BullBuchanan

Which is it? It's both. Belichick opened up the run to stifle the pass, either by forcing the Bills to run more or forcing Kelly to throw into suboptimal situations. In the end it was Kelly's hubris the decided to throw into 5 and 6 DB coverage over and over that cost the Bills the game. Could they have won in spite of it? Clearly. They had a shot right at the end, but that was the goal. The Giants were clearly outmatched, and yet they were able to even the playing field, owed almost completely to the defensive strategy employed. You're talking about a Bills team that had the NFL's best offense and just dropped 44 and 51 on conference opponents in the playoffs and were held to 19. This isn't even a controversial point. It's been pretty universally understood for decades. Marv was thoroughly outcoached.

That was by design.I thought this was well understood, because it's one of the reasons Bill Belichick's defensive genius is so lauded. https://www.giants.com/news/belichick-s-gameplan

6 vs 1

Postseason wins & rings my man. He's a couple years a way from owning every category.

The winningest coach in NFL History takes his team to the Playoffs last year with a 2nd year QB that has no business starting in the NFL and has made the playoffs in 17 of the last 20 years with winning records in 19 of them and yea, he's over rated. - Bills Fans 🤡 This fan base is becoming the new Toronto Maple Leafs.

i dont know. they played 1 game so far. They achieved their goal.

I run post mortems in my line of work too. They are done to understand what may have failed in the process to end in the result that occured. They can and do end in conclusions that have no changes in the existing process if it's determined that everything was done in the best possible way, but the result was still unfavorable. Thanks for bringing this up. It's a perfect example of valuing process.

Yes. I already answered this twice in this thread. Process and probability. E.g. Spending your entire paycheck playing the lottery isn't a good decision even if you win.

Draft picks are overrated, always have been. Given the rate at which first round picks bust, how long they take to develop, and how expensive they are to maintain, I expect to see the Rams style of 0 Day 1 picks to become the new 4th down. When you can pay a pick and get guaranteed value in return, it's dumb not to. Was Adams worth the 2nd first? Probably not, but that's a debate on price, not on the principle of the move.

Is terrible to judge decisions based on process and probability? Interesting. See my above response to Rampage about the lottery.

The beginning of the end wasn't dictated by the Adams trade. That wouldn't happen until Wilson's drama the following season. At the time Schneider had a good-not-great team, but still had Russel Wilson playing at a Pro Bowl level and a lot of young talent in an NFC without. Chris Carson was a rising star along with DK Metcalf, and Tyler Locket was rising as well. They had some aging but strong talent on the defensive side of the ball in their front 7 and had promising Quandre Diggs coming off his first Pro Bowl nod. Schneider and the Hawks had every reason to believe they could compete, and so trading future capital for one of the best young defensive talents in the game was probably seen as a worthwhile gamble to maximize their chance of of taking advantage of a window provided by a combination of veteran leadership, young talent and an a perennial PB QB. Was the cost high? For sure. Was it too high? Maybe so, but the Jets had the leverage. Early returns were pretty positive for the Seahawks. Adams had 9.5 sacks and they went 12-4 and lost in the playoffs. Had they won it all, or even advanced a bit further, I'm not sure that the trade is looked at so negatively. Of course 2020 saw Wilson and the hawks fall apart and the writing was on the wall that the window was over and Wilson was all but gone. Adams getting hurt in 2021 and again now makes it really easy to start casting blame, but at the time I'm not sure you can fault a GM for adding a massive piece to their defensive to combine with an offense that looked like it had everything it needed. He had 9.5 sacks for Seattle his first year - the same amount Von Miller had last year.

Sorry, but it's simple people that don't have the ability to consistently reproduce results that judge decisions based on what happened instead of the probability and a sound process. You'll find a lot of company in people who like to play the lottery and slot machines with your line of thinking.

Judging actions in retrospect is stupid.

Clearly not since they gave us the last gen version of the game for the 2nd year in a row.

So, I can objectively support my opinion with data from multiple sources and all you've got is your anecdotal perspective based on zero hard evidence? Sorry dude, Edmunds is not good. The numbers tell that story, and the people who understand what they're watching are reading it. Apparently, Beane is following it too since his Benjamin Button linebacker is in his 5th year with no contract.

The dude's in his 50s...

Why do you think that?

And what is the justification for your opinion?

Change TB's name with Kelce and there's your answer. He's the greatest TE in the history of the game and it's not close. He redefined the position the same way Tony Gonzales did before him.

Why didn't we just stop Tom Brady for 20 years? It was incredibly obvious he was the key to the Pats dynasty, and yet our coaches didn't do anything about it.

That's objectively false. He isn't even the best on his own team. Milano destroys him in coverage. Edmunds allowed a 78% completion percentage and a QBR of 106 last season compared to Milano's 55.2% and 71.9 QBR respectively. This is reinforced by PFF rankings which don't put him in the top 20 linebackers in the league. https://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/E/EdmuTr01.htm https://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/M/MilaMa00.htm Going back to what I said, his athleticism makes him a much better coverage linebacker than he would be if he was half a step slower. All the wrong first steps he takes and the additional time he uses to process the play is often offset by a degree because of how big and fast he is. Given that he's been in the league 5 years, I don't see that part of his game making significant improvement. He just doesn't process accurately enough and fast enough to be an elite talent. He's the kind of player that will fall off a cliff right out of the league on an afternoon where he's a shade slower than he was the week before. I hope we aren't the ones to make the mistake of paying him like the elite player he isn't.

He claims he's lost weight. I guess he played last year at 285. Bills have him listed at 281, but that may be out of date.

I don't think he would have been any better at all. His Chargers teams were all-time great teams. Statistically, Rivers is a top 4 QB all time who was playing with a top 10 all-time RB along with two future pro-bowl RBs as backups, a top 5 all-time FB, a top 5 all-time TE, a dominant pro bowl WR, and a defense loaded with pro-bowlers and all-pros. The problem with the chargers was Rivers and to a part, his destiny. He just didn't have the clutch trait. You could count on him to fall apart when all the chips were down, and on the occasion that he didn't fortune would ensure that he would still fail via a missed chip-shot, botched snap, or a broken play on defense at the last second. The dude was the ultimate Cooler. I've never seen so many twists of fate happen to a player in the last moments of a football game. Tony Romo had that same problem coupled with injuries. They both had the talent to be Super Bowl Champions, but you just knew it was never going to happen for them. I'm not suggesting anything except they won them and the player they won them with belonged to a team that supposedly "won" the trade for him. rivers was definitely the more prolific and consistent player over the years, but I'd pick a QB out of a hat to play in a big game for me before I'd take Rivers.

The chargers may have gotten some all-pro players, but the Giants got 2 Super Bowls. It's not really debatable that the Giants won based on the only metric that matters.

What part was confusing?