earthtobrint
-
Posts
416 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Gallery
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by earthtobrint
-
-
Why did we even draft a 3-4 DE when there's already a logjam of them on the team? We're as deep, though not as good, at DE as we are at RB and DB's. It's also a low impact position in the 3-4.
-
Everything about that pick remains a mystery. I'd say they were trying to keep him fresh, but for what, our charge from 0-6 to 10-6 and the playoffs?
If they're trying to keep him fresh, it's for future seasons when they have a chance to compete. Running backs can burn out fast if overused. There's no way they're giving him 25 touches a game in a likely lost season. That said, 8 touches a game is a bit too low.
-
Yeah...how dare they try and win.
I'm not saying they should've tanked. I'm not saying that at all. I'm saying that game shouldn't be used as an assessment of Fitzpatrick's ability. Missing out on the top two LT's was merely an unpredictable after-effect.
-
That game was less than a preseason game. At least in a preseason game, those Colts 2nd and 3rd stringers would be fighting hard for their football lives or starting jobs. The Colts couldn't get out of the snow back on the plane fast enough.
All that game did was lower our draft position, taking us out of the running for Trent Williams and Russell Okung.
-
youtube.com/watch?v=bSlffFbJ-Rs&feature=related
A+
-
Interesting the article said SD received several offers. I wonder who the other teams were?
Other teams kicked the tires but were sent running by AJ's demand. Reportedly, the Rams were involved. It was mostly just the Vikings that wanted to get the deal done.
-
-
In other news, General Franco is still dead
So you're saying he's not coming to Buffalo either?
-
Contenders have shwon that they aren't worried about troubled pasts. Marshall, another young WR who is better than Evans, only was worth a 2nd.
No team will ever offer a 1st for Evans.
So you would replace Evans with a 2nd or 3rd pick WR?
First of all, Marshall was worth TWO 2nd round picks, not one. Second, I would replace Evans for a 2nd round offensive tackle for sure.
It's my understanding they offered a 3rd, and the 2nd was conditional on Jackson being signed to a long term deal in Minnesota. Given Jackson's history, I think the 2nd was highly discounted and viewed it mostly as a 3rd. Could be wrong
http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=5604433
I suppose we'll never know for sure, though.
-
they wouldnt do more than a 3rd for Jackson, they sure as hell wont do better for Evans.
Evan though I have sokme doubts about Evans as the complete package, he sure as heck is worth more than a 3rd ... many 3rds aren't even in the league after a few years
The Vikings offered a lot more than a 3rd for Vincent Jackson. They offered a 2nd and a conditional pick this morning. They were shot down. Shortly before the 4pm deadline they made a last ditch effort to acquire him. It obviously must have been an even better offer. AJ Smith again turned them down. He was demanding a 2nd and a 3rd round pick.
Vincent Jackson would've been an 11 game rental. The Vikings were willing to give up a 2nd and more picks for an 11 game rental that is one strike away from another suspension. Favre doesn't look like he'll last past this season. The Vikings are all in for this year. Lee Evans is under contract for two more years. I think they'd give more than a 3rd for Evans. That said, the Bills don't seem like they have any inclination to move their players.
-
Ryan Fitzpatrick was just announced as the starter fifteen minutes ago. Time to start the "Bench Fitz for Brohm" campaign.
-
With Edwards benched, what excuses will the WR's have for not getting open?
That Fitz can't hit the broad side of a barn?
If the news was "Brohm to start" then I'd be somewhat interested, even if Brohm performed poorly. Any move between Trent and Fitz is moot.
-
oops... royal just got a td
Receiving TD's are near impossible to predict, especially with a team like Denver with four receivers of equally middling talent. I'd still give the same advice you and I did if the guy asked the same question for next week.
-
We took Maybin over Clay Matthews, Brian Cushing and Orakpo. There is our pass rush... we just chose not to take it.
You know what's more sad than the fact that we passed on them all for Maybin? The fact that any of them would immediately be the best player on this entire team.
-
Yep Steve Smith. Nicks may have gotten the touchdowns but Smith is still Eli's number one target. Nicks is playing on a bum ankle which benefits Smith, too.
-
It feels great. In the late 1980s & through most of the 90s there were plenty of games that we knew we were going to see a win upon entering the then Rich Stadium. It's only since the name was changed to Ralph Wilson stadium that that stopped.
Between 1988-1996 I attended one or more games every season at Rich Stadium. Including playoffs, we never lost a single game I went to. I went into each game sure of a victory. Man it was bliss - the atmosphere in the stadium and all of western New York celebrating. The streak ended with Kelly's final game against Jacksonville in the 1996 wild card.
-
I've been HEARING how our secondary is so awesome. A passing team utilizing many receivers and tight ends (packers), shouldn't be able to move the ball downfield AT WILL. I dont want to HEAR anymore, i want to SEE our secondary stop em. Can we stop them? Or our pass rush or linebackers need to improve?
