StupidNation
-
Posts
1,178 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Gallery
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by StupidNation
-
-
i usually agree with your points about everything but i'm tired of the rose colored glasses..i want results and a 27-7 loss is a loss..by 20 points none the less..tell me ONE good thing the offense did today
Good routes and hands by Josh Reed; ran the ball well in the 2nd half. 2 things we did well.
Still, we needed to throw some screens to stop the blitz and pressure and then this pathetic O-line could hold up to see if Trent was really the problem as many seem to indicate he was. I don't remember people saying that last week when there was less pressure on him.
-
week by week is not my point, this guy is good
Do football fans have 1 week memories? Kolb was horrible last week and if you check Trent's stats he had 4 TDs on the Chiefs last year (2 in the air and 2 rushing). Not saying Trent was good this week, but Kolb has shown less than Trent.
-
7 points total (ZERO on offense) and your #1 problem is pass D? Agree to disagree.
You didn't read my post then friend. My #1 problem is pass protection. I said pass coverage by accident, and I was referring to the O-line and meant to say pass protection.
I also agree that there is more to the problem, but I put it in proper perspective.
-
Anyone still think Commander Checkdown was the QB we should have kept? Imagine a QB with an arm with these two WRs. Oh wait, we actually had one.
You know Bill called you out for being a Losman man and you took offense, but here's the proof he was looking for. Losman sucks and can't get an NFL job. What does that tell you? Anything? Anything?
-
After watching the game today,it was trent 90% of the time. Throw the damn ball. Yeah more than 5-10 yds wouldn`t hurt. After watching him overthrow TO by 5yds or more,he does have enough arm. Just throw the ball.He looked like old Holcomb out there today.If he doesn`t want to let it fly sit him for a bit and let Fitz`s go in. It couldn`t hurt at this point.
Then you didn't watch the game. It was Trent 20% of the time and by the time in the 4th it was Trent 60% of the time. He got it in his head he was going to be pressured and went mental.
He outplayed Brees in the 1st half. Greggo put in the pressure and the O-line couldn't do anything to give the QB time. Do you really think Brees had less time? I think Trent would have put up respectable #s with the amount of time Brees had.
QBs can't play good with a lot of pressure. E.g. Brady SB against Giants, Brees first half, Brady last weekend, and any other time you see a QB with D in his face in 2 seconds.
I would put more blame on the O-coordinator not running screens to take away the blitz. We did that in N.E and it worked.
-
In every game we have been terrible in pass protection. We don't pick up blitzes and we don't have the personnel to play a real NFL line. I said so after game one when everyone was gushing about the O-line. We can run block, fine, but we cannot play conventional football with this O-line.
Fine, I get it, but... what we did in game 1 to mask this problem is play screens. Where did they go? When Gregg was blitzing us like crazy here was a perfect opportunity to dictate the terms of the play of the D to containing vs. pinning their ears back. Did AVP go through a mental block or amnesia? We don't have a NFL quality O-line.
Now to the WRs... seriously, is this really a problem? Lee Evans, in both plays they panned out showed him blanketed one-on-one and was not that impressive and really isn't all that impressive when all you just play north and south and hope he gets open with speed. T.O is great at getting open, but he had a few drops and the slant which led to an INT he didn't run very hard on. Maybe he's frustrated, and I understand that. But you cannot play to your WRs unless you have more than 3 seconds to pass.
Oh, and if WRs are an indication of getting open and having good hands lets give Josh Reed an applause for a great game.
Onto the QB. Trent, you need to play more thoughtful. When you are flushed out of the pocket you don't have to check-down to the TE at the line of scrimmage, you can actually throw down-field. It's not a secret. Also, he did play decently but I think the O-line is in his head from bad snaps to collapsing pockets with few blitz pick-ups. He either needs to overcome this or try Fitzpatrick and see if he can operate with little time and pressure. If he can then we have a winner.
I still think the idea of giving up on his development is way too premature and he will be a good Hasselback type QB which will never wow you but will be decent for his position.
