dave mcbride

? - "Williamsville North" and "meathead" are not things I'd associate with each other. The meathead left before his senior year anyway for a true meathead (i.e., D1 jock factory) in the Pittsburgh area.

Carroll and Vermeil were highly successful college coaches. Carroll also took teams to the playoffs in both his second and third NFL coaching seasons (in NE).

Just looked it up - if you include playoff games, Brady is the all-time passing yardage leader, ahead of Manning, Brees, and Favre. He has played in 40 postseason games — 2.5 extra seasons of extremely high intensity games.

... and I give you that Jeff Wright failure play. It was third and 3 to go, not 3rd and goal, but it should have been a two yard loss. If Ted Washington had been there, Smith would have been planted in the ground. Wright was such a weak NT. It's amazing the defense did as well as it did (not that it was great) given the relative void in the center of the d-line. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MpC8Z-oGd4c

He had a reported fever of 104 degrees that day. For a big person, that is extremely high. Have you ever had the flu, as in the *real* flu (not just a bad cold)? It is completely incapacitating and can be an extremely serious illness. If you really have influenza, you are in no condition to play in an NFL playoff game. It's not even debatable.

White had an additional 23.5 sacks in his two seasons in the USFL. He initially chose the USFL for the most obvious reason: they paid him more.

I totally disagree. I distinctly remember Michael Irvin coming off the field at halftime and saying this to the on-field reporter about the Bills: "wow, these boys came to play." What happened in the second half was a mix of bad plays by players and the Cowboys' massive structural advantage in talent. Nothing more, nothing less. As for motivation, they were as intense and focused as I've ever seen them in that game.

I totally disagree about the 4th Super Bowl (also @K-9), which I think was actually one of his best coaching efforts. That Cowboys team was a LOT better than the Bills, and Kelly was already in decline (he was never the same after rupturing his bursa sac midway through 1992). The Bills genuinely had a really good plan - a short, high completion-rate passing attack that allowed them to control the first half against an opponent with far superior talent, and a defensive scheme that took away big plays. Plus their two best defensive players that season - Bruce Smith and Nate Odomes - really showed up in that first half. They opened the second half by successfully running the ball down the Cowboys' throats on the first three plays, and then Kent Hull got absolutely embarrassed by Leon Lett, leading to a Thomas fumble. The thing that galls me about that play is that he literally fumbled into the middle of a massive scrum near midfield, and James Washington returned it for a TD. That hardly ever happens. Next, the Cowboys began exploiting the Bills' talent deficiency. On their next drive, they ran right at Phil Hanson (and away from Bruce Smith) 11 out of 13 plays, and Erik Williams buried him on virtually every play. It was sad to watch. Then, on third and goal, Jeff Wright actually gets into the backfield with a clear shot to wrap Emmitt Smith up for a loss, and just ... fails. Epically. Smith tossed him aside like a rag doll and ran in for the score. It should have been 16-13, but instead it was 20-13 and panic set in. The Bills couldn't move the ball, and Kelly eventually forced a pass into triple coverage near mid-field (while the game was still in reach) and it was of course picked off by James Washington. It was a terrible decision by him. Anyway, the Bills had a very good plan, but very bad plays by individual players - not bad decisions by coaches - plus a deficiency in talent that eventually manifested itself (as it almost always does) led to the loss. Don't blame Marv for that one. The previous (third) loss was signficantly worse on the coaching front, and while I could get into the details, I won't. One other thing: it was outrageous that Washington didn't win MVP. He had two fumble recoveries, a pick, and returned a fumble for a TD.

Ha. JW loves the Replacements, and this thread is getting grim, so ... . (I saw Art Brut once about a decade ago and thought they were pretty good. I was blown away when I first heard them (the lyrics are so great), but don't listen to them anymore, probably for the same reasons as you.)

To lighten the mood here, John, you should really listen to the lyrics to this song. I have a hunch you'll dig it:

By "actor" I meant it in the most general sense, not the acting profession. But regardless, I hope she gets to sing the anthem!

