billsfan1959

How many different threads can the same points be rehashed in? ADD: That was a rhetorical question

I would not be upset if the Bills took a tackle in the first round; however, my preference would be that they upgrade the offensive line (particulalry left guard) through free agency and find some good prospects (with long term solution potential) for the O-line in rounds 2-3. I believe perennial championship caliber teams are built around strong offensive and defensive lines. With that said, we have a very good left tackle in Glenn. So, I go back and forth on this. I don't know as if going for a right tackle (or even left tackle and moving Glenn) with the #9 pick is good value for the team; although part of me thinks that two very good tackles complemented by free agency upgades at guard would do wonders for this offense. Another part of me thinks that the #9 pick should go toward the best player available at a position of need. Right now I think those top needs in terms of one player potentially providing a real upgrade are (in no particular order) O-line, a true #1 receiver or stud tight end, and inside LB. If they do not trade back (which I also think could result in good value for the team) and acquire another pick, then I will be happy with the best player available at one of those positions.

It has a lot to do with the decision to keep or cut him. From 2010 - 2012, SJ averaged over 1000 yards and 8 TDs per season. Those are productive numbers by anyone's standard, particularly given they were achieved on a team with, shall we say, real limitations in the passing game. Last year he was injured part of the year, his mother died - and he missed four games because of both of those reasons and played a number of others hampered by both. Add in a new coaching staff, a new offensive system, the QB situation, an offensive line that regressed, etc., etc., and it should not be surprising his drop in numbers. As I have stated before, I do not believe he is a true #1 receiver; however, he certainly is a very talented receiver. Anyone with any football sense would look at what SJ would bring to the team next year in any decision to keep him or not - and, in doing so, would probably not be so short sighted to use last year, as opposed to a body of work over the three previous years, as a base line for what he could bring and whether that is commensurate with his salary.

First, I don't think it should be surprising to anyone that a coach coming to a new team is going to be singing the praises of the organization, the team, or any individual player - would anyone really expect anything different? Second, simply out of curiosity, of all of the things you could choose in terms of what you'd "rather" hear him say, why would it be this?

As a caveat: I don't know as if we can judge any receiver on the Bills by what we saw last year. (1) We had a 1st year HC and a 1st year OC. (2) We had 3 QBs with little to no NFL experience rotating in and out at the position throughout the year. (3) We also had receivers that were hobbled by injuries and/or in and out of the lineup throughout the year. The last two alone resulted in no real ability for any one QB to establish any real “chemistry” with a particular receiver or the receiving group as a whole. Based on the above, as well as a number of other factors, I do not believe it is possible to reasonably reach any conclusions about individual performances. There were many things that contributed to the 28th ranked passing attack – from the FO down to individual players. As for SJ, he played in only 12 games last year and was hobbled in a number of those. As to your question, “Did the Bills miss SJ when he didn’t play?” – From a purely statistical perspective, the answer is no. In the 12 games SJ played, the Bills averaged 204 yds per game and 5.82 yds per attempt. In the 4 games without him, they averaged 225 yds per game and 7.89 yds per attempt. However, also from a statistical perspective, they are different sample sizes and there was one game out of the four SJ did not play in that really skewed the numbers. Take away that one game and the numbers are pretty much even. Even more than that, however, is that there is a lot more to the game than statistics and you are asking a question that is impossible to answer. Neither you, nor I, nor anyone else can say how SJ would have performed in the games that he missed. In addition, there is a lot that goes into how well or how poorly an individual player or a team plays on any given day - not to mention all the things I discussed above. As to your other issue (in your other posts) with SJ’s drops in “clutch” situations – we tend to remember extremes when we evaluate data. It is called availability bias. For example, in regard to SJ, we tend to remember those plays that cause us the most extreme emotions and tend to overlook all the plays that provoked less extreme emotions. He has also made some big catches – and he has certainly made a lot of catches that have sustained drives, etc. I would venture to say that every really good receiver has dropped passes in “clutch” situations. It happens. We as Bills fans just do not recall them because they are not receivers for our team. Over all, in SJ’s career, he has caught 55% of the passes thrown to him. In comparison to career numbers of some top receivers: Calvin Johnson 55%, Josh Gordon 54%, AJ Green 57%, DeSean Jackson 55%, TY Hilton 58%. What does it mean? Nothing. That just leads us into debates about how good their respective QBs are, how good their teams are, etc, etc, etc. There are a lot of variables that go into those numbers. In the end, it all comes down to opinion on this board and we are each entitled. Based on your posts, I don't think much could be offered to change your mind, which is fine. IMHO, last year means nothing in terms of SJ’s ability. Based on career numbers, objective observations of him in game after game during his career, and intangibles, I think it would be foolish to trade him. I do not think he is a true #1 receiver (and I would love to get one); however, he clearly is a talented receiver. And since when is it ever a good idea for a team that is trying to build itself into a playoff contender to get rid of talented players?

