Mikie2times Posted March 8 Posted March 8 (edited) 7 hours ago, Thurman#1 said: Again, buy yourself a dictionary. You are completely misusing the phrase "second-rate." It doesn't mean what you apparently think it does. Calling the Bills coach, GM or roster second-rate is just pure dumbage. Says a ton more about you than it does about the Bills. Claiming that it's ridiculous to call it all excellent, as you did in another post here? Much more reasonable. Worth having a discussion about. Calling it all second-rate, though? Just dumb. Ever notice the how the pro McD posters are so intolerant of other opinions they go to personal insults? They can’t just talk about the subject. Not just you, several of you. It sort of speaks a little deeper to the quality of these posters and the opinions they have. Edited March 8 by Mikie2times Quote
Thurman#1 Posted March 8 Posted March 8 1 hour ago, Mikie2times said: Ever notice the how the pro McD posters are so intolerant of other opinions they go to personal insults? They can’t just talk about the subject. Not just you, several of you. It sort of speaks a little deeper to the quality of these posters and the opinions they have. First, take another look. That's now TWO pure mistakes you've made, within like a page. I didn't insult you. I insulted your opinion. And just to repeat, the reason that I called your opinion dumb, is that it's dumb. So, when you say, referring to my post, "they go to personal insults," you're wrong. And when you say, "they can't just talk about the subject, wrong again. I guess being wrong so consistently could be said to apply to the quality of the posters, possibly. But that would be you saying that, not me. And yet again, you are seriously mis-using the word second-rate. Again, if you check the dictionary, you might possibly at the very least change the way you expressed yourself there. Because, again, saying that the Bills GM, the Bills coach, and the Bills roster are "second-rate" is just dumbage. See what I did there, yet again? I insulted an opinion. 1 Quote
Mikie2times Posted March 8 Posted March 8 (edited) 1 hour ago, Thurman#1 said: First, take another look. That's now TWO pure mistakes you've made, within like a page. I didn't insult you. I insulted your opinion. And just to repeat, the reason that I called your opinion dumb, is that it's dumb. So, when you say, referring to my post, "they go to personal insults," you're wrong. And when you say, "they can't just talk about the subject, wrong again. I guess being wrong so consistently could be said to apply to the quality of the posters, possibly. But that would be you saying that, not me. And yet again, you are seriously mis-using the word second-rate. Again, if you check the dictionary, you might possibly at the very least change the way you expressed yourself there. Because, again, saying that the Bills GM, the Bills coach, and the Bills roster are "second-rate" is just dumbage. See what I did there, yet again? I insulted an opinion. I think it’s more that you guys just don’t have anything to add. It’s basically limited to “see record” roster good. See record “coach good”. Poster doesn’t agree, “poster dumb”. You can’t offer anything specific on any of it past that. I wish I could be so simple. Life would probably be easier. Edited March 8 by Mikie2times Quote
oldmanfan Posted March 8 Posted March 8 To the original point of the thread, he was hurt most of the season. 2 1 Quote
Thurman#1 Posted March 21 Posted March 21 On 3/9/2025 at 3:36 AM, Mikie2times said: I think it’s more that you guys just don’t have anything to add. It’s basically limited to “see record” roster good. See record “coach good”. Poster doesn’t agree, “poster dumb”. You can’t offer anything specific on any of it past that. I wish I could be so simple. Life would probably be easier. Again, I didn't call you dumb. POINT OUT ONE PLACE WHERE I CALLED YOU DUMB!!!! Just one!!! I called your ideas dumb. Not all of your ideas. Just the dumb ones. Some of your ideas I disagree with, but they're not dumb. I often disagree with those, but don't call them dumb. But the dumb ideas, I do call out. Now, you keep saying "poster dumb," as you did above. Again, that's not me. Is it something you yourself are saying about yourself? 1 Quote
