HankBulloughMellencamp
-
Posts
502 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Gallery
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by HankBulloughMellencamp
-
-
With the Iggles being my favorite NFC team, I've been passively following Kolb since he was drafted. I was fully on board with cutting ties with Fitz, so my opinion on the Kolb signing was that it was an upgrade to the position. I just finished up listening to his interview on the John Murphy show tonight, and I have to say that there is a clear contrast between him and Fitz in terms of their personalities. Listening to KK, it was striking how much he reminded me of Jimbo. (And before some of you hosers jump all over me for saying that, chill...I'm not saying he's the second coming of Jimbo.) I was very impressed with how well he seems to already know about the players - not just who they are, but their backgrounds. He came off very positive, but also very balanced in his assessment of the three days of this OTA. Most importantly, he struck me as a natural leader, which is something I felt was lacking with Fitz both on and off the field.
It was kind of funny to hear how excited he got when describing Spiller's and Fred's blitz pick-up abilities. It was almost like you could feel how stressful it was to be behind that line in Arizona, and that seeing backs that are adept at blocking was a breath of fresh air for the guy. He also spoke as if he was assuming he's the starter, and I have to say that I respect that. I want a guy who views himself that way, at least until he proves otherwise. He seems to love the approach that Coach Hackett and Coach Marrone are taking, and I was convinced that he is really glad to be here.
I'm still hoping for Nassib or Wilson to end up in Buffalo by the end of next week, but Kolb has me already feeling much better about the QB spot. Whether he'll pan out or not remains to be seen, but IMO he's definitely saying all the right things.
I did not hear the interview, so thanks for the recap/perspective ... the conventional wisdom in Bills Country was that Fitz would have made a good backup/mentor to a newly drafted young buck - but only if #14 would restructure. But as it played out, I understand why, from Fitz's perspective, he wanted to go elsewhere for a fresh start. He probably would not have been given a reasonable enough chance to win the job here with the new staff, and the fanbase has pretty much seen enough of his "mediocre-with-streaks-of-competent" play.
And so here we are with Kolb, a hungry vet who seems similar in some ways to Fitzy, but who already comes across as a stronger leader than Fitz. Remains to be seen, but to me he is a guy who will certainly ensure that any greenhorn we select will need to be ready for prime time, or they must watch and learn.
But if Nassib/Barkley/whomever we pluck makes like Tannehill & shows enough early on to face the Pats on opening day, we can also say that we definitely have a solid veteran backup at a reasonable price (Tavaris Jackson notwithstanding) that will help shorten the rookie's learning curve.
Me likey, Buddy. Now show us the damn baby-faced QB!
-
Bills at Browns "Ronnie Harmon drop" game, back in January of 1990, pre-internet, and the days when 'tickets going on sale Saturday' meant physically waiting in line at AM&A's very early Saturday morning. Made the mistake of answering the question "which section would you like?" with a youthfully exuberant 'how about two down there in the Dawg Pound'. Drove down the 90 with three other buddies, fresh out of high school, two of whom had seats with other fellow Bills fans travelling via bus. Checked into the Stouffer Tower City Plaza down near Cleveland Municipal Stadium the night before, saw OJ in the lobby prepping for NBC work, no big deal, no problem, the Bills are going to win this one. My buddy and I dressed head-to-toe in red white and blue for the game, our outfits topped off with our new Bills shiny-red OSHA-approved hard helmets. Whooped it up in the hotel room before making the short walk to the stadium as game time approached, and with pre-game beverages running their course, felt quite invincible. Hello Cleveland!! Let's go!!! this is the playoffs, baby!
First sign of trouble occurred as we approached our entry gate near the Dawg Pound. A "Buffalo sucks!" chant was growing louder as we waited to have our tickets ripped, and we then slowly realized that all sets of eyes were focused squarely on us with our shiny new red helmets, nary another Bills supporter to be found. Have you ever had an angry mob chanting, pointing, and staring you down? It's a little unsettling. Recall thinking, 'OK, this might not have been the best idea'.
Got to our seats, the last two on the aisle about halfway up from field level, in mid-Dawg Pound. Faced a barrage of insults, jeers and threats ... which we were certainly opening ourselves up to with our choice of threads (and especially helmets). We vowed from that moment on to go incognito to any and all future away games (like the two quiet, un-heckled Bills fans in front of us).
Amazing game, Beebe gets bounced off his head, and the Kelly-era Bills come of age and of course come up just short. Browns fans would get right up in our grills and threaten all manners of bodily harm. At one point someone came down the aisle from behind and in one motion ripped my buddy's helmet off and chucked it ten rows lower. A short time later, a Browns enthusiast came down the aisle and told my buddy that he was "... going to piss in that helmet ... and dump it on your head!!" He sure sounded like he meant business, but this thankfully never came to pass. I believe that it was broken into pieces and devoured by him and/or his fellow crazy denizens of the Dawg Pound as a sort of playoff biscuit.
