PBF81

I'll address the one relatively objective thing in your post, above. No argument with the exception that his drop in that game was hardly deliberate. That should be obvious. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JdyG_pPfSIU First of all, the hate for him precedes reason and fairness. If that had been Kincaid or Coleman this season, the talk would have been about it being good coverage and a slight underthrow. Diggs had his man beat and if Allen puts that ahead of him instead of so that he has to turn and slow down, giving coverage a chance to catch up, it's a TD. Yet, it's all Diggs' fault. Was it catchable? Absolutely Was it underthrown? Yes, slightly, but causing Diggs to have to slow down. Was there coverage? Yes, as a direct result of the underthrow. It's as clear as day. But more to the point, can you name a player, on offense or defense, that did do much of anything in that game? The short answer to that is no, you cannot. The max rushing yards by anyone (Cook) was 61, on a pathetic 3.4 yards-per-carry. The max receiving yards by anyone (Kincaid) was 45, on 9.0 YPR. Shakir was second with 44 yards on 6.3 YPR. That's the McDermott Way. Trying the run the ball (4.0 YPC on the game apart from Allen) while having Allen pick up 100% of the slack when it doesn't work. It should also be pointed out that KC's rushing D was hardly stout, ranking 25th in yards-per-carry allowed at 4.5, and 17th in rushing yards-per-game. Our RBs in that game were worse than most RBs that KC played that season. Same on defense, not one player stepped up. Not one sack. 2 total TFLs and 2 total QB Hits, no player with 2 of either combined. 1 PD all game. Pacheco, ... Pacheco, posted the best playoff rushing game of his 7 playoff game career, and his 5th best rushing game of his career overall, and it's not as if the teams against which he performed better had great rushing defenses, they did not. All four were ranked in the bottom quartile of rushing defenses in those seasons. KC posted TD scoring drives of 75 yards, 75 yards, and 65 yards, and FG scoring drives of 64 and 46 yards, with zero help from our offense. But yeah yeah, it's all Diggs' fault. None of the other 20 starting players (excluding Allen here) nor the coaches were at fault for any of it. Nah. LOL The writing is soooo on the wall re: McD. This season is going to be tumultuous. If Allen goes down, 100% exposure. We'd be one of the worst teams in the league with Trubisky at QB.

There isn't a player or coach on this team besides Allen that's even approached being consistent in the playoffs. Many would appropriately lay that at the feet of the head coach. Ironically, the most consistent player after Allen, and yet still far from consistent in that regard, was Davis. The facet of the team easily with the largest gap between regular season performance and playoff performance, is the Defense.

Of course he didn't have an injury, but he didn't quit on Allen etc. He was relegated to secondary status. In our most important game, week 18 v. Miami, Diggs had a big game that would have been a career game. 2:29 ... Allen overthrew him for what would have been an 89-yard TD. 5:00 ... Diggs didn't quit https://youtu.be/5kHYGN4IOzg?si=vm0MUEqekQbzBrKg Again, we're going to find a lot of things out this season re: the McDermott-Way. There was clearly an agenda at work in there, a self-fulfilling prophecy of sorts. His teammates know it.

No disagreement here except the part about quitting. Nobody "loses a step" from one game to the next, precipitously, unless they had a major injury. It's a narrative built for the gullible. This season is starting to shape up to be a very revealing one that McD supporters aren't going to like.

You make points based on stats, I point out the facts on them that contradict you, and then you say you can't apply stats the way that you did in essence. Well, OK.

BTW, how do you reconcile the "anonymous team executive" that claims that Allen is overrated? On that single issue that is. That doesn't sound like either an expert or intelligent take to me. LOL Not if it's true it isn't. That's the point. You've taken math classes in your life. There's often two different ways to arrive at the same answer. Is that coincidence? In your view, yes, it is. Which is ridiculous.

