thebandit27
-
Posts
21,985 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Gallery
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by thebandit27
-
-
He does have 2 TD's this year, but they were both throws that the QB basically threw it right to Greer, not on a play that Greer actually made to intercept a well thrown pass.
You kind of have to be in position to intercept a football. Then, of course, you have to catch it. And, to score a touchdown, you have to beat the remainder of the players on the field to the end zone. It's not exactly as though he did it by accident.
This team sorely lacks defensive playmakers. To get rid, or even limit the playing time, of a guy that's accounted for two of the team's three defensive touchdowns seems kind of nuts to me. A good coach should be able to find a way to get all 3 of them on the field at the same time (i.e. McGee at FS).
-
They are both pretty good and it would pay to keep Greer and try to hold on to Mcgee after next year too, Simpson really sucked out there today. I wouldn't mind TMc over there, the speed he showed on that run from behind tackle was pretty sick. We do have Francise tags and these guys are good reason to used it. I also think Youbooty if he comes back in decent shape and shows what he was showing earlier in the year could help make the DS the best in the leauge.
Per Adam Schefter of the NFL Network, the franchise tag value for a corner in next year's FA class is estimated to be over $13 million for one year. That's unbelievably impractical.
-
You missed the point where Mcgee is always covering the best WR on the field. When you face Moss, Edwards, Fitzgerald, etc.. they are going to make plays.
No, I condsidered whom they've each matched up against, and that's not correct. McGee does not always cover the best WR on the field. He covers whomever lines up across from them, since the Bills play a cover 2 zone defense.
The way the Bills typically play their defense, each corner plays on one side of the field. They don't typically go man-on-man to the point where one corner follows a receiver around the field. If McGee goes against the opposition's number one target, that means the opponent is doing it by design, and most likely doing it for a reason.
-
WTF?
Greer is not better the Mcgee. Mcgee is one of the best CB's in the league. There is a reason why he is put on every elite WR when we play them. He shut down Moss, Braylon Edwards, etc...
You guys are nuts. Let Greer walk since Mcgee already has a contract and give Leodis Greer's spot.
McGee gets beaten consistently, Greer does not. Teams barely even throw at Greer. When you talk about a corner, that's a good thing. Think about how often you see Terrence McGee give up 10, 15, 20 yard completions in front of his coverage (cite the following opponents: Arizona, Miami, the Jets, NE, Cleveland). You almost never see Greer give up those kinds of plays. In addition, I cannot condone the benching of a player that has twice this season provided a defensive touchdown when the Bills were down in the fourth quarter.
In my opinion, the Bills' best defensive backfield would feature Greer and McKelvin at corner. McGee has always, in my opinion, had a skill set that greater lent itself to Free Safety. In fact, he played there for 1 season at NW State. He takes very good deep angles to the ball and is a strong tackler. He would make a very formidable safety cohort for Whitner.
But I digress, if you're calling for a starting corner to come off the field, Greer's the wrong one.
-
Check the game log..... They held the ball, moved it up and down the field and frankly were weak in converting. However on the road in a tough stadium where they have not won since 2002, they controlled the game and scored 26 points.... They had poor field position. Score looked close as Seattle had 2 scoring drives under 15 yards.
How about the Bills scoring on the road, controlled short passes like many teams can do? How about the threat of a long pass?
I have to say, that's some pretty good analysis. I also liked that they jumped out to a 26-7 lead on the road. Pretty important if you want to win a road division game.
-
So you consider the Cardinals to be dominating? When you throw for 250 yards in a half and only score 13 points at the time that's my point. If a team was balanced and the QB threw 250 yards it would be more like 25 points. That's domination in a half, not 13 points.
Actually your point was that the Pats running game was "awful" and yet dominated. After I exposed that fallacy you are twisting the argument on my proofs. Why don't you admit that Pats running game wasn't awful. You are trying to twist the argument and then claim my proofs are off-topic is a bit silly. I responded to your point, so if I can't stick to one point, let's stick there then ok? I also never implied anything from your post, but simply gave my own reasoning what is needed for any type of success.