Felt quite demoralized and less than human afterwards, and on the long walk back to hotel, someone grabbed my helmet from behind and tossed it over a fence. Hadn't we been through enough, Cleveland? I climbed it to retrieve my precious headgear ... they weren't getting both of those helmets, dammit! I really don't blame Browns fans, we were young and stupid and pretty much asking for it. And come playoff time, I am certain that I have (verbally) treated neighboring fans of the opposition at the Ralph in ways that I am not proud of in retrospect, perhaps as payback for this day.
Went Richie Incognito to Bills at Steelers playoff tilt at Three Rivers the next year, a nice Bills victory, and had a wonderful experience. Even if you are outed when you forego a high-five to a neighbor after an opposing score, you don't have to walk around the concourse sticking out like a sore thumb. Also went to Bills at Dolphins playoff game in ~1999, a huge game from Mouldsey, Thurman's swan song I believe, with Trace Armstrong sacking Flutie to seal it. No issues, Dolphins fans/orange seats seem to be pretty tolerant of us snow birds.
-
I think you're right, to an extent. Except that in the professional leagues, winning isn't a player's own motivation. It makes up the lion share of motivation for most players, but once money's involved, the stakes are different.
However, even assuming players need no motivation, the mark of a good coach is not how they motivate, but that they never de-motivate, something we know the coaches managed to do here last year.
Nothing motivates like good old-fashioned fear ... I have only seen Marrone speak a few times, and I know he is a pretty big guy (former OL) as well ...
I am not sure I would like to be the young chap who picks up his daughter for a date at the drive-in, visions of 2nd base or better in his head!
All I am saying is that after Jauron and Gailey, I bet Jerry Sullivan will think twice about asking potentially inflammatory questions post-game
-
I am of this mindset as well. Coaches can and should help improve the players skills on the field that allow them, and the team to be successful, as well as game plans/calls etc. I know that NFL players in general are not the sharpest tools in the shed. But if their behavior can be altered by air horns, removal of TVs from weight rooms, or banners and pictures of a trophy hanging on the wall then even I gave them too much credit.
I appreciate the point about "your coach should not need to motivate NFL players, they should be self-motivated", which I somewhat agree with, but it presumes we have the wrong players, which I do not totally believe.
Were the Bills ... not talented enough in 2012? (perhaps in some areas) ... poorly coached? (re-watch the gift we gave Tennessee and the one we squandered vs St Louis - I unequivocally think so).
The idea that the Bills are at/near the bottom of the league in talent is a myth propogated by glass-is-half-empty Negative Nancys (Nancies?) ... we had a coach who was like a frightened turtle down the stretch - and was shown the door as soon as possible after the season.
Marrone - your NFL COY for 2013
Gee, this Kool-Aid is delicious, and only pennies a serving!
-
This is the NFL not college, cutting players has cap ramifications.. What if Mario deciedes he does not like plan and dogs it. How do you cut him. I am willing to give the coaching staff a chance and the super bowl should be the goal, not just the playoffs. Lets see how the coach interacts with this FO when they let his players walk in FA or when they screw up the draft.
Of course you can not just run Mario off the team at this point, nor should you want to. If anyone knows the difference between coaching college guys and pro guys, it would be a guy like Marrone, who has done both. I really think his biggest impact will be getting more out of what we have, and that has to be enticing to Nix/Russ/Ralphie boy.
If Marrone (and Pettine, his proven NFL DC whom he will presumably not be afraid to approach about performance and/or philosophy from week to week) can get Mario, KW and Dareus going, look out!!!
-
And back to the OP--it never seemed like Gailey was looking to hit the ground running.
And by all accounts, Marrone and crew already have.
(voice of Kent Brockman) "and I, for one, welcome our new overlord(s) ..."
Great post/thread ... only time will tell on Marrone. But put me in the drinking-the-Bills'-Kool-aid group, because I do believe he will be our most significant offseason free-agent addition - one who will get the most out of what we have, and get rid of those who are not on board. He certainly comes across as a guy you can not just B.S. - and he doesn't come off as an excuse-maker.
"Don't confuse effort with results" is a great motto that only begins to set expectations for the Bills beyond the comfort zones of our players (and fans).
"I want to smell the breath of our players" is an awesome quote from a coach that should serve as a wake-up call for a few guys.
Syracuse people truly know where he took that program from ... it was a complete disaster when he got there. The Bills are a yearly disaster in terms of living up to our expectations and, especially in 2012, playing up to the best of their capabilities. Plus if Bill Polian vouches for Marrone as having been his #1 NFL HC in-waiting, I am willing to get excited and see what he can do with our men.
