billsfan1959
-
Posts
6,352 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Gallery
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by billsfan1959
-
-
Searcy should have been cut......his coverage is unbelievably bad
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...
-
LOL.
I understand what youre saying.
But I'm going to side with history on this one.
(And by the way, I hope EJ is one of those 5%)
You and me both
-
Maybe that's where we differ. I think Roethlisberger, Flacco and Wilson are about half as good as Peyton.
And the chances that Eli becomes a Roeth or Flacco is low. Stats prove that. Draft choices rarely pan out statistically.
Here ya go.
Look at all the QB's drafted, then calculate how many are good. Get the %. Then apologize.
http://en.wikipedia..../2012_NFL_Draft
http://en.wikipedia..../2011_NFL_Draft
http://en.wikipedia..../2010_NFL_Draft
http://en.wikipedia..../2009_NFL_Draft
http://en.wikipedia..../2008_NFL_Draft
http://en.wikipedia..../2007_NFL_Draft
http://en.wikipedia..../2006_NFL_Draft
http://en.wikipedia..../2005_NFL_Draft
http://en.wikipedia..../2004_NFL_Draft
http://en.wikipedia..../2003_NFL_Draft
http://en.wikipedia..../2002_NFL_Draft
http://en.wikipedia..../2001_NFL_Draft
http://en.wikipedia..../2000_NFL_Draft
I'm not trying to rip on him.
I'm just more realistic than others.
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.
-
I know I am in a huge minority here, but I do not hate on Byrd for this situation.
#1) I think the team and Byrd and Parker have all been extremely professional to date. Seems to me, no negotiating in the press by either side...everything seems to be kept between the parties.
# 2) this trade request is a rumor at best. What if the Bills are the ones putting out feelers to gauge value?
#3) agree with Dave..sucks to be the player tagged...and if I am Jarius I am going for every last penny . I know the CBA gives the team this right, just sucks when you see other people getting long term security and not you.
#) I am prolly only person here does not believe he is faking injury
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.
-
well its real simple....its called 12 ypc, so if he runs a 7 yard route and gets dragged down after whole nother 5 yards, that's 12 yards. Are you stil confused billsfan? 12 ypc is far from the kind of yac that gets you a decent ypc say something over 14-19 ypc....the type of number a gamebreaker would have,
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.
-
sj had very few yac last season, and he doesn't catch screens like CJ does so the comparison is off, and some of fitz long balls were actually overthrown past SJ, had he been faster he may have caught a few. maybe an INT or two could