Metamorphosis year

[4merper4mer]

34 minutes ago, DrDawkinstein said:

 

That's not how the recent ESPN poll worked. They had their team reporters ask as many players as they could find. A couple of them who were given the assignment were talking about it on Around the Horn.

 

It was not some official document that went to all players. It was whichever guys some beat reporters could muster up and wanted to talk with the goal of filling offseason dead air.

 

edit: Found the source

 

https://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/41001234/nfl-patrick-mahomes-lamar-jackson-caleb-williams-quarterbacks-ranking

103 NFL players answer six burning questions about quarterbacks

 

103. Not even 1% of the players. "The entire league" lol

 

 

In statistics there is a concept called “random sample” and another called “statistically significant”.  So while true that not everyone in the league was asked, it is also true that it is a representation of the thoughts of players.

[oldmanfan]

23 minutes ago, 4merper4mer said:

In statistics there is a concept called “random sample” and another called “statistically significant”.  So while true that not everyone in the league was asked, it is also true that it is a representation of the thoughts of players.

With no statistical meaning.  There was one vote separating Josh and Tua.  In stats an N of 1 doesn’t mean anything.

2 hours ago, 4merper4mer said:

Well the Miller comment and the departing cap space are facts correct?

I called the leadership “questionable”.  That’s a fact.  I didn’t “none”, “devoid” or “lacking”.  Do you think there is sufficient “proven” leadership?

 

And sure you can say the comment on Brady’s offense is opinion.  It is opinion.  Anything is possible and maybe Brady will reverse his track record AND McD will allow him to take off the training wheels.  At least it’s more likely than Rich Kotite making a comeback and winning the Super Bowl.  So we’ve got that going for us.

You calling leadership questionable is a fact.  You did so.  Whether it is or not, and your thinking it is, is opinion.  The two are commonly confused by many.

Edited August 29 by oldmanfan

[4merper4mer]

5 minutes ago, oldmanfan said:

 

You calling leadership questionable is a fact.  You did so.  Whether it is or not, and you’re thinking it is, is opinion.  The two are commonly confused by many.

Huh?  Questionable means unproven.  It does not mean “bad” as you seem to be implying.  We lost a lot of proven leaders.  It is questionable whether they have been properly replaced.  Until and unless the new leaders prove themselves, “questionability” isn’t an opinion.  If I said “I think they will fail” or “I think they’ll be great”, those would be opinions.

[Magox]

I agree that it is a transition year, but I do not agree that the season is lost.  I expect the Bills to be as competitive as they ever have by the time we get into the playoffs.

 

Josh Allen I believe is going to have one of his best years yet, the running backs, offensive line and TE's will be better than most in the NFL and I think the WR room is going to be just fine.

 

The Defensive line is a strength, Linebackers are solid and when Milano returns will be elite, the CB's appear to be on a really good track.   For me the biggest question marks will be Safety and Bass.   

[BigDingus]

7 hours ago, 4merper4mer said:

The amount of respect for Josh around the league is slim to none

 

7 hours ago, 4merper4mer said:

You simply can’t have a bunch of “fun” leaders.

 

You can't say stuff like this or people will get pissed & ignore everything else. Even I got irritated reading it, mostly because it's not nearly as important as you make it out to be.

 

That "most overrated" poll involved 100 players, and 11 of them voted Allen. So even though it's dumb, that's still such a small amount of players that it doesn't really matter.

 

And having "fun leaders" probably matters none whatsoever as long as they're effective communicators. Peyton Manning joked around all the time. Andy Reid isn't a crazy hard ass either. There are plenty of videos with Kelce & Mahomes joking around in practice or on the sidelines, but they still approach the game seriously. Allen is no different. 

 

7 hours ago, 4merper4mer said:

I really like Dawkins and Knox as players and think they are underrated but they also don’t appear to take winning seriously.  There is too much of that in the locker room.

 

Didn't you imply it was silly getting rid of talented players just because they rub people the wrong way? Just because Knox & Dawkins rub YOU the wrong way, doesn't mean we should get rid of them. 

 

We only get a small peak into how these guys behave. There's no way you can say they don't take winning seriously just because they might appear in a locker room karaoke video or crack jokes mic'd up. You say they're "underrated" and good players, so the last thing we need is LESS of those.