-
You should have purchased an adult beverage for the man solely on the basis of what he said about the Toronto Series
-
If the Bills pull the trigger on Nassib, even at #8, I will give them tons of credit for having conviction on the guy they need to lead their team. There is no staff in the league that knows what he is truly capable of better than ours, obviously. If they pick him, they believe in him, and then so will I. I really liked what I saw when he faced Geno this past december @ Yankee Stadium, and came out on top again. You can't argue with his Syracuse career, he is one of the best QBs they have ever had.
All the criticisms of his arm strength, deep ball, Fitz-like qualities, etc, are completely meaningless to how this kid will actually perform in the NFL film room, locker room and on the field. Our OC already knows the likely answers to those questions better than anyone, and for me, he passes the eye test when he throws the ball.
Watch the youtube cutups yourself before saying he is not a good QB. I see a lot of consistency, and his misses are usually "good misses" ... either the WR was going to catch it, or it was going to fall incomplete because of his ball placement. OK, so his arm is not in the league of Matt Stafford, but it is plenty strong to succeed and EONS better than Fitz, who double-cheeked nearly every ball he threw. When Nassib steps into a throw, it is usually right there ... and in doing so, he looks much like another #12 we are all familiar with.
When Jimbo used to step up into a throw, you just knew it was going to be completed downfield to Andre, Metzelcheese or whomever, in stride.
-
And your contention that this rule will somehow fundamentally change the way runners run is just histrionic nonsense. No RB is taught to use the crown of his helmet to finish off a run or a tackler. Someone posted here that some on the competiton committee commented that Emmett Smith wouldn't have been flagged for this penalty once in his entire career. Can you imagine Spiller ever getting this penalty?
Mr. WEO, I am done with your condescending nonsense, and I have argued this point more than enough with you. Claim the white flag. There is no easy answer to concussions in a collision sport, but celebrate Rog and all he has done and is doing for the game. It is obvious I am not making any sense to you.
I would also even wager that you have not actually played this fair game at any appreciable level, (and by that I mean while wearing a helmet at any level). I say that solely on the basis that you think it will be quite easy for the players to suck it up and deal with whatever Rog asks of them, rules-wise. I can see how simple the idea of "initiating contact with the crown" may be to you, ala Earl Campbell at his finest, but I am wondering what the definition you have for "using the crown of his helmet to finish off a run." To me, this happens all the time ... going head-first is all you can do if you are holding the ball securely at your ribcage and diving for yardage and/or at the goal-line.
And I love your counterpoint to the RB rule; someone commented that someone else said Emmitt would never have been called for this one his entire career. Pure conjecture, but go ahead and take it as the gospel truth because it supposedly came from someone on the competition committee, who is not trying to sell the rule to the football world or anything. Let's get back to playing rugby out there.
There are several others in the thread that have echoed similar concerns about how the rule may negatively influence the players' ability to make split-second athletic decisions that they could be penalized for, in terms of yardage, game momentum, game outcomes, and of course, their pocketbook$ on tuesdays.
The NFL has demonstrated that it can barely get touchdowns called correctly, even with the benefit of replay review on every scoring play. This rule will only add to all that "completing the catch" & "making a football move" nonsense that has caused so many of us to pull our hair out when simple, obvious calls are blown.
I can not wait until the first time a guy is lunging forward head-first, whether it be for a score, first-down, or just extra yardage ... and he gets called for "leading with the crown of the helmet" & backs his team up 15 yards. Are they supposed to, let's say, turn their head away from incoming shoulder contact ... in mid-flight possibly?
Then I read some loose interpretations of where the tackle box ends, and whether leading with the facemask is/is not flaggable ... more grey area is all I can see.
If one RB keeps his head/facemask up higher than normal as he sweeps around the end (which would also probably slow him down), and then gets it bent back/taken off by a safety as he turns the corner, the game will have changed for the worse safety-wise. This is the hit I really worry about: body leaning forward, player running "behind his pads" as Emmitt said, and head not in a natural protective, instinctive position when he impacts a defensive player with bad intentions.
-
Thank you for your support. It's always nice to be appreciated by the fans.
Commish Rog, uh, I think you may have taken that statement a bit out of context, buddy. But should I ever get the chance to meet your highness in person, I'll still give you a big 'ol bearhug & two backslaps.
-
I will respond to the bolded segements:
I contributed the opinion that to have a beef with the commissioner of a professional sports league, as a fan, is irrational. He has done nothing to affect you personally, except bring you the product that you enjoy so much. Tell me, do you also rant on and on about the CEO of Nike, who's sneakers you might wear? Or did you also "don't like" Steve Jobs, who's iphone and ipad you may also enjoy? Both of those guys ran billion dollar companies on the backs of foreign workers under conditions far worse than those found in the game these grown men are playing (and obviously at a tiny fraction of the compensation).
Hmmmm--well, after he's out of the league, his safety is pretty much assured, I would think--unless he choses another profession more hazardous than the NFL.
