StupidNation
-
Posts
1,178 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Gallery
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by StupidNation
-
-
I think the fans should boo him. I think the vandalism has changed people's minds, but I can't figure out why. He lost the game single-handed. Say that's short-sighted or wrong, but don't pretend that the game would have been radically different if he didn't fumble.
He lost that game and took off the efforts of the team showing off. He should be penalized by the fans for ruining a great win for us. Screw'em
-
Many have said it but personally I'm glad as hell we have both. I kind of look at Lynch and Jackson this way.
1) When there is no hole to run through or the defense blows through the offensive line I DEFINITELY want Lynch. It's not even close. I'm not 100% certain but it seems that we get more 8 in the box with Lynch. I have heard several people say that Lynch doesn't hit the holes hard. On MANY of the plays I have seen in the past THERE WAS NO HOLE TO HIT. Perhaps the real issue is that opposing defenses don't stack the line of scrimmage against Jackson like they do with Lynch. The real issue could be that Jackson actually has more holes to run through.
I disagree. I'd have Jackson. Jackson will shoot for a small gain while Lynch will get stopped for a loss or no gain. Jackson will sneak for 1-3 yards while Lynch is thinking TD.
2) If there is proper blocking and a hole opened up Jackson might have a SLIGHT edge on Lynch. Jackson's speed makes him more of a home run threat. If the play develops such that a RB with speed can take it to the house, Jackson is likely that guy. If it's not a potential home run play, Lynch will ALWAYS get you those 1 - 5 extra yards at the end by shear force of will alone. Jackson runs pretty hard but Lynch is...well...a "beast"Funny, I think Lynch may be better with better blocking than Jackson and I think Jackson is a better RB. Lynch reacts better to space forward while he reacts retarded behind the LOS when he takes those long side-steps that work in college but not the pros. Lynch with momentum forward is a load to take down while Jackson is just elusive and has better vision.
Something that nobody mentions is that Freddie is a actually a 28 yr old more mature man who has been playing professional football for his 6th season now. 3 in the NFL. Lynch is a 23 yr old kid who came out of college early who has yet to play his first game of his 3rd season.Now is the key word. RBs are good for about 4 years, sometime 6. Jackson could conceivably play 3 great years and Lynch could be washed up. Time is short for a RB.
Jackson has better vision, elusiveness, follows blocks better, pass protection, better receiver and more of a worry to D-coordinators.
Lynch is better as a load to take down once he has forward momentum.
Jackson is will have less negative to zero yardage plays than Lynch and is more versatile. My only question in this equation is can Jackson take a 16 games of beatings? Lynch has proven he can't yet, can Jackson?
-
The best way to view the question is who would you rather have for one game if you could choose only one? For me that's Jackson hands down. He's more versatile and a great guy to move the chains and works for 1st downs. That's why I'm pro-Jackson over Lynch. Lynch goes for 12 yards and many times gets negative or zero yards on a carry while Jackson is happy with 4 or 5. Jackson is also better out of the backfield in catching and blocking.
More versatile, more options, better guy for winning games. I do see the appeal of Lynch with power and toughness, but I fail to see him as a better player. Also, if Dean says Lynch is better that's proof that Jackson is superior.
-
Just what makes these things so obvious? One game? If one game made a career Timmy Smith would be in the Hall of Fame and be regarded up there with Walter Payton and Jim Brown.
This is the typical defense of Lynch. You keep pretending it was one game. Who has had the higher YPCatch and Carry? Who went into the Redskins game the first time as a starter and played so well? You see if it was one game you could be right. In fact the argument reduced to one game is so stupid I can't qualify it.
We've all watch Jackson for 3 seasons and all of us with eyes saw him following blockers better, dance less and go forward more. Lynch is a power runner with more stops for a loss or at the LOS than any Bills RB I've ever seen as a starter because he dances when he should go forward. He wants to be a home-run RB without the speed or vision to do so.
When Jackson is in the game and he runs out for a screen I feel Thurman-esque moments come back to me. When Lynch goes out wide for a screen I never feel that at all.
