BullBuchanan

If you replace Allen with a league average qb, say Daniel Jones - I think we're a bottom half team

The Chiefs won the Super Bowl... The Bills aren't even in the same tier as those two teams in the SB last year. I don't think we're int he same tier as the top 4 teams.

Chiefs, Eagles, 49ers, Bengals I didn't say the Bills were run of the mill though. I said, what has Beane done this offseason that wasn't run of the mill? The bills had tons of cap room, it just had to be unearthed through restructures. None of that takes a genius. It's just operational business moves that any GM would have done and was likely the plan when the original deals were signed.

Those are my two picks. Simpson was the guy to me if we kept the same defense. He has the athelticism to replace Edmunds. If we change scheme a bit with Frazier gone, maybe there could be a good fit for Campbell.

That's not really impressive. All teams do that.

Omg, so this whole time you were hung up because you didn't think it was possible to apply a scientific analysis to subjective interpretations? There are whole industries that do just that - Net Promoter Scores and Customer Satisfaction Scores are just that, except they don't come with grading rubrics or extensive training for the input data. In the case of PFF, the grader is grading to the rubric. The that all of the grades go through a second set of hands on a play by play is following a peer review model. If you have a system set up like that, you should be getting similar results across personnel.

Too bad we didn't get a chance to sign Keenan Allen. Then we could have traded for Josh Allen from the Jags.

What part of what he's done here isn't run of the mill? For me to be impressed he'd have to show me something that someone else couldn't do or something someone else didn't know. He paid a lot of money so far to two players without super impressive resumes, including a receiver with 793 career yards and 4 touchdowns over 4 seasons.

You can apply science and scientific methodology to anything.

In order for that to be true, you would need to have a hypothesis that past performance is indicative of future results. I'm not about to make that claim - are you? Btw, I posted their model methodology. Eagerly awaiting your rebuttal.

They do share the details of their grading system. I have a bachelor of science degree and work in an engineering field. I know exactly what the scientific method is and use its application every day. How many times do I have to link it in one thread for you guys to be able to follow along? https://www.pff.com/grades Neil Hornsby, the founder of PFF, has a bachelor of science in Physics. I'm going to assume he's also familiar with the scientific method

Maybe you just don't know the definition then if you don't think data modeling is a scientific pursuit.

literally, yes. They follow a scientific process. Did you go to college? If so, what was your major?

Nope. I'm pointing out that all of your complaints are addressed in their methodology. It's far from flawless but it's absolutely scientifically valid based on their process. You're the one saying it isn't valid because 2 NFL players complained about it. I dont care if NFL players agree with it. I care if it's valid. Playing in the NFL doesn't make you an expert of analysis or scheme. I couldn't possibly care less what Travis Kelce thinks about anything. He doesn't come off as a very bright dude.

"YOU DON’T KNOW THE PLAY CALL? We are certainly not in the huddle, but we are grading what a player attempts to do on a given play. While football is extremely nuanced regarding the preparation and adjustments that go into each play call, once the ball is snapped, most players are clear in what they’re trying to accomplish on each play, and we evaluate accordingly. Of course, there are always some gray areas in football. Plays in which there is a clear question mark regarding assignment, we can defer to a “0” grade and not guess as to which player is right or wrong. These plays are few and far between and since we are grading every snap, missing out on a handful throughout the year should not affect player evaluations. Examples of potential gray areas include coverage busts, quarterback/wide receiver miscommunications and missed blocking assignments. " https://www.pff.com/grades

No - literally no. I made no claim that PFF experts were better at evaluating film than them. I discredited your claim that they thought it was impossible for a person not on the team to know what their responsibilities were. The fact that players like Travis Kelce can't understand how a non-teammate could understand the playcall is supported by his general lack of exposure to multiple schemes throughout his career. If he played ina half dozen schemes, he might better understand how they all tie together. a lot of teams do the same things with different terminology.

You're impossible to have a discussion with. You just want to be ignorant and repeat the same things over and over no matter how completely they're discredited. I countered every single point you made, and it's not good enough because Travis Kelce doesn't understand it. Let me know when he wins his Nobel.