Wouldn't it make much more sense to advocate for more safety while you are playing and exposed to danger than after you are no longer exposed? Does that really not seem logical to you? The irony here is that there is no player or player union plan for increasing their own safety. In fact, there is only the opposite--open disdain for any rule change, no matter how benign. Doesn't that strike you as a bit...hypocritical?
If Westbrook's diagnosis is due to football related injuries that could have been prevented by the NFL, then of course he deserves compensation.
As for opportunism, there are less than 7000 living retired NFL players. And almost 4000 of them are involved in lawsuits against the league? My guess is that several thousand of those players do not suffer from the CTE that Westbrook may have. You obviously believe they all have the same diagnosis as Westbrook. After Fred Jackson's comments about the latest rule change, does he get to join the class action suit when he retires?
You keep referring to the past sins of the NFL agaisnt the players, yet you mock any effort by the current Commissioner to improve the safety of the game. I'll ask again--what, exactly, should he be doing to improve safety for players in a way that would satisfy you? What action can he take to overcome your bias against him (because he's "a hypocrite", not the players responding to the rule changes)?
I won't hold my breath waiting for your answer.
I can't say any of your previous posting stands out as memorable for any reason, but your tossing in the "your mom" is clearly the white flag the rest of your posts on this thread have been dying to raise.
And by the way, the "inane nonsense on (my) signature" is brought to you by our fellow posters and all of it is completely awesome stuff!
So your point now is, I must grudgingly acknowledge Roger Goodell is an outstanding commissioner unless I also want to admonish CEOs of other multi-billion dollar companies whose products I may also enjoy? I am not going to open that can of worms with you in the context of a rule change that I don't feel is good for the game. Wrestling with you about my opinion has already been so much fun. Perhaps you should read Steve Rushin's recent back page of SI, "Morality Players" - the gist of which is that we all wrestle with (and compromise) our ideals throughout our passionate following of the sports we enjoy. I'd link it, but they have not put it up online yet.
I have acknowledged that there is some hypocrisy on both sides here; my issues about what Rog is doing now have centered around the idea that beyond the new concussion protocols, very little of what he had put forth is actually going to improve player safety. You continue to blame the 'workers' for being resistant to safety efforts. This is true in all facets of manual labor. The people actually doing the work don't inherently think about the long-term consequences of their daily actions when it comes to following safety precautions. They resist improvements and take shortcuts at every turn. To expect them to resolve all potential safety issues through their union is wishful thinking at best. And a corporation does not get to wash their hands of any previous negligence by setting up new rules for the employees to follow going forward.
There's no easy answer for Rog and the NFL to be able to, as you seem to want to, sweep this pesky safety issue under the rug. But when Rog makes fundamental changes to the way NFL athletes have been trained to play, with nebulous rules that are open to interpretation (and only a fool could believe will be administered fairly and/or not be called very often), I take issue with Rog and the heavy-handed way$ he is sure to employ to go after violators.
And congrats on your claim to the white flag; I thought I already crossed the line by admitting I don't like Rog's act?
jaybee sums it up quite well:
Popular Science, January 2013. "The Helmet Wars". Decent article on concussions and the research and development of lids to save the game of football. Recommended reading IMO. I watched a piece of the "Tuck Rule" game on the network this morning. Saw several running plays where the runner lowered the boom on contact. Wondered if those plays would have been 15 yard walk-offs by the zebes. I dunno, man. I'm all about safety for the players but as an old-school fan I love the running game and I really hope this rule doesn't compromise it too much. Additionally, it puts a lot of pressure on the refs. In large part..... subjective calls. The refs already have a very difficult job. There will likely be a lot of bad calls. The refs can only watch so much. They will blow calls potentially changing the outcome of games. And...you are asking backs to change the way they've run their entire career. To conform to regulation. I suspect the league is trying to protect itself from litigation here. Understandable. BUT.....as a rabid fan of the game of football............... I really don't think I like this rule. jb -
You are correct. The players have consistently shown that they are not interested in any proposed effort to make the game safer. All we hear is the opposite--they loudly protest any rule change, yet they and their union have no proposal to improve safety, other than some goofy "independent physician on the sidelines" to examine guys after head shots, as though the "team doctor" (a guy in practice who is always going to look after his own skin anyway, not the team's, when evaluating a player) cannot be trusted, but some other dude saying "how many fingers? where are we? what day is it" is any better for the player.
The players are only interested in safety after they are retired or cut form the league. Then they are running to sign on to a class action suit ("hey, I have headaches too!"). They are the ones with zero credibility on this issue, not this Commisioner.