I give him more credit than that. He and I clearly don't agree on everything, or even most things, but I've picked some stuff that I agree with out of his Draft Analyses that I never read anywhere else. Far from on every player, but at least on some. Not once have I argued as y'all are taking the position, that outsiders are ALWAYS more correct than the so-called "experts," but on certain players particularly, since the OP's original point centered around personnel, I disagree wholeheartedly. I've seen fan analyses on draftees that we far more indepth, more accurate ultimately, and overall notably better than what any of the draftniks put out. You guys all need to give up on this simply because someone may be more knowledgeable or have done a better analysis on a particular singular topic, that that somehow translates to being better at running an entire football organization, which absolutely no one here claims. It's an absurd strawman argument and a downright stupid one. We have a primary example this particular season. I see very little realistic chance that Coleman ever produces more than late round-3 or even day-3 numbers as a ceiling. Gunner doesn't think too highly of him either for his own yet different reasons. That's not a coincidence, i.e., same utlimate conclusion yet different methodologies. Yet the team thinks he's going to be great. We'll see, and likely this season as he'll have every opportunity to shine. Plain and simple.

You just hit the crux of the debate. I don't believe anywhere that anyone has argued that overall anyone outside the NFL ranks is better at running an entire team or coaching, but that's been far from my point anyway for anyone that is going to be honest here, and I've even stated as much. At the same time, that doesn't mean that at times and on topics, particularly regarding player evaluation, where there's an endless number of things to look at and consider, that they're always better. That's what I meant when I said that Gunner's argument is superficial and generally applied, rather than to the specific disciplines and instances that I've mentioned with a variety of people. And frankly, even Walsh I'm sure hadn't considered every single variable. He also only coached ten years, was awful with DeBerg (8-24) and was only good when he had Montana, Rice, Clark, and Craig on offense. His career was extremely short. He then went to Stanford and was terrible before retiring. 10-3 with a team that had been 8-4, then 4-7 and 3-7-1. s Just sayin'. And it's funny, again, because during the season everyone here knows more than the coaching staff. LOL Tell that to Washington fans, Carolina fans, Charger fans, etc.

Seems that Dawkins & Rasul have some strong opinions favoring Diggs, and according to Case Keenum Diggs has done anything but lost a step. Just throwing it out there for the wolves since I didn't see it mentioned. LOL https://billswire.usatoday.com/2024/07/17/dion-dawkins-rasul-douglas-defend-stefon-diggs-buffalo-bills-houston-texans-trade-nfl/ https://nfltraderumors.co/afc-notes-stefon-diggs-brian-thomas-jr-gabriel-davis-jaguars-texans-titans/ It's going to be an interesting fall and a referendum on a bunch of stuff.

BTW, there's tremedous irony as well as comedy in this thread. The irony is that Gunner spends a ton of time and puts together a very well thought out Draft Preview, and while much of it aligns with the mainstream draftniks, he also provides some info that I don't see anywhere else. Kudos for that and it's well done IMO. But according to the sentiment here, by implication, he doesn't know as much as every scout and talent evaluator in the league. The comedy, LOL, is during the season when things aren't going well, how a majority pop out and essentially disprove the going narrative in this thread by explaining where and how all the experts are wrong and what they should be doing instead. There's never a shortage of amusement here.

THAT would be hubris, but that's not what you said or implied. Your pivotal statement was this ... A lot of people here paid attention when the legendary Bill Walsh stated unequivocally that Trent Edwards would be great. As one drop on the bucket. Many of us didn't see that. As one example. Look at the litany of crap that Belichick has drafted as another, particularly on the offensive side. His judgement and decisions re: Peterman were off-the-charts absurd. And what, we're really supposed to trust McD's judgement regarding all things offense? Come on now ... You didn't specifically state "running a team," which is different. There are topical areas that some game may from time to time be better at evaluating than those employed by the league in one or more capacities. Look at how many people think that Goodell is incompetent for example. BTW, whose the "anonymous NFL exec", aka one of these experts, that absurdly claims that Allen is overrated. Seems as if those arguing pro here have to defer to agree with him, that expert insider. To do anything less is to contact oneself.

