billsfan1959

In the first half of the preseason game with Washington, almost 100 of their 200+ yards in the first half came on two long pass plays. I know the corners have taken a lot of heat (and rightfully so); however, if I am not mistaken, the receiver on each of those plays was Searcy's responsibility. I'll take Leonard any day over him if Byrd can't play...

You and me both

Those statistics can only tell you the percentage of quarterbacks that are successful (based on whatever your definition of successful might be) or other general statistics. They have zero predictive ability in regard to specific QBs. For example, if, by your definition, only 5% of QBs drafted since 2000 have been successful, then, intuitively, you want to say that any QB you draft has a 5% chance of being successful. It is a fallacy. There is no statistical correlation between group statistics and individual predictions. Statistically speaking, you can only say that any given QB is going to be successful or not going to be successful. Whether that QB falls into the 5% group or the 95% group depends on an almost infinite amount of variables and, while one may get a pretty good feel for whether or not any given QB may or may not be successful, it really cannot be statistically quantified.

My position here is that the Franchise Tag is part of the equation, whether players like it or not. It is not as if Byrd did not have any choice in this matter. He did. He could have chosen to accept what ever offer the bills made, in which case he would have received his signing bonus and long term deal. Or he could have chosen not to. Byrd chose not to accept the offer. He also knew at the time of his decision, it would mean signing and playing under the one year tag or sitting out the season - or until he got traded. He then chose to sign and play for one year. There is no blame on either side because we do not know the details of the negotiations - and I have no ill will against him for making the decisions he made. However, once he made the decision to sign and play, he should have reported in time to learn the new system, get into playing shape, and be ready to play the opening game. I have no idea how serious his foot condition is. What I do see, is someone who wanted to take a purely business approach (which is his right) and then feel like it is personal when the organization does the same thing (which is their right). In the end, I see a player that has not been there for his teammates...and that is something I do have a problem with.

Given the level of receiver and quarterback talent this team has had around Johnson, as well as offensive philosophy - 12 ypc really is not, in and of itself, a good barometer of his talent. Of course you know that - it's just that your disdain for Johnson and incessant need to prove to everyone how right you are about him clouds your objectivity.

I'm a little confused. If SJ gets very few YAC and only runs short routes - then how in the world did he get over 1000 yds?

I won't disagree with you there . I hope they are creative and aggressive in their use of him... As for the EJ and the rest of the team...aggressive is the word this coaching staff has used over and over - and that is what I want to see above all else. F@$# playing not to lose...

I'm thinking Spiller gets a lot of touches regardless. However, I hope they don't scale things back. I want to see a quarterback, not a game manager. The coaches seem to have confidence in him and the players seem to have confidence in him. Whatever anyone may think of him, he is our QB now. So, turn him loose and let's see what he can do...

According to Freud, those dreams are merely manifestations of suppressed, unacceptable sexual or aggressive urges.... Would you like to talk about it?

This. As long as Brady plays at the level he has in the past (including this preseason) and the O-Line plays well, the Pats will be a tough team to beat. With that said, they are not invincible...

Yep - a couple of decent years. Either we have never had a TE capable of that upper echelon play, or a philosophy in which we feature our TE position as an integral part of our offense.

Unless I am mistaken, the Bills never got over 400-500 yds from the TE position even with a hall of fame QB (Kelly). I have followed the Bills for a very long time and I cannot recall the last (if any) upper echelon TE? Anyone?

I am not dismissing the validity of statistics - I am dismissing the validity of using general statistics in a vacuum. I will use your example: CJ Spiller carries the ball ten times in a game. On one play he runs for 90 yards and a touchdown because the other team has only 10 men on the field or because two linebackers miss their assignments on that particular play. On the other nine plays, Spiller gains 27 yards for a 3 YPC average. He ends the game with 117 yards on ten carries, for a YPC average of 11.7, and a touchdown. The stats are valid in terms of numbers only. If you were to then say the team he was playing is incapable of stopping him because he averages 11.7 yards per rush against them - then those stats become meaningless because they do not tell the whole story. In general, stats are not that meaningful when the sample size is small, and become more meaningful as the sample size increases. For example, if Spiller plays for ten years and finishes his career averaging approx 20 carries a game and over 6 YPC, then the statistics become more meaningful because things like plays with only ten defensive players on the field or linebackers missing their assignments become statistical outliers. But even then, all they would really tell you is that he was a really good running back. My point was that statistics, other than in very controlled scientific conditions, can only tell you so much. In the post I was responding to, those stats literally were meaningless in terms of supporting the argument. Maybe that is why, in sports, you often hear the phrase, "statistics are for losers."