Hankbulloughencamp has already compromised his position by simply saying he doesn't like Goodell. Even this is an irrational position for Hank (or anyone) to take. For the fan, the main job for Goodell is to guarantee me free football on TV for the forseeable future. Why should fan care if he was "heavy handed" with the Saints--a huge collection of a$$holes, from coach to players (who were clearly involved in a scheme--to intentionally hurt other players!!)? Why should fans care about a few meaningless rules like this "head lowering" nothingness that just passed?
The new CBA promises players more money than they have ever seen before. There is a huge new retirement benfit (2/3 of a billion) for old timers. There is football 3 nights a week and all day sunday. There's the Red Zone and fantasy footbll has never been more popular. There is NO 18 GAME SCHEDULE on the horizon, nor will there ever be unless the NFLPA brings it up and agrees to it.
SJBF, of course I can agree that the players will experience some benefit from real safety measures, but I don't believe the RB rule will be administered effectively. Nor do I believe Roger's "gotcha" fines or mandates that ensure players wear their knee and hips pads will keep any of them safer.
And as for you, WEO, who the hell are you to tell me my opinion is invalid because I admit I don't like Goodell? I gave you the reasons why, him being a hypocrite and all. You have offered nothing to the conversation at all, other than to pat Rog on the back and attempt to poke holes in my argument by saying it is irrational. Oh, I forgot, you also said Fred Jackson should stop running his mouth, and speak up only when he stays healthy for a change (great point there), and then mentioned that I should take my issue up with Rog's boss, Ralph Wilson.
So your position is: players who exercise their right to sign up as plaintiffs are opportunists? Then why do most observers think it's not a matter of IF but HOW MUCH the NFL will have to shell out? Why shouldn't a player be concerned about his safety when he gets cut or retires from the game?
Is it your view that it's tough **** for Brian Westbrook if he can't remember what he had for breakfast these days at the ripe old age of 33? After all, he was guilty of being macho about things, and he didn't seem too concerned while he played? Plus, Rog has sent a few smoke signals up to make it look good, so the NFL is off the hook? He should just deal with the aftermath of years of negligent medical practices, despite a mountain of evidence to the contrary? I know, he's a whiny, washed up guy who just wants his cut on a frivolous lawsuit.
After seeing your work in another thread or two on TBD, and seeing the inane nonsense on your signature, I now realize that you are simply one of these trolling tools that jab away and take pleasure in pissing people off. You should pay your mom another 20-spot per month to cover your internet access and the degree to which you are most certainly a pain in her ass.
"Hurrah, there's football that I can watch for free 3 nights a week! Roger is the man! For he's a jolly good fellow!
-
Again, I don't understand your point here. You say "it was long overdue" and go on and on about how things were done "for decades". Yet efforts are now being made to change outcomes. And you have a problem with that....because it wasn't done decades ago? Because you simply don't like Goodell?
Would it be better for you if Goodell simply said "hey, I'm with the players on this issue. I, too, don't care about safety and have no interest in turning this game into flag football, or a game for "pussies". As far as bounties go, they are a well respected and time honored tradition in this league. I will not interfere with the proud heritage of the game and I therefore condone the players' penchant for placing money on the intentional injury of other players. God bless this man's game".
Of course Goodell is thinking about the legal exposure of the NFL on safety--he would be a moron not to, so why even bring that up? And it seems that you don't realize that "Goodell" doesn't do anything without the direct order or consent of the owners, for whom he works. They meet several times a year. They tell him what to do and how to run their business. Got a problem with the Commissioner? Go talk to his boss, Ralph Wilson.
OK there it is, I basically don't like Roger Goodell, he's a douchebag. Specifically, I have developed my disdain for him over time after seeing how he flexes his commish muscles with heavy-handed, hypocritical and meddlesome ways. He cares about extracting the almighty dollar at every turn, and/or protecting the shield's Fort Knox-esque stash far more than he cares about player safety.
I don't think he's making the game any better by fining guys the tuesday after each contest (who are often times not even penalized during the game). And to hear him try to sell this new RB rule as 'progress' is laughable to me, just like his 18-game season sales pitch was.
I understand that Rog is the frontman/bad guy for the owners, and I am sure they love how he has been trying to reduce their legal liabilities while also printing money on their behalf. I, however, always tend to side with the players, since they are the disposable pieces of the NFL machine. Time has shown that the game spits them up and chews them out at a far greater clip than the rest of society.
I certainly welcome the new protocols restricting hitting during the week, and how concussions are treated more carefully. But the way I see it, they have no choice but to take those steps now. The best takeaway for me is how concussions are now treated at the high school levels, which is sort of like the wild west.
-
Goodell wasn't Commisioner back when Joe D was playing. And now, as the only Commish to do anything about player safety, you fault him for doing soemthing about player safety? And mock him in the process? Who cares what his motivation is at this point? He's doing soemthing none of those before him did--and all we see is how "it's ruining the game". Makes absolutely no sense. You want him to take no steps to impact safety, yet want him to pay lifetime benefits when players in a tough business get old and achey?