[Simon]

7 hours ago, 4merper4mer said:

It’s pretty clear to anyone with an objective pair of eyes.....

 

Catchin' any?

 

[4merper4mer]

4 minutes ago, BigDingus said:

 

 

 

 

Didn't you imply it was silly getting rid of talented players just because they rub people the wrong way? Just because Knox & Dawkins rub YOU the wrong way, doesn't mean we should get rid of them. 

 

We only get a small peak into how these guys behave. There's no way you can say they don't take winning seriously just because they might appear in a locker room karaoke video or crack jokes mic'd up. You say they're "underrated" and good players, so the last thing we need is LESS of those.

You have a point there.  I did say we should get something in return.  IMO we need more than just fun loving people everywhere.  It needs to be a mixture.  When you take a serious guy like Diggs and kick him to the curb because there are fun loving goofballs running around everywhere, that brings a lot of risk.  Too many is too many.

[oldmanfan]

29 minutes ago, 4merper4mer said:

Huh?  Questionable means unproven.  It does not mean “bad” as you seem to be implying.  We lost a lot of proven leaders.  It is questionable whether they have been properly replaced.  Until and unless the new leaders prove themselves, “questionability” isn’t an opinion.  If I said “I think they will fail” or “I think they’ll be great”, those would be opinions.

Yes, opinion.  You ignore vets like Dawkins, Allen, Hollins, Miller and such.  Plus none of us really have any idea who players look at as leaders, last year or this year.

 

I think the term you’re looking for is confirmation bias.  You have a preformed idea of the season and try to shoehorn opinions to match it.  The term fun loving goofballs gives it away.

Edited August 29 by oldmanfan

[BufBills83]

7 hours ago, 4merper4mer said:

It’s pretty clear to anyone with an objective pair of eyes that 2024 has already been and will continue to be a year of change for the Bills franchise.  Even whe setting aside the looming new stadium and other topics beyond players and coaches, massive change is clearly afoot.  
 

We’ve been a good team for the last few years, we have the number one building block needed for an NFL team, a QB with elite skills, but our first roster build around that QB failed, and we will see where our second build leads, but……this year is neither,  it’s the change year.  Like it or not, 2024 is lost.  Because:

 

We got rid of our best non-QB offensive weapon

We decided to get rid of leadership anywhere and everywhere we could 

We’re still saddled with useless players on ridiculous contracts and/or paying off cap hits from departed players

We have a coach that prefers defense to offense and as such opted for ineptitude at OC for this year

There are clearly players still on the roster that either shouldn’t be, or who the coaches would prefer off

 

Given all of the above, it is silly to expect much from 2024.  The big question is how it will position us for 2025 and beyond.  Below are what I’d like to see happen in and after 2024 to help position us for 2025.  They are not in order of importance really.  Most or all will need to happen.

 

1. McDermott fully realizing complementary football doesn’t simply mean a nerfed and vanilla offense letting the defense get more rest during the year, but also allows for situational strategy and games where we are high octane.  
2. An off season hiring of a real OC, not a puppet.

3. Bye Bye Von.  Take your big talk with you.

4. Apparently some our our leaders and their styles hurt the feelings of some snowflakes so Diggs, Morse, Tre, Poyer, and more are gone.  Emergence of new leaders and new leadership styles is a must.  If you’re going to get rid of a player like Diggs because he hurt some feelings, you’re going to learn the easy way or the hard way, that sometimes hurt feelings are necessary.  You simply can’t have a bunch of “fun” leaders.  Josh or someone will need to fill that void as the team navigates the turbulence inevitable in any season.  Based on recent press disclosures, the amount of respect for Josh around the league is slim to none,  I wonder how much of that stems from his lack of seriousness.  Rousseau is no longer everyone’s understudy.  Now is his time.  Who will be the others?
5. Like #1 but different……McDermott either deciding to simply get rid of players he doesn’t like or deciding to live with them.  No more trying to play the middle with back handed compliments like the ones he throws at James Cook for example.  You can’t change everyone,  Either roll with them or don’t.  
6. Let players that clearly don’t want to be here walk,  I’m not sure why Douglas doesn’t want to be here but it’s pretty obvious.  
7. Be objective and clear the decks of traveling hospital wards like Milano even if they were great while they were here.

