PDaDdy
-
Posts
3,136 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Gallery
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by PDaDdy
-
-
Anybody who is talking about taking Hill at 10 and who has denounced taking Reiff or Martin at 10 is a hypocrite. You wanna talk about a reach at 10? Hill would be the epitome. Don't get me wrong, the kid might be a stud one day but everyone on this board has repeated the same mantra over and over - the 10th pick in the draft must be able to step in and produce from day one. Number 10 can't be a developmental pick.
Here are some quotes about Hill: "He is a raw receiver with big upside and a high ceiling." " Isn't a real polished route runner because of the scheme. Is asked to typically just run vertical routes where he can track/height point the football. Has been asked to work from the slot, but seemed to round off/drift in and out of his breaks. And isn't real sharp or sudden in that area of the game. Watching his short area quickness and body control for a big guy he looks like he can certainly develop in the three-step game and has the skill set to be able to beat press coverage off the line." "Is going to need some time to develop."
Sounds like a guy you take at the bottom/end of the 1st round. That said, if he's somehow there for us at 41, I'll have wood!!!
Guys with Hill's measureables come along very rarely. Buddy was at GT's proday. They discussed Hill and Floyd at yesterdays presser and it was said that they think Hill can run the route tree but he wasn't in a system that allowed those talents to be displayed. He is a solid character guy who would seem to fit all of our needs with the exception of experience.
That being said I don't think he will be the pick at #10. Would I be pissed? Not really but we could definitely make a pick with more "certainty". We could go for what we hope is a base hit double or we could swing for the fences. Maybe we fly out. Maybe we knock it out of the park.
As I have said I really want this guy on our team but I think the only way we get him is a trade down in the first to the middle or late teens or we try to jump back into the first using some of our extra picks to move back up.
Hill making it out of the 20's is a fantasy much less the 2nd round. If he won't make it out of the 20's or teens which I think 90% would agree with, is it really a stretch to take him at #10 if the front office has a strong feeling that this is the guy? I doubt it happens but I do feel that it is an option especially if Blackmon and Floyd are gone by #10 and we really want a WR.
-
No wonder you are so smart, I mention the idea of reading about something that is actually quite fascinating and I'm the a******. If you don't want to look it up then just say so. The notion that you would prefer my explanation to doing some of your own fact finding says it all.
Riiiight. What I am doing is giving you a forum to explain how this whole thread is useless by educating me to how mathematical coincidence explains this all away. I'm not a statistics or math major. I don't want to guess or infer what your point is which is why I asked you to enlighten me.
So, here is your chance to explain your stated opinion. Remember, if you can't explain something simply, you probably don't understand it that well. The fact that you dodged the question in the way you did makes it seem very suspicious.
-
BB Staff members talking about Hill and Floyd.
-
Of course. Why actually READ about what "mathematical coincidence" actually is and examples of such when empirical evidence would conceivably get in the way of your preconceived notions. The only thing that is not a coincidence when it comes to the Bills and Pats is that the Bills are 1 and
for the past 7 years against them.So enlighten us oh wise one. How does mathematical coincidence explain an incredible statistic improbability if this coincidence is based on chance?
-
Alright just for fun I went through and looked at the Bye weeks and who plays teams coming off of them. I came up with some interesting numbers (not that I'm sure they mean much)
(all of the numbers will be games against teams coming off of byes)
4
Eagles (now they have a beef!)
3
Falcons
2
Packers, Ravens, Raiders, Lions, Cowboys, Browns, Bills (1 of the teams is also off of our bye)
1
Chiefs, Bucs, Saints, Jets, Broncos, 49ers, Rams (49ers and rams face each other coming off of bye and only one each team plays) ,Seahawks, Jags, Bears, Dolphins, Texans
and check out the list of teams with 0
Steelers (jewel franchise)
Giants (jewel franchise)
Pats (jewel franchise)
Redskins, Bengals, Colts, Titans, Vikings, Chargers, Cards, Panthers
not sure what it means but I did find it interesting that 3 of the top franchises from the leagues perspective don't face any teams coming off of a bye. The Eagles and Falcons got the short end of the stick for sure. Would be interesting at the end of the year to compare this list to the end of year records and see if it meant anything. By the end of the year though we will forget all about this debate as we celebrate our playoff return!
I've done it previous years and stopped because I saw the same type of pattern and it just made me angry.
-
An argument coulbd be made by the pats that having the Bills after the bye is a waste of the bye week. History would support this contention.
Part of that history is us almost always playing the Pats after their bye week
-
Why do you think that any part of the schedule follows a random distribution? Why would it?