Mikie2times Posted March 21 Posted March 21 5 hours ago, Thurman#1 said: Again, I didn't call you dumb. POINT OUT ONE PLACE WHERE I CALLED YOU DUMB!!!! Just one!!! I called your ideas dumb. Not all of your ideas. Just the dumb ones. Some of your ideas I disagree with, but they're not dumb. I often disagree with those, but don't call them dumb. But the dumb ideas, I do call out. Now, you keep saying "poster dumb," as you did above. Again, that's not me. Is it something you yourself are saying about yourself? I didn't think you called me dumb, it's just the general energy of your posts on this topic. You offer no supporting information outside of our pristine regular season record to support your takes. It's part of a larger group of people on here that have built a position that we are beyond critique in nearly every area of the team based on our regular season success. Such a simple view incapable of any nuance. Quote
Thurman#1 Posted March 22 Posted March 22 (edited) 18 hours ago, Mikie2times said: I didn't think you called me dumb, it's just the general energy of your posts on this topic. You offer no supporting information outside of our pristine regular season record to support your takes. It's part of a larger group of people on here that have built a position that we are beyond critique in nearly every area of the team based on our regular season success. Such a simple view incapable of any nuance. You're right, you didn't accuse me of calling you dumb. You accused me of personal insults. "Ever notice the how the pro McD posters are so intolerant of other opinions they go to personal insults? They can’t just talk about the subject. Not just you, several of you." You said that. In reply to my post. So, could you show me one of those? POINT OUT ONE PLACE WHERE I PERSONALLY INSULTED YOU!! My view is without nuance? Well, yeah, sometimes that's how the world works. FireChans said everyone on the Bills, coaches and players is second-rate, except Josh. There's no nuance needed there. He was wrong. And teams that are second-rate everywhere except one guy don't make the AFC championship and almost win. I told him him to check the dictionary for what "second-rate" means. And he disappeared. But you stepped right in, attempting to prove that everyone on the Bills was second-rate except Josh. You say I didn't provide evidence? You don't need a ton of evidence when someone is so obviously wrong. Perhaps you too need to check the dictionary on what second-rate means. In plenty of other threads when people have a reasonable argument you'll see me introducing a ton of evidence. But why bother with evidence when someone wants to argue that the whole organization except Josh is "second-rate." The idea is ludicrous. Pointing out their record, both for last year and for the last bunch of years is plenty of evidence to completely make the case. It's a dumb idea. Edited March 22 by Thurman#1 Quote
FireChans Posted March 22 Posted March 22 (edited) 6 hours ago, Thurman#1 said: You're right, you didn't accuse me of calling you dumb. You accused me of personal insults. "Ever notice the how the pro McD posters are so intolerant of other opinions they go to personal insults? They can’t just talk about the subject. Not just you, several of you." You said that. In reply to my post. So, could you show me one of those? POINT OUT ONE PLACE WHERE I PERSONALLY INSULTED YOU!! My view is without nuance? Well, yeah, sometimes that's how the world works. FireChans said everyone on the Bills, coaches and players is second-rate, except Josh. There's no nuance needed there. He was wrong. And teams that are second-rate everywhere except one guy don't make the AFC championship and almost win. I told him him to check the dictionary for what "second-rate" means. And he disappeared. But you stepped right in, attempting to prove that everyone on the Bills was second-rate except Josh. You say I didn't provide evidence? You don't need a ton of evidence when someone is so obviously wrong. Perhaps you too need to check the dictionary on what second-rate means. In plenty of other threads when people have a reasonable argument you'll see me introducing a ton of evidence. But why bother with evidence when someone wants to argue that the whole organization except Josh is "second-rate." The idea is ludicrous. Pointing out their record, both for last year and for the last bunch of years is plenty of evidence to completely make the case. It's a dumb idea. I just didn’t want to get into a dictionary battle. Which looking back, looks like the right play. I still believe that Josh Allen is a better QB than our HC is among HCs, our GM is among GM’s, and our roster is among the rest of the NFL. They are all inferior to Josh. Because Josh is the best. And none of the rest of them are close to the best. You wanna say that doesn’t qualify for the definition of “second rate” have at it lol. Edited March 22 by FireChans Quote