8. Ditch enablers to the goofball leadership style even if they are decent players.  Get something for them.  I really like Dawkins and Knox as players and think they are underrated but they also don’t appear to take winning seriously.  There is too much of that in the locker room.

9. Beane’s accurate assessment of all of the above as 2024 plays out.  The cap stuff will be mostly gone moving into next year.  Does he go right after it in 2025 or is it time for a major re-set?  No more a little bit of both.

 

2024 is a metamorphoses year.  We will emerge in 2025.  Are we in a cocoon this year so we’ll emerge an ugly moth or are we in a chrysalis so we can emerge a beautiful butterfly?   We’re about to find out.
 

 

You lost me at "2024 is lost."  Maybe to you.  There are lots of people, including me, that think we can still win the SB this year, mainly because of #17.

[BarleyNY]

10 minutes ago, Einstein's Dog said:

"Likely means a new GM"?  Why do people let Beane off scottfree?  The cap problems lie squarely in Beane's lap.  He has Diggs stink all over him, from extension to trade.   When Beane traded Diggs, this was his plan?  Really?  Pretty much nothing - we were all expecting a WR early to replace G Davis.

 

And now the alleged "metamorphosis" is going on with an incomplete WR room.   Who do you blame for not drafting 2 WRs?

It’s not that I think Beane should get off scott free. I don’t. He should go along with McD. I’m just not 100% certain that he will. 

[bmur66]

Gee. Did someone move your cheese?

[GoBills808]

22 minutes ago, BufBills83 said:

 

You lost me at "2024 is lost."  Maybe to you.  There are lots of people, including me, that think we can still win the SB this year, mainly because of #17.

I mean it's possible but a lot of unlikely things will have to occur imo

[BigAl2526]

I agree that this is a transition year.  I'm not going to go through the OP and itemize what I agree with and disagree with.  There is a good deal of both.  While there is plenty of transitioning going on, I'm not writing off the possibility of success this season.  

 

[Augie]

6 minutes ago, GoBills808 said:

I mean it's possible but a lot of unlikely things will have to occur imo

 

Some very unlikely things happened to keep us out of a SB. Stuff happens, good and bad. 

[HOUSE]

The grammar was good 👍 

[SoCal Deek]

7 minutes ago, Augie said:

 

Some very unlikely things happened to keep us out of a SB. Stuff happens, good and bad. 

Really? Unlikely? I don’t see it that way. 

[Augie]

1 hour ago, 4merper4mer said:

Huh?  Questionable means unproven.  It does not mean “bad” as you seem to be implying.  We lost a lot of proven leaders.  It is questionable whether they have been properly replaced.  Until and unless the new leaders prove themselves, “questionability” isn’t an opinion.  If I said “I think they will fail” or “I think they’ll be great”, those would be opinions.

 

Don’t try that. You know (or should know) that the word has a negative connotation, exposing your true intent. At the top of a quick search, I find this:

 

doubtful, dubious, problematic, questionable mean not affording assurance of the worth, soundness, or certainty of something.

[K-9]

4merper4mer has metamorphosed into Scott Law; one of the original Mr. Yuks. 
 

[4merper4mer]

2 hours ago, Augie said:

 

Don’t try that. You know (or should know) that the word has a negative connotation, exposing your true intent. At the top of a quick search, I find this:

 

doubtful, dubious, problematic, questionable mean not affording assurance of the worth, soundness, or certainty of something.

Not the way I meant it.  I meant unproven and I hope they prove it.

[Mikie2times]

I don't expect this post to popular OP but I agree with a lot of your points and applaud you for being willing to say unpopular things. As a "not serious" person myself it doesn't mean I can't be a leader. But it does produce a certain type of leadership style that is more cooperative/encouraging than authoritarian and if anybody on here doesn't think at times people need authoritarian in an environment like this you're completely delusional. It is something we lack at least from what we can observe on the outside and as much as I support the decision with Diggs we essentially doubled down on what appears to be Kumbaya. Again we aren't in the locker room so we don't know this to be the case for sure but ya, that's what it appears like.