I never said the Bills need to have a dominant running attack, but at the very least they should average 100 yards a game rushing and take more pressure off of the QB.
Going back to your point: is over 1800 yards and 17 TDs awful? If not why do you cite that as a source to discredit me? What do you consider an awful running game if that's awful? Would 1800 yards+ rushing with 17 TDs be a boost to this team in a major way? I'm dying to know so I can stay on track.
Edit: after reviewing the ridiculous logic some of you think I'm asking for a dominant running game that is fantastic and blows everyone up. All I'm asking for is the same awful running game of the Patriots* 2007, or the terrible 1762 rushing yards of the 2006 Colts. Thanks for making my points.
Listen, you can dress it up all you want, but what you said was that a QB cannot dominate without a running game. That is a direct quote. To say that Warner's 22 of 27, 251-yard first half, in which he lead the Cardinals to scores on 3 of their first 4 possessions is not a QB dominating the game is absolutely confounding. Unless you have a different definition of QB dominance, in which case you should brush up on your symantics (try Merriam-Webser online, great resource as you'll see later). And, by the way, it is hilarious that you are trying to pigeon hole my point down to "the 2007 Patriots didn't have a running game". That is NOT the point. Once again, I implore you to read. The point is that you do NOT need a great running game for a QB to be dominant. That is what I stated in my original post, and it was very clear.
I find it laughable that you think "at the very least", the Bills should average over 100 yds/game, exactly 10 yards/game more than they currently average. Clearly, no thought or reasoning went into that statement. You definitely shot from the hip there, and--since we're nitpicking stats here--you'll be marked-down Ed Hochuli style for it. Yes, those extra 10 yards per game would really make the difference. I know that after watching the last three games, my first thought was "Boy, if we could've only gotten ten more yards rushing during that 60-minute game, I really feel like that would have boosted the team to victory". Very astute observation.
As to rushing touchdowns, well, simply put, the Bills are right smack in the middle of the pack with 8.
Now, for a little house cleaning. I also did not say that the 2006 Colts had a terrible running game, I merely stated that it was the 19th ranked running game in the NFL. I also noticed that you completely ignored the two Superbowl winning teams that did, in fact, have lousy running games (that one you can accurately quote me on). Interesting. Regardless, I have no further point to make, other than that a QB can indeed, by the commonly-accepted literal definition of the word (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/dominate), "dominate" without a solid, good, or even average running game, as Kurt Warner, a 2008-09 NFL MVP candidate, is currently doing by leading the NFL in QB Rating, completion percentage, 1st down conversion percentage, and ranking secong in touchdowns, yards, and average yards per attempt, and leading his team to the playoffs, where they can contend for a Superbowl title.
Your honor, the defense rests, a.k.a. I can assure you there will be nothing further from me on this topic, the horse is dead, to beat it further would represent something beyond animal cruelty, and my last name isn't Vick. Come to think of it, my first name isn't Michael, either.
-
Awful as in 10 games with over 100 yards rushing awful? 1849 yards rushing with 17 TDs is awful? Averaging over 100 yards a game with over 1 TD a game is not awful.
Brady did dominate and had 2 of the best WRs in their positions with Moss out wide, and the best 3 WR in Welker. Brady isn't too bad himself. If we have the best outside WR and the best #3 receiver in the game you might have a point. You might also need some refs who don't call holding either as the Patriots routinely did without penalties. Tell me how the Pats* did in the Superbowl without a running game. Tell me how Kelly did without using Thurman in the SB against the Giants.
The 07 Pats* is not a team you say, "Oh yeah, all we need now is Randy, Wes, and Brady and we're set." Their defense was pretty good last year too. RESULTS dictate you need more than a passing game to win in this league, and the odds of getting Trent to become Brady or Warner, Evans to become Moss, and Parrish or Reed to become Welker is not going to happen.