Thurman#1 Posted March 22 Posted March 22 54 minutes ago, FireChans said: I just didn’t want to get into a dictionary battle. Which looking back, looks like the right play. I still believe that Josh Allen is a better QB than our HC is among HCs, our GM is among GM’s, and our roster is among the rest of the NFL. They are all inferior to Josh. Because Josh is the best. And none of the rest of them are close to the best. You wanna say that doesn’t qualify for the definition of “second rate” have at it lol. I certainly agree with you there, that was the right play for you. I don't "want to say that doesn't qualify for the definition of 'second rate.'" I'm pointing out the fact that you've either completely mis-used the word or hold views on how bad the Bills are that are completely bughouse. I suspect you haven't gone and checked the actual meaning of that phrase. Applying it to the Bills would be stupid. It's smart that you backed away, though the smarter play yet would simply be to simply say something like, "Yeah, I used the wrong word," and going on to whatever the next battle is. But I'm aware that some people have a really hard time doing that. Yeah, Josh is the best we have. But that doesn't even begin to support, or even be relevant to whether the entire rest of the team is "second-rate." Which again, they are not. The idea is dumb. Quote
Thurman#1 Posted March 22 Posted March 22 (edited) On 3/7/2025 at 7:24 PM, Mikie2times said: Actual player recognition, via pro bowl and all pro voting doesn’t align with this. We don’t have another player in the top 100 as of last year. A few could crack it in 2025. Um, yes, that's my point. They often don't align with each other. And there are structural precepts in making each that work against the Bills. Small-market teams do less well. They are individual awards, which works against the Bills because our units work better than the individuals looked at one-by-one. On 3/7/2025 at 7:24 PM, Mikie2times said: Average winning %’s of teams with exceptional QB play supports our record independently of other variables. Those teams post +65% winning %’s historically. I love how you picked that stat out of the air. What were you thinking? Something like this? Completely unmeasureable? Check! Disagreement on what "exceptional QB play" is? Check! Yup, there's no way to actually measure it, so ... 65%!!!! No, wait, 65.2% sounds more authorative, um, no it would sound as if I was pulling it out of my hat. On 3/7/2025 at 7:24 PM, Mikie2times said: Claiming all of it is excellent is just as off base as all of it sucks. It can’t be all good and it can’t be all bad. If I had to actually be balanced here, I would discredit the roster more than McD at this point. B coach, with a C+ roster, and Josh easily lands us where we are in this deplorable division. Well, we agree 100% there. Claiming all of it is excellent really is off base. Just quick, though, could you point out where I said all of it is excellent? Just real quick? But a C+ roster, even with Josh, simply doesn't get us where we are. Just doesn't happen. Might we win our awful division with a C+ roster and Josh? Yeah, maybe. I mean, 9 games wins that division clean last year, 8 if you get the tie-breakers. So sure, they would be competitive for the division. But would they win 13 games? Like hell. Destroy the Broncos in the playoffs? Nope. Beat 'em? Well, that's possible, but 31-7? Just wouldn't happen. Beat the Ravens? My ass. Play right with the Chiefs? Hell, no. On 3/7/2025 at 7:24 PM, Mikie2times said: We have had more talent in other years but last year it was league average at best outside of Allen. Our defensive data aligns with that and if you remove Allen with a replacement level QB what exactly do you think the offense would do? Would it rank in the top 15? Seems like a stretch….: League average? Please Yeah, the defense had a down year. They've been excellent for years. Losing Poyer and Hyde and having Milano and Bernard miss big pieces of the season greatly hurt. When they were both in and playing better the D started to look pretty