Jump to content

The Wiz

Community Member
  • Posts

    23,533
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by The Wiz

  1. 1 hour ago, mrags said:

    I didn’t know about those players because I don’t follow those teams. But here I am on a Bills message board for hours a day arguing and conversing with people. I also have a Bills app that updates and notifies me when any move is made and official. It doesn’t have to be earth shattering news. I never said it was. I was simply arguing the fact that you, or whoever the hell said it was a done deal when in fact it was not. It was not until a few hours after you or whoever else said it. For the facts of the argument, at the time, it was not confirmed. Now that is a whole different argument. And of course I look foolish. But if we had assumed he was signed and then all the sudden he wasn’t, it’s a different story. And for the record I never denied that he would be signed, or doubted it. I would rather just wait until the facts are out there. And I wouldn’t have spent nearly as much time trying to rile you up or prove you wrong like you are doing here. as it turns out, you’re right. He signed. Yay for you. 
     

    and my argument about a depth position of need has been argued over and over. I’m not getting into it again. Yes we needed depth at DT, but I don’t agree with the move. I’ll leave it at that. 
     

     

    I don't follow those teams either.  I also don't follow the Ravens or Tennessee but know that they signed Henry and Ridley, respectively.  Why? because they were big money signings that were reported by the media.  This signing is a depth signing and doesn't move the needle one bit for me and apparently drops it lower for you but it does fill a position of need.  In terms of cost, it wasn't even newsworthy.  If you think that proving you wrong was my intention just to say I" told you so" then you completely missed the point.

     

    I'm not riled, I'm not trying to prove you wrong.  I just have no history to go on with why you think he is a bad signing but for some reason, to you, it's a bad signing and the only thing I have to go on from what you have said in this thread is his age.  Would it have been better to sign a younger player that produced less than him?

    Like you said, I'm on a Bills message board for hours a day.  I'm fine with arguing/conversing if you want but I'm just trying to figure out why you dislike it.

  2. 3 minutes ago, mrags said:

    Actually. Long story short is, I disapproved of the move 3 days ago. When the rumor was put out there that he was signing. 
     

    someone (and I don’t remember who, nor do I care, could have been you for all I know) made a comment that he was signed. When it was NOT IN FACT confirmed by anyone other than another player on Twitter. Not by league officials. Not by the team. Not even by Johnson himself. 

    Well it wasn't me 3 days ago, I only posted that today that he was signed and again, not sure why a player signing (I'm assuming 1 year vet minimum) is hardly earth shattering news in the NFL.  Did you know that Justin Scheffer was cut from the Falcons?  Or that Rasheem Blackshear resigned with the Panthers?

    I sure as hell didn't until I just looked up the transactions for today.

     

    And again, I don't see why it's a bad thing to add depth at a position of need prior to the draft.

  3. 1 minute ago, BillsFanForever19 said:

    I think the smart move is to stay pat at 28 or Trade down a little bit from there to try and pick up a 3rd or another 4th that we can use to get back up into the 3rd.

    My guess is, if this happens, Baltimore or KC is going to jump us again to get a player we want like they did with McDuffie and hopefully Beane isn't gun-shy about going to get the guy even if it cost him and extra pick or 2.

     

    Yes, they can turn that 3rd rounder into something to move up in the 2nd round but they are going to be looking at the bottom of the 2nd tier barrel for WR if they don't get one in the first round (and they don't actually need to use that pick but to move up from 60 to low 40's it might cost them close to that or a combo of picks later on).

     

  4. 1 minute ago, WotAGuy said:


    Trading next year’s high picks sounds like a good idea until next year when you realize it wasn’t worth it and you need that pick back.  
     

    The draft, even the first round, is too much of a crap shoot to trade future picks. The idea is to keep finding Matt Milanos and Terrel Bernards and make the best of your high picks each year. 
     

    The Bills might try to get back into the third this year, but I don’t see them using next year’s picks to do it. 

    I'm all about them trying to find a "diamond in the rough" but I don't think any of the top 3 WR's are near the same as when we moved up to get Watkins.  I get the feeling that is probably a thing that is causing most people to be weary of the idea of moving up.  But if 2 (1's gets you in that sweet spot.  I'm assuming other late round picks will be included).  Why not go for broke and get one of the top 3 WR's in the draft and a future Diggs replacement that you don't have to worry about paying for 5 years?

     

    Could even toss a little spice on it and say trade up in the 1st round (for next years 1st and a 4th this year) and down in the 2nd assuming the 1st was a top flight WR and the 2nd rounder was Polk and gained a late 2nd and another 4th.  Interested then?

  5. 8 minutes ago, WotAGuy said:

    If anything, it will be third or lower. Their trade ammo is all lower rounds picks. 

    Not if you include next years picks.

     

    I think this is the year it happens and are going to take a swing and move up a bunch in the 1st or 2nd or both just to get something that give them immediate returns on the field.  Not gonna say which picks and I know they don't like bargaining the future but I think it's about time they take a swing and see what happens.