Wow. Where to start? No. 1, stick to one point, and argue it. What are you saying? You started with "A QB can't dominate without a running game", which is false since Warner is doing it right now. To counter that, you said that you need more than a passing game, which really just piggy-backing off of the point that I made (see "first downs and forcing turnovers"). Then you imply that I said Trent needs to become Brady or Warner, etc. etc. I never said anything close to that. Actually, what I said was that the crux of your argument implied that those developments were all that would be required to circumvent the need for a running game (give my post another read, it should be very clear; I don't like to brag, but I am a reasonably-well-skilled writer). Furthermore, to back up your point, you attempt to fall back on the Superbowl losses of the Patriots and Bills. Superbowl? How about if we let the Bills reach the playoffs (which, as you would admit if it didn't hurt your argument, can be done without a great running game) before we start worrying about the Superbowl.
But, since you want to limit the argument to Superbowl participants, let's bo back a ways and look at it. I'll make my point with Superbowl Winners:
2006 Colts: Running game ranked 19th in NFL
2003 Patriots: 27th
2002 Buccaneers: 27th
Great running games? Good running games? Nope. Still looks to me like you can win without a great running game. And don't try to sell me any "yeah buts". Your attempt to escape a failed argument is debunked, so what's next? Forgive me if I don't respond immediately this time...gotta pay the bills somehow.
-
With 10 seconds remaining before the half Warner has throw for 251 yards, 84.7% completion percentage, and the score is only 13-7 with the Cards only getting 3 FGs for all the running up the field. No consistency at all.
D's are falling back into coverage with the Cards and they still can't run the ball. Sound similar? Trent isn't Warner, but Trent is good. For a 2nd year guy I'm shocked we are 5-4. The Cards are a spitting image of our team with better WRs and a better QB.
The title of your thread and thesis behind it are just plain wrong. Tom Brady dominated last year and the Patriots had an awful running game, so don't say it can't be done. It can. You just need a really good quarterback. If the Cardinals are the "spitting image of our team with better WRs and a better QB", and they're 7-3, and definitely going to the playoffs, then it would appear you can indeed win without a running game. According to you, the Bills just need better WRs and a better QB, right? Arizona is 29th in the league in rushing, but they average 300+ yds passing per game. I would call that consistency, wouldn't you? Just because it doesn't lend any credence to your agenda of blasting the Bills' running game, that doesn't mean it isn't a perfectly good model for success. Arizona wins games because they get first downs and force turnovers (lead the league with 22). That keeps the clock moving and the ball in your possession. Doesn't matter how you do it, it's the RESULT that counts.
-
I don't love or hate Lynch, in fact I could care less who the running back is. So allow me to make a few points from an objective perspective:
1.) To say you need a great running game to win is incorrect. The Patriots went 16-0 last year without a running game. The Colts are dead last in the NFL in rushing yards per game, and they've clearly turned the corner on their season. Arizona ranks 29th in the NFL in rush yds/game, and they're definitely going to the playoffs. Even the vaunted Pittsburgh Steelers, the icons of smashmouth football, are ranked in the bottom third in the league.
2.) Practically every yard either Lynch or Jackson gain in the running game comes after contact. I don't care how good you are, it's awfully difficult to run for too many yards when you're hit the backfield on every play (it really is every play, too).
3.) Examine the top running teams in the league (top 10 in order): Giants, Falcons, Ravens, Redskins, Vikings, Titans, Patriots, Raiders, Jets, Panthers. You'll find a commonality among them. Nine out of ten operate their running games with multiple competent backs (Redskins did not, and now Clinton Portis is pretty banged up). They all split carries without seeing much of a dropoff in production, which leads me to believe that the person carrying the ball hasn't much to do with the team's success on the ground. Otherwise, would a guy like Derrick Ward be on pace for a 1,000-yard season?
Let's face the facts here, the running game (or lack thereof) is just one component of why a team is or is not successful. The Bills didn't run well even when they were winning this season. There are many other factors that are equally (if not more) important, such as quarterback play and forcing turnovers. Grasping at straws like "It's the running back's fault" or "The quarterback suddenly sucks" ignores the concept of a team game. And there's no denying that football is a complete team game. Anyone that says differently should ask the Patriots.
