st pete gogolak
-
Posts
774 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Gallery
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by st pete gogolak
-
-
How can you possibly say it is unrefutable that he is throwing the football when he is hit? It certainly appears that he's actually bringing the ball back into his body before he is hit. Again, that's beside the point, The call on the field was a fumble. There is no unrefutable evidence to overturn the call on the field. Case closed.
-
So, Cynical, let me put the question to you this way. The "official" NFL position (tuck has to be completed 100%) is clearly wrong according to the rules - only has to be "attempt". Ruling on the field was fumble and touchdown. Are you saying that there was unrefutable evidence in the replay that he was not attempting to tuck the ball when he was hit??? Under the rules there is absolutely no way the call should have been reversed. Conversely, if the ruling on the field was incomplete forward pass, I can buy it not being reversed on review.
-
First, I don't believe anyone is disputing the fact that Orton is an average starting NFL QB and that having Manning Brady or Rogers would make any OC look about 100 times better - BUT that doesn't give Hackett a free pass or mean that he has any business being employed as an NFL OC. He shouldn't be. Take yesterday's game. We did not run the ball on consecutive plays until mid-way through the third quarter! Granted, we didn't get much traction in the running game in the first half but in the second half it seemed we were moving the pile and picking up 3, 4 or 5 yards a pop. It was maddening to see Orton throw the ball constantly when faced with 2nd and 5 in the second half. My pet peeve for worst sequence. Third and three on Cleveland's 42. This should be four down territory. Run it and see if you pick up the first down. If not, still may be in position to go for it instead on fourth and short. Instead, Orton goes homerun ball to Goodwin with little chance for a completion. Boom goes the punt. Maybe that's on the HC but the formations and play calling all season have been laughably bad.
-
That's the official NFL position?!!!! That the ball has to be brought back 100% into the body for the tuck rule NOT to apply? So if you bring it back 75% or 90% but not 100% the tuck rule applies??? That's absolutely asinine. Why don't they just admit that they blew the call?
-
It's too bad that Chris Berman doesn't do the lame nicknames any more (or maybe it isn't so bad). This one is easy. The Marqueis "de Sade" Gray - the Inflictor of Pain!
-
Also, everyone who is critical of the trade is way overrating a draft pick between 15 and 20 (hopefully where Bills end up). It's a crapshoot whether you find an impact player at that point of the draft. It's not the end of the world.
-
Is the question, if you use perfect 20/20 hindsight, would Bills have been better off staying at 9 and selecting Beckham? After seeing Beckham play a couple of games, the answer is probably yes. If that's not the question, then the answer is no, it's not clear. I don't remember a single analyst having Beckham as a top 10 pick. If I recall correctly, most had him between 15 and 19. The consensus was that we were looking at Anthony Barr (gone before our pick), Taylor Lewan or Eric Ebron. Would I rather have Sammy in exchange for any of those three players plus next year's no. 1? Absolutely.
-
The Watkins trade wasn't "folly" (thanks for the insight Jerry) unless you apply total 20/20 hindsight. Yes, if you traded down and picked Odell Beckham exactly one spot before the Giants drafted him or picked Kevin Benjamin exactly one spot before the Panthers drafted him and used the extra pick on a quality guard, and picked a TE instead of Kujo, yes you could have done "better" than Watkins. But neither Beckham or Benjamin was considered Top Ten pick worthy. (No way is Mike Evans there at 9 - that's just fantasy.) I'll take Wakins over Ebron or Taylor Lewan plus the #15 or #16 pick in next year's draft every day of the week.
-
My favorite short QB was Doug Flutie. Old timers say Eddie LeBaron was pretty good too.
-
The Network quote is the winner. Great movie. Great rant. And it fits the situation on hand like a glove.
-
Yeah, that Vince Lombardi guy just never panned out as a HC. Too bad.
Sorry, prior post was supposed to be in response to poster who said offensive linemen never make good head coaches. It loses something if it's not in context.
-
As someone not enamored of the trade (understood the rationale but still didn't like it), I'm ready to declare the trade a win. The real danger in the trade was potentially giving up a top 5 or top 10 pick (irrespective if you're going to use that pick on a QB or another blue chip prospect). Absent a total and epic collapse, that ain't going to happen. So you've obtaining an absolute budding superstar in exchange for Anthony Barr/Eric Ebron and next year's #19 or #20 pick. Let's assume that pick is a Zach Martin type (which is assuming a lot). Would you trade Sammy Watkins for Eric Ebron and Zach Martin? Hell, yes. The trade's a win. You can declare it right now.
-
Is some of this on Marrone and the ridiculousness of Mike Williams being in Marrone's doghouse? When Woods was out of the game (most of the second half), I saw a ton of one wideout, two TE's and one fullback sets - geez, what is this? 1974? Not only that, you're going up against a good if not great Jet's front seven. Really -you'd rather have Lee Smith, Chris Gragg or Frank Summers in the game instead of Mike Williams? Really? Stupid, just stupid.
-
Two pressures up against Sheldon Richardson? I'd say that's pretty damn good. This is really an indictment of Marrone. Urbik should have been starting from game one - ahead of Chris Williams, Richardson and Pears. Now we need to get Pears out of the lineup. We got the bye week so it's our last chance to put together a decent O-Line. Cordy Glenn is our long term answer at LT, but he's also our best OL. Can you convince him to play LG for the remainder of the season for the good of the team? Can he? I'd give him an extension with LT money if it eases his pain. I'd move Henderson to LT where he looked very comfortable in preseason. So left to right it would be Henderson, Glenn, Wood, Urbik and Hairston. I still can't get over how decent Hairston looked as a rookie. He looked better than Pears ever did at RT, certainly as good as Henderson looked at RT.