That's a ludicrous statement, particularly for someone that admittedly spends an average of two hours addressing draft picks and then argues as you have here. The OP essentially stated that no one outside the employee of the NFL or its teams can as competently or more competently analyze, assess, etc. matters of personnel at one or another level. The proposition itself is absurd as is the reality. Few do it, and not nearly across the board, but within a discipline, but it is possible and does happen. Let's and this some all you have is general "you're wrong's" at this juncture. 🙂

I'd say that we outsmarted GMs like Brandon and Whaley, of which there's no shortage in the NFL, almost all of the time. Both were low-end. The point is that simply because someone is "in the league," hardly makes them an expert, anymore than simply because someone has a college degree makes them competent at what they do. Visa versa, not everyone that knows about college talent and football is "in the league" or works therein. Again, we're not going to agree here. But you're looking at a few trees while I'm looking at the forest here.

As to the first, again, some have said that, I don't make it a point to bookmark things that I do not agree with. It's out there in places. It's not a majority opinion nor did I say that it was. As to the second part, ... excuses. To your bullet points: On one hand we went 6-1 because of Brady. OTOH he was in Dorsey's system. Quite the conundrum there. On the second, did you actually look at the numbers here? Clearly not. Diggs had four drops on both watches. Davis, whose drops were the lowest % of his career last year and well within the range of average, had 3 under Dorsey and 0 under Brady. Either way, you're suggesting that Allen's plummeting to 85 rating and 60% was due to a drop or two? Really? To your third, that's simply not true. The average per-game passing D rankings were nearly identical from first 10 to last 7. Both played divisional teams once. I've addressed that statistically many times here. The fourth is what it is. Well, if Allen finishes the season with an 85.5 rating and 60% complete and the 24 passing TDs that he projected to in his regular season games under Brady, don't count on winning too many games. Otherwise, you're really crediting us winning games on offensive scoring outputs of 24, 20, 20, and 14 for four of those 6 wins then? Let's do this, suppose we take those scoring totals over an entire season. How many games do you think we'd win if four each of our games we scored 24, eight more 20, and four more 14? It's rhetorical, simply throwing that out there.

That's an incredibly easy way of not addressing the points.

It's a big season for him.

I wouldn't trade Allen for any QB in the league including Mahomes. Having said that, he does have his weaknesses. Overrated is not a word that I would use to describe him however. He is the offense here. To start, he overlooks receivers open in the flats and in shorter areas of the field in favor of the deeper stuff. This year's WR cadre and McD's ball-control (aka "complimentary football") approach will either force him to improve that area of his game or it will reflect in his stats. The building of the current team does not play to his strengths. It's going to be a huge year for him, Brady, and McD in that regard, a referendum on the McD way in terms of offense. Keep in mind as well, we're told by some that he may still even have lingering issues with his elbow injury on the shorter more finesse throws. We'll see I suppose. But last season's 60% completion rate and 85 rating under Brady doesn't bode well. He has a ton more potential, which is scary, that isn't going to be unlocked on McD's watch.