And what are you suspicious of?? You guys can't even agree as to what the benefit is: getting 2 weeks to prepare for a tough game against Bills because "they are picked to be the AFCE runnerup"; or, the opposite-- after 2 weeks off, teams are rusty and need a tomato can to tune up on.
Why don't you loons get together and put forth a unified theory so we can mock you all at once.
This is my point. This tendency to always play the Pats after their bye week is not random it is premeditated. The benefit to the Pats is that they get to play a division rival almost every year after 2 weeks to prepare and rest. The cost to us is that we have had to play a division rival and division leader almost every year for the last 8. It's tough enough to take away a game from a division leading rival and much tougher after they have 2 weeks to rest and prepare. Teams don't get rusty middle of the season with an additional week of rest playing at home.
It's pretty simple in my eyes.
-
Calling foul on the Pats recent bye week history is silly. Study a little bit about "mathematical coincidence" and you will understand that recent history in and of itself is actually an unsuspicious string of events. Don't confuse numerical expressions of possible outcomes with the natural occurrence of seemingly impossible outcomes in real life every moment of every day.
4 out of the last 5 years and 6 of the last 8 I think. I would say that defies the statistical chance of it being just a "coincidence". If it were relatively random we should get the Pats after OUR bye week 50% of the time when it does happen. This also defies incredibly that statistical possibility. The reality of the situation makes it HIGHLY "suspicious" in my opinion.
-
Which is a means to what ends?
Boning us over of course!
-
Not in round 1
THIS IS THE PROBLEM WHEN THREADS GET MERGED! About 5 - 6 pages of this 8 page thread were regarding "How do we get Stephen Hill?" not "He will be the pick at #10". Hill WILL go in the 1st there is no doubt. #10 would be early and it would be based on speculation about his potential as well as his SICK measureables. If we move around in the draft it's possible that we might end up getting him.
picking Hill at 10 would be something Al Davis would do
Picking Kendall Wright at #10 would be something that Al would do because he is undersized and plays fast!
-
This just seems unreal. This happens every year. Simply amazing.
Uh ....YES! Seriously it feels like every year they have 2 weeks to rest and prepare for us. This is what it is to be a Bills fan to have that perception and persecution complex. You're not paranoid if they really are out to get you!
-
Saw on ESPN web site that Bills only have 5 games against "quality" opponents (funny, Patriots have even fewer at 4 games against "quality" opponents).
This is based on 2011 records.
If we accept that Bills have an "easy" schedule in 2012, AND, with all the defensive moves in the offseason + what's in store in the draft, as I see it, Bills win a minimum of 9 games.
Projected Wins
Miami 2
Jets 1
Patriots 1
Houston 0
Indy 1
Denver 1
San Fran 0
Cardinals 1
Jags 1
Ravens 0
St Louis 1
Seahawks 1
There you go! .... 10 wins ... we are in playoffs!
If they can't pull at least 9 wins out of their a** then we r F**ked.
You saw it here first.
It's a good sign but it's based only on last years schedule. If you have been a fan of football for any length of time you know some teams get better and some teams get worse. Injuries, free agency, breakout players, etc. Your own expectations of our team speaks volumes. Based on our 6-10 record last year we look like an easy out but we all feel we have made some significant improvements and we haven't even reached the draft yet.
I think you have to have a little more patience than to expect a 180 next year solely based on strength of schedule which is based on last year's record. Personally I do fully expect us to make the play offs as I did last year IF WE STAY HEALTHY! When we were firing on all cylinders we looked like a play off team. Once the injuries started piling up and hit deep at positions like WR and CB, we fell off.
Take a look sometime if you can find the "strength of schedule" for previous years and see how that compared to end of season record. Strength of schedule before a single game has been played is not meaningless but it is sometimes far from accurate.
-
ARRRRGGGGHHHHHHHH
How does my month old 5 page thread on "How do we get Stephen Hill?" get merged and replaced by a 2 page thread on "Stephen Hill WILL be the pick at #10" that hasn't been posted to in forever?
Apparently we can have 10 different threads addressing the minutia of why somebody thinks Fitz sucks but these 2 separate threads, mine being the longest (*grin*) gets merged because it is a related topic? *sigh*.
I guess someone wanted this thread dead as you have to search through your own previous posts to find out where it went. Maybe I am on to something!!!!
-
He may have potential, but I don't think he is a first rounder. Again, he had 28 receptions. Not sure how many targets he had, but I know it couldn't have been many. Worst bowl game I watched last season was GT. Option right EVERY SINGLE PLAY.
Measurables, he has. Experience? Not so much.
Thomas went 22 over all in the first round in the 2010 draft. I have no reason to think that Hill won't go around or before then. The "experts" would tend to agree with me.