I do find the obsession with the QB, as if he snaps the ball, and catches it, funny. Trent played great the first few quarters and yes he looks below-average with pressure and no time. So did Drew Brees, and no I'm not comparing him to Brees, but he did better than Brees with less time and plays in the 1st half. I'm still sold on him for the entire season, but I can never imagine him being a great QB, just a really consistent one who plays "good". Great QBs are rare and he's our best option for this season and definitely not worth replacing with a 1st rounder unless he just goes mental and cannot play at all.
-
Maybe, just maybe, this proves what everyone knows... the D-line is more important than CBs.
-
i think harris ran like a 4.7 or 4.8. i dunno if he can match up with any pass-catching TEs in a man to man coverage.
Never go by 40 speed, go by playing speed. Whitner runs a 4.4 and plays slower, T.O ran a 4.6-4.7 in the 40 and plays fast, Boldin for the Cards was at 4.78 and plays very fast. Roscoe clocked in at 4.3 and plays slower in a straight line (but laterally amazing) and gets caught from behind... the 40 is not your measurement but your eyes and how fast they run next to other NFL players.
Watch T.O fly with the ball in his prime, and yet his 40 time was not great. Same with Jerry Rice.
Harris plays with good speed and would prefer him to Ellison in coverage.
-
-
He was the safety on the last TD play against the Pats* as well. What I don't understand is why he's seeing so much play time this early in the year...and on critical plays?
He's better in coverage than Whitner. That's why. Not saying Byrd is great, but Whitner isn't great.
-
First of all Whitner's pick was an overthrow caused by Kyle Williams QB pressure. It wasnt like he jumped a route or did something extraordinary. I just watched the play again on TIVO and the ball was thrown right to him. I like the guy, but let's see the play for what it was.
Secondly, he was drafted to play strong safety and he got beat out by Scott, who was signed to back up Whitner. He can't play corner so there's only place left for the guy to play, and that's free safety. I personally think Byrd is going to be our starting FS next year, as he has better closing speed and he showed a real knack for INT's during a solid college career.
Whitner is valuable to the team as an average NFL utility safety, but he's kind of a tweener in terms of size and speed. I don't think he's that good in coverage, but I would rate him as slightly above average as a tackler.
In my opinion this guy would have been sitting there in the second round for us to get. If he demands a lot of money in his contract year and it doesn't fit our cap strategy for that year I would let him walk and i personally don't think we'd miss a beat.
I'm going as Whitner on Halloween this year. My girlfriend is going as an NFL tight end and I'm gonna chaser her around all night (and not catch her), my other buddy is going as a cop with a taser (it's a fake one thank god), and my brother is gonna drape himself with 400k worth of fake jewelry and be one of Whit's high character hangout buddies.
I agree with everything you said. I still think he played pretty good last game, and not because of the INT, but because of his tackles. He hasn't shown me enough to justify his presence on the field as a starter, but a starter by default. It is also funny how there were match-ups in NE where Whitner wasn't even on the field and it was Byrd and Scott.
-
Bills homers are the funniest thing going
especially the ones that are 12 years old
the current team struggled to beat one of the worst teams in the league after giving away a sure win.
and now they are world beaters and better than Hall of Famers
OK
Do you lack reading comprehension? The guy was saying Jackson's play isn't miles behind Thurmal's and that's a fair statement. Thurmal is a HoFer because he played for so many years at a high level. Jackson won't ever make the HOF for lack of years of great #s. The guy's point is if you put in Jackson over Thurmal the #s wouldn't plummet, but would be slightly off, and I think that's fair.
I don't know if he could bring as much mental toughness (minus one SB) and dedication year in and out as Thurmal. That's what made him a HoFer, not the strict paint by the numbers.
-
One of the best threads in a long time. Thanks for the homework and the good reasoning. Not a big homer, but we can play well with any team on any day as long as our offense is working to some degree. Our D is getting to the point where I cannot see a 40 point game without a lot of turn-overs on O or ST.