-
Sorry for not clarifying what I meant. I didn't mean a 3-4 hybrid. Like a tweener olb type guy. I mean a guy who's either a 3-4 dend of maybe a 4-3 complimentary end/under tackle, because of his size. Orakpo would be a great fit. He has a perfect blend of power/speed to be a good one. I didnt mention him cause I figure he'll be gone as will george selvie, and michael johnson by the time we draft
ah, I see. In that case, I completely agree. Also, good analysis on Selvie and Johnson; great, great pass rushers.
-
Tyson jackson is a 3-4, maybe a complimentary 4-3 kind of end. We need pass rushers, not complimentary players. The thing I worry about with a compliment type d-end is exactly the problem we have now. We have no play making ends, in the event schobel goes down. I think Greg Hardy or Middleton would be a better fit. Personally I'd like to get suggs in free agency, cut our losses with denney and kelsay, and draft another dt a wlb a center and te.
Not to denigrate your opinion at all, but I'm not sure where that information is coming from. Tyson Jackson is NOT a 3-4 hybrid player. In fact, he splits his reps at LSU between DE and DT, since he weighs close to 290 lbs.
The best Buffalo could hope for is for Brian Orakpo from Texas to be on the board. He is a lighter, quicker 4-3 DE that gets sacks and is not a liability against the run. He also tends to excel against the toughest competition, as he's had great games against first-rate tackles like Phil Loadholdt and Russell Okung of Oklahoma, Michael Oher of Ole Miss, and Ciron Black of LSU.
-
You are a farce and calling Losman a steward of Buffalo is utterly stooopid.
He deserves all the criticism in the world.
He was taken out of the lineup for his refusal to manage the game in the manner the coaches wanted him to.
Afterwards he blamed it on previous offensive coordinators.
If that were the case the head coach would have had him back in there under the new coordinator.
But it isn't the case , Losman is on the bench because he was beat out of the job.
He needs to point the finger at himself.
When he got back in there on the Edwards injury he was the same old Losman constantly looking for the big play taking sacks and fumbling the ball.
He is a complete bust at this point and a waste of 3 draft picks.
You start by saying that it is utterly stoopid (by the way, very original) to call a guy that moved here from another city and started a foundation with his own money to revitalize downtown Buffalo a steward of the City? Do you think? At all? Ever?
Then you shift gears to say "He deserves all the criticism in the world" because he blamed his offensive coordinator. Did anyone complain when Jim Kelly had disagreements with his offensive coordinators? Nope. Know why? Because the team was winning. Period. You're deflecting your disappiontment in him as a player onto his personality, which is totally unfounded.
Now to address your opinions that you chose to state (inaccurately) as facts: He was taken out of the game due to injury, then he lost his job because the guy playing behind him is better. Not because he refused to "manage the game". That is completely incorrect. Completely. There's not a fact in the world to back that up. And, just for the record, when Losman got healthy, he DID go back in the game. Sure, he came in for an injured Edwards at the Jets, but he was named the starter (regardless of injury according to Dick Jauron) for the home game against Cincinatti, and proceeded to start at Miami and home against New England before yielding to Edwards, which had nothing to do with injury to either player according to the coaching staff.
I'm aware that he hasn't changed since last year. That was never a part of my original post, although I can see why you'd bring that up in order to avoid having to defend the reprehensible position of criticizing someone whose job you couldn't do yourself. Take a look in the mirror before you say that JP is deserving of "all the criticism in the world". How hard do YOU work on your craft? How much responsibility do YOU take? You don't have to answer to me, answer to yourself. Because if you are honest about it I'll bet you find that you are just as, if not more, deserving of criticism in your own right.
-
Do you normally struggle with reading comprehension?
I explained very very clearly what that tactic was and it wasn't used in any post of mine and never will be.
somehow I am not surprised to see you respond by questioning my reading comprehension. It appears that your response to anyone that disagrees with you is to question their intelligence, rather than your argument, which is both inaccurate, subjective, and short-sighted.
-
He deserves it.