I've watched both of these guys for the last 3 years and I can't see the argument for Lynch other than power, but even then I'm not impressed as he dances and then tries to brute forward for a positive vs. a negative yardage play. Whenever Jackson has a negative play the only reason is because someone got into the backfield, and with Lynch he dances so damn much the D goes into the backfield.
I'll take Jackson.
-
There is no doubt Trent would have taken a few more sacks. He also may have completed a couple passes for TD's..........WINNING the game.
You and Alpha would have some credibility if it wasn't for your anti-Trent crusades while pimping Losman. I think Trent good for the circumstances, certainly not great.
If he can't step up in the pocket and throw there would be no TDs. If he can get some time and doesn't go deep go for the jugular, I'll be with you, but as of right now you are a blow-hard with an agenda.
-
He could go deep more with more time. IMO Trent's head was thinking 2-3 seconds max and while he played well within the scheme of "what they gave us" we didn't give the QB more time.
I can't think of one play where he had one Brady like pocket of 4 seconds and the pocket wasn't collapsing.
-
If anyone watched the game the pocket was collapsing the majority of the time. People wanted Trent to wait in the pocket one second longer and fling it... I didn't see that second people were talking about. I saw sacks, constant pressure, and I didn't see that great line on pass protection.
I do agree that did well for run blocking and screens and that was refreshing.
If the O-line can improve in pass protection I can see Trent going deep. I can't see him doing that without getting drilled. I can't see us really getting enough time that Brady has to get passes off to the WRs unless things change.
Honestly, I can't see the same game where people believed the pass protection was any good. I really believe the screens and dumps were a product of bad protection and AVP knowing we couldn't block a decent D-line. I do see the hope and potential, but I don't see how Trent could have went deep without more sacks.
-
WWJD
He would send you to hell in a heartbeat when you die for defending immorality in the name of compassion and tolerance. Oh and don't worry, you won't perish where the "worm dieth not and the flame never extinguisheth".
WWJD... maybe you don't know this, but Jesus wasn't very tolerant of bad ideas.
-
If liberals won't add tort reform they are liars if they want to reform anything.
Also the moronic liberals don't look at health care which doesn't have the gov't involved and looked at prices. Shall we?
Dental implants: down in cost
Liposuction: down in cost
Lasik: down in cost
Am I sensing a pattern? When the gov't is not involved the prices go down. Now add in tort reform and voila.
And if you are really concerned about the poor I have another suggestion... ask the F'ing Ds to restore the tax breaks and tax code that allowed charities to function and doctors to work for charity and write it off. People weren't dying in the streets before welfare in this country.
If you are really concerned about the 47 million uninsured donate your whole paycheck and leave mine alone. If I give to charity I don't want it at the point of imprisonment.
Lastly, this is why I hate liberals, they talk about the moral imperative to have health insurance but they will kill their own children in the womb saying you can't legislate morality. Go F off!
-
You forgot Emmitt Smith, Jerry Rice, Ray Lewis, Michael Strahan, Champ Bailey, Deion Sanders, Ed Reed, Troy Polamalu, Walter Jones, Jeff Saturday, Demarcus Ware, Larry Fitzgerald, Kurt Warner, and Drew Brees. That's all I can think of at the moment and I'm sure I left a couple off the list.
You left off Donte Whitner. Just ask him.
-
I was never impressed with Orakpo the player. I think Everette Brown and Maybin are interchangable this year as far as talent, with more polish on Brown, but more upside with Maybin.
Still don't like the Maybin pick. Would have went Oher, I like the Wood pick, and snagged Brown in the 2nd.
-
Is anyone comparing Donte to Ed Reed, other than you? He doesn't have to be a pro bowler to be a good player, and if he can play FS and SS, and Scott can only play SS, then it makes sense to move him.
Do you know what reading in context is? When did I compare Reed to Whitner? I compared team philosophy to show how preposterous the idea is. A great player in one position is not moved to make room for another player in their current position.
"Peyton, you've been really good at QB, but we know you can punt well and that Sorgi guy does pretty well for a back-up, so do you mind if you punt for us?"