It's not a bad argument, you do not understand what I'm saying, so I'll elaborate. To start here, you're talking about nearly two months of the equivalent of full-time work. That's a lot for a hobby/PT thing. Secondly, you're admitting to spending an average of about 2 hours/player evaluated, which is less than you've said in the past. I'll typically put in 10+ hours, which is why I don't do pre-draft reviews, only with very rare exceptions, and I typically analyze things that I rarely if ever see anywhere else. I'm not looking for the same gibberish that every draftnik puts out, I'm looking specifically for things that they've ignored. Here's the thing, where we differ, and we've even covered this somewhat regarding Coleman, you and I personally here. But consider, while our (yours and mine) methodologies may be different, we disagree with our expert and his team of experts, presumably as to the latter given that it's quite possible Beane overruled his "team of experts," as to Coleman. They love the guy, we do not. I look for reasons as to why a player likely will or conversely won't perform at the NFL level, based upon that player's body of work in college. Others, including most draft "experts," including GMs, don't seem to do that and it's never put out if they do. It's worked like a charm for me over the years, with far better results than the typical draft expert or even team "experts." Let's take Coleman for example, there are really no examples, certainly nothing approaching anything significant, of Coleman beating NFL type coverage in college. All but zero if not zero outright. And we're not talking about blown coverages here, we're talking beating a player on the field. Coleman did his excelling against coverages that will not be in the NFL. My analytical prowess tells me quite clearly that if he's going to excel in the NFL, aka earn that border 1st/2nd round 33rd overall draft status, he'll have to do things in the NFL that he essentially never did in college. What are the odds? I pose that as a serious question, what are the odds? The short answer is that they're incredibly low. If he does it, it'll be the first time that he does it, ever. As you've heard me say in the past, I'm not big on firsts happening in the NFL as opposed to lower levels. Doesn't mean that they don't, it means that it's very rare. Allen is a fantastic example of that rarity. So, in contrasting the experts/team's take, or ours, how does that fit into this discussion? Did they not realize this? I'm guessing that the answer is no, they did not. If they did, it's a pretty huge thing to ignore and risk their highest draft pick in a huge need year, no? ... which is another part of the overall team-building analysis. But how did I come up with the likelihood that Spiller would be a huge disappointment/bust, while being on an island on that, publicly, while the experts said the exact opposite? Or how did I determine that Watkins would be a bust while stating that Evans would have a notably better career and that we should have drafted him instead. People here slammed me for that analysis. There are others, like my having unequivocally stated that James Hardy would be a bust, granted, 2nd round, but still, and that Stevie would have a better career than he would. All that before any of them took a snap. So what's that, pure luck? How about what's that for all of the experts, ours as well as those that didn't draft them, and the draftniks, how did their expert analysis compare to mine, a non-expert in football circles? My take on Oliver based upon his collegiate polay was that he'd be day-2 good, not 1st-round good. That's accurate and he never lived up to the stated expectations and is far from it in consistency. There are others as well, and not that mine are always accurate, but they're accurate notably more often than not. I was way off on Edmunds e.g. That's not the point however. But here's NOT the point that's being made. To the OP's point, 90% (or thereabouts) of people referred to by him don't have an above-average analytical regimen, background, ability, etc. Many don't possess much of any quantitative analytical ability whatsoever. Many don't possess a realistic understanding of players, and it requires a serious ability to refrain from one's own team/player biases and be objective, which clearly isn't most posters here. Re: the Drafts, it also requires independent research as you well know. It's understandable, nevertheless, it is what it is. Then it takes the ability to parse a player's play in detail at the collegiate level. When we read/listen-to the statements made by GMs following the draft they essentially mimic what the draftniks have written and concluded, and which are generally obtained from highlight reels. I often tell people that you can create comparable lowlight videos that would make players look incompetent. That truth is generally, with exceptions, somewhere in the middle. Anyway, I could go on, but while the OP's point applies generally, there are definitely times when the average voting of the national set of NFL fans online would make better decisions than a GM, front office, etc. As to on the field, tell us, which "expert" decides that with 13 seconds remaining, and the opponent needing merely a FG, that it's a grand and brilliant idea to leave 50 yards of field wide open to the best QB in the league and the best reader of defenses in the league, that has one of the fastest and two of the top receivers in the entire league? Does that seem as if it falls under the umbrella of expert? Because it didn't to just about everyone in the country to the extent that it's become a comedic negative meme. It'd have been one thing if it were a regular season game, but it was the end in what likely would have been a run to a championship. Expert? Nah. That's also far from the only thing. Being in the field/league/NFL/etc. definitely has its plusses, but sometimes stepping away from the view of the trees yields a better view of the forest. Look, I realize that you're never going to agree with me, so this is merely discourse, but to apply with a broad brush something to the entirety of the fans of the NFL is equally errant. I've read things on draft prospects by avid fans of the teams that they were on that made more sense than any of the experts that analyze draft prospects have written. We'll see how Coleman does, relatively soon as well. That'll be our first data point insofar as this particular season goes.

How many hundreds of hours would you say? Either way, you're shooting yourself in the foot here. Otherwise, as is often the case, you're not understanding the context of my argument. Anyway, how many hundreds of hours?