How? How does he deserve it? Explain that. Now, I'm never going to stand here and say that JP is a good quarterback, but railing the dude is completely stoopid (I misspelled it on purpose, in case you were planning to lambaste me for it). He was drafted by Buffalo, he moved here, worked his tail off, tried to be a good quarterback and steward to the City, and it didn't work out.
I hope that someone that has absolutely no knowledge of the details regarding what you do for a living spends their free time telling everyone that you deserve to be bad mouthed repeatedly for trying to do your job. It might give you some perspective.
He deserves it, sheesh. If I used profanity I'd be doing it right now, and you would be the target.
I repeat, you are a joke.
-
If I want to insist on intelligent conversation, I'd have to remove you from the thread.
If I remember correctly, didn't you label this type of retort as "a rinky dink forum tactic" in another post?
What a joke.
-
It depends on how fast a fan can identify a player's skill level.
I recall this same type of denial in regard to Losman...we don't know yet ..he's in his 4th year but he's still a rookie...the offensive coordinator blows....etc etc....you know the type of stuff that was going on.
For me it's not difficult at all to judge a RB, all pro offensive line or not.
Easiest position on the field to judge.
If we had a Thurman Thomas or even a Joe Cribbs back there, they would still stand out as players.
Great RBs make Olines look good, Lynch doesn't have that type of ability.
Behind a great Oline Lynch would run for 1200-1400, so would plenty of other RBs, but he needs a GREAT line.
So because he only ran for 1,100+ yards last year, he is a bust? You are an overly-dramatic moron. Ask Charger fans if LaDanian Tomlinson is making their o-line look good, or Colts' fans if Joseph Addai is helping their anemic linemen. Boy that Jaguar tandem of running backs looks really good this year behind their line, don't they?
I can't believe I just wasted 90 seconds of my time on your idiotic, unfounded babble.
-
*Bills comment wasn't on the bust rate percentage.....it was on the concept that you don't see that high caliber LT develop in the NFL unless they have a top 8 pedigree(I change to top 8 since it fits better than top 10).*
It has only been in very recent years that the bust rate for highly drafted OTs has increased.......here is the list.....
Every OT drafted inside the Top 8...1993-2007(draft position first in brackets)......(probowl appearances in brackets after)
(8)Willie Roaf(11)
(2)Tony Boselli(5)
(4)Jonathan Ogden(11)
(1)Orlando Pace(7)
(6)Walter Jones(8)
(7)Kyle Turley(1)
(3)Chris Samuels(5)
(2)Leonard Davis(1)
(4)Mike Williams
(7)Bryant McKinnie
(8)Jordan Gross
(2)Robert Gallery
(4)D'Brickashaw Ferguson
(3)Joe Thomas(1)
(5)Levi Brown
I think perhaps you've misunderstood the benchmark that was being put forward.......that being GREAT LTs. In recent times there has been IMO only 5 great LTs(Jonathan Ogden, Orlando Pace, Tony Boselli, Walter Jones, Willie Roaf).....maybe 6 if you include Samuels as well. All 6 were drafted within the top 8.
The point being that if you want a superstar LT you (pretty much) need to draft an LT inside the top 8.
This does not correlate the same to any other position(that I can see.....and I've done a lot of looking).
Why do you want a superstar LT?
Because they help teams win games & go far in the playoffs.
Ignoring Boselli(shortened career).....and Samuels(I'm not convinced that he is in the same class)....
If you look at the 4 dominating LTs in recent times....
Jonathan Ogden
Orlando Pace
Walter Jones
Willie Roaf
.....2 have got SB rings.....1 helped get their team to a SB.....and 1 didn't get there.
That's a very solid result.
