Jump to content

Thurman#1

Community Member
  • Posts

    13,095
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Recent Profile Visitors

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

Thurman#1's Achievements

All Pro

All Pro (7/8)

3.6k

Reputation

  1. Well, depends if you want to maximize yourself. If you do, yeah, view all things the way I do. There is no alternative for people of true culture. But back to reality. If you judge things only partially that way, then the rest of your method may well be terrific. But it simply isn't fair to judge a pick by what you missed out on. Other than perhaps the very first few picks there's nearly always someone better picked later. Being a human endeavor, that's what you'd expect. Hindsight always makes things look much easier than they actually were.
  2. I'm not sure it's that clear. I'd agree they aren't giving him a big long-term deal, but they might work out something. I hope so.
  3. If you had originally put "Saquon" in the headline you'd probably have gotten a bit better response. We've got a guy named Barkley on our team and I'm sure many (me included) came here thinking you were talking about Matt and thus were irritated as they found you weren't. You might even still be able to change it for first-time visitors. Ligaments and tendons can absolutely be strengthened, grown, bullet-proofed and developed. Having said that, I hear you. RBs tend to wear down sooner than other positions. And CMC seems a good example, though I hope we get to see him healthy again. He was fun to watch.
  4. Wouldn't be surprised to see Ford go. The other two I would expect to be here. It's still early. Not for too much longer, though. If you judge things that way, most picks will look pretty bad. Few picks are so good that nobody better gets picked later.
  5. Bayless is indeed an idiot, but he's not so much doubting Allen as he is saying that Baker hasn't had enough of a chance for us to know what he is yet. Still a bit wacky.
  6. Players always say good things about new teams. But most of it is boiler-plate. The same stuff you hear every time. They value me as a player. Their best player is terrific, it's great to join him and the second-best player. Really looking forward to coming in and making a difference. I'm gonna give 110%. It's when they start getting very specific about the compliments that you know they are real. And players are very specific on Buffalo lately.
  7. So by dominant you mean statistically prolific in one year? Jerry Rice wouldn't be out of place on a list like that. Rice's 1990 and 1993. The guy who's often left out of these discussions is one of the ones who most belongs. Don Hutson. In 1936 he had 34 catches when the #2 was at 20. And 536 yards when the #2 was at 414, #3 at 358, the #4 at 325 and nobody else was above 268. Only four players got above HALF of is total that year, and that was Hutson's 2nd year in the league. Oh, and 8 TDs when the #2 was at 6 and the #3 only had 3 of them!!!! Or look at his 1939 work. 846 yards when the #2 only managed 550 and the #3 only 437. Or his 1941, [war years] when when he managed 738 yards while the 2nd best managed 362, less than half. 58 receptions when the next best managed 29, half. 10 TDs when the #2 managed 6 and the third-best only 4. Same kind of insane dominance for the next few years. One of the all-time most dominant seasons and maybe players as well.
  8. First, we don't have only one other star player on offense. Only one other top five at his position? OK, fair enough. But Knox is top ten, as is Dawkins. As was Beasley before he regressed, shown by his All-Pro year. And the evidence doesn't show that the offense is secondary to the defense in the draft. It could just as easily be that they're going BPA. Out of 18 players picked by this FO in the first three rounds, nine were on offense. And those numbers only look that even if you leave out the 1st rounder we traded for Diggs. Include it as you should, and this FO has used picks from the first three rounds to select 10 players on offense and 9 on defense. And yes, they traded for Diggs. They traded a draft pick. Not a player. Like it or not they acquired Diggs with a pick, not a player-for-player deal. And while there certainly are some afterthoughts on the OL, Dawkins and Morse are both quality player, and while Ford certainly hasn't been good, he wasn't an afterthought, he was a 2nd round pick. Nor is Saffold an afterthought. You're spinning like a dervish. Davis "couldn't even make the starting lineup last year," you say. More spin. He started several games, including the last three. They're far from the be-all and end-all, but PFF had Davis as one of their top 101 players last year. Not receivers, players. Specifically #93. They said, "Davis began the season buried on the Bills depth chart and was barely a factor for most of the year. But the more the team used him, the bigger an impact he made. His season culminated with an absolute destruction of the Kansas City secondary, where he caught eight of the 10 passes thrown his way for 201 yards and four touchdowns. He caught 11 touchdowns from only 74 targets, with passes thrown his way generating an absurd passer rating of 131.3." That is probably too high, but they're right that he's a good player, likely a good solid #2.
  9. Disagree. Knox is probably a top ten TE right now. And Davis near the end of the year was starting to look like a good #2. Top five? Nah, you're clearly right if that's what you meant by "top level."
  10. Oh, please. Where was the Stefon Diggs on that New England team? Even their TEs were crap. There is no comparison between the 2019 NE groups of receivers and pass catchers and this year's Bills group. Our skill position guys outside QB aren't top three. But they're well above middling.
  11. I think he really underestimated them. Took him till near the end to even mention Knox. I think he underestimates Knox and Davis. Yeah, Josh does make them look better. So do the other top ten QBs do the same to their offensive weapons. IMO we're going to see a major dip in production for the cheetah this year for example.
  12. The bumps up come mostly at the high end of the market. Market resets have less effect the farther down from the top few you go. It will certainly affect what Poyer's agents are asking. No question. Will it mean much of a jump for the aging Poyer? IMO it's not that clear. And if Poyer insists on a major jump, I'd guess that will really lower the likelihood he spends 2023 in Buffalo.
  13. Doubt it. I wouldn't put them higher than probably 4th. But who knows. Could be, I guess.
  14. Really? Oh, man! Horrible! I just don't follow MLB much over here and I'd totally missed this. Awful to watch.
  15. It absolutely was a mess, Bill, it just was. They were paying a .500 football team like it was in a championship window. That's a mess. Were they in cap jail? No. Were they absolutely forced to drop all those guys? No. Were they in bad cap shape for that roster? Yeah. You're dead right that they didn't see that squad as their guys, of course. And that they were not forced to take on all that dead cap. It was a tactical choice. Get rid of those guys and get an absolute ton of cap flexibility in 2020, or keep those cap hits spread out and have very limited cap flexibility for the next couple of years due to the poor contracts Whaley had signed for guys like Dareus, Charles Clay, Tyrod and McCoy. Not to mention guys who are out of the league like Cordy Glenn, Incognito (a damn good player when his head was on straight, but it wasn't). Eric Wood was a good player with damn bad luck, they had to take the pain there, but didn't have to make him a pre-June 1 designation. They wanted to take all the EWood pain early, to get the cap in much better shape by 2019.
×
×
  • Create New...