Goodell and the NFLPA set up a $620 million retirement fund for players from the 60's, 70s and 80s (players before that are almost all covered by Medicare--the best insurance in the world). The benefit is for the lifetime of the player and/or his beneficiary.
If the players have a beef--they can take it up with their union, can't they?
Anyway--here's what the toughest RB ever had to say about this nonsense: (USA Today)
"I'm going to be very honest with you: I didn't use my head," Brown said. "I used my forearm. And the palm of my hand. And my shoulders. And my shoulder pads. I wasn't putting my head into too much of anything. I don't think that sounds like a good idea to me. What is my guarantee that my head is going to be strong enough to hurt somebody else, and not hurt myself?"
I'm gonna go with Brown over Freddie on this for obvious reasons.
Roger is, of course, a lawyer by trade, and is only instituting all of these player-safety items to try and mitigate the very large risk of astronomical damage figures that are sure to be paid to the plaintiffs in the concussion-related litigation. Guys who suffered head injuries have been quickly ushered back into games with smelling salts and/or minimal precautions as recently as a year ago (see Colt McCoy, 2011). It's part of the macho culture, but it does not excuse how players were routinely cleared by team medical personnel shortly after being concussed. It was essentially the same macho culture Goodell ruled so iron-fistedly against in the Saints bounty debacle. So Goodell is a hypocrite on many fronts to me, and what I think means very little, but many players also happen to feel this way. On a weekly basis, for many many years, players who were knocked silly were basically asked what day of the week it is and "who are we playing?" before being allowed to stay in the game so as to heighten their chances of staying employed.
There is nothing pre-emptive going on safety-wise, it is a last-ditch effort to save face, and too late for guys like Mike Webster, Junior Seau and Dave Duerson. If you would like to praise Rog for doing something because Tagliabue and Pete did very little on this front, then have at it, but don't suggest that mocking the emperor's wardrobe is blasphemous. He finally kicked that cash into the aging veterans' pensions as part of the lockout settlement, and it was long overdue, so he is no hero in that regard either. I am quite sure the NFLPA lobbied hard for the $620 million; I highly doubt Rog offered it as an olive branch because it was the right thing to do.
"The real scandal isn’t that one team took things too far, because the overwhelming medical and scientific evidence tells us that the entire sport has taken things too far and has done so for decades." --- Jay Bookman in article NFL facing major test of credibility, ethics
I do agree that all players inherently know the risks of an NFL career from the get-go, and all have been more than willing participants. So I also see some of the hypocrisy in the 4,000+ plaintiffs joining in on the concussion lawsuits. But, like JoePa, the NFL looked the other way while business was quite good. And these nebulous new safety rules will do little to actually help preserve player safety, and they will be a detriment to the way the game is played and officiated. And I will still be watching. And I also agree, Jim Brown was a bad ass.
-
I agree. This is an off-season massive non-story being blown wildly out of proportion. Players whining about this rule will certainly sign on to any future class action suit against the league for "not caring about player safety", or they will no doubt blame "CTE" for their future decision to snuff their baby momma. Any RB who wishes to use his face or forehead to break a tackle is still welcomed to by the league to do so.
Freddy mouthing off about any safety/injury reduction measure is a bit funny--having finished his last 2 seasons on IR. Gotta play to get fined, Fred.
Fans who claim this is somehow ruining the game of will still watch as much football as they ever have. It's all just BS...
Freddie mouthing off? He had a broken freakin leg and knee sprain ... who are you, Jack Youngblood?
If a humble man like Fred Jackson says that much already, it should be a warning as to the merits of such a grey-area rule. And if the NFL's all-time rushing leader says it's a B.S. rule, fans should take note. Fred and Emmitt have little/nothing to gain by speaking their minds now.
The NFL only recently cares about player safety due to public pressure and the mounting concussion-related evidence that they ignored for years. Strzelczyk, Dronett, Duerson, Waters, Seau, Easterling, Murdock, Belcher, the list is getting long. And they have barely even acknowledged the issues faced by many retired players up until maybe a few years ago, mainly for P.R. reasons. Guys like Joe DeLamielleure have always had a legit gripe. Those guys are not after lawsuit cash, as you imply, but in a multi-billion dollar empire, they deserve full healthcare at a minimum.
And isn't it touching how Roger goes right to the youth level of football to promote safe tackling ... he's so genuine ... haven't you seen him bear-hug those first round draft picks each April?
Just wait until an offense gets backed up 15 yards after a great run at a crucial time on a close interpretation of "leading with the crown" and/or where the "tackle box" actually ends ... I hope it happens in the opening game.
This new RB rule might not be called very often, but when it does get called, it will be more ridiculous than the tuck rule ever was. Then again, the tuck rule really did little to promote the image of the NFL's "concern over player safety".