solid. Put someone like Cousins in our offense and they still play very well. Not as well as they did with Josh, of course, but this OL has been terrific, as has the running game. Well inside the top 10, pretty likely. On 3/7/2025 at 7:24 PM, Mikie2times said: McD does a great job developing turnover battle winning squads. He is a good leader. That’s enough to get him a B grade even if I’m not a fan of the rest of it. But even with McD, is he not a meddling .500 guy without Josh? (he is actually under .500 without Josh FYI) Of course McDermott's record without Josh is under .500. That's because the huge majority of his games without Josh were in the first two years of his term, when we were rebuilding. The first two years of a rebuild always suck. When you find lists, McDermott's virtually always between 6th and 8th. That's not a B. It's a B+ / A-. On 3/7/2025 at 7:24 PM, Mikie2times said: So while I know all of you try to separate Allen from this and give everybody flowers like these are 8 year olds needing a trophy, the reality is our success is very top heavy with Josh. Which is why it never lasts very long in the postseason. He covers so many warts it’s hard to fully compute. Is that what you know? 8 year olds needing a trophy? Fine. I know that there is a big group of folks on here who always need scapegoats, but even when Josh doesn't play well he's always on the list. And I know that coaches are always the easiest scapegoats, coaches and assistants. Even when a team that was supposed to be having a down year instead plays extremely well instead and probably makes the Super Bowl if the refs just mark the ball better on one play, or for that matter if Josh isn't absolutely terrible on the first couple of drives. But no, this group must have scapegoats and we're obviously not a good team despite overachieving. Does Josh make everyone around him better? Sure. Absolutely. So does the whole excellent offensive line, one of the absolute best in the game. So does Cook. So does Ty Johnson. So does Dalton Kincaid, when healthy. So does Shakir. So does Benford. So does Taron Johnson. So do both LBs when healthy, Bernard and Milano. So does Ed Oliver, though not often enough, dang it. So does Rousseau. Is QB the most important position in the game, and the one that has the biggest ability to affect outcomes? Yup. We're lucky to have Josh. We're also lucky to have a bunch of other good players. Wanna see a terrific QB on a roster that's a C+ otherwise? Check out Matt Stafford's career in Detroit. Put him in a good organization and he's competitive. And this Bills team is far far closer to Stafford on the Rams than Stafford on the Lions. Edited March 22 by Thurman#1 1 Quote
FireChans Posted March 22 Posted March 22 1 hour ago, Thurman#1 said: I certainly agree with you there, that was the right play for you. I don't "want to say that doesn't qualify for the definition of 'second rate.'" I'm pointing out the fact that you've either completely mis-used the word or hold views on how bad the Bills are that are completely bughouse. I suspect you haven't gone and checked the actual meaning of that phrase. Applying it to the Bills would be stupid. It's smart that you backed away, though the smarter play yet would simply be to simply say something like, "Yeah, I used the wrong word," and going on to whatever the next battle is. But I'm aware that some people have a really hard time doing that. Yeah, Josh is the best we have. But that doesn't even begin to support, or even be relevant to whether the entire rest of the team is "second-rate." Which again, they are not. The idea is dumb. I actually did. ”of mediocre or inferior quality” yeah, compared to Josh, McD, Beane, and the overall roster are of inferior quality. thanks for playing. Quote
Augie Posted March 22 Posted March 22 Just now, FireChans said: I actually did. ”of mediocre or inferior quality” yeah, compared to Josh, McD, Beane, and the overall roster are of inferior quality. thanks for playing. To be fair, should they not be compared to their peers? Other GM’s and coaches? Make it apples to apples. I do not feel them to be second rate. I just dropped by to mention that Kincaid guy, if anybody remembers him. Between the injuries last year and being singled out at post-season pressers, I expect him to work his tail off and show us another level next season. Fingers crossed! Quote