You completely misinterpreted that statement. I didn't slight any of the NFL players or personnel you mentioned but Eric Wood and Travis Kelce aren't professional football evaluators either. Both of them only played for one pro team and Kelce has been under the same coach in the same system his entire career. I don't expect him to understand the complete scope of the game when it's not his responsibility to know it. He's also one guy. One person's take doesn't prove or disprove anything. The specific quote of his that youc alled out is addressed diretcly by PFF, which I already sent you: "The thing is that these PFF graders are grading off of what they think the play should be" "Plays in which there is a clear question mark regarding assignment, we can defer to a “0” grade and not guess as to which player is right or wrong." To expand, here's more context: "These plays are few and far between and since we are grading every snap, missing out on a handful throughout the year should not affect player evaluations. Examples of potential gray areas include coverage busts, quarterback/wide receiver miscommunications and missed blocking assignments." To summarize, the situation Kelce calls out exists, but is rare. when it exists, the play is not given a positive or negative grade. You're trying to look like the smartest guy in the room on this without doing even the bare minimum of information gathering. Again, try reading up on a subject you want to debate: https://www.pff.com/grades The fact that NFL players don't understand statistical analysis should not be surprising. There aren't a lot of NFL players qualified to be professionals in fields of Science, Technology, Engineering or Math, which are the types of people that build statistical models like this. These guys apparently think it's impossible to know what their jobs are unless you're int he room with them, but once you start studying the game, you start to realize that football is a lot less of a mystery than it appears.

Many of these "youtube experts" are former players and NFl personnel. It's not just Johnny's NFL Takes. The DB Room and The QB School are two examples. Brett Kollman is not an NFL guy but his content is fantastic. Again this is where knowledge of the game comes in. You can absolutely tell if a play succeeds because of scheme. When Allen Says things like "they threw us looks that they "have never seen before", it doesn't mean they just invented a whole new defensive scheme. It means they disguised a coverage to look like one thing instead of another. If Allen reacts as though he believes it's the original scheme, then the disguise succeeded. If he reacts as though it's the actual scheme, then he saw through it. Progressions would change, look offs would change. Given a certain offensive playcall vs a certain defensive playcall, there is either an optimal solution or an audible should be called to put the team in a better position. You can tell by watching a play if scheme beats scheme, and from a scheme you know what responsibilities are going to be. If Bates blocked the wrong man, most of the time you can probably tell by what the offensive playcall was, what the other linemen did, and what the run fit was. And since this is all in the context of whether or not it's possible to grade a play, if it ever happens to be in question, PFF has this covered: "Plays in which there is a clear question mark regarding assignment, we can defer to a “0” grade and not guess as to which player is right or wrong". You want so badly to be right on this, but you're at the throw ***** at the wall stage and see what sticks.

where to start with this mess of a post. Hopkins is nto the player he once was, but he's still a top 15-20 guy. While injury concerns are valid, it's not the end of the world. We have a top-notch medical staff here as well. As for wanting Beasley out - I was definitely one of them. However, the plan never should have been to replace him with McKenzie, and once it was it should have been remedied after a couple of games of McKenzie proving that he's awful. That's like when people point out how good Tremaine was when Dodson was playing. Being better than terrible depth players shouldn't be the yardstick by which we measure. Beane didn't "miss" on Crowder either. Crowder is a known quantity and a very good football player that got hurt in a freak injury in week 4 and never recovered. That's just bad luck. He didn't have much of a chance to do anything good or bad through 3 games and change. I don't want a "Beasley type" slot and you shouldn't either. Short and slow guys who can only catch the ball and fall down are of minimal value in a heavily vertical offense. Give me someone bigger, faster and stronger with ideally less attitude problems any day over him. A guy like Berrios has no business anywhere near this team. We're looking to upgrade from McKenzie, not clone him. Gabe Davis is a #4 WR on any decent team. He has a limited route tree and questionable hands. His best role is run down the field and hope he gets wide open vs 1on1 coverage. The experiment with him last year as a #2 was a failure. Over half of his production came through the first 6 games of the season last year, including one where he didn't play and the two after where he was badly hobbled. He would go on to score only 3 more touchdowns over the remaining 11 games and would not top 100 yards. No doubt someone will pay him based on potential, but it shouldn't be us.

He was stiff with bad instincts. I prefer that CBs that don't get repeatedly toasted down the field. Him being a completely miserable dude was just icing on the cake.

Where is that border? If that clown played another 20 years he wouldn't make the hall. His prime was an extremely narrow window.

I have a higher wonderlic score.

I've been waiting for this day for 4 years. Good Riddance.

What do you mean "you don't know the play". Are you suggesting you can't determine the play call from watching a play? Football x's and o's are fairly standard my dude. The responsibility of a player in a cover 4 is known. The responsibility of a guard on a sweep vs a given run fit is known. Playcalls aren't just random braindumps of brand new route concepts and responsibilities. Often times they're exact plays that have been run thousands of times going back decades and other times they are combinations of plays that have been run thousands of times going back decades. If you pop on youtube, there's a whole industry of guys doing film breakdowns now and explaining in intricate detail playcalling concepts, play design, player responsibility and execution. The overwhelming majority of the time you can know exactly what the play is and what the responsibilities are just by watching it as long as you have enough background knowledge to know what the possibilities are. It's really not that complicated.