-
I am just really against this whole Roger Goodell-acting-like-he-cares-about-player-safety thing when we know he only cares about:
1. making $$$ wherever possible (3-day draft, weekly Thurs Night Football, etc), &
2. protecting the shield against lawsuits by pretending to care about player safety in the form of new nebulous rules and after-the-fact fines levied for helmet-to-helmet hits and then having the audacity to act like the whole 18-game schedule idea was in response to fan concerns about the quality of the pre-season play and does not run counter-intuitive to his lawyer-speak laden safety message
Ultimately we all realize 18 games would mean 2 more weeks of top dollar fee$ for TV rights and everything associated (see rule #1).
This dumb RB rule champoined by Mr. Crabs-Goodell now forces hard-charging guys like A.P. and Freddie to go against the grain of what may have gotten them to where they are in the league. And as Steve Tasker always pointed out, if you are not going all-out 100mph out there, you are more likely to get hurt.
-
Why did they draft Dareus. Because he is good (sophomore slump not withstanding)
Why did they re-sign Kyle Williams - Because he is a good DT
Why did they re-up Stevie Johnson - Because he is a legitimate NFL Wide Receiver
Why did they re-up Urbik - Because is a sound and reliable Right Guard
Why did they sign Mario Williams to that huge contract - Because.....Ralph is *NOT* cheap!!!
Why did they re-up Scott Chandler - Because he is a reliable threat at the TE position especially in the Red zone.
Why did they draft Glenn - Because he is turning out to be an excellent LT and they did not give up that 2nd rd pick.
For every failure, there is some good success by this front office. Their biggest problem has been in not *DRAFTING* a QB.
I agree 100%, hence the hindsight font ... Nix has regularly found serviceable guys for dirt cheap like SChandler, KUrbik, CReinhardt, EPears, CBrown, DNelson, DJones, LSmith, etc, and they are a big reason why we are not in bad cap shape and able to re-sign our own guys like KW, Stevie, Fred, etc. plus sign Mario to a king's ransom deal.
Plus, as outlined above, we only essentially paid Fitz the market rate for a mid-level starter, ~20m for 2 yrs, and had a reasonable way to cut bait in case it didn't work out for the Bills. Fitz's people didn't work that into the structure of the contract, Buddy did.
And not for nothing, but what I took away from the Tampa phone call was that he is still the one driving the bus over there.
-
(hindsight font)
Can some one please tell me why in the world we paid Ryan Fitzpatrick all that money anyways? I've said it all along, he's garbage, a backup QB at best.
And while I am at it, why did we draft Donte Whitner so high, when Haloti Ngata was there?
Why did we draft Aaron Maybin when we could have had Brian Orakpo?
How about picking Torrell Troup when we could have had Rob Gronkowski?
Why did we pick Aaron Williams when we could have had Colin Kaepernick?!?
Why did we trade UP just to get T.J. Graham, when we could have taken Russell Wilson?!?
Why did we ever draft C.J. Spiller ... oh wait, that was a pretty good pick.
It's the weirdest thing with these glasses I wear ... things are a bit foggy and unclear when I look forward, but if I turn around, I can see 20/20 - crystal clear!
-
I mean really! People complaining about Levitre's departure. Then, to top it off, they start a thread whining about the "loss" of Chad Rhinehart (Rhinehard) (Rhynehardt) (Rindehardtt). Now some are suggesting we look into Willie's Colon, for crying out loud. Yet no love for CBrown...dude's a mauler! Give him a chance!
Great thread, and I had no idea Colin was once a member of the Pittsburgh Maulers of the USFL. One of my favorite sports nicknames that has not been used since. What do Maulers do? They just maul anything and everything in their path ... man, woman, child, animal ... anything. And as I recall, the last time we got a lineman from that league, it worked out pretty well.
Seriously, I think he played at Texas, and the last time we took a chance on an O-lineman from there, it worked out ... kind of bad actually. Same goes for corner and backup QB ... oh wait, David Snow was a longhorn, not Colin (Missouri).
Buddy is outstanding at finding OL scraps, and I do remember Keith Williams from Nebraska being a practice squad guy they liked ... he's still here. So Colin/Keith might as well get a good look to join the 5-man Wolfpack vs. a modestly priced FA OG.
Either way, $8M/yr is way too much for a very good, very versatile LG who even tweets pics of jerseys he is about to donate that include his naked & talented g/f.
-
Great post, Mr. T. I find the pessimism on this board to be quite hilarious. There are a lot of ways the Bills need to get better in 2013, to be sure, and besides QB & defensive play, coaching is A-number one. From what I have Hal Garner-ed from all of the reports on Marrone, he is more John/Jim Harbaugh-ish than Gailey/Jauron-ish when it comes to competitiveness, enthusiasm, dealing with players/not putting up with nonsense. Time will tell, but Bill Polian has stated he was #1 on his radar as a potential NFL HC, and I will take him at his word.