-
After reading most every response people think TO is the #2 receiver? Really? Evans is clearly the #2 and cannot be a game changing #1 receiver.
TO is a #1 guy and if he leaves we have to replace him. That's why I would have thrown our #2 pick to AZ for Boldin with Evans salary.
-
I say let him walk. This team is much too brittle for distractions. You can almost feel the beginning of rumblings from that volcano. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if he was cut mid-season if he begins to act up. For what he is giving us right now, we have other talented receivers waiting in line to do the same job, if not better. He was supposed to, at the very least, open up the game for Lee and we have yet to see this.
Did it ever occur to you that Lee isn't that great and that's hard to open up things for him when he struggles getting open and fighting for balls?
-
Why are you so afraid of gay people?
Who's afraid of them? Are you really that stupid? Some people are willing to acknowledge what every sane person knew before and that they are crazy and no one wants to hang out with them because of it. I wish they would grow up and become men and start acting like them.
What used to be a psychotic anomaly is now phrased in an argument of fear.
-
The difference between last year and this year is this:
Last year, none of Edwards' good games came against the Patriots.
Even though the Bills lost the season opener against the Patriots this year, Edwards still looked like a real NFL quarterback out there. Yes, he could have improved his play at the margin, but bottom line he played well enough to give his team a very solid chance to win.
You wrote that you'll temper your excitement until Edwards wins a couple of division games. Since when did winning football games become the responsibility of one particular guy? The last time I checked, football was a team sport.
Take Joe Montana, for example. He's known for that late-game touchdown drive against the Bengals, and rightly so. But as Montana himself pointed out, it wasn't him personally taking control of that football game. It was the 49ers' entire offense. The offensive line blocked well. The receivers ran good routes. Montana added that if John Taylor had dropped that TD pass, Super Bowl history would have looked a lot different. Scoring that last TD required a good effort from a lot of guys, not just one.
The only reason the 49ers offense was able to take the field for that last drive was because its defense had just forced a three and out.
Let's say that the Bills win a game against a divisional opponent, but Edwards plays poorly. Would that game boost your confidence in him? No? Then why, after he played well in a divisional loss, wouldn't you feel more confidence in him? Should Edwards have somehow stopped McKelvin from fumbling? Or should he have caused the defense to stop the Patriots from scoring two TDs in the last five minutes?
Why does a loss prevent you from giving out credit for good individual efforts, when that credit is clearly deserved?
When a team losses it's somehow the QB that won or lost, and when they win it's a team victory. This is the typical mantra of typical idiot who is always looking for the next big thing without realizing what they have. They would have hamstrung Matt Hasselback in Seattle because of the W's without realizing he's a good QB.
-
Well let's see... the most vicious and evil people of the last century killed more than all other centuries combined and they were godless seculars who ascribed to evolutionary beliefs in the perfect society. Yeah, it was those crazy religious people.
Secondly, the other false premise is that you lump all religions together as if you can lump all secularists together (see I did that above using your faulty premise and it sucks doesn't it?). So should I lump all secularists as Hitlers and Stalins with a little Pol Pot on the side?
You my friend are a dumbass. Give me a Catholic like Mother Teresa over all you guys and the world would be a better place. Rather have one true Christian who really practices the faith than a bunch of morons all about themselves and can only think of how to bash others rather than understand what is best or good. Hell give me a guy like Aristotle over you idiots.
-
That's an excellent way for him to get some in-game experience, riding the timber. After all, it would be pointless getting him some snaps with the first team defense against a weak team, at a home game.
I almost wonder if you are serious. You play the best team you have. You don't go by their draft position, or their salary but the best team. That's why you had Anthony Thomas playing over Fred Jackson, and dare I say McKelvin over Corner. Those are the guys that we paid more and drafted higher and it should make any difference. I want to see Jackson over Thomas if he's better and Ellis over Maybin if he's better.