Awesome! Well done gents...

Agree. The QB situation was awful last year just in terms of continuity. People do forget that both CJ and FJ were nursing injuries a good portion of the year, especially CJ - as were several receivers. If you don't think injuries can be a real difference maker then, just remember - as good as a defensive coach as Pettine turned out to be, even he couldn't do anything with the secondary the first four + weeks of the season when his key defensive backs were injured - it was awful. I also would add this. I believe they made the right decision in letting Levitre go rather than pay the amount of money they would have had to pay to keep him - but they fell short in their evaluation of who they had on the team to relace him. In their defense: (1) They had to base their decisions on film, rather than having had the opportunity to evaluate in person. (2) I believe they thought they would have Legursky from the beginning of the year and when they didn't, they had no back up plan. (3) There is no denying that Legursky (when he finally did play), Urbik, and Pears ALL regressed in terms of their level of play from the year before. In the end, the O-Line play was not very good. They were up at the top of the league in yards rushing - but middle of the pack in yards per run. I was as frustrated as anyone watching CJ get crushed over and over again running inside the tackles; however, the truth is that the line (including tight ends) was even worse in their blocking on outside runs. None of the above was Hackett's fault. I think the FO and head coach could have done a better job of evaluating what they had in terms of O-Line talent; however, I will give them the benefit of the doubt as there were a number of players who truly did regress last year. This year is different and I am willing to give the coaching staff and front office very little slack in regard to the O-Line. They had a full season to evaluate their players and they now have to do what is necessary to upgrade. If they do that, add a legitimate #1 receiver and/or legitimate big play threat at tight end, EJ and other key offensive skill players manage to stay healthy all year - then I am ready to give Hackett a thumbs up or down at the end of the season. Until then, the jury is still out on Hackett.

Right...I'm sure that was at the top of the list of topics of conversations among the coaching staff...

Amen

They may not be there with Flynn; however, they would probably be there with a decent quarterback that doesn't turn the ball over. Wilson has not had to carry this team at all this year. He has played well for the most part - but also had some pretty bad games. He is young and talented - but he is not yet in the upper echelon of quarterbacks. Make no mistake, this team got to the Superbowl because they had the best defense in the NFL and the number 4 rushing offense. They also have won in the playoffs because of their defense.

That team is in the Super Bowl and winning the Super Bowl because of their defense, not Russell Wilson

I'll go further...I think it would be a bad idea to draft a quarterback in the first round even if they were all there to choose from at #9.