I believe that the fundamental difference in our evaluations is your definition of "great". How many tackles in the NFL today would you say are "great"? At one point, you could've said Walter Jones and Orlando Pace, but anyone that's watched them play this year knows that's not true anymore, so let's look at it objectively. How many LT's are "great"? Honestly, you're talking about (at best) the following players, in no particular order: Jason Peters, Joe Thomas (gets the benefit of the doubt since his QB is so bad this year), Michael Roos, Marcus McNeil, Jammal Brown, Chad Clifton, Tra Thomas, David Diehl, and Chris Samuels. I base these selections off of a combination of factors including sacks given up, team record, rushing touchdowns, and player/coach all-pro voting. Nine players appear on the "great" list, and of them, there are two, only two, that were top 8 picks. Of the rest, you have 3 first round picks (Brown, Clifton, and Thomas), 2 second round picks (Roos and McNeil), one fifth round pick (Diehl), and one undrafted free agent.
Regardless of whether or not you agree with my list of "great" tackles, examining the rest of the league will yield a similar result in terms of percentages. The fact remains that, you do not have to draft a tackle in the top 8 to get a "great" tackle. The best tandem of bookend tackles in the game right now is playing in Tennessee (Roos and David Stewart), and neither of them were first round picks. In fact, neither of them played at major college programs.
I staunchly stand by my statement that a great tackle can be found in any round of the draft, and there are plenty of teams out there proving it.
-
To Bill from NYC:
Bogus theory, huh? Let’s go back ten years and see…Ready? You pick the 1st round booms and busts…
1999: John Tait, Matt Stinchcomb, Luke Pettigout, L.J. Shelton, Aaron Gibson
I count 1 above-average tackle (Tait), 2 journeymen (Shelton and Pettigout), and 2 guys that never had a career.
2000: Chris Samuels, Stocker McDougle, Chris McIntosh
I see 1 stud (Samuels) and 2 unarguable busts
2001: Leonard Davis, Kenyatta Walker, Jeff Backus
I’ve got 1 average tackle (Backus), 1 non-factor at tackle that had to be moved to guard (Davis), and 1 bust (Walker)
2002: Mike Williams, Bryant McKinnie, Levi Jones, Marc Columbo
I label 1 above-average tackle (Jones), 2 average tackles (McKinnie and Columbo), and 1 bust (Williams)
2003: Jordan Gross, George Foster, Kwame Harris
My take? 1 above-average tackle (Gross) and 2 busts that lost their jobs within 2 years
2004: Robert Gallery, Vernon Carey
Here we go, 1 big bust (Gallery) and 1 average tackle (Carey)
2005: Jammal Brown and Alex Barron
This one’s easy, 1 stud (Brown) and 1 bust (Barron)
2006: D’Brickashaw Ferguson
An average lineman at best, watch him against a solid pass rusher and he gets beat more often than not.
I’ll stop here, since evaluating anyone from last year or this year’s draft proves futile. That makes 23 picks, and 6 great offensive tackles. It would appear then, based on this information, that for every solid tackle drafted in the first round, there are 3 lackluster players selected.
As far as “virtually every great” LT being a top 10 pick, let’s take a look. Current LTs that were first rounders include: Jake Long, D’Brickashaw Ferguson, Marvel Smith, Joe Thomas, Levi Jones, Duane Brown, Branden Albert, Ryan Clady, Orlando Pace, Walter Jones, Joe Staley, Jordan Gross, Jammal Brown, Sam Baker, Bryant McKinnie, Jeff Backus, John Tait, Flozell Adams, Tra Thomas, and Chris Samuels. That makes 20 of 32 (62.5 percent), which can hardly be considered “virtually every”. Among them, I count 7 former Pro-Bowlers (L. Jones, Pace, W. Jones, Brown, Adams, Thomas, and Samuels). The non-first-rounders? Jason Peters, Matt Light, Jared Gaither, Michael Roos, Tony Ugoh, Khalif Barnes, Paul McQuistan, Marcus McNeil, Mike Gandy, Chad Clifton, Donald Penn, and David Diehl. Among these 12, you have 4 former Pro-Bowlers (Peters, Light, Clifton, and Diehl). Looks like it’s roughly 1/3 from each group. Suffice it to say, there is far more evidence to support that great LTs come from all rounds of the draft than the contrary.
What say you?
While you were sleeping
in The Stadium Wall Archives
Posted
You do realize that the majority of Toyota vehicles are manufactured in the United States, right?