"Hey Fitzgerald, we have Breaston whose looking better and better. Do you mind playing tight end this year?"
Is that better for you? A good player is never moved to a new position unless it's an upgrade, like moving an OL to tackle, or a special teams player starting. Going from a natural position to a new position proves he sucks ass.
-
I willing to bet that a lot of these posters that just knew passing on Ngata was such a big mistake were also screaming to trade up for the can't miss Robert Gallery, or Vernon Gholston.
Obviously it's a little different because we had an opportunity at our spot, to get Ngata, and we passed. It's just too convenient to say I liked this guy, he's now great, and we picked someone who is not as good. I'm sure there are guys that we all have loved, that have turned out to be complete busts, but no one mentions those.
We could have done much worse than Donte Whitner.
If that's your defense, you don't have a defense. I don't remember anyone clamoring we move up in droves, just a few idiots. I do remember most of Bill-dom wanting Ngata this year, and Orakpo, Oher or Ayers this year.
Do you think that the majority of this board has been more right than the front office on our 1st rounders? I say yes. Pay attention, I said the majority, not a few big-mouths.
-
Poor Alpha, I guess the Lee Evans thread really bothers you.
Really Edwards has no excuses this year unless the O-line just plays miserably and gets David Carred and Feathered. We will see if he goes to the end-zone with T.O. If not he has no excuses. I just lack faith in Evans myself as a go-to #1.
All reports in camp is saying T.O is already the #1. Can you guess why? Now we will see if Edwards can play with some balls and if not the season will be a disaster, but this is merely a bigger problem waiting to erupt, namely if Edwards plays great and then T.O leaves what do you do? Whereas if Edwards plays poorly he becomes a career back-up.
-
Cutting this guy is the absolute last thing this front office should do. If he goes, the safety position suddenly becomes one of "need." Which means that the front office would throw a top-10 pick at it, even if the pick is a reach, and even if it means denying the lines of the talent they absolutely must have.
I said "if" they had a valid replacement. But you are right, they would find a way to throw away another pick for safety.
Oh, and this applies to everyone who says you can't compare Ngata to Whitner, get real. He would have been ours and used to blow up offensive lines. Instead we get a guy who lacks playing speed and can't play the ball in coverage. The guy is above average in tackling RBs, and below average in coverage unless you count playing off the ball by 5 yards and tackling a valid way of playing the secondary every time.
-
Since only white people can be racists, let's forget that MSNBC just 2 weeks ago said that the word "socialism" is a code word for n*gger.
Yeah, the outcry was huge over that, and the media coverage was extensive.
Blacks can call us racist, but don't ever call a black man racist, then people care. If anything I hope this makes people realize that it's about time we shouldn't care about labels and fight back.
-
Yup, versatility is such a bad thing to have. Who would ever want a player that can play both safety positions and CB?
And the switch to FS had less to do with donte and a whole lot more to do with who is starting alongside him. Whitner/Scott is a much stronger Safety combo than Whitner/Simpson or Whitner/Wilson.
Sorry, are you saying that if the Ravens had a really good back-up at FS and lack a decent SS that Ed Reed would move to the SS spot for a better tandem?
You know... the excuse factory for this guy is really amazing. I'm still giving him a year, but I think he should have been cut this year if we had a valid FS.
-
Trent throws deep, gets an INT, and we are calling for more deep balls?
I guess we only have one possibility if Trent is sufficient, namely TO. If he can't get the ball to TO we will know about it and the Edwards experiment will be over. Evans is not enough to test him the way Evans currently plays.
-
I said wait till after the season. I know what he can do at SS. Not many plays on the ball, but a solid tackler. I'm hoping the move to FS opens up things for him a little more as he will have more freedon in the defensive backfield to roam and actually make some plays. I always said he reminded me of a young Brian Dawkins so now he's playing the position that could prove me right or make me feel like a donkey for even mentioning him in the same breath. I hope it's not the latter of the two
What you said.
-
I do appreciate your nicer tone as well. Now we can talk. As I said I guess we have a different definition of a #1 WR. You seem to judge them by the routes they run. I tend to judge them by the threat they present, if they get double teamed constantly and the most important thing their actual production.