FireChans Posted March 22 Posted March 22 Just now, Augie said: To be fair, should they not be compared to their peers? Other GM’s and coaches? Make it apples to apples. I do not feel them to be second rate. I just dropped by to mention that Kincaid guy, if anybody remembers him. Between the injuries last year and being singled out at post-season pressers, I expect him to work his tail off and show us another level next season. Fingers crossed! I am. I am comparing to Josh to his peers. He’s the best. i am comparing McD and Beane and the roster to their peers. Not the best. Ipso facto…. Quote
Augie Posted March 22 Posted March 22 (edited) 14 minutes ago, FireChans said: I am. I am comparing to Josh to his peers. He’s the best. i am comparing McD and Beane and the roster to their peers. Not the best. Ipso facto…. This is silly. I bet Chiefs, Bengals and Ravens fans don’t just crown Josh as the best. And don’t try to sell me on the arbitrary MVP award. You seem to want to support a certain narrative. . Edited March 22 by Augie Quote
Thurman#1 Posted March 22 Posted March 22 4 minutes ago, FireChans said: I actually did. ”of mediocre or inferior quality” yeah, compared to Josh, McD, Beane, and the overall roster are of inferior quality. thanks for playing. OK, thanks. Now I know you understand. Glad to hear it . Thanks also for moving the goalposts. Yet again. Nobody has argued, that I have noticed, that we have lots of guys better than Allen. We're arguing the stupid part of your argument. You claimed that because none of our roster are as good as Josh Allen, that that means the roster is "of mediocre or inferior quality." Substandard is another one that comes up often. And that is beyond stupid. Are you arguing that other rosters that are just packed with guys who are better than Josh Allen? Because again, contending that is totally and sadly idiotic. If a team that doesn't have anyone as good as Allen is second-rate, there isn't a team that is NOT second-rate. Allen won the MVP. You asked whether anyone on the Bills other than Josh is top two at their position. (The answer is that Taron Johnson and a healthy Matt Milano probably are.) But even assuming we don't have anyone other than Josh, using that as evidence that everyone except Josh is sub-standard meets no standard of logic whatsoever. You asked whether the entire Bills roster is top 2 in talent. Then you use your negative answer as - again - evidence that everyone on the Bills is substandard. Again, this doesn't have the slightest value in showing that. Then you said, "So they are legitimately all second-rate, relatively. Except for Josh." This is spectacularly stupid stuff. Quote
Mikie2times Posted March 22 Posted March 22 (edited) 59 minutes ago, Thurman#1 said: Um, yes, that's my point. They often don't align with each other. And there are structural precepts in making each that work against the Bills. Small-market teams do less well. They are individual awards, which works against the Bills because our units work better than the individuals looked at one-by-one. Got it, we are just the little guy, everybody hates us or doesn't see us. Meanwhile, teams in major thriving metros like Baltimore and Detroit get all the rewards. 59 minutes ago, Thurman#1 said: Yup, there's no way to actually measure it, so ... 65%!!!! No, wait, 65.2% sounds more authorative, um, no it would sound as if I was pulling it out of my hat. Well, we agree 100% there. Claiming all of it is excellent really is off base. Just quick, though, could you point out where I said all of it is excellent? Just real quick? But a C+ roster, even with Josh, simply doesn't get us where we are. Just doesn't happen. Might we win our awful division with a C+ roster and Josh? Yeah, maybe. I mean, 9 games wins that division clean last year, 8 if you get the tie-breakers. So sure, they would be competitive for the division. But would they win 13 games? Like hell. Destroy the Broncos in the playoffs? Nope. Beat 'em? Well, that's possible, but 31-7? Just wouldn't happen. Beat the Ravens? My ass. Play right with the Chiefs? Hell, no. Actually, funny you asked. Group 1: Teams with a QB that finished the year with a 65-69.99 QBR are 475-288 since 2010. Good for a 62.25% winning percentage. Group 2: Teams with a QB that finished the year with a 70 or better QBR are 582-208 since 2010. Good for a 73.67% winning percentage. Josh Allen has the following QB's 2020: 76.6 2021: 66.3 2022: 73.4 2023: 69.6 2024: 76.7 2025: 77.3 The Bills basically fall in line perfectly with that chart and the winning% in the regular season. 