BullBuchanan

Bill knew the odds. If he came to that conclusion every time he'd be right a hell of a lot more than he was wrong. In New England, Brady was the centerpiece of the team around which everything else revolved. In Tampa he was just the final piece of the puzzle - not unlike Stafford with the Rams. He did win one Super Bowl, then had a career season and then promptly looked like a shell of himself. It was worth it for Tampa. Would it have been for New England? I guess Kraft says yes, which is easy in hindsight. I don't fault a coach for looking at an all time great player and deciding that he has more years behind him than in front. It was Bill's job to make sure the team is perpetually in a state to win, not just year by year.

nope.

Probably yes. By the way, Davis had 2.5 sacks while only playing 45% of snaps. based on that alone, I'm guessing there's more than a tad of hyperbole coming from your boy.

If you want to find a talking head saying a thing about any player, you can absolutely find it.

I don't have a professional assessment of Ed Oliver. I know he's made some great plays, but I haven't broken down his tape and looked every one of his plays to build an aggregate score. While he has made great plays, i do know he hasn't looked like prime Aaron Donald or JJ Watt. Not that that means anything. As for Brian Baldinger's assessment. It's one guy with a super subjective opinion. Not sure if he's completely off in his assessment, because he doesn't really say that much that takes away from PFFs assesment. He can be a limited factor in pass rush due to his weight and still perform well on his assignments without performing to potential or desired impact.

Who was saying the bills were losing to the steelers? The Bills were 10 point favorites.

PFF accounts for weighting, and they would never give Shakir a -2 for just a missed block. If you look at their rubric, those numbers are reserved for explosive big plays. That said, you're absolutely right that it doesn't account for a player that's a big outlier. Let's say you have a QB that throws 2 passes in the dirt or out of the stadium and then throws a hail mary TD. He proceeds to do this every drive of his career. He'd be the all-time greatest QB ever, but he'd likely have a worse score than a guy that dinks and dunks it down the field and only occasionally scores. Now of course in reality things aren't that extreme, so if you have a guy that plays mostly solid, but has huge screwups you probably end up with a higher score than you'd think or vice-versa. That doesn't make the system or analysis flawed. Every system has limitations. The flaw is using it to ascribe value that was never intended. You need to be real with what the data tells you and what it doesn't. It should be one piece of the puzzle. More often than not data should make you ask questions, not tell you answers. It's a very common mistake. Even c-level executives do it in fortune 500 companies - even when we tell them not to. Man, all you had to do was read one more sentence.

I already explained this to you, you just didn't want to hear it. It's clear you'd rather just make something up to believe.

And here lies the problem. PFF isn't saying a player is good or bad. They are providing a grade based on what a player does on each play. It's YOU and others who are ascribing a meaning to that grade. PFF isn't saying that Jordan Davis is a top 10 DT. They are saying that within their grading system he has the 10th highest score. It's not at all a complete measure of a football player. It's one data point that measures the impact of each and every play of a player. It's entirely possible for you to think that Jordan Davis is "terrible" because of whatever reasons, while still having a higher aggregate score using PFFs metrics than most other players. If you were forced to break down why you thought Davis was terrible this year, I'm sure you'd find an answer as to why he still has a high PFF grade This isn't just PFF. It goes for all data from all sources. You can't just take two results from a data source and automatically say that the higher result is the better thing. As for what I know and don't know - I know how PFF says they score players and I work with data and insights professionally, so I think that's probably more experience than most people have. It doesn't make me an expert in PFF, but the types of foaming at the mouth posts raging against PFF don't require me to be an expert.

I only missed on Cleveland who I had #1, Green Bay who i had #6 and the Bucs who i had #7. I'm not gonna change much on the remainder Baltimore Houston Buffalo Kansas City San Francisco Lions Green Bay Bucs

what anomalies do they run into? How is Allen a statistical outlier and if he is how does that make the analysis flawed?

What is your evidence to suggest the analysis is flawed?

Why would you want PFF to coach a team? What point is it that you think you're making?

I mean, most coaches are awful and the majority of the rest are painfully mediocre former athlete dinosaurs. Is it a surprise their grades don't correlate 1:1 with empirical analysis? A grade is a grade based on inputs and a model. It doesn't care what you believe. What a result of a model means is up for interpretation, but the grade itself really isn't so long as the input is accurate to the rubric.

Fournette has never been anything more than a fringe roster player in the pros. His college injury ruined his career, but people act like he's actually done things as a pro. Dude has a 3.9 YPC average. He's pretty bad. I'd rather have Duke Johnson.

No one anywhere in the world thought this was a "fake slide" but you. It was clearly a stutter step and change of direction. Just because the Steelers were lazy and didn't finish the play doesn't mean that Allen did something wrong. It's pretty laughable to accuse allen of a "fake slide" when he almost never even slides at all. His preference is to run through guys.

Allen had big total stats this year but had multiple games, including several in a row where he was outright horrible. Just three game ago, he was the worst player on the field for 3 quarters of football before flipping his shirt inside out and becoming superman. You can't do that stuff and win MVP, no matter how great your collective stats are.

You do know he started his 3rd string QB tonight, right? You also know that he was playing without their Team's MVP, right? I'm really grateful we didn't have to play against a healthy Watt.

Since his very first game I thought that Tony Romo was the best color guy on tv and I can't think of another person I'd put him living or dead. He has the ability to make any game exciting to watch. Despite most Bills fans hating him for whatever reason, he's also been a pretty open supporter of the Bills and Allen from the beginning.

Well, the positive in that he's in great shape. The bad news is that as of last night he's still signed to the Browns.

Bass is a good kicker in a bad stretch. It happens to everyone, including the greats. Not worried at all.

lol.

That fumble stands call is inexcusable without explanation. We shouldnt have even had to burn our two challenges on missed turnovers from the refs.

Can't ask for a better drive than that!

7.5? I feel like we should blow out the Steelers, but we often struggle against bad teams. After seeing what Green Bay did to Dallas and remembering how badly we tried to Let NE and the Chargers win, there's a sinking feeling that we could just not show up to play today. Not sure that feeling will go away no matter how deep we go into the playoffs though.