Laverneous Coles is a great example. His average production over the last 3 years is 865yds and 6 tds. You call him a #1. By my standards this also makes Lee a #1 because Lee has averaged 1052yds and 5tds the last 3 years with no #2 and dunderhead or rookie QBs. He has actually out produced your #1 WR Laverneous. Steve Smith is a freak and is not just a #1 he is an ELITE WR. Not to mention he has a QB that has the arm to make use of his field stretching speed. Without the threat of the deep ball because of his QB Steve Smith would be covered up like a blanker inside 25yds from scrimmage like they do Lee.
I don't know about you but I care about yds and TDs not which route tree they are running. I don't recall them handing out first downs and points for running across the middle.
Of course in a way this has gotten tremendously off topic in that the question was why Trent looks lost and if it is Lee Evans fault not whether Lee is a #1 or not. I said it before. Trent looked lost because he is lost. You didn't have to stay at a Holiday Inn to know that he still doesn't know how to read and play against 3 - 4 defenses. He can call the plays at the line if he doesn't like what he sees. Problem is I don't think he knows what he sees.
I want you to understand something first of all, I think Evans has just as much talent as Reggie Wayne, but the problem is he doesn't want to be used in the same way as Wayne. I think he is more talented than Laveranues Coles as I used in an example, my problem isn't that he's not the same caliber, it's how he is used and how he is willing to be an asset to the team.
Let's go back to Coles in his first 5 seasons to Lee's. Coles started slow in his first 2 years, in years 3-5 he averaged around 85 receptions a season and 1138 yards a season. Evans did better in his first 2 years, but in the years 3-5 he averaged 66 receptions and 1052 yards a season.
My issue is with his production in receptions and his games as he had 4 games with only 2 receptions, 5 games with 4 receptions, and 1 game with 3 receptions. To me that's not a go to #1 receiver. To me a #1 is the guy who can bail a QB out with either quickness or strength or both.
Right now I'd take how Wes Welker playing over Lee Evans. That bastard must be accounted for EVERY game he plays. Lee can be taken out if the D prepares for him, and they cannot prepare for Welker because he's the midget who plays with heart and toughness and makes the D want to die every time Brady has more than 4 seconds because he's ALWAYS open underneath. Don't you think Evans could do even better than Welker? I think so and know so because he has better hands and is faster.
My overall point is that a true #1 must be reckoned with and is a true bailout for the QB. Smith just finds ways to get open, Fitzgerald you just need to throw up the ball and see him come down with it, Andre Smith is just huge and physical, and the list goes on. Evans is a glorified #2 playing #1 position.
The only way Lee looks better is with a #1 receiver. He doesn't demand more attention. He can be single covered effectively as Hall did to him on the Raiders game this year and sure 4 rec for 65 yards is good for a good #2, but not a true #1.
A real #1 is accountable on every play. Evans is so one dimensional he only plays 1/3 of the field. Ask yourself if it's a lot easier to game plan for 1/3 of the field of 100% of the field? That's why I think he lacks what it takes to do it, not his talent. The man is EXTREMELY talented, but he will never do it unless he's willing to play hard-nosed football.
I'll tell you the true comparison: Chad Johnson. They are almost the same weight and Johnson is 2 inches taller. I'd say Evans is (gulp) more talented than Chad Johnson, but Johnson is a true #1 and Evans is not. Go watch them play. Johnson needs to be reckoned with every play because he can be anywhere. The reality is Evans could have Johnson like #s and be a bigger asset to the team if he was willing to do more for the team.
Remember when Johnson was laid out by our Bills? Where was he? The middle of the field.
-
Donte "I just can't play in pass coverage" Whitner is going to tell us about ready? INTs and PDs do mean something, it means you play the ball rather than playing off the ball going for a tackle.
Just ask Ed "9 INTs" Reed and the Ravens that INTs mean little. They change the entire dimension and rhythm of a game and changes the momentum big time.
Makes me happy we got McKelvin if he improves because he's a ball hawk, so is Byrd if he sees the field.
Oh, and we should have traded or cut this bum Whitner at the end of last year. He brings nothing to the team except his mouth. I would have gotten rid of him for a 3rd rounder. The question is if someone misses the game does the team look different or play worse? Never felt that way with Whitner ever.
-
Lee Evans is a 4.37 5'10" 198 lb WR. What do you expect of him? To be the big body presence in the middle of the field running routes over the middle getting drilled by safeties, linebackers and DBs? Generally you have small guys that are fast and go deep and big guys that are slow and work the middle and edges. It's rare to find guys that are both.
I think because Lee is not both you are saying he is one dimensional. I'll take Lee Evans one dimensional 1292 yds and 8 TDs like when JP was throwing him the ball any year. Imagine if JP actually knew how to run an NFL offense? We're talking elite.
Steve Smith, Laveneus Coles, and other small receivers go over the middle of the field that are #1s. All I'm saying is that thin guys do go over the middle all the time and are #1s and under 200 lbs: Marvin Harrison, Chad Johnson, Reggie Wayne, etc..
But I appreciate the nicer tone, now we can have a conversation. Imagine if I said "You are an Evans lover and will do anything to defend Evans!"
But let's continue, let's say you don't go over the middle. You are effectively making the CB's job a breeze where he only has to move in 2 directions rather than 3. You can also exploit softness in the middle of the field. If you want to see 2 masters of this watch Wes Welker and Steve Smith. I know Evans is better than Welker, but even though Welker is smaller he's got balls, so does Smith. That's why they can use their speed to be WIDE open by using the whole field.
This makes me believe 1 of 2 things: Either he doesn't have the balls to be a football player, or the coaches are afraid he'll get hurt. I've never seen a coach in my life who plays so the players don't get hurt. I've seen Evans short-arm many passes he heard the footsteps on.
My point is a true #1 opens up things for other receivers, he doesn't do that, and a true #1 can take over a game, and not every game, but 2 or 4 games a season.
Sure he's a great deep ball WR, but so is Devery Henderson, but I wouldn't consider him or Henderson a #1, although Evans has much better hands than Henderson.
-
Why let actual factual statistics get in the way of making a point and creating another excuse for Trent. It was the LATE 80's and 90's not the 1950's. They still threw the ball and Buffalo threw it more than most!
For a reference point on some WRs that are NOT Hall of Fame worthy look at Derrick Mason and Donald Driver, both have 50% or more 1,000 yard seasons in less seasons than Reed.
People's points are not that we are defending Trent, it's that Evans is too one-dimensional. He was the same way with JP so I don't know what that has to do with Trent.
I want to see Evans go over the middle and catch the ball. You can't expect me to believe it's just a coincidence. I've seen him stop his route up the middle, and one time with JP against the Rams 4 years ago he stopped his slant route and it was an INT and the DB was wide open because Evans stopped.
Evans doesn't attack the ball but rarely. He's not a #1.
-
Why let actual factual statistics get in the way of making a point and creating another excuse for Trent. It was the LATE 80's and 90's not the 1950's. They still threw the ball and Buffalo threw it more than most!
And I mentioned Trent where genius? Also, you never refuted my point, you just threw out the 50's as a lame azz excuse. Facts are guys like Art Monk and Andre Reed would not be Pro Bowlers based on #s in today's game, in the same way that 1,000 yards for a RB is pretty common even for crappy ones.
But let's pretend it's the 50's football right when you can look at factual stats and be proven wrong again and again and again.
$10 mil/yr decoy??
in The Stadium Wall Archives
Posted
Well they eat up salary space and fans, like myself, wonder what other talent we could have other than the money he got. He realistically is worth about $4 mil a year and I said so before he signed that extension and justified his bloated contract.
I would rather have paid him $4 mil or let him walk and pay for a guy like Boldin in a trade when he wanted out or a great TE as this offense is geared for a great TE rather than a decent #2 like Evans.
He should have caught that TD pass he missed today. Good receivers get that pass, great ones just get it, and mediocre ones sometimes do and sometimes don't.