You're attempting to turn this into a boolean thing. It's also quite possible that someone with analytical skills and good knowledge on a topic will render a better decision than someone with the experience that has worked themselves up, etc. Again, Whaley & Brandon did, but they were relative morons. I wouldn't trust their judgement at all for obvious reasons. The OP gave us opinions on Allen as a clue, and that someone did not put him among the top-5 QBs in the league, which is a bit ridiculous, but then again, no specific criteria was laid out I suppose one could argue. What you say would be 100% accurate if all drafts played out as they were supposed to in rounds 1 and 2 at least, but not only is that not the case, it's far from the case. Generally speaking, look at any given draft. Was it the talent evaluators that picked the wrong guys? The coaches that didn't deploy them propertly? I know that I don't want McD anywhere near the offense. He's not even sniffed proving that he knows what he's doing there. Experience counts for some things, many things perhaps even, but not everything. Sometimes common sense, intuition, analytical prowess, etc. play a role. You and I are not big on Coleman, who was the choice of the experts. So were all of our other underperforming 1st and 2nd rounders. You're one of the non-experts that the OP is referring to. That's for personnel, and I'll put my analysis and assessments up against theirs any day as I have many times in the past and come out on top. On the field, we're no "experts" per se, but honestly, does it really take an "expert" to realize that it's brazenly idiotic to yield 20+ yards to players like Kelce and Hill in their primes when all they need is 30 yards for a FG try? Was that an expert decision? We can discuss and argue all night, but so many if not most of the Draftnik talking heads never coached or played at this level, yet they're still heralded as experts. It's a broad topic area and no one's expert in it all. No one. The moment that there's on or two exceptions, there's more.

There are also some very astute fans that do the same if not better research into things, unburdened by biases, organizational stressors, or other things. Many are also better analysts in general as well. James Lofton had an Industrial Engineering degree for example. Keep in mind that most people at that level have liberal arts academic credentials, not STEM credentials. Many are sports admin majors which is not analytical in nature in that way. If they do have a forte` as a general rule, eyeglass probably organizational "soft" skills. This is also part of the reason why draft analyses aren't better and why maybe a third, if that, 1st round draft picks live up to their draft statuses.

This question is different for everyone, but for me it has to do with the magnitude of the game. I have little inclination to attend a game that we're supposed to mop the floor with our opponent. Since I no longer have STs like many others, I buy secondary market tix. I'd much rather pay more for a pivotal game in nicer weather or for a playoff game. And when I say nicer weather, I'm not referring to cold as much as I'm referring to slop, like drenching rain or wet heavy snow. Cold (to an extent) and dry snow is fine. These days the parking & traffic situation is miserable as well, so I won't be doing anything until the new stadium opens anymore and the parking situation hits a steady-state. As many have mentioned, age has a lot to do with it, and in the '80s and '90s mobility and partying were not as big a deal. You're young, it's an afterthought. As you age it's no longer an afterthought, it's a forethought. LOL I really enjoy Bills Backers bars which are pretty much like being in a Buffalo bar during games. During the game everyone is focused on the game. It's the next best thing to being there IMO. And heck, for what, $75, you can eat and drink like a king. Any good BB bar will have the game on multiple if not all TVs. Given our fanbase, it's almost just as much fun going to road games since we takeover often and vex the opposing fans, and there are always great tailgates to latch onto with fellow fans always being welcoming. Once we make a Super Bowl, I'll definitely go to Buffalo for the game though, to be there for the WNY-wide party.

Ahh, I thought that you wrote that family & friends were from Buffalo. My bad. I see that you wrote family friends ... As you were ... 😁 Agree on soccer live as well.

How'd you end up in London?

Perhaps the OP should have qualified his post somewhat then rather than characterizing all people in these positions as experts. And BTW, the list hardly stops there, with him, Whaley, and Brandon, as you know. It's nonsense to consider for even a NY second that they all know more than anyone that isn't in such a position, at any of varying levels of many things throughout the country. It doesn't seem to me that too many in those roles possess above-average analytical skills, which are incredibly valuable in those roles.