hondo in seattle

This is a complicated subject actually. So many variables to consider... For example, the Emory prof looks at spending. Well, the per capita income in Buffalo is only about half of the per capita income in some of the bigger NFL markets. Of course Buffalonians spend less. It's an economic factor not a fandom factor. I bet we spend more as a percentage of discretionary income - a fairer measure. Then there's the market. How do you quantify this? The Bills only represent the greater Buffalo area. The other half of the state is represented by those two teams in Jersey. Teams like Seattle and Denver, on the other hand, each represent an entire state. The New England Patriots represent several states. So of course Pats fans spend more. The draw fans from a bigger geographical, more populous area. Think about this: About 7% of the population of metro Buffalo is at the Ralph on a football Sunday. In comparison, only about 2% of the Boston metro area is in Foxborough on Sundays - or about .5% of the New England region that the Pats represent. If game attendance is a measure of fandom, it's easier to find someone who went to the game in Buffalo than in Boston/New England.

Perennial winners have good fans. What's impressive about the Bills mafia is how loyal and rabid we are despite the drought and an all-time win percentage of something like .471. I have a lot of respect for Steeler and Packer fans who are clearly passionate about their teams. But how hard is it to support a winning organization? A couple seasons ago, I watched a Bills game with the Bills Backers of Seattle and counted well over 100 fans in attendance all the way here on the other side of the continent. Would Cowboy or Pats fans gather in droves like we do if their teams were perpetually irrelevant? I don't think so. You can quantify team mania in different ways and produce different lists - but Bills fandom is qualitatively different.

So says an Emory University study... https://sports.yahoo.com/cowboys-patriots-eagles-nfls-best-fans-study-finds-142019728.html

I though the premise of the movie was great. But I hated it. If the movie didn't take place in Buffalo, I wouldn't have watched till the end.

Doesn't his .527 winning percentage (with a sample size of 18 seasons) indicate that he's a hair better than the average HC? The article ranks him #17 which to me doesn't seem ridiculous. He's a middle of the packer.

On the evaluation forms I use at work, I can give someone a "T" for "too new to rate." And that's what I'd give McDermott. He's off to a promising start but it's only been one season. Is he the 18th best HC in the NFL? I don't know. As years go by, we may end up placing him in the Top Five. Then again, he may drop into the Bottom Five. Some coaches like Bill Belichick improve with experience. He's a better coach now then he was in Cleveland. Other coaches actually seem to regress. George Siefert, for example, won a Super Bowl in his first year as a NFL HC and went 1-15 in his last season. McD's first season won't define him.

Some teams have used analytics to study the productivity of past draft picks versus their draft position. They used the data to create their own trade value charts.

I think the WR camp battle is the most interesting (beside QB)... Will KB, now healthy, start playing like a #1? Will Zay, now healthy, start playing like a high draft pick? Will any of the vet FAs recapture their old magic? - Will Holmes play anything like he did when he chipped in nearly 700 yards for the Raiders in 2014? - Will Streater play anything like he did when he chipped in nearly 900 yards for the Raiders in 2013? - Will Kerley play anything like he did when he chipped in 800 yards for the Jets in 2012? Will Clay show us he can do something more than just run fast? Will Brandon Reilly remind anyone - besides Micah Hyde - of Adam Theilen? Will Proehl play anything like his dad? Will any of the other youngsters step up?

Somewhere I read that some franchises can be squirrelly about how robust their analytics departments are and how they're used. They'd rather not let other clubs know what they're doing. Just because Beane and McD aren't talking about the analytics stuff doesn't mean they're not using it.

Thanks for posting. It's an interesting discussion about how stats are fairly or unfairly used to evaluate a QB like Tyrod. Not only does Salfino combine ints and sacks to evaluate QBs, he also advocates yards per pass play which I think is valid. 74% of the time, the team with the higher yppp wins the game - which seems common sensical enough. Either measure (ints plus sacks, or yppp) judges TT harshly though a few TT supporters make decent counter arguments in the thread.