The thing is, we work in different worlds. In statistics, you're right; in the realm of enlightenment-era and 19th century philosophy, though, you're wrong. The demand for "precision" by an actor in the latter realm essentially assumes intent, and the intent is to provide a more accurate rendering of either phenomena or concepts. I'm more from the latter world, as you might have guessed by now ... But I do take your point.

No, I want him to succeed and I'm high on him. Really. I'm also referring to the end zone play. I don't recall the play you're referring to, but I know Clay wasn't good last season. As for precision vs. accuracy, the problem with the initial quote from the Buffalo News (drawing from PFF) is that the term "precision" should never have been used. Rather, a term like "pinpoint accuracy" should have been used because it better captures what they were trying to say given that the ultimate goal is to measure the degree to which the ball went exactly to where it should have gone (i.e., accuracy). As for accuracy vs. precision, they are related concepts in many realms, as the long OED definition of "precision" specifies in some detail (i work for Oxford UP and have access which you don't have, so you'll have to take my word for it). But I gather that you're referring to this, which makes sense to me: https://labwrite.ncsu.edu/Experimental Design/accuracyprecision.htm. So thanks for that. Anyway, what's described in the News piece isn't precision as it's laid out here. They're really referring to "highly accurate." ... and yet I never even remotely meant what he implies here.

Geraldine Page's performance is incredible in that movie despite the fact that it's so obviously derivative of Bergman and not a great movie overall. She was nominated for best actress and should have won it.

I was a man on an island here in saying that the throw to Clay was poor, and I stand by that 100 percent despite taking massive heat. Clay could have caught it, but it would have been a near-circus catch. That said, Allen made a great play just getting into position to make that throw, so it wasn't all bad. But it wasn't accurate. Re: precision and accuracy, you're splitting hairs, and you seem to be aligning with my own view of the matter in your penultimate paragraph. JP Losman had "in the vicinity" accuracy (as you define it) too, but he didn't hit receivers in stride and hence tons of potential yardage gained was left on the field of play. Basically, I regard precision as a the highest form accuracy, and it's what all good qbs strive for. In other words, they are not different concepts. Rather, precision is a subcategory within the overall category of accuracy. In baseball terms, it's the difference between command and control. Good control but poor command? You're gonna get shelled. The occasional vicinity thrower like Cam Newton can succeed, but he'd better if he threw with more precision. Can Allen get there? I think so. He never has to labor to throw and he's tall enough to see the field, so that's never going to be an issue. A lot of is mental too, and he's both intelligent and confident in his abilities. I am therefore hopeful that he can straighten out the inconsistency in his mechanics, a problem that was present in college. And he did look a bit better in this area later in the season, so I'm hoping for significant progress in 2019. But he wasn't an accurate qb last year.

https://www.vulture.com/2018/12/10-things-to-know-about-bob-dylans-never-ending-tour.html

Oh please. I watched every throw of his last season. But I also watch a lot of other teams with more accurate qbs. He was clearly below average in the accuracy department last year no matter how you slice it. When nearly every analyst says he had accuracy issues last seaosn and he had the lowest completion percentage in the league by a lot, maybe there’s something to it. Lest you were wondering, I am a big Allen fan and thing he has huge upside—potentially elite upside. But I’m not one of those people who feel like they can wish away the Pats and GB games last season (for instance), where he was regularly off the mark. His basic problem is inconsistency, and completion percentage derives from consistency. Even an inaccurate qb will have games where he’s on the mark. Drew Brees, Ben Roethlisberger, and Phillip Rivers, though, are at least pretty accurate virtually every game.

