FireChans

Bro he just quit on his 2nd team in 3 months. Hes not signing on the PS lol

I mean, saying his production is bad and has 3 games of under 10 yards and still supporting the trade is kinda interesting. It’s almost like he does things outside of the stat sheet to open up the offense. Puts him in a tough spot to admit that though. Otherwise, it would be a wasted 3rd round pick for bad production, right?

Interesting take. why do you still support the trade despite his “factual production?”

But that's the thing. Guys that dictate coverage don't grow on trees. Expecting them to come out of a washed MVS, a flameout in Claypool, or a glorified gadget guy in Samuel with 1 good year was a mistake. And while its great that Mack is a good blocker (really he has to be), imo, he's still not more important than Cooper, Coleman, Shakir or even Kincaid I think. Like not even close.

I have discovered the disconnect. You think with a healthy Samuel, we wouldn't have needed Cooper. Most of the folks disagreed with you in the summer on that point, and disagree with you today on the same point. To this point, I think we have gotten about as good as could be expected with Coleman/Shakir and even Mack. The issue that we had in the summer and still have today was the idea that if we got best case scenario out of Coleman/Shakir/Mack and Samuel, we would be okay. Not only was that unlikely, as was argued back then, the far more likely alternative to the ideal best case scenario was exactly what happened, the group as a whole being torn apart by a well-coached team like the Ravens, who don't even have a good defense because they wouldn't be good enough. The reason why its not the same argument for Mack is that Mack does not dictate coverage the way that Cooper does. To my eye, Shakir has not seen #1 CB coverage again this WHOLE SEASON to the extent he saw Humphrey vs the Ravens. Mack was playing the boundary and he was an afterthought in the passing game and rightfully so. Amari changed that. You think Samuel would have too potentially and maybe you're right but I also thought you were far too high on him this summer.

That's true. I have some counter facts though! Since trading for Amari, Shakir is averaging 8.375 targets per game. Prior to trading for Amari, Shakir was averaging 4.2 targets per game. Factually, we know that Shakir targets correlate with winning. We also know that trading for Amari correlated with with an increase in Shakir targets. Ergo.....

It's also factual that despite Amari's lower snap count, he has been the 2nd most targeted WR on the team over the last two weeks. He has 1 target less than the #1. The next closest WR to him in targets is Mack Hollins who has 5 less. He's doing that with an injured wrist on a reduced snap count.

It's very on-brand to argue how silly it would be to change the title of article when that title has already been changed lol.

And yet, they changed it. lol

So you're on the record, bad trade?

IMO, probably to hide a bad take. Josh Allen's MVP videos are probably gonna plaster that headline all over with that author's name.

There are 100+ posts about one of Hamler/Claypool/MVS/Shavers coming out in the wash in this very topic. Zero of them are on the 53. We should look elsewhere for lotto tickets imo. Been there, done that.

In WEO land, the headline was no big deal, take wasn't that unpopular at the time so why change it? Of course, begging the question, why did they change in 6 years after the fact. I'm sure if you try hard enough, you can come up with some reason they changed it, especially because they know they changed it for a reason, otherwise it wouldn't be changed at all.

Hamler? Again? He wasn’t good enough to make the 5 man group this year. He didn’t make the roster over a guy who was cut in October lol

It’s what the topic you are posting in is about.

Just ask yourself why they edited a headline of an article last updated the night after a draft 6 years ago lol

I think signing up as a Bills fan on Finheaven or something to provide insight or perspective or talk trash is so silly lol

The article was written after the draft. The Bills already took him at 7.

Hello @Mikey152, I'd like to introduce you to my friend @Mikey152. He's digging in on the "WR's got better this season" topic again. Also, one more incorrect take for good measure, bolded for emphasis.

"Changing the argument?" Dude, you have the most on record incorrect takes on this topic. Literally. (and you aren't even the OP, and the OP has edited his OP to admit he was wrong and we needed the Cooper trade to fix it). The bolded "predictions" were all wrong. Completely and utterly. The prediction of Josh throwing a career high on his lowest attempts since 2019? Also incorrect, he's on pace for his lowest passing total since 2019. Also wrong. Also wrong. Also wrong. Bolded for emphasis. I'm only at page #20, can I stop now?

You, a post ago, "correlation doesn't equal causation." You, now, "a lack of correlation equals a lack of causation." Back to stats 101, my friend. Saying nobody got it right when the GM made a desperate trade for a WR in October is very funny to me.

by being an internet bulldog. Here's the proof for anyone interested, courtesy of the internet archive: May 2024: Today:

Marlon Humphrey correlated with a primetime 21 point loss when he got to shadow Shakir instead of a boundary WR.

Even stupider, the article is WRITTEN after the Bills took Josh at 7. It’s the first paragraph. But they shadow edit the headline to “he’ll be a first round pick anyway,” like it’s pre-draft? I know I have too much time on my hands but still.

These jamokes have edited their draft article about Josh. The title used to be: “If Josh Allen succeeds, the Bills will have outsmarted basically all regular humans and the entirety of math itself” now it’s this: “Josh Allen’s college career wasn’t great, but he’ll be a first-round pick anyway” https://www.sbnation.com/nfl/2018/4/24/17271686/josh-allen-nfl-draft-2018-stats-analysis-comparisons We see you trying to hide the evidence Jason Kirk!