If you don't want to move Glenn, can CK play guard at this point? Left to right Glenn, CK, Wood, Urbik and either Henderson or Hariston (not thrilled about two rookies in the O-Line). It was obvious Richardson had to be moved out of the starting lineup. I think it's equally obvious with Pears.
-
Cordy Glenn is our best O-Lineman and a potential All-Pro or Pro Bowler at LT. That being said, the guard situation appears to be desperate enough to call for desperate measures. Henderson looked very comfortable at LT during the preseason (granted it was preseason). How about a short-term fix of Henderson LT; Glenn LG; Wood C; Urbik RG and Chris Hairston RT. I still remember how good Hairston looked as a rookie and thought, man this might be our LT of the future.
It's obviously not an ideal situation but it has the advantage of getting Pears out of the lineup and reducing the number of rookies starting from 2 to 1 (as opposed to replacing Pears with CK and having three rookies OL starters). Again, desperate times call for desperate measures.
-
Dan LeBatard (who I think is pretty much a jerk) was discussing who is a better receiver - Jordy Nelson or Brian Hartline. Bottom line is that it's not as ridiculous a question as it appears because one has Aaron Rogers throwing to him and the other has Ryan Tannehill. Put the Bills' wideouts on Green Bay and they'd all be under discussion for All-Pro.
-
He is who we thought he was. . . and we let 'em off the hook!
-
When the trade was announced I posted that I understood the rationale for the trade but I was against it because it was there was simply too much risk involved in the trade. As far as why the trade was made, Whaley was intent on getting an impact player. That player wasn't going to be available at 9 (Taylor Lewan, Eric Ebron, Anthony Barr anyone?). (Please no "we should have traded down for Benjamin or Beckham" - too much hindsight in that). So in that sense I understood why the trade was made. Now that it looks like we will finish in the 7 - 9 win neighborhood (give or take a win), we will probably be the "winner" of the trade on a what we gave up versus what we got basis.
The remaining problem is that the trade was made on the hope that Manuel would be a legit #1 QB. That doesn't look like it's going to happen. So we're still left with huge hole at QB and no #1 pick to fix it.
Bottom-line. Did we "win" the trade? Very possibly. Would I want a do-over and keep next year's no. 1? Yeah, probably.
-
Zero. None. Nada. You've got a putrid offense and a defense that looks like it's going to be anywhere from ok to really, really good. I would think that any coach with half a brain would scrap the no huddle entirely other than 2 minute drill. They should look at film from the Jets from the early 90's when Boomer Esiason was their QB. The team wasn't very good but they were hugely aggravating to play. They would milk the clock from the first possession of the game. They always seemed to be in 3rd and 2 or 3rd and 3 (very few negative plays). If they picked up two first downs, six minutes would be off the clock. That's exactly what we should be doing.
-
Walt Patulski (#1 overall pick). Al Cowlings. Tom Cousineau.
Patulski started and played for a couple of years but being #1 overall he's in the running. Cowlings was terrible. Cousineau we turned into picks, one of which I think was used to select Jim Kelly. I'd also nominate Phil Dokes and a personal favorite is Fred Swenson. Same year we drafted Patulski we drafted Swenson (the other Norte Dame DE) with the first pick of the third round (which would be equivalvent to a mid 2nd rounder these days). He was CUT IN TRAINING CAMP, never played a single down in the NFL.
-
I will argue against all comers that Maybin - because of his draft position, utter lack of production while on the team and the players at his position that we passed over to draft him - was the single worst draft choice in the history of the Bills. If you look back at it, the 2009 draft was a very strange draft indeed. Many, many busts in the top ten (Jason Smith, Tyson Jackson, Aaron Curry, Sanchez, Heyward-Bey) and yet, when the Bills drafted 11 looking for defensive help on the front seven they passed over Orakpo, Brian Cushing and Clay Matthews! Incredible.
-
This isn't the first time anyone's mentioned this - and believe me I know there is ZERO PERCENT chance of it happening - but I would love to have the powers that be bring Chan back in a role similar to Dick LeBeau's role in 2004. Jerry Gray still held the title of defensive coordinator but LeBeau was some kind of "defensive consultant". I think our D was first or second ranked in the league that year (part of that was playing an uber-soft schedule but still). Keep Hackett as OC and bring in Chan as a offensive consultant. The worst aspect of Chan as OC was that he was also HC. There was no one to reign in his worst tendencies. He would be a perfect consultant to help run a spread offense and would also be a big help to EJ. Like I said, it won't happen, but it should.
-
Maybe they're shooting for the first pick in next years draft as well?
I like Fitz as a person but if he's your starting QB you're in trouble.
Absolutely! If you read any of the Sabres forums you recognize an honest to good tank job. It's kind of brilliant. Don't waste picks on QB's, finish last and draft Winston! You don't even have to worry about that pesky lottery issue.
-
It's silly to say there's no downside risk to the trade. Of course there is. Even if new ownership cleans house, I'm guessing Whaley and Marrone would still like jobs in the NFL. If Manuel gets hurt in preseason and the Bills bottom out, Whaley and Marrone are the guys who traded two-time Heisman trophy winner Jameis Winston, franchise savior, for a wideout. Probably won't look good on the resume.
Forward pass ruling
in The Stadium Wall Archives
Posted
Last post on this because it's clear that I won't change your mind and you won't change mine but you have to admit that it is far, far from obvious that he is following through on his throwing motion when he is initially hit by KW. It is just as plausible (in my mind much more likely) that he is trying to bring the ball back into his body to protect from a fumble. It's obviously a relatively close play. The key is how it's called on the field. It's not supposed to be a de novo review. It was ruled on the field as a fumble. If the ref was following normal protocol it should have been affirmed. For whatever reason, maybe he forgot the tuck rule had been changed, he blew the call.