Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

215 Excellent

About thurst44

  • Rank

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. I'm roughly 5 miles away from where two other teams play, so, no. I did live in Buffalo for 8 years during college and beyond, before moving back to the NYC metro where I grew up.
  2. As other poster said, 19, and there was a consensus among experts (almost) that he would go 19th or higher. Of course, as I go to back up that boast the first mock draft I find had him dropping out of the first round (SB Nation). The rest I checked: 8, 11, 8, 11, 19, 19, 11, 11, 17 (then i got bored). Ragland was also a first rounder in most of those, fwiw, and from what I've heard from Chiefs fans, we were not premature to trade him. Hindsight is 20/20. Lawson has played better than his stats and than most here give him credit, but certainly not played like you want from a first rounder. That said, I'm still hoping for a breakout year this year, and would not be shocked if that happened and he wound up back in 2020. However, also, that said, I don't think it's particularly likely (just in the realm of the possible).
  3. Anderson got 22, 48, and 76 yards against the Bills in his last three games -- I'd hardly call that "toasted."
  4. The same CBS Sports that called us the most improved team in football?
  5. I'll feel really old when Adam Vinatieri retires as he's the last player in the four major sports who is older than I am. Jaromir Jagr was second to last. Bartolo Colon is a month younger than I am, but even he's not on a team last I checked. NBA players rarely make it to 40 on the court. I'm in this weird (but amazingly fun) 4-sport fantasy league and at one point had Vinatieri and Jagr, probably for that very reason. You want to feel really young: Jose Canseco is still playing professional baseball, sorta, or at least put up some official stats last year at age 53, but hasn't had a hit since age 51 and no homers since 50. https://www.baseball-reference.com/register/player.fcgi?id=cansec001jos Saw him, when he was the age I am now, playing for the now defunct Newark Bears in front of me and maybe 20-40 fans. He was staring into the middle distance most of the game and it was one of the sadder sights I've seen.
  6. It's really quite amazing to remember how bad the defense was in that first game (and then the first half of the next game) and to imagine that the team would be one Baker-Mayfield-pass-on-his-last-drive away from the #1 defense in football.
  7. He was my first favorite Bill when I was a kid! Well, maybe second after Robb Riddick!
  8. Man, spoiler for someone who is two years behind on their Marvel movies
  9. Maybe teams are just put off Tre Boston, b/c he lets random gods at gas stations decide what teams he's gonna snub?
  10. I've seen two redrafts of 2018 -- both had Foster in the first, one of them had both Foster and Wallace (but that one did not have Edmunds in the first)...both also had Allen getting drafted 3rd (with Darnold going to the Giants).
  11. Yup, that's why Darnold is about 10 higher...oh wait.
  12. Look, I'm optimistic, but it's more cautious than it seems. I agree with all you say. I'm fond of the plan and can see a philosophy behind it and I like it. As for 2019, what annoys me more is when someone says something to the effect: "this team can't be better than 7-9 or 8-8." I think saying this team can't be worse than 8-8 is just as ill-informed, but it bothers me less as relentless negativity bothers me more than runaway optimism -- at least when it comes to sport (it's a game, please don't try to convince me i should be miserable). This team could be anything from 16-0 to 0-16 depending on how everything shakes out. Realistically, the window is probably smaller, but it's wider than most people believe b/c there are SO many x-factors. Take Miami for example, so many years when people have predicted them to have a 2-14 or 3-13 record, they contend for a wildcard, and other years when they are supposed to be a contender, they find themselves battling for the number one pick.
  13. Yikes, really Hapless? I'm not even saying Allen is "the man," just that the national press idea that he "can't win games" or Darnold has shown more is annoying since he has done well so far winning actual games. I've even said today in this forum that I was a doubter, but feeling that "maybe I'm wrong." Don't act like I'm being all Pollyanna-ish about it. I'm just saying, unscientifically, that the idea he "can't win games" should align with what's going on in the field. Sorry if I seem a bit defensive, but it's annoying when one is making a perfectly reasonable comment and someone acts like it's hyperbolic and blinded by fandom. He's done better at winning games than people could reasonably expect at this point. How do I match it? I match that with the idea that when it comes to getting to a final score that's higher than the other team, Allen has had more experience winning in a totally unscientific, not yet with a meaningful sample manner. Nor am I saying that it takes less than a whole team to win games. I just said that he has done well "winning games" so far, and better than Darnold. I don't see where this is all that controversial. All that being said, your stats are cool. Let's go Bills! Hopefully, as I imagine we both feel, Allen proves it in a more meaningful way next year, particularly bracketing the season head-to-head.
  14. The schedule is one of the easiest in the league... Homey, don't play that!
  15. My point was not that Allen looks better in stats or has "looked" better in games, but that with supposedly terrible supporting casts, Allen has done better at winning ACTUAL games, one is 5-5 in complete games, the other 4-9. I meant so far if that wasn't clear... more to make the point that Darnold was looking more promising than Allen in terms of winning games which is what this thread is ultimately talking about. Ok, I'll make it simpler. Allen did better at winning games in 2018 than Darnold did, and by a decent margin. And the head-to-head, while interesting, is pretty meaningless as it is ONE data point. By that logic, Jeff Hostetter is a better QB than Jim Kelly. He was on that day. That's Darnold's only game-winning drive so far. Allen has three in fewer games. Further, Allen's success came at the end of the season. Darnold only won that last game. I wasn't saying that it proved anything, except that one of them should not be getting that much better press than the other if we are talking about winning and losing. Allen has actually been better at it so far and at the end of last season. These all seem like "reasonably objective criteria" I guess what gets me a bit annoyed is that pundits act as if Allen can't win, when he did win games with a team that these same people would make fun of the offensive roster.
  • Create New...