And who could argue with jettisoning GWilson, TMcGee, NBarnett, DJones, DNelson, RFitzpatrick, and (indirectly) SMerriman and CKelsay? Who really wanted them to overpay for a LG, albeit a darn good one, to the tune of ~8m/yr? So their first real signing was to keep the best PR/KR man in the league by a mile, who is also the best athlete on the team & has improved as a CB, and to then sign a versatile LB who immediately becomes our best LB and can rush the passer like we hoped Merriman would? AOK by me.
-
Well you have me stumped then.
I'm assuming you meant cornerback 4.
Not really a great bit of trivia or anything, but Marvcus played college ball at UCLA, and I remember him always sporting a lid with 'CB4' on it when that movie came out in '93 ... I think he might have met/known Chris Rock or whatever ... but I was talking CB1-CB2-CB3 and it just reminded me of this obscure tidbit.
-
^^^^^^^ Aaron Williams and Leodis McKelvin are very different players.
McKelvin is thin, wiry, and very fast. Williams is thick, physical and lacks top end speed.
As for Marvcus Patton, he played linebacker so I'm not sure what you're "=CB4" refers to.
As far as them being very different players, I would agree in the sense that McKelvin is at least adequate in coverage and Williams is not. His efforts in the SF game made it necessary for him to make a quick run to Target for more underwear before flying back with the club.
#21 is listed as 5'10", 185, and #23 is 6'0", 199 ... so OK, Leodis is a bit more 'wiry', but I am not sure what benefit 'thick' is when it prevents you from being in position. And McKelvin is not quite as physical as Williams, assuming that is what you meant, but he is not deficient in throwing his body around either - see any of his punt return highlights.
And I do know that Marvcus played LB for us, and quite well, since he looked like he was chiseled out of granite. But I'll hold on to see if someone else remembers the reference ...
-
Nickel corner is an important spot in today's NFL. Most of the time he will be on the field as opposed to your base defense. Brooks may have a chance to be a player, Aaron Williams appears hopeless right now.
CB is a real question mark right now. I'm not certain Gilmore is a number 1, and I'm not certain McKelvin is good enough to start full-time. Certainly LB is more dire but I'd think we have to look to at least add depth.
I agree on the importance of 3 dependable CBs ... and I have no issue with the McKelvin re-signing and/or paying him starter money. His punt/kick returning abilities alone make him worth the cash. Not sure why you wonder about Gilmore - he was bound to take a lump or two as an NFL greenhorn guarding the likes of Larry Fitz, but has been a solid CB1 from day one. To me, he looks like he will approach greatness at the position. Leodis is, at worst, an athletic CB2 whose only knocks are poor ball skills and public speaking ability.
If Aaron Williams blossoms under Pettine, even better, but at least we don't have to pin our hopes on that and/or draft another CB very high to replace Leodis. Come to think of it, #21 and #23 are quite similar players in terms of size and athletic ability ... although McKelvin is usually in position but out-muscled for the ball, whereas Williams has been badly juked out of position and/or flagged quite regularly. Ron Brooks can hopefully come along nicely and stake a claim to some extended playing time opposite Gilmore or as CB3 as well.
A quick shout-out to all Bills 'glory years' veterans who know that Marvcus Patton = CB4 ... (and that his mom also played pro ball).
Here's hoping free agency will give us an NFL-caliber MLB and a decent safety to pair with Jairus ... I would be pleased as punch. In other words, no thank you on Sheppard or Searcy as our penciled-in starters heading to camp.
-
I don't think anyone is saying that Ellerbe would be the final piece, at least I'm not saying that.
Our LB corps is so poor and we need to get the position addressed desperately.
I think the Bills should sign a LB like Ellerbe in free agency and draft a LB in the first or second round.
Totally agree. The idea of signing a guy like Elllerbe, who has already demonstrated he can be a 3-down ILB in a Pettine-esque scheme, gives me confidence that we should see better things in the Marrone/Pettine era.
Most of my recent posts have been focused on how less-than-marginal I believe Kelvin Sheppard has been, in what few could argue is one of the worst recent stretches of defense we have seen the Bills play. So to hear that we have likely made it a priority to take a FA shot at the heir apparent to Ray Lewis is music to my ears.
Kolb on John Murphy: Impressions
in The Stadium Wall Archives
Posted
Neither ajzepp nor I could possibly have anything concrete that could prove this for you. The thread is titled "Kolb on John Murphy: Impressions"
I am only going by what I saw: his presser when he officially signed his contract. It's really just my opinion, formed as I watched how he handled himself w/ the questions from Buffalo media thus far. And the words right after the boldface of your quote of me do say "remains to be seen"
If you have not done so, go to the Bills website and watch his presser ... see what you think of him.