Red Squirrel
-
Posts
203 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Gallery
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Red Squirrel
-
-
There was no way a decently coached and well-rested Bills team shouldn't have had a 20-point lead going into the 4th Quarter, let alone get the poor kicker closer than !@#$ing 47 yards for the game-winner. And a team with some actual CLASS wouldn't have had that rally in the square the next day, where they patted Norwood on the shoulder and said in front of the whole city, "Hey, no way we're blaming you for that loss, you're still our guy", then immediately cut him. Not only did they completely disrespect Norwood, but they disrespected the game of football, and the three embarassing losses that followed were their just desserts.
I don't know why I am bothering, since it is obvious you have some sort of agenda, but your timeline is quite screwed up. They didn't dump the guy right after the miss in the superbowl. They kept him another season...during which he had the awful game against the Raiders, which was the starting point for this discussion of Norwood. And it was justified to get rid of Scotty when they did; everyone on the planet knew Christie was a vastly better and younger kicker with a much stronger leg. Need I remind you that while Norwood was an accurate short range kicker, he was pretty weak on kickoffs and as a result the Bills employed kickoff specialist Brad Daluiso in 1991. So they also gained a roster spot by making the move. Christie was a fantastic kicker, possibly in the top ten all time. I, like you, don't blame Norwood for the loss in SBXXV, but he wasn't anywhere near the kicker Christie was.
-
I will not make the argument that TE is a great QB but I don't understand the misperception that Fitz was more willing and able to go long than TE. In fact, with less playing time, TE threw deep more often and more effectively than Fitz.
Fitz was 0 for 1 (0%) in passes attempted over 30 yards last year.
TE was 5 for 7 (71%).
Fitz was 21 of 39 (54%) in plass from 21 to 30 yards.
TE was 26 of 49 (53%).
40 of Fits's 227 attempts (18%) were over 30 yards.
56 of TEs 183 attempts (31%) were over 30 yards.
(By comparison, 43% of Brady's passes last year were over 30 yds. 38% of Henne's. 22% of Sanchez's).
Does TE deserve the moniker "Captain Checkdown"? Maybe so. All through college and the NFL so far, this guy has played behind poor lines and maybe fear is beginning to rush his progressions. But I don't think the stats support the idea that he was less willing or able to throw deep than Fitz.
http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/players/playe...yan-fitzpatrick
http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/players/playe...9/trent-edwards
How do you mess something like this up? It says, "ATTEMPTS 31+" It couldn't be any more clear.
-
I remember Smith tearing through a team's defense and taking down the QB with ONE ARM while being tackled/blocked by the opposing teams defense. Something you don't see today.
You say one arm; I say one hand. I used to marvel at when Bruce would take a really wide angle around the LT and just grab at the QB with one hand, leave his feet, be completely horizontal, and yank the guy to the ground. I remember thinking I'd be scared to death to shake his hand....he'd either crush bones, or pull my arm out of it's socket.
-
I was chuckling reading that, remembering what Smerlas said he said to Smith in what turned out to be Bullough's last game as The Bills HC. Something to the effect that, "you make a sack and Bullough stays - you're dead meat", not at all a correct quote, but I believe that was the gist of it. They wanted him out soooooooo bad.
I think you got this story a little bit backwards (but the message remains the same); Smith was the one who threatened teammates...as I recall from Smerlas' book, Bruce said something along the lines of, "anybody makes a play, and I'm kicking their ass". But both of them hated Bullough. The whole team did; another story I remember from Smerlas' book was that he drove by a 7/11 and saw a bunch of people standing on a line circling around the building, and one of them was a teammate. Fred stopped and asked what was going on; the teammate said the Lotto jackpot was up around 50 million, and if he won it, the first thing he'd do was walk up to Bullough and punch him in the nose. Fred proceeded to get on line, too.
-
Any QB will suck without protection and I'm sure you realize that as well so sure, if it makes you happy,
TE sucked along with the rest of the team who also sucked just fine without him.
It is perfectly fine that you like Trent; I think Trent is a decent kid, and it annoys me when some of the other posters have jumped all over some out-of-context sound bites. And I also think it is perfectly fair to believe that he has a good chance to win the job in an open competition. And I think an open fair competition is what we will be looking at.
The problem is the two things I highlighted: clearly some QBs suck more than others without protection; and clearly, Fitz deals with poor protection better than Trent...the rest of the team did not, in fact, suck just fine without him...it improved. And clearly, there isn't much reason to believe the protection will be vastly better this year. And quite frankly, I have long wondered (see: Buffalo Bills 1999/2000) why anyone would evaluate a QB based on a best case scenario, when the best case never happens. QBs are not yet wearing red "don't hit me" jerseys during actual games. They all are pressured, and they all get hit.
Kudos to the OP; it was a good post, and as usual was not greeted with the same level of reason and common sense that it in itself contained.
-
Dallas' team was LOADED. And, don't you think Tampa's fire sale had something to do with their record? I don't care what you say. I prefer a guy like Chuckie. Maybe it's just the nick name.
Regardless, he's not our coach. But I thought his QB special was awesome TV. And since I've heard Bradford 4 times since, he sounds like a loser. I hated him with Chuckie and I've hated everything he's had to say since. He just doesn't instill confidence that he's THEE guy. I'd pass all day on Bradford, even at 9 (and that's prob why I'm in my kitchen).
As I wrote before, I only saw the part with Clausen, and I've stated my case there; it would be awfully hard for me to take the rest of that show seriously, though.
-
Interesting article. Thanks for posting.
My personal concern in drafting Gerhart has to do with how durable he would be.
Some of the scouts are suggesting that his running style will lend itself to a lot of punishment which, having seen him play, I think is valid.
Most of the time he was the one administering the punishment but it's a big step up to the pros.
If you've watched power backs over the decades, for the most part they've tended to have short careers.
Running backs in general have short careers and that's why so many of them are now willing to accept the trend of being a part of a two-back system. They realize that the money they will lose by not being the "bell-cow" running back can be made up by having a longer career.
I've predicted a short career for Marion Barber and for Marshawn Lynch. The concept of power running is self-defeating to having a long career, IMO. To have long careers, most backs today need to split carries.
For some perspective (active players bolded):
Jerome Bettis >3600 touches
LaDanian Tomlinson >3400 touches
John Riggins <3200 touches
Jim Brown >2600 touches
Clinton Portis >2400 touches
Earl Campbell >2300 touches
Jim Taylor <2200 touches
Cookie Gilchrist >2000 touches, nearly 900 in the CFL
Larry Csonka <2000 touches
Steven Jackson >1800 touches
Mike Alstott <1600 touches
Larry Johnson <1600 touches
Jim Nance <1500 touches
Christian Okoye >1300 touches
James Braxton <900 touches
Brandon Jacobs >800 touches
Most of these guys are power backs and are at the high end as far as odometer readings go. There are lots of other power backs that haven't made this list. Don't know how I got off on this tangent. Anyways, I love Gerhart but would be concerned about his durability. Just my instinct.
Some of what we both just wrote overlaps, although I still think there are two different types of "power" backs...those that are hard to bring down, and those that just crash into people, and the crashers are the ones who really seem to have short careers. One thing that stands out is Campbell did have more carries than Csonka (with an s instead of a z....serves me right for trusting another poster's spelling against my own instincts
) . I still have to point out to the youngsters that Csonka played in a 2 and sometimes 3 back system (which backs up your major point), and in terms of years, did last a lot longer than Campbell, who was leaking oil (pun intended) at 26, and done at 30. Csonka retired after an 800 yd, 12 TD season (and a career high in carries) at 33, and his overall numbers are reduced by having spent a year in the WFL and 3 years with the highly dysfunctional mid-70s Giants.Anyway, we're both right
. -
Here are a few other big bruiser backs: John Riggins, Jim Brown, Larry Czonka, Christian Okoye, Earl Campbell, Cookie Gilchrist, Mike Alstott. There are surely many more that just haven't popped into my head.
BTW, Lynch is the Bills bruiser, and if his situation isn't resolved to Nixley's satisfaction, I believe the Bills will draft a roadgrader back later in the draft. I'd be happy if that guy was Gerhardt.
Among those bruising backs, there still are differences. I can't talk about Gilchrist, but the others fall into two categories; Riggins and Brown were tough guys who also had some ability to avoid contact, but the rest of your list are guys who deliberately ran into defenders over and over again. Which is pretty much what Gerhart does. And if you notice, other than Czonka, those guys didn't last long. I like Gerhart; he isn't going to last long, either.
-
Barry Switzer.
No. And shame on you for bringing him up; defending him makes me feel dirty.
Seriously, though. 1st three years for Switzer: 12-4, 12-4, 10-6. Won it all the 2nd year. Gruden: 12-4, 7-9, 5-11. Won the SB 1st year; ergo, he did it with more of his predecessor's players...then he burned that mother right to the ground.
-
They lost to Gruden's team who knew every single offensive set the Raiders had.
And that would be reason to criticize Bill Callahan, not praise Gruden.
-
Obviously you favor the calm, cool demeanor of say Dick Jauron. But I like a coach with a pulse. Oh...and a Superbowl ring.
I prefer substance over style. Jauron had neither. And no head coach who has ever received a Super Bowl ring has had less to do with his team's success than Gruden.
And Biscuit is on the money about the rah-rah stuff...it has a very short shelf life when you are dealing with grown-ups.
-
Back off Chuckie. It's okay to favor Clausen, but I thought if nothing else, it was great TV. He exposed a weakness on each QB. He also pointed out strengths. Whadya want, Mr. Rogers? I like passion. And Gruden has that.
If you want passion, go read a romance novel. What Jon Gruden is clearly best at is self promotion. It worked with a number of people here.
-
I wrote a paper on Clarett the RB Den drafted back in the day that had all those problems with the law and now I have to do a power point on it... I could use some help... I need examples of players that were drafted and soon after got into legal problems... younger players are better but my teacher wont know the difference if they were young or vets... I have some of the high profile guys already... Buress, Vick, Rapeburger Ricky Williams and Pacman... If you guys can help me with some more that would be a great help... also if you know what they did that would be great if not I can google it... Ko Simpson and Marshawn Lynch joke are welcome!
I am trying to get a large list together so it makes a impact... so the teacher looks at it and goes wow yes their is a problem with NFL, Fame, and getting into trouble...Thanks!!!!!!!
There are names and details (frequently quite funny) here:
http://thephoenix.com/Boston/Authors/MATT-TAIBBI/
It is all sports, though...not just NFL.
-
I didn't see all of this (really, just a chunk of the Clausen segment), but I thought Gruden was awful. He seemed much more interested in looking like a big shot than he did in creating useful analysis. I wasn't too terribly impressed with Clausen, but I got the feeling he just wanted to bolt because Gruden was browbeating him. Gruden went into the show with a Mike Wallace "Gotcha" attitude, and the second Clausen tried to explain that someone else made a mistake, Gruden pounced on him. It was like he had an agenda to prove that Clausen is the weaselly little turd that so many unofficial scouts say he is. Clausen may very well be a weaselly turd; Gruden is worse.
-
Funny how Brees doesn't have the same problems at 6'0"...
Why do we always have to have an excuse for why a guy can't do something? Sometimes its OK to just say a guy sucks because he sucks and leave it at that...
Fitz isn't inaccurate because he is too short, he is inaccurate because he doesn't have enough talent....
Inaccurate, you say....
vs Colts, 64%
vs Patriots, 68%
vs Dolphins, 65.4%
on first down, 64.9%
at Ralph Wilson Stadium, 65.7% (4 games)
temp. less than 40 F, 66%
The guy's numbers (and clearly the perception of him) were destroyed primarily by two games against the Jets, who had by far and away the best pass defense in the league. One of those games (and another QB rating killing performance against Tennessee, which was punctuated by an *accurate* pass turned into an INT by TO) was a relief appearance when he likely got few practice reps.
I want to emphasize that I am not saying Fitz is great, or a good long term starting option. What I am saying is he is a HECK of a lot better than he gets credit for here, and he is a MUCH better option for 2010 than Trent Edwards. And Campbell. And especially a broken-down Bulger. I could be sold on Clausen, and would pick Bradford at #9 in a heartbeat...not that he'll be there.
-
no one had a worse ine than ours last year. the first 2 games last year before we became decimated by injuries trent looked very good . then he and the line got knocked out.
two years ago when we were 5 and 1 trent was the hottest QB in the league then he got knocked out again because someone missed an assignment.
with our 3 young studs in the middle and with our new free agent RT if we get one of the 4 top LT's in this draft we could be looking @ a very successful entertaining year!
lastly galiey knows how to coach up QB's and most importently how to score points,i'm as excited as hell provided we get @ LT!
Here we go again; Trent got hurt in week 5, NOT after they went 5 and 1. The best game he has ever had was AFTER he came back from the injury. And it is hard to make a claim that he was the hottest QB in the league when you factor in that the 1st 4 wins were against teams that finished the year a combined 16-48.
Facts are important, folks. It is getting really old correcting these same mistakes.
-
i just posted almost the exact same thing in the other thread. id like to see us pick up Campbell, draft a QB early, and keep 1 (maaaybe 2) of our current QBs heading into cam.
Let the 4 of them battle it out and see which one doesnt make the cut.
Personally, Id keep Brohm and Edwards. Fitz if "fine" but we know what we have and how high he can go. Edwards showed real promise before the concussion and I feel that if we could get him back to that, he might be ok. If nothing else, I'd be interested to see how he does against the competition of Campbell and a "blue chip" rookie. If he falls apart, then no biggie and we cut him and go into the season with Campbell, Brohm, and Rookie.
Ohhh, where to begin?
First, the "Fitz is fine, but..." part. Fitzpatrick has had every obstacle placed in his path that Edwards has (save for one, which I'll address shortly). Fitz played behind the same crap o-line, had the same crap coaches, had the same TO drops, the same lack of a decent tight end, the same defense that can't stop the run and consistently give the "O" good field position; ALL these things were the same for both guys. Plus, Trent had more starts and more pass attempts (in other words, more experience) going into the season, and hadn't played for 3 teams in 3 years. Fitz took all these negatives and turned them into a 5-4 record, while Trent took all those things and turned them into a 1-5. And FITZ is the guy who you want to dump because of his perceived limitations? Why do so few people here see that maybe, possibly, perhaps, if....the line improves, the WR's hold onto the ball, the coaches are smarter...maybe, possibly, perhaps....Fitz would improve, too? Are you guys that defend Trent so completely blind to logic that you can only see Trent needing these things? Seriously!
Now, for that one obstacle that you (and about 35,000 others) continue to bring up: the concussion from the Adrian Wilson hit. I hate to break it to you, but this doesn't hold water. Trent had THE BEST GAME OF HIS CAREER his first game after the concussion; he had his second best game against Denver later on that same season. The concussion in '09, in addition to happening on a pretty ordinary play, came AFTER that sterling 3 point performance against the Browns
I have posted all these things before...so have others...why don't they sink in a little bit? Why does every poll on this board about QBs omit the guy who actually accomplished something last season (including playing VERY well in RWS) as an option? And one last point...if we know what we have with Fitz after 9 games, how come I STILL don't know whether Edwards even has an NFL arm?
-
Trent was playing ok until Wilson crushed him.
People have attempted to make this point about 6 million times before; it is just as wrong now as all the other times.
The best game the guy ever had was his first one back after the concussion against the Chargers; the second best game he ever had was later on that season against Denver.
-
you've posted 25 times. with posts like this you shouldn't make it to 50...
trent's got game... lets see if he can get back to it again.
Half the reason why I support Fitz is because I have seen 3 years of Edwards and have no idea whether he even has an NFL arm, much less "game".
The other half....THE RECORD.
-
i agree, it is truly amazing how the past three years set the franchise back. i just wonder who ralph ultimately listens to.
I think what is truly amazing is that I fully understand the point you are making but contend that those three years actually represented a step forward.
-
I doubt the Wonderlic is used any different than 40-times; it confirms what you see on the field.
But having said that, when I took the 15 question sample that has been circulating around the internets for years, I was able to answer more than half the questions in less than 2 minutes; as I understand it, they get a half hour to answer 50 questions. In other words (presuming the sample questions are representative of the actual test), I could have beaten Tebow's, Claussens, and McCoy's scores and still had over 20 minutes to pick wax out of my ears. I can't understand anyone getting less than 15 on this test unless they just fill out the circles on the answer sheet in the pattern of a 3 wide spread-option facing a dime with a corner blitz.
-
I'm not a fan of Mays; he may have great size and a fantastic 40 time, but ball skills are nowhere to be found. I've seen a lot of him, and his game consists of roaming the defensive backfield looking for kill shots. That's about it. Kind of like Roy Williams, minus the horse-collar tackles.
-
There is no earthly way they should give up a 3rd for a guy who has thrown ZERO passes in 4 years in the NFL, and basically stunk in college. I'd MAYBE give them a 7th. Seriously...there is no reason to think he has any more value now than the past 4 off seasons, and if they could have gotten a 3rd then, they would have done it in a heartbeat.
This situation looks comparable to RJ/Hasselbeck/Schaub, but it really isn't. Those guys played at least a little bit. Whitehurst hasn't, and has also pretty much sucked in preseason, too.
-
I'm glad they're looking at ways to change OT, but I don't really understand the idea behind only making the change for the playoffs. If it's determined that the current system isn't good enough, why only make the change to post-season?
I agree; it should be implemented for the regular season, too. BUT...and this is a big BUT....when making a change, one must consider the following question: What does TV want?
TV wants 3 hour games. The current OT system came back in the day when the league wasn't run based on TV's whims; otherwise, we'd have gobs of tie games. They know that going backwards to having no OT would cause a major uproar, so TV regretfully prefers things as they are. CBS/Fox are probably ecstatic when OT's last only one possession.
I really prefer the college OT. But that ain't gonna happen because the TV overlords would have a fully grown cow if a game lasted 4 and a half hours.
1991 Bills
in The Stadium Wall Archives
Posted
I wholeheartedly agree with the last line of your post, but some of the rest of it is revisionist history. Those late '90s Bills defenses were vastly better than the superbowl teams; Ted Washington in particular was a massive upgrade at NT. But those D's were not strong in the defensive backfield, and it showed up with a really obnoxious tendency of giving up 1st downs in long yardage situations. And to defend the QB a little bit...many of the losses, and much of the damage to his season, was done in games when the D didn't do anything. There was a two game stretch in the middle of the season against Oakland and Seattle when the D first got pushed around then got humiliated. The QB, admittedly not at his best when throwing 40-50 times a game, was further hampered by having his best WR hobbled with a bad hamstring, and the RB situation was a mess...Thurman injured, Smith fat, and Linton untalented. But meh, I know you don't want to hear those things....IF ONLY WE STARTED RJ THE WHOLE SEASON!!!!
:wallbash: 