59 minutes ago, Thurman#1 said: League average? Please Yeah, the defense had a down year. They've been excellent for years. Losing Poyer and Hyde and having Milano and Bernard miss big pieces of the season greatly hurt. When they were both in and playing better the D started to look pretty solid. Down year? Take a look at the EPA on the Bills defense last year when they didn't force a turnover. Among the worst in football. Which is indicative of the talent level of this team. We have had more talented defenses in the past, ones that at least took until the post season to fully breakdown, sure. We don't at this point. Not close. I also find the Cousins comment consistent with your takes. Atlanta had Kyle Pitts, Bijan Robinson, and Drake London. So three skilled position players better than anything we have and they still couldn't make it work. So you think Cousins is coming here and teaming up with star power like Keon Coleman and Dalton Kincaid and making it work? 59 minutes ago, Thurman#1 said: Of course McDermott's record without Josh is under .500. That's because the huge majority of his games without Josh were in the first two years of his term, when we were rebuilding. The first two years of a rebuild always suck. When you find lists, McDermott's virtually always between 6th and 8th. That's not a B. It's a B+ / A-. All Pro's, Pro Bowl's, Stats, Records, all take a back seat to how you carve up those narratives to fit your opinion. I'm just providing what the data says. I don't need to have an opinion. His record is under .500 without Allen. Edited March 22 by Mikie2times Quote
Thurman#1 Posted March 22 Posted March 22 15 minutes ago, FireChans said: I am. I am comparing to Josh to his peers. He’s the best. i am comparing McD and Beane and the roster to their peers. Not the best. Ipso facto…. Ipso facto, um, nothing. Not the best? Certainly arguable. But "second-rate". Everyone else on the roster and the coaching staff? Um, you've ipsoed not a single facto there that supports your dumb conclusion. 1 Quote
Thurman#1 Posted March 22 Posted March 22 5 minutes ago, Mikie2times said: Actually, funny you asked. Group 1: Teams with a QB that finished the year with a 65-69.99 QBR are 475-288 since 2010. Good for a 62.25% winning percentage. Group 2: Teams with a QB that finished the year with a 70 or better QBR are 582-208 since 2010. Good for a 73.67% winning percentage. Josh Allen has the following QB's 2020: 76.6 2021: 66.3 2022: 73.4 2023: 69.6 2024: 76.7 2025: 77.3 The Bills basically fall in line perfectly with that chart and the winning% in the regular season. You're right up there in the running for goal post shifting. You originally said, "Average winning %’s of teams with exceptional QB play supports our record independently of other variables. Those teams post +65% winning %’s historically. " Then you yank out your numbers and what do they prove? They prove that YOU think QBR shows "exceptional QB play." They prove that you think the particular number for "exceptional" QB play is 65%. By that measure 10 QBs were "exceptional," this year including Kyler Murray and Brock Purdy. You believe with QBR - your measure for "exceptional," that Brock Purdy was the most exceptional QB in the league and Dak Prescott was #2 in 2023.. QBR is at best questionable and one particular look at a very complicated picture. You have attempted to prove that "Average winning %'s of teams with exceptional QB play supports our record (um, what? Are you using A.I. or something?) independently of other variables. Those teams post +65% winning %'s historically." But you haven't. Put it in words that your stats actually reflect and here's what you've proven: You've proven there's one stat that shows that in the years when a QB has certain score in that stat (but not necessarily in other years for that QB) that there is some correlation with wins. That's it. And while it's something, it's not much and it certainly doesn't prove what you said. The reason I called you out was that your wording was so ridiculous. There's no such thing as a perfect measure for "exceptional QB play," and you didn:t mention any way of deciding what it was. Now we know that you were referring to QBR, a flawed stat, and to specific years, not careers, Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.