    • Like (+1) 2
    • Thank you (+1) 2
  6. 9 hours ago, mrags said:

    Yet I haven’t seen it confirmed by the team or the nfl. Or espn. Or Wikipedia. 
     

    still doesn’t take away from the fact that we’re old at the position. 

     

    4 hours ago, mrags said:

    Yup. Finally acknowledged by the Bills. 3 days later. 

     

    1 hour ago, mrags said:

    The point was if the Bills haven’t announced it it’s not official. To say it like it was happening might have been correct but just like Von saying he’s recruiting players like Hopkins and OBJ and none of it Happened. So just wait until the team official announces it before we assume anything. 

    It has nothing to do with it being official or not official.  You comments prior were clear that "they signed an old guy instead of getting younger" and "no one else has confirmed it".  Just because you haven't seen it confirmed by whoever it is you trust doesn't mean that it's not happening.  We aren't talking about Aaron Donald here, or OBJ or Hopkins.  This is a vet min guy that we are adding as a rotational piece.  Kind of surprised they didn't break into march madness or the opening day of baseball for a guy that is getting a 1yr/1.2m deal.

     

    Long story short:

    Lies No GIF

    • Dislike 1
  7. 43 minutes ago, mrags said:

    Yup. Finally acknowledged by the Bills. 3 days later. 

    Well the fact that Jones reported it and it took an extra 3 days for them to make it official doesn't really have anything to do with one another.

     

    How many times did we hear Von go on social about all the players he was recruiting and then they went somewhere else?  Not to mention all the contract details they need to put together, schedule a physical and also work around his schedule for when he could come to Buffalo to do all of those things prior to them being able to make it official.

     

    "BUT IT TOOK THEM 3 DAYS!!!!"

    Old_Man_Yells_at_cloud_cover.jpg

    • Like (+1) 1
    • Agree 1
  8. 3 hours ago, DrDawkinstein said:

    How would an onside kick attempt work?

     

    2 hours ago, BigDingus said:

     

    So surprise onside kicks are out? 

     

    1 hour ago, Chicken Boo said:

     

     

    Damn.  I didn't think about that.  

     

    1 hour ago, RangerDave said:

    So, no more squib kicks?  That could impact kickoffs near the end of games.

     

    59 minutes ago, RiotAct said:

    oh dang.  There goes surprise onside kicks, then

    So regarding the surprise onside kick/squib kick.  I honestly think that this could open up some interesting special teams designed plays.

     

    As stated, players can't move until the ball hits the ground or player receiving it (other than the kicker/returner(s)).  The receiving team also has the option of having either 1 or 2 players back to receive the ball.

     

    Now mind you I've never actually kicked a ball off before but I would think that these guys know how to kick a specific distance and direction.  Imagine hitting a low/mid height kick that would land between the 15-20 yardline quickly but not like a blast of a kick off that would basically be an attempt and getting the ball to land as fast as possible and become a bouncer for the receiving team to try to scoop up while having guys being the same distance away from the ball as you are.  It would be something interesting  to see attempted at least.

     

    And on the opposite side, having two guys receiving the ball that a free to move around prior to the rest of the kicking team could lead to some misdirection and trick plays.

     

     

    Regarding squib kicks, I'd be interested in the rules for this new rule exactly what it says.  What is to prevent the kicking team from lining up and calling an onside kick and then squibbing it down the field?

     

    In any event, this change makes kick offs relevant again vs it just being a wasted play other than in the last 2 minutes of a game.

  9. from going 17 years with a mediocre/bad team every single season to winning the division 4 times in a row and making the playoffs 6/7 years.... Yes, I would agree it's narrow minded.

     

    Many teams have a good/great team and judging them based on whether they won the superbowl or not is not taking into account anything else that has happened.

    • Like (+1) 3
    • Awesome! (+1) 1
  10. 2 hours ago, sven233 said:

     

    The problem I see with this is that a lot of these tackles happen by circumstance, not because players are trying to hurt each other.  Just about all these clips show the offensive player getting out in front of the defensive player so the defensive player has to grab the player and pull them to the ground.  I guess I am not seeing how, at full speed, they want the defensive player to tackle the guy that is trying to run away from them.  They can't go high because the offensive player will just run through it.  I guess they could try and trip them around the knees or ankles or something, but will that really limit injuries or will it create more?  This is going to result in a lot more broken tackles because offensive players are too big and strong to not just be wrapped up and dragged down.

     

    I don't know.  I guess if they unanimously voted it out there must be a plan, but I just don't see a lot of ways to tackle a guy that gets ahead of you in open space without wrapping up.  It is a lot to ask of defensive players.

    My first thought of this was when the Bills were playing the Patriots and Bruschi tried to make an arm tackle around someones ankles and ended up snapping his wrist like a twig.

  11. 2 minutes ago, papazoid said:

    nothing special...

     

    PFF Safety rankings out of 95 qualified

     

    Blackmon #38

    Poyer #46

    Hyde #53

    Edwards #82

    Rapp #85

    So now we are listening to PFF again?  The formula for when to follow their grading is probably as complex as the NFL explaining how Edmunds wasn't a 3rd round comp pick.

    • Thank you (+1) 2
    • Dislike 1
×
×
  • Create New...