The quality of their D is irrelevant in this conversation except as it pertains to wins. Statistically speaking, Allen was not a great college QB. Partly because he started out in JUCO and came to Wyoming with raw skills and partly because his supporting offensive cast wasn't very good. When given lemons, Allen made lemonade. It's all you can really ask. Some say he was a great college QB - despite the poor stats - because he elevated a bad offense. Would the other top QBs have been more successful running that Wyoming offense with that scheme and those players against that schedule? We can speculate but we don't know. Some very smart folks like Allen. Some don't. If football scouts and former NFL QBs don't have a consensus opinion on Allen, I won't pretend that I know. I have a lot of hope but few expectations.

I can't root against TT. He's too good a guy. But I hope one of our QBs earns a Pro Bowl spot and gets us a playoff victory. Then there will be no regret.

Which he did. I think I recall one of his coaches saying they would have won 3 games without him. Football stats don't mean anything without context. It's a true team sport. Maybe the other top QB in this draft would have completed even a lower percentage of passes if they had the same supporting cast.

Opinions are like arseholes - everyone's got 'em and most of them stink. Greg is a smart guy. But he's no more authoritative than the scouts and ex-scouts who think highly of Allen. We won't know who's right until Allen gets to play.

Although 2 of the 3 names differ from my list, I get the rationale for this one too.

Best FA - Davis may turn out to be the best but Star is the most important. We really needed someone to shore up the middle of the DL. Best Draft Pick - Years from now, we may say Allen. But right now Edmunds looks like the surest star in the group. Biggest Loss - with an inexperienced QB and uncertain WR corps, we really need to be able to run the ball and Richie was our best run blocker.

Yep. The performance of the D is somewhat predictable - we know the scheme and we know the players. Barring injury, it should be a good unit. The O? Who knows? We're not sure of the scheme or the QB. In fact, there are questions all over the place on the offensive side. I don't think Street & Smith has any better idea how it'll all play out than we do.

The early 90s Bills were indeed fun. The No Punt game against the 49ers was one of the 'funnest' games I've ever watched. But by the time we lost our fourth consecutive SB, football fans were sick of the Bills. That may retroactively tarnish the fun of the early Kelly/Thomas/Smith/Reed/Levy years. Another fun team was the 1980 Kardiac Kids.

I'm not sure why Star underperformed last year in Carolina. It's easy to surmise, though, that Beane and McD paid a hefty price for him because they expect him to make a difference on a Buffalo DL that was pretty weak against the run last year. If the professionals who know him - and this D - really well expect good things, then so do I. But only time will tell.

Just another guy with a poor opinion of the Bills and I don't care. There are certainly spots on the roster to worry about. But there are some strengths on the roster that barely got mentioned by Silva. The D looks improved. The O has a lot of questions with a new OC, QB, and OL. We'll see.

They're looking for "someone who knows how to build sources." That's refreshing.

There's plenty of accountability in the media - just not the type we'd wish for. Guys who drive revenues do well. Guys who don't drive revenue don't. It has next-to-nothing to do with accuracy at predictions or knowledge of the game. I'm not expecting the Bills to light the world on fire this season - too many gaps/questions on the offensive side - I also think prediction of 2 wins are pretty crazy. Yet we read those articles, given the author clicks.

This is really Interesting - thanks for posting - but I think the subject needs further study. Teams playing from behind tend to throw more. This is probably why passing attempts are negatively correlated with winning and passing yards are not strongly correlated with winning. In real life, we know there are times when your running game just isn't delivering the production you need and you have to throw the ball to win. When that happens, you need a QB who can put up a 300 yard game. Jim Kelly, for example, could do that. Tyrod couldn't. Statistics taken out of context never tell the whole story. Btw, which correlates with winning more: QBR or passer rating?

Like others, I won't believe in the collapse of the Patriot dynasty until it happens. The reports about Brady vs Belichick friction don't get my hopes up at all. Not even a little. It's just offseason chatter.

I personally hope Richie gets the help he clearly needs and I hope Kaep plays in the NFL again. I'm not sure why those two points of view can't go hand in hand.