No, he really was inaccurate. Don't be a Kool-Aid drinker when the numbers are there for you: ‘Allen only put the ball in the perfect spot 8.6 percent of the time, per PFF. That is 6.5 percentage points less than the league average.’ https://buffalonews.com/2019/05/03/buffalo-bills-josh-allen-quarterback-jim-kubiak-year-two/ 6.5% below league average is actually a lot. I appreciate your turn to the dark side, but Daboll has been cursed with ridiculously poor talent in every NFL stop he has made. Seriously, look at that talent on those teams. It really does matter. I thought Daboll did some excellent scheming last year, but the talent level was so poor that it was hard to detect. I never said he'd reset the paradigm; like you I think he's too unique for that because of the unmatched physical talent.

I'm a big Schatz fan and a believer FO's methods, but Allen is a weird case. Everything Schatz says is basically true (and he was very inaccurate last season), and Schatz's argument is probability-based and works off of past performance. So what he's saying shouldn't be controversial to anyone here but to the hardest-core Kool-Aid drinkers. However, it is the case that Allen is quite possibly the most physically gifted physical specimen to ever play QB. I'm not exaggerating either: he has the strongest arm ever judging by velocity (he utterly buried previous velocity records at the senior bowl, throwing in the high 60s -- which is just ridiculous), and on top of that he's an incredible athlete with perfect size (6'5" and 237 lbs.). Plus he's bright, at least as measured by the Wonderlic. So, basically, he has all of the tools you could ever want. The big question is, can an athlete that is so amazingly talented overcome his statistical past? I don't think anyone knows, but I do now one thing for certain: there's no one to measure him against physically because he's more physically talented than anyone who has come before him: https://trib.com/sports/college/wyoming/football/john-brenkus-of-espn-s-sport-science-analyzes-josh-allen/article_dfd31bdd-f0d7-5a2f-8811-4f3a22c661c1.html. I mean, these numbers are just crazy. It doesn't get discussed enough. He's the ultimate test case in the battle between the stat heads and the scouts.

Understood. For the record, I was a huge fan of the Watkins move. In hindsight, it wasn't the best move!

Then what was it? In reading your post, the point seemed to be that your projection acumen regarding Bills' draftees was well-nigh perfect, and that Spiller was a bust. I happen to think his case was more complicated than that simplified assessment.

I wasn't a fan of the Spiller pick, but it is the case that he was one of the best running backs in the league in 2012, averaging a whopping 6 ypc and 11 ypr for over 1700 yards from scrimmage. When you have at least one elite season, it's hard to call someone a bust. He was no Trent Richardson. Like a lot of NFL players, he had injuries that slowed him down, and moreover he was a good fit for Gailey's scheme--and Gailey left. He also wasn't the sharpest tool in the shed either.

I get that, but after that OSU game, Mack didn't do all that much against better competition (relatively speaking!), especially late in the season when a bowl game was on the line or in the bowl game (vs. Bowling Green [a game I watched closely] and SD State). The reason? Opponents built their whole game plan around avoiding him and running plays that didn't allow him to display his talents. Of course he had some tackles, but that's to be expected given his position. Teams do that all the time when they face an elite talent like Oliver or Mack, especially when the supporting cast isn't great. Bear in mind that Oliver was heavily recruited by top programs like Oklahoma but wanted to stay home. It wasn't like he hadn't been identified in HS as an elite player. Remember when Bryant McKinnie absolutely dominated Dwight Freeney in a Miami-Syracuse game in their draft year? There was a host of people on this board saying that we should stay far, far away from Freeney because of that game. Freeney has a good case for making the NFL HOF.

This statement is false. Scroll down to the individual stat lines (@thebandit27- worth your time too). Oklahoma ended up finishing 5th overall that season and 3rd overall in offensive points scored. https://www.sports-reference.com/cfb/boxscores/2016-09-03-houston.html. Also: https://houseofhouston.com/2016/09/03/westfields-ed-oliver-makes-mark-oklahoma/.

Do you care if players take HGH (which the league conspicuously does NOT test for, really) given that it's basically a miracle drug for repairing the constant small muscle tears that come with playing in the NFL? Take HGH out of the league, and watch what happens to injury reports. There's a reason it's swept under the rug. Well said.