Actually, I did. Those stats tell us nothing about the games themselves. Let me be a little more specific: How did his teammates play, how often was he double teamed, how often was he targeted, how accurate were the passes, did the offensive line give the quarterback enough time, etc. Those statistics are meaningless because they fail to factor in so many things that go into how effective any player is in any given game. They become even more meaningless when we are talking about how successful Johnson might be in a future game. I could go on; however, you should get the point - and I am sure you do.

Ahhh...the proverbial "statistics don't lie" argument. The truth is, sometimes statistics can be incredibly useful as the foundation of an argument for or against something - and other times they can be incredibly useless. The statistics you cite did not occur in a vacuum and, actually, tell us very little..."factually" speaking. Funny thing about football: Individual statistics are often the product of many variables with individual talent, sometimes, not even being the most important variable. In regard to whether or not Johnson can be incredibly successful against the Patriots, I would have to place these statistics in the useless category.

http://www.twinsdays.org/event-schedule/

With all due respect, I have to be honest. The further you carry this argument, the less sense it makes. Really.

Actually, many teams do draft kickers. Hopkins was a good pick and there was nothing wrong with drafting him where they did - whether you personally agree with it or not. He got injured today. The two safeties they picked are still on the team and have promise. However, they are still rookies and the strong veteran presence (not to mention an actual body on the field) they felt they would have in Byrd is questionable for the game. Hence the signings of Leonard and Carpenter. They serve a momentary purpose. Easy to understand. Unlike this post...

This has been one hysterical thread :lol:

+ 10 And the history of sports is replete with examples of athletes achieving goals they had never come close to reaching before - and goals that nobody had ever reached before. I think that is why I responded to you in the first place. It is one thing to have doubt. Using the term "laughable" goes beyond doubting the athlete in question - it sounds almost derisive. Which would be fine if the athlete deserved it and you had facts to back it up. In this instance, neither exists.

I am not arguing for or against anything here. Nobody in this thread predicted CJ Spiller would have a 2000 yard rushing season and eventually make the hall of fame - that came from a news article. My point here is this: I have no idea what Spiller will or will not be able to do and neither do you. I wasn't supporting the idea, I was simply responding to your idea that a 2000 yard season was "laughable." I am not leading with my heart, nor am I ignoring facts - because you haven't provided any. To say because he hasn't carried the ball 20-25 times a game over the last seven seasons is predictive of his ability to do so in the future is nonsensical. If you were to show me him breaking down over and over when he tried to cary the ball that much, then it would be a different story - but that is not the case. As far as this perception of fragility you have of Spiller: again, I haven't seen any proof of that. You used two instances over the last three years. First, you used what happened to him in Cleveland as an example of taking vicious hits. Now you want to call it an innocent play that looked like nothing. That is not a fact you are presenting, but, rather, vacillating interpretations. The truth is that it was nether vicious nor innocent. It was exactly what it was: landing on his shoulder with the full weight of the defender on top of it. And how much time did he miss? And the play in the Washington game? Really? He was out of the game for all of a series? Now all of a sudden he's equivalent to Kevin Kolb? Do you know how many times I watched Thurman Thomas hobble off the field, or be helped to the sidelines by players and/or staff, or miss playing time because of injury? We'll just agree to disagree. I think my position is absolutely reasonable: I have no idea if CJ Spiller will be able to sustain 18-25 carries a game; however, I have seen no evidence whatsoever indicating he couldn't. We will just have to wait and see.

Stevie apparently doesn't read the majority of posts on TBD. If he did, he would know that he and his teammates don't stand a chance against the Patriots Here's hoping the rest of the team shares his attitude...

Well done sir

In your original post, you stated that you found it "laughable" that Spiller could get 2000 yds and immediately followed it up with the fact that it took him 3 years to gain 2000 yards. The OJ comparison was made simply to point out that what CJ Spiller has rushed for to this point in his career has zero correlation to whether or not he could rush for 2000 yards in a season. That was the end of the comparison... You have then gone on about how you do not believe he can carry a full workload because of his size and the violent hits. However, (1) there is a long list of running backs with similar size to Spiller that were more than capable of carrying a full work load, and (2) I'm not sure Spiller has taken any more violent hits than any other running back (By the way, it wasn't a violent hit in Cleveland, it was the way he landed with the defender on top of him). Every running back has moments where they "hobble" off the field. I really haven't noticed Spiller doing it any more often than any other player. In the end, you assume the reason he hasn't been given more of a workload is his lack of durability. You are certainly entitled to your opinion that he will never be able to carry a full workload. However, realize that it is only that - an opinion. I am only pointing out that you really have offered no compelling arguments as to why you believe what you believe.