The Big Cat

Why would any of this be cause for concern? What is an achievable state that we're falling short of?

Nicely done. LOL

Right. Scrimp because you have to, and also scrimp because you can. We don't have an offense that moves through the QB. Which is good since we're not paying one. I'll drink to that.

McCoy is a luxury, to be sure. But he's a luxury we can easily afford so long as we're not paying a QB, so there's no sense in bitching about what we're paying him, IMO.

This will be McCoy's 8th year. Again. The math sure does slide to fit objectives. I agree, though: he's not perfect, and his contract is not ideal. But if you were to ask some here, that means he's lousy and we're getting ripped off. To me, we've successfully identified four things that are not true. Is, however, exceedingly above average and an indispensable part for our offense. And to Doc's point, which is correct, Karlos (presumably the Williams you're referring to) was very good when he didn't have the carry load himself. When he did, he wasn't. The same is true by an even greater magnitude for Gillislee. Can you find value in RB's late in the draft? Yep. Does that mean McCoy is not a top-5 back? Nope. Rip on the heat maps all you like. Dem ***** is sweet.

Picking on his example doesn't weaken his overall point.

I blew a gasket when that happened in real time.

It's an opportunity for improvement--quieting my inner-only-child. The math is just that. The qualifications for the numbers came from a discussion with 4merper4mer to bridge our separate biases. The colorizations are admittedly arbitrary. But they were most certainly the result of compromise.

Probably. It's always to the conversation's detriment when data is introduced.

You're right, in 2014 that distinction belonged to rookie Derek Carr and the 140 rushing yards the Raiders piled up that day. Or the 427 yards they surrendered to Jay Cutler's Bears.

There, now was that so hard? Fans point to the NE1 2015 as an abomination (it was) then follow it up, precisely as you did, saying 2014 NE1 was bad too, but "not nearly as bad." Sure, it wasn't AS bad. But it was pretty damn bad. And, in fact, it was NEARLY as bad. The biggest difference between the two games was NE inexplicably running the ball 27 times in 2014 vs. only 15 times in 2015. The result was 37 pass attempts vs. 59. That's where the statistically anomalies start piling up. But the 2015 Pats*, while they had a far more aggressive game plan, were not really that much more effective than they were in 2014, going 7.9 yards per pass attempt in 2015 vs. 9.76 in 2014. The point of mentioning this isn't to say that 2015 was better, one would expect yards per attempt to decline if you throw the ball a grotesque 59 times. Instead, it's meant to illustrate how easily they moved the ball in 2014. All of this is to challenge the notion that NE1 2014 v NE1 2015 should be a bench mark for how much the defense declined. In reality, the two outcomes, in a vacuum, indicate the decline was irrelevant.

Yes or no, the 2015 defensive personnel was similar enough to the 2014 defensive personnel that there should have been little to no drop off in productivity?

Starting a semantic argument to accuse others of having one. You're the best. Never change: You too. Always be you.

You must be confused. This discussion has never been about me. The point was the core players did NOT mostly return in 2015. Since you're not challenging that point, I'll assume you concede it. But if you are, and are doing so by insisting that Robey was a central player and Leodis was not, and we know this because in 32 games Robey had more snaps than Leodis had in 19, and therefore, the differences in the 2015 defense were coaching/scheme alone and had no correlation to the obvious differences in personnel, then certainly you appreciate the irony of you clamoring around this message board accusing everyone and anyone of constructing poor arguments. You haven't made any points that haven't been entirely obliterated by irrefutable data and basic commonsense.

Yes Brown didn't leave and precisely whom is blaming what on departures? He was listed as a starter three times in 2014. Leo was the starting CB2 in 2014 and immediately replaced Robey as the nickel when he returned this year. Do you really mean to suggest that Robey was a core player responsible for the success in 2014? Or did you realize that your half-baked Rambo comparison was **** and this is just you back pedaling? More so--what's your point? Please. FOR ONCE, make one. If you'd like to refute something I or anyone else says, go ahead and do so. Your MO is to ask these half-relevant leading questions rather than just state what you mean. I'm guessing it's because you don't mean to actually say much. So, in this case, I'm begging you: what is your point? Please take something I've posited and refute it directly instead of paddycaking around with questions like you always do.

Your point being that backup safety is just as much of a starter as your CB2/Nickel corner? A backup safety that joined the team in week 12 the year prior? You make this so-called point knowing that BUF is Nickel like 2/3 of the time? You think any one is dumb enough to believe this is a salient point? You're going to ignore how Leo's omission blows a bigger hole in the "all back!" theory? You going to posit any thoughts of your own on this site? Ever?

Yes, I guess it's hard to overlook the substantive differences between: "all the parts are the same" and "the key pieces...were all still in place" and "all the key guys were back." I mean, seriously? This is where you want to take this?

Leaving him in actually bolsters the "they were all back!" argument. And removing him would show that the 9 remaining players missed 0 starts in 2014 over the same span of time that they missed 27 in 2015. So, have it your way, I guess. Oh, sure.

Yeah, I'd say that if you give up the most passing yards in franchise history...in week two...chances are you'll be ranked in the "bottom half of the league." Also, not for nothing, in that game the Bengals scored 17 points on their five drives of the first half starting with field position of: -49 +49 -45 +45 +36 And during this stretch, the Bills offense (under EJ) cashed in four straight three and outs. But you know. "Excuses," i guess.

But they weren't bad through six weeks. You made that up just now because it would help your argument. Problem is: it's not true. Colts--GOOD Pats*--BAD Dolphins--GOOD Giants--GOOD Titans--GOOD Bengals--BAD There are your first six weeks. They turned in two bad performances, one that was utterly abysmal. But they were not--by any stretch of the imagination--bad THROUGH six games, as you said. Also, you "never said all the parts were the same." Huh? Really? Then what did you mean by: I mean...you said it TWICE. "Reasonable."

No. You're plainly ignoring that it roundly refutes your point that the defense SHOULD have been good because the all the parts were the same.

But they weren't mostly still in place. Not by a long shot: Look at that! In 2014, multiple core players missed starts TWICE. And once was the meaningless week 17 game in New England, the other the opener. In 2015, only TWICE did they NOT have multiple starters from that core miss starts. In 2014, there were SIX games with the entire "core" in tact. That happened ZERO times in 2015. THE PERSONNEL WAS NOT THE SAME

If you can only judge it based on its personnel, then stop comparing it to 2014. Do you not understand the inconsistency there?

I think you're overlooking efforts to bring in David Harris. You're not remembering the timing of injuries correctly, at all. Also, the defensive line in week one--since you brought up, specifically--was anything but neutered.

The 2015 offseason brought in QB1, RB1, TE RB2, WR2, RG1, LG1, RB3 and RT1C. On defense they brought in CB2. Am I missing anything? What facts would we be averse to by bringing this up? The offense improved thanks to both coaching AND a huge infusion of talent. This offseason we've had a huge infusion of talent on defense. If Rex can't make it happen, he should be fired. But there's evidence that the D would improve. Let's see how Shaq Lawson performs in the role that Mario was SUPPOSED to be fill last year before we decide--definitively--that it was the coach's failure. How's that? Let's see how the defense changes with Reggie Ragland out there. Let's see how the defense does with Aaron Williams back in the lineup. What if they do great? By all the Rex haters' logic, then suddenly he becomes a genius, right? Let's talk about facts. The defensive personnel from 2014-15 went largely unchanged. --HOWEVER-- They lost WAY more starters to injury (I've posted the starts-lost count numerous times, but it exceeds three times as many games lost) They were in a brand new scheme. So it wasn't a one to one switch...based on the two FACTS above.