Forget about our offense, can our D stop them?
or will it be packers 35 bills 13 or something like this?
The do utilize a lot of weapons in their passing attack. Jermichael Finley is a matchup nightmare if you don't have an athletic linebacker that can play coverage, which we definitely do not have. He has wide receiver skills in a tight end body. He will torch our linebackers. Green Bay's passing game will be effective but the fault could lie on the linebackers and safeties forced into coverage, not necessarily failure by the cornerbacks. If we can't get pressure on the team that allowed the most sacks in the NFL last year, it will be a blight on the pass rush.
-
Reporters that insist on adding snarky shots across the bow instead of only reporting the details come across like giggling school boys with milk squirting out their nose.
I agree with you that the snarky comment by La Canfora was unnecessary. The topic has probably opened the door for more unneeded "I hate this reporter for talking bad about the Bills" threads.
Here's the dilemma, Nix trades Lynch to GB and Freddie goes down again and he'll get gutted by the media.
If he trades Marshawn and he goes to GB and excels then he'll get gutted by the media.
There is no win here for him. If you were paying attention was he was named the GM he said he was far more interested in retaining the players he has then playing the FA game.
Being gutted by the media should be roll off an NFL GM's back or Nix would be crying in a corner with his thumb in his mouth right now. The team is already being gutted by the media and it shouldn't affect his decisions. He stated that he is building through the draft. This is not playing the FA game.
The Bills aren't starving for Draft picks, they have one in each round I believe, and Nix is not the kind of GM who is willing to deal them away or trade them to move around in the draft.
Any rebuilding team as bereft of talent on their roster as the Buffalo Bills does indeed need all the draft picks they can get, depending the compensation. And we're talking about moving a player for draft picks, not trading draft picks away.
I'm not in favor of trading Marshawn away for just anything but if they are going to keep him, they should use him in games more effectively (more touches and ahead of Fred on the depth chart) and he needs to produce. He's a talent that shouldn't be wasted either way.
-
http://nbcsports.msnbc.com/id/39203364/ns/sports-player_news/
Since he was not traded during the draft, it appears Nix is intent on keeping Lynch a Bill.
If Nix is confident Fred Jackson is about to fall off the 30 year old running back cliff and doesn't believe Spiller will ever be an every down back, then maybe this makes sense. But if Lynch is going to be buried at #3 on the depth chart and then released for nothing at the end of his contract, his tenure here has been a huge waste of an asset on a team starving for draft picks and help at other positions.
On a side note, an NFL Network reporter takes another (somewhat justifiable) shot at the Bills operation.
-
If PPR - McFadden
If not - Royal
I think he meant to have that the other way around.
-
D McFadden v St. Louis -- very good numbers last week, but will Bush be back in the line up?
D Driver v Buffalo -- TD reception last week, still a big target in GB.
J Forsett @ Denver -- 3 headed monster in Seattle, just doesn't get the touches
E Royal v Seattle -- targeted a lot last week.
F Jackson @ GB -- Tough run D in GB and at this point, I am not playing any Bills players on offense
R Meachem -- Too many targets in NO
Definitely McFadden. I don't think Bush will be playing but even if he does, he'd be eased back in. Terrific matchup, too.
-
Why would Green Bay give up that much in a trade for a one year fix? Ryan Grant is a very good young player. He's their guy. His career isn't over. They don't run the ball enough to warrant a timeshare.
-
I got him this morning when I heard Grant was iffy.
Fantasy Rule #1: always bet against the Buffalo Bills.
There's no waiver wire period in your league? The jobless insomniac must always win your league.
I agree with the your fantasy rule #1. Somehow I had a stretch last year of going three straight weeks against the starting running back facing the Bills each week. It was dreadful.
-
I don't think it's penalizing them at all when you've already bailed them out by wiping the game winning TD off the board. If they held up and were in position to decline the penalty, then sure the game's over. But if they need to accept the penalty to save their bacon, they've already been adequately rewarded by the flag and should at least have to make a legitimate stop at the end so the last play of the game at least actually counts.
They didn't get bailed out at all. The TD would never have happened without the hold. Even if the penalty had nothing to do with the TD, it still shouldn't matter. Replaying the down would be rewarding the penalty more than anything less than a touchdown. Not removing the time would be encouraging players to try to get away with penalties until they finally do get the touchdown, knowing they would have infinite reprieves if caught.
Kelsay Deserves the Extension
in The Stadium Wall Archives
Posted
Sure. Let's start paying guys $24 million for being good guys. You don't give a below average player that's on the downslope of his career a pay raise and extension just because you're too incompetent to draft anyone decent enough to replace the player. That's compounding the problem.