IMO, I believe it is, to put it mildly, a stretch to say the Cowboy dynasty began by selecting Aikman and Walsh. If your argument is that the competition between the two made Aikman better and started the dynasty - it is not really supported. There wasn't much of a competition and most people believed that Jones selected Walsh in the supplemental draft for simply for trade purposes (in spite of his public pronouncements) - which happened the very next year. My guess is that the success Aikman, who was a number one overall pick, enjoyed had more to do with his ability and the team around him during their superbowl years that the drafting of Walsh in the same calander year ADD: BTW, Aikman finished 1-15 with, statistically, a worse year than Manuel had. Yet, the next year, the Cowboys didn't feel the need to keep Walsh - nor the need to draft another quarterback in the first round

1. My recollection is that there have been posters who have said he needs to be replaced. At the very least, as you pointed out: A "few people have outright said that they felt that they are certain that Manuel is definitely not the answer at QB." To qualify that with, "I have seen none that said the shouldn't be given another chance to earn the job." is really arguing over semantics. If one feels "certain" EJ is not the answer, it would really logically follow that they do not believe he should be given a chance. Said outright or insinuated - IMO, it is what they meant. 2. In regard to Graham. There isn't a poster on this forum, including you, that knows for a "fact" what Graham meant in his response to EJ's question. Only Graham knows. The rest of us can only evaluate all the information and reach an opinion. I did read Graham's responses "after the fact." You can choose to believe them. That is your right. I choose to not believe them because I do not feel they reconcile with what actually took place during the interview. Again, I invite you to go back, read my reasons why, and offer a counter argument as to why I am wrong. I am not afraid to have my logic critiqued. In your initial post, you presented two things as "fact:" (1) That NOBODY ever said EJ should'nt be given another chance and (2) That Graham NEVER said EJ was a bust. In purely literal terms you may be correct; however, I believe, again, you were standing on semantics - and, I believe an opinion can be reached that both of those things did occur. I didn't respond to your initial post because I disagreed with your opinion. You can have whatever opinion you want. I responded because you presented your opinions as fact, but, more than that, you then chose to label as "garbage" and "idiotic" anyone's opinion differed - such as my opinion. Let me assure you that I "pretend" nothing. I write what I believe and I try, whenever possible to provide reasonable foundations as to why I believe it.

1. Actually, IMO there have been a number of posters who have said/insinuated just that: EJ is not the answer and the Bills need to look for another QB 2. In regard to Graham, read through my previous posts in this thread where I objectively broke down the interview. IMO Graham essentially did say that. I have never personally attacked Graham or anyone else in my posts. I try to reasonably evaluate whatever the issue might be and then provide a foundation for why I arrived at the conclusion I did. Intelligent people can agree to disagree. I have presented pretty thorough reasons in previous posts why I believe Graham made it personal and why I believe he was wrong. Go back and read them - You can disagree with my reasoning; however, I would hardly categroize it as idiotic...any more than I would categorize your stance as idiotic. We just disagree.

Congratulations Andre!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I have written a number of posts in this thread trying to separate all of the peripheral issues from the central issue and this is it. That is exactly the interpretation of Graham's response. That is the point in which it transitioned from professional interview to personal assertion. Graham is the one who should be held to a higher standard here. I retired from the FBI and conducted investigative interviews of thousands of people over thirty years. In each of those interviews I knew what I was saying/asking when I said/asked it - and what the purpose was of saying/asking it. There were many instances where I sat on a stand in a courtroom being questioned about things I said/asked and how I said/asked them. Because that is what I did for a living, I was held to a higher standard, and rightfully so. Graham is a professional and conducting interviews is part of his profession. As such, I wil hold him to the same standard I held myself in any investigative interview I ever conducted. I believe he was fully aware of what he said when he said it, how it was likely to be interpreted, and the types of responses it was likely to elicit. Provocative? Yes. Professional? No. Journalism? No. He could have asked any number of tough questions that would have prolonged the interview, or maybe have resulted in the same response from EJ. The difference is this: In the first instance it was nothing more than a personal insult and EJ had every right to walk away from an interview that became personal. In the second instance, if Graham would have followed up with a professional, tough, question and EJ would have walked away - then EJ could be questioned about ducking the tough questions. Setting aside EJ's performance on the field and all those other peripheral issues, and looking solely at this interview - Graham is not the one to be defended.