But go ahead, pretend we wanted the highest rated 1st rounders to always play instead of performance. Maybin isn't strong enough yet to play DE. He looks horrible and not so quick. He's easily pushed out of a play and has shown nothing of substance to show he should be in the starting line-up. If Ellis is playing better you play Ellis. Why not make the argument for Ellis last year? Oh, that's right he's not a 1st round pick so he's a nobody.
Give me the best guys.
-
Give me a B+ for performance. Had 2 drops that would have made it a true B+, but in reality from what happened he deserves a C+ because he was horrible in the 3rd quarter. If Lee fights for a ball once every year that was his for the taking. Good WRs get that ball. The ball to Owens was gorgeous and how he dropped it I don't know.
If he didn't play so much in a funk he get a better grade.
-
If anyone wants proof why he is not a great WR watch the TD he would have caught if he was a great WR. Watching Lee Evans fight for passes is as rare as DJ showing emotion.
If we wanted a one-dimensional burner get a guy like Devery Henderson from the Saints who is field faster than Lee with worse hands. Henderson costs about 3-4 million while Lee robbed the bank. I would have invested that money in a better TE than Schouman or Fine.
-
The INT was nice but it was of a bad pass than a play on the ball. I've knocked Donte a lot but he played extremely well today.
-
Wow! Are you even watching the same team I am?!?!?!? Seriously. I think you have a pretty big bias against Lynch.
1) I have seen our o-line get crushed, Lynch jitterbugs behind the line caving in on him, picks a spot and drives defenders from 1 yard behind the line of scrimmage for a 4 yard gain.
2) Lynch DOES NOT need forward momentum to do this!!! Jackson is NOT a soft runner but Lynch runs harder and it's by a significant easily observable margin!!
3) Comparing Lynch and Jackson elusiveness is very difficult. They are BOTH elusive!!! They do it in different ways. Lynch is more that Barry Sanders stop in his tracks, shimmy, slip and slide to break tackles and power through a guy type RB. Jackson uses his speed and is a more fluid open field runner that glides side to side to avoid tackers.
4) I have no idea what you are trying to say with years in the league. Jackson being the older guy with more miles on him has better long term potential and the guy that has yet to play his first game of his 3rd year his career could be almost over? That is just completely back-assward.
Again I say WOW!!! I think you developed your opinion of the RBs before actually impartially observing their play.
I think you're the one with the bias. I've watched them both. Are you about to tell me Lynch is better in pass protection and as a receiver? Are you about to tell me that Jackson isn't more of a threat in this offense? If so you have bias, not I.
Lynch's biggest problem is not that he can't do the same things as Jackson, but he isn't as mentally capable as Jackson. Jackson will look for a block and follow it, Lynch runs into defender frequently. Lynch has a bunch of runs that were negative and 0 gains. Watch the games last year and the year before. He runs sideways and gets caught with no forward momentum and can't do "beast mode". Beast Mode is only when he goes forward, not those long side steps.
I have no bias, but Jackson has better vision, blocking and receiving skills. Marshawn is better at getting extra yards when going forward.
I'll make it easier for you to understand... if it was 3rd and 3 I would take Jackson all day long. He'll look for 1st down on the run instead of a long gain and if he gets it he will and he is a bigger threat on a screen. He just has more dimensions.
If you can't see that you have the bias amigo
-
Lynch is younger, made the pro-bowl, went to a D1 college, got drafted in the 1st round...that all counts for something.
None of that matters. Production is what counts, not the resume. Want to give me the resumes of Rockefeller and Gates before they become a force economically? One was an 8th grade drop-out and the other a college drop-out. Maybe those guys with PhDs should do better right?
Production counts, Jackson is producing.
After this game though I'm changing my view of Jackson as our #1 back though. He should only get at most 15-18 carries with Lynch getting the rest. He is better, but I can't see him taking that thrashing for 16 games.
Oh, and to say Lynch is better is a dumbass statement. Jackson must be accounted for on every play. Not so much with Lynch.
Kevin Kolb
in The Stadium Wall Archives
Posted
You forgot to mention 3 INTs. That wasn't intentional was it? Naaaahhhhhh...