-
Demaryius Thomas: (6'3", 235 lbs)
2007: 35 rec, 558 yds, 3 tds
2008: 39 rec, 627 yds, 3 tds
2009: 46 rec, 1154 yds, 8 tds
40 Time: 4.50
Stephen Hill: (6'5", 206 lbs)
2011: 28 rec, 820 yds, 5 tds
40 Time: 4.36
Thomas definitely has more production for more years and is less of a beanpole. Stephen hill is faster (Thomas didn't do many drills at the combine so this was the only real comparison). If they didnt both go to GT, would even be comparing them? I agree there is something to the fact that they played in the same college system, but that does not mean they are the same kind of player.
Hill ran at 215lb at the combine and maintained his speed. It's also mentioned in the video I posted earlier in the thread. Randy Moss, Plaxico Burress have been some VERY successful bean poles as you put it in the NFL. Compared to Thomas Hill is taller and much faster which are even greater positives. Thanks for pointing that out. Thomas came out at 224lbs and didn't even run the 40 if I am not mistaken so his 4.5 is likely a proday friendly time.
I agree they aren't the same type of player. I think Hill could be better as he has better measureables. The only thing that Thomas has over Hill is weight. Every other measureable Hills has it over Thomas. Hill's college production is lacking but who was throwing the rock at GT for Hill vs Thomas?
They all sucked but in 2010 the 2 QBs who split time combined for a whopping 9 TDs for the entire season with 7 INTs and in 2011 they made a huge jump to a gaudy 11 TDs and 8 INTs. That is piss poor terrible. The problem isn't the low numbers for the WRs, it's the triple option scheme and the QBs throwing the ball.
-
What are your thoughts on Demarius Thomas? I believe he was in the same situation and he didn't have a lot of stats but has turned into a #1 for Denver after dealing with some health issues.
As a side note it was also mention in an article from the GT coach if I am not mistaken that says having worked in the triple option he is well experienced at all the other things WRs do like blocking for ball carriers and read and react type stuff. A WR's primary job of course is to run routes and catch the ball but apparently he has a good deal of experience with all the other things a WR has to do.
Oh ya. Let's not forget that Tebow was his QB for a good portion of his time which doesn't help any WRs stats or growth!
5 pages on a guy who had 28 catches. I would be shocked if he is a Bill.
The odds are against it but the odds are against almost any player becoming a Bill. I don't know if you read any of the 5 pages or are just dumping on the thread because it is 5 pages long but Buddy Nix was at GT's pro day personally to watch Hill. I don't think ole Buddy hops on a plane and flies around the country for fun unless there is some real interest or fact finding going on.
There is some information out there that Stephen Hill is supposed to make a visit at some point before the draft. This was based on some speculation of identifying 26 of the 30 player visits we allow. The resume is short from a receptions stand point but he has to be a blocker having been in the 3 option system for years. The only knock on him is GT didn't throw much and the hometown kid wanted to stay in Georgia.
He has things you can't teach like 6'5", 215 and running in the low 4.3s. Oh...lets not forget a ridiculous vertical leap. Seems to be exactly what Nix and Co are looking for. A big fast field stretcher who is open when he is not.
Floyd is a much more obvious choice but has off field issues and is not nearly as gifted as Hill. I really think that Hill may end up being the best WR out of this draft in the long run.
-
If you watched him play in college you knew he was going to be good. Can not say that for certain about Hill, because to be honest he really did not stand out in the Tech Games i watched this past year.
What are your thoughts on Demarius Thomas? I believe he was in the same situation and he didn't have a lot of stats but has turned into a #1 for Denver after dealing with some health issues.
As a side note it was also mention in an article from the GT coach if I am not mistaken that says having worked in the triple option he is well experienced at all the other things WRs do like blocking for ball carriers and read and react type stuff. A WR's primary job of course is to run routes and catch the ball but apparently he has a good deal of experience with all the other things a WR has to do.
-
I can't see him being the pick at 10. I can't see him being available in round 2. I can't see buddy giving up picks to trade up for him. I can't see him being a bill. Selecting him at 10 is the most likely scenario and based on buddies philosophy of drafting the bpa, it's a big stretch.
Great points except for the fact that Buddy Nix was sighted at his pro day. I don't think Buddy does much traveling unless there is some serious consideration.
I was being honest. Great point. I don't see this happening unless there is some movement in the draft. I would not poop a brick if we took him at #10 but I find it highly unlikely. It would be considered one of the bigger "reaches" in recent history.
If I'm not mistaken this was post combine after his measureables made him a consensus first round pick. Consensus first round pick meaning he will "go" in the first round.
http://www.buffalorumblings.com/2012/3/9/2856717/2012-nfl-draft-stephen-hill-buffalo-bills
Yep. We have Hill going to Cleveland at their #22 (If Cleveland is the team at #22...I'd like to see a trade here...
)If it happens I would imagine that it would be due to a trade back or a trade up back into the 1st round. 22 might be a bit late though. For what it's worth he was interviewed and featured on Sports Center and seems like a solid well spoken character guy. First thing he plans on doing with his money when asked was to give his tithe to the church and take care of his parents.
-
More Stephen Hill news. Working out with Calvin "Megatron" Johnson CAN'T be a bad thing!
By the way does anyone know if we have had this guy in for a visit?
-
I didn't post it, but somewhere Nix said he wants a Big WR who can get the ball and is open even when he is covered, aside from Floyd who else fits that profile in this draft?
Stephen Hill! Anyone deep into football and other teams for whatever reasons, fantasy being one of them, knows GT has put out two really good WRs in Calvin Johnson and Demarius Thomas. If Blackmon and Floyd are gone we would catch major hell for taking him but the guy could be the best out of the class. It might not happen day 1 but I think he will be the best of the bunch. I would really like us to trade down or trade back into the first to get him.
-
Thats how I feel about it. Seems like he would be a beast in the running game and just big enough for pass protection until he really gets some experience. And I'm sure going against Super Mario every day in practice can only accelerate the learning curve.
Good points. If you agree with some fans that Hairston did just fine at LT we could take Glenn and let him compete with Hairston. Whichever one wins out is the starter the other becomes a swing tackle/guard as depth on the line. Guys need a rest and people get hurt.
id still rather try and trade up for him early 2nd
Fantasy.
-
But if our options at those other positions are subpar, wouldn't you rather take a near "sure thing" at LB?
I just think drafting WR Floyd, LT Reiff, Martin or CB Kirkpatrick comes with a whole lot more risk.
I don't see much risk with Floyd on the field. If his alcohol issues, which any one of us on this board could have gotten caught for, are behind him. I not only have no worries about Floyd I would be ecstatic that he fell to us and we picked him. Give Fitz a real #2 not the bums we had playing the spot last season. I like Nelson and have big hopes for Easely if he can ever get on the field but Floyd is a day 1 starter at the very least a #3 and quite possibly a #2 if we have the same injuries we seem to have every year.
The only guy on our roster that I feel is worthy of being a #2 is Easely and as mentioned he has yet to play a regular season down for us. Floyd would be such a good fit.
-
It seems like a lot of posters think it would be a mistake for Buffalo to draft Kuechly at #10. There's a good article on Espn right now about the linebacker so see if this changes your mind?
Are you convinced?
It doesn't change my mind as I was already convinced. The only problem is that he is listed at MLB. Wansted has already said that Sheppard is his guy at that spot. That being said I don't have much doubt Keuchly could play OLB with all of his speed and skill.
Some have mentioned that we play nickel defense quite a bit but with a guy like this we might be able to stay in our base defense as he can cover TEs and defend the run. If we stay in our base defense more Keuchly might be able to cover the likes of Gronkowski and Hernandez considering our expected much improved pass rush.
WR and LT and even CB are much higher need than MLB. Need to add a couple of LB's later in the draft but not at #10. Would rather have Decastro if going to go with BPA at #10 if people feel the LT's are reaches at #10.
If we get him I assume he going to play OLB because Wanny likes Sheppard. WR, LT and "possibly" CB are just as big needs but we likely have a plethora of 3-4 LBs that might not fit in the new 4-3 scheme. As Nix said we need LBs and more than one.
-
Would you give up Marshawn Lynch and Paul Posluszny for Joe Thomas? I know I would...2007 draft (Thomas went #3 but if he slipped to 5 this scenario compares to the question)
Sort of. We actually moved up to get Poz in the second and he was OK. Lynch has been a workhorse NFL RB. Despite neither being on the team anymore those were two decent picks. I'm not saying best ever but good. Lynch had off field issues which eventually got him run out of Buffalo and Poz couldn't cover a TE to save his life but they were good starters.
Spiller Pick Evaluation
in The Stadium Wall Archives
Posted · Edited by PDaDdy
We weren't keeping Marshawn. I didn't want to believe it myself and thought we would be stupid to get rid of him but I was wrong. One of the popular phrases of the era is "it's a passing league". Also popular is the "2 back system". We have have 2 great ones. One just starting his career and one closer to the end. I don't quite understand this debate as I am REALLY glad we have them both. Now Gailey just needs to find each of them enough touches for the sake of the team not for their individual egos.