This to me was the central issue in all of this. Graham did not ASK a tough question. You can fault EJ all you want for opening himself up with the question he asked. The truth is this: EJ asked the question. Graham responded, "I do." Again, it is not like EJ cut him off in mid sentence. That was Graham's response. It truly is stretching things to interpret that response as asking a tough question. In an interview setting with other reporters and people around, Graham essentially gave his personal opinion that the Bills needed another QB - with no further qualifiers. I might be in the minority; however, I don't consider that journalism. Graham can say after the fact that he WANTED to provide a further explanation but was not afforded the opportunity to do so. For me, that rings hollow coming from a man who is a veteran of the process and understands full well the nature of words and how you use them - that is how he makes his living. This issue then somehow gets interwoven with EJ's performance on the field. They are two completely different issues, IMHO. They would have remained interwoven had Graham followed up with another tough QUESTION - not a personal response. As for EJ's character, his understanding of his own shortcomings, his willingness to work to make himself better, and what he may or may not think about his situation and need for improvement: I am willing to listen to anything substantive that shows he needs to be put in his place. Until then, I will make my judgement about these things based on how he has conducted himself...not veiled assertions and innuendo. Again - a separate issue.

I am not sure where this comes from John, and a little surprising. People can debate all day long about EJ's performance on the field and whether or not he is the answer. However, off the field, he has consistently presented himself with class, diginity, and maturity. He has conducted himself remarkably well in the media for a 23 year old kid who "we" as fans decided to annoint as the savior of a downtrodden franchise. I certainly do not recall him ever acting in any way that should lead anyone to believe he feels this job is his for life, or that he has nothing left to prove. Quite the opposite actually.

Sorry JW. Always respect your opinion; however, Graham responded, "I do" with no attempt to put it into any context consistent with the interview at the moment he said it. It is not as if EJ cut him off in mid sentence. That was his complete response. EJ said "Thank you" and then walked away. You pointed out the interesting use of the word "should" by EJ. You should find it equally interesting that, in spite of a number of ways Graham, who was doing what he does for a living, could have responded in a way that immediately put it into a journalistic context, he chose a response that appeared to be nothing more than a personal statement. I have nothing wrong with Graham writing anything he wants about what he believes in regard to EJ. But the way he chose to respond at that moment to EJ was, in my opinion, wrong.

It is not the question that bothers me. When EJ asked "Do you think they should (draft a QB in the first round)?" Graham, who is supposed to be conducting this interview as a journalist, took the opportunity to make it personal. He could have continued to act like a journalist and responded with something along the lines of, "Well, isn't competition always good at every position?" or any number of other responses that would have continued along a path of a journalist interviewing an athlete. He didn't. He turned it into a personal discussion with the response, "I do." I'm sorry, there is no reason for that response. It served absolutely no purpose and, to be honest, pretty disrespectful. If he wanted to get an interview then he should have acted like a journalist and then written his story. If he wanted to turn it into a personal discussion about what he believed - then fine, leave it at that and don't write about it.

Sorry, but using what this team did under entirely different management/philosphies offers nothing useful to determining what the current group will do. The Levitre situation is not proof that they are not willing to pay for depth. It only indicated (1) they were not willing to overpay - which they certainly would have had to do, and (2) overestimating the health and talent of his replacement (s). As for "a lot of splurging" in free agency - since when is that a recipe for building a championship team? Ask Miami how that worked out for them last year and other teams that have tried the same approach. I believe they should (and hope they will) be more active in free agency this year; however, the cost for top tier free agents in our areas of need have been rediculous for the most part - and very, very few ever produce commensurate with the contracts they sign. I believe whatever money they spend should go toward second tier guys that are solid and productive - and continue to build the team through the draft.

Maybe we should take it even further and not allow Marrone to hire anyone that has crossed paths with anyone he has crossed paths with....because, in that instance, we all know Marrone would be doing nothing more than hiring the buddy of a buddy...

The entire situation with Jackson was a bit bizarre and I do not blame him for having less than fond thoughts of his time here - and I wish him well. With that said, he is now the back up QB on another team in another conference. I don't particularly care what he thinks...

Martin would be terribly hurt if he read what some posters here wrote about him...