in the post. You might disagree, but at least I did address it. Here's what I said: You're right that it's not the same reason as the other two, but Dallas had very good reason to let him go. Like your name, by the way. Have a good day, and see you on the boards.

We let him go in August. They signed him from the Saint Louis Battlehawks, says google.

Um, no, that's not his assumption at all. You're drastically mis-stating what he appears to have assumed. What you did there is all on you, reflective instead of your apparent misunderstanding of the very good reasons that produced these moves. Why did the Raiders let him go? The same reasons losing teams looking to the future trade good players for draft picks every single year when the present is awful and they want to look to the future. It's anything but "no reason." They dealt away Khalil Mack at nearly the same time. Was that also because he sucked? LaCanfora reported on the Sunday morning [just before the Cooper trade] that everything was for sale in Oakland.) The idea that there was no reason is just stupid. Gruden leaked damaging, untruths about Amari to the media, potentially harming his value right before he traded him…"Also zero evidence it was Gruden, but while we’re taking leaps let’s do it lol", you say? OK, let’s take leaps. Why would Gruden put something in an email that might leak that was against his own self-interest? Golly, great question. It isn’t as if Gruden is a guy with a history of leaked emails in which he said stupid, rude things that would be against his own self-interest. That would never happen. Gruden is famous for his reticence, his cool head, and for never going against his own interest in emailed communi … oh, wait. And did it go against his own interests? Gruden got a first for Cooper, just what he asked for. "Dallas traded for Amari for a first, paid him, then dumped him for a fifth a few years later. For no reason," you say? Good Lord, no reason? You may be the first person in the history of the world to say that saving $16M is "no reason." Saying there was no reason is disingenuous. Dallas was in salary cap trouble and they saved $16M by trading him. I myself would not call $16M “no reason” in any possible way. They had CeeDee Lamb as their number one and Gallup as a guy who looked like he was developing into a good #2 and was younger and cheaper and had TD weaons as well. “No reason”? Please. "Cleveland traded for Amari, paid him, then dumped him for a third a few years later. For no reason," you say? Again, “no reason” is either willful misunderstanding or flat-out ignoring the facts. This kind of trade happens multiple times a year. Teams that are greatly underachieving their own expectations gain a bit of a more realistic POV and start looking to the future by dumping salary, trading away guys who would require big contracts, especially older guys requiring big contracts, and start collecting draft picks. It's the opposite of “no reason,” it’s a wildly obvious reason. !And none of this means anything. lol," you say? Again, that's just you pretending that there was "no reason" for these outcomes when the reasons were obvious. It means plenty. It means that lots of guys get traded for lots of reasons. Some of them go on to help their new teams a ton.) The fact is plenty of really good players have been traded multiple times. Some turned out to have problems. Diggs for one. Plenty also turned out to be really good pickups for nearly every team they played for. Look at Anquan Boldin, for one. Ahmad Rashad. James Lofton. Joey Galloway. Keyshawn Johnson. Randy Moss (though he clearly did screw Oakland, but benefitted the Pats a ton). Wes Welker. Brandon Marshall, of course. There are tons of others. Trades happen.

Why did 2 teams trade Cooper in his prime? Because both teams were headed for horrendous years (the Raiders went 4-12 that year and the Browns look like they're in that neighborhood) and both wanted to dump salary and pick up draft picks as part of a look towards the future. That was the primary reason he was traded in-season in both cases.

No, I'm really not. Unless you're saying that accidents never cause injury. Which would be spectacularly dumb. But that's absolutely several lovely straw men about bans and bubbles and taking away freedoms.

You're right. Only people injured at the most dangerous possible jobs deserve our concern. A crossing guard who gets mowed down? Who cares!! After all, the injury stats at his job are low. Why should we care? A teacher who loses a leg? Nobody cares, and why should they? The fact that it's injury and not death that is so common in football definitely means it's not worth talking about or being concerned about. And yet players are ruled out every week.

Not at all. Not a lot of detail, but there's new content.

Playoff wins, and wins generally ... are NOT QB stats. Wins are TEAM stats. The actual name of the stat that is often shortened to "QB Record" or "QBrec" is really called "TEAM Record in Games Started by this QB (Regular Season)". Herbert and probably Lawrence are worth huge contracts. On good teams they're likely to be capable of playing QB at a level that would make the teams capable of winning a championship. Maybe even a hypothetical Tua without concussion problems, although I'm not convinced of that yet. Jones may get there at some point, but it's looking less likely as time passes.

We've got an OC. If ours leaves at some point, yeah, bring Daboll on.

For the eighth guy chosen? Absolutely yes. Particularly in a year when three WRs were chosen in the top nine picks. Seriously, yeah, it absolutely is. Still early, that's a fair caveat. But yeah, it's an accomplishment.

We beat the Cardinals. The Cardinals beat the Rams and the Niners. We beat the Jaguars. They beat the Colts. Even bad teams beat good teams sometimes. You are what your record says you are. Most of the power rankings this week have us 5th to 7th. Nobody is ignoring us.