Jump to content

Thurman#1

Members
  • Content Count

    11,767
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

2,799 Excellent

About Thurman#1

  • Rank
    All Pro

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Allen made Diggs. Diggs certainly helped Allen out a ton, though.
  2. Agreed, it does matter. IMO most of the problem with the run game was in the line play, though. Beane has said the same thing. And I also thought they were effective last year. Far from great, but effective. 4.4 and 4.3 YPC are pretty damn solid, especially when their distance before contact was one of the lowest in the league. I think we're maybe getting pretty close here. See you around the boards.
  3. Yeah, the Bills let people do that, encourage it, I believe. Who knows about the Giants, though.
  4. You're missing the point. Two guys running for a total of 1500 is just as "dangerous" whether both run for 750 or one runs for 1000 and the other for 500. It doesn't matter. There's absolutely zero variation in "fear" depending on whether a guy reaches 1000 or not. Teams fear based on effectiveness, and you can be very effective with or without reaching some totally irrelevant milestone that will be based mostly on carries anyway. Yes, good running makes Allen's job easier. No, not having someone reach your irrelevant milestone doesn't mean the running isn't good.
  5. Not necessarily. A better player would improve the team. Running is only part of the job description. The Bills clearly put a very high value on pass blocking, and for obvious and good reason. And yeah, getting a better player at any position would be a good thing. But our RBs are already good, as with most positions on this team, basically. It's absolutely NOT a glaring need, as the thread headline says it is.
  6. Um, no, it was less meaningful back then because it was more common. Bell is not a good example. As Allen2Diggs says, Wyatt Teller is a far better example. I can't remember his name right now but another was a linebacker from maybe the '80s or '90s who didn't fit the scheme and had a long career elsewhere. They're few and far between, really.
  7. No. The problem was the size of that defense through the middle. They were terrific at rushing the QB, as they had to be to get out of a conference that featured Dan Marino. But we had three DLs, and they weighed 265, a 274 pound nose tackle, and Hansen at 278. That's tiny. And unfortunately we had the bad luck to face four NFC East opponents in a row in the SB. And that conference was built around power running behind big physical OLs. The Cowboys OL had three guys over 300 at the time. The Bills simply couldn't stand up to that level of power and strength.
  8. Disagree. Maybe the first. But in all four the major problem was simply that the D was built to stop the pass and we were unlucky enough to run into four opponents in a row with huge offensive lines and power run games. All four were awful matchups for us. Disagree. Know what happens with bad big game coaches? They don't make Super Bowls, much less four in a row. Marv was a damn good coach.
  9. Please. They didn't get dominated by Indy. They played pretty well, held them to 24 points, well below their scoring average, and won the game by stopping them on their last drive. The Colts got the ball left with 2:30 left needing only a field goal to tie, and the Bills D absolutely strangled them. They put up a big turnover on the INT against the Rams, and stopped them on a crucial 4th down in the 3rd quarter, and both of those led to Buffalo TDs. And against Tennessee, the offense's three turnovers was a huge part of that awful showing. They also did OK against the Chiefs the fi
  10. You're completely ignoring my point, most likely because it just makes sense. You say that the Pats did well, so it must be scheme. I say, yeah, they did pretty well, but that doesn't mean it's scheme, there are other things it could be. Then you say, no, they did quite well, so it must be scheme. Sorry, dude, ignore the argument or not, there are plenty of reasons besides scheme that some teams do well against certain others. Matchups being the very very common one, but there are plenty of others. There is no particular reason to think this is scheme beyond the fact th
  11. The whole "vaccinated people can spread it too," thing is a ridiculous argument. Yeah, they can spread it too, but unlike the unvaccinated, they have done the single best thing they can do to prevent themselves from spreading it. The unvaccinated have not. Yeah, the vaccinated can spread it, but they do so at much lower rates. They have done everything that can reasonably be done. So of course they can spread it without penalty, since they've done something making spreading it much more difficult. The unvaccinated have gone out of their way to avoid doing their best to prevent spr
  12. You say, "It's obviously scheme," but I don't think that's clear at all. There are many other things it could be. Just one obvious example is that it could be matchups. It could also be that - since KC beat them the last two years - that KC feels just fine with how they do against that D as long as the Pats offense isn't doing anything. And in 2018, a championship year for the Pats, the Chiefs scored 40 points and put up 446 yards of offense, though the Pats scored even more, winning 43 - 40.
  13. Please. Let the owners do the same? They already can, every year, and every day. It's called cutting a player and it's an option for them every day. I understand not wanting to hear this nonsense all the time, but the idea that the players are abusing those poor owners by asking for trades or holding out is just nonsense. But more, there's a way out of your situation and it's the easiest thing in the world. Just unplug. Don't read the sports pages, don't follow the sports news. Don't come here. Just watch the games. Easiest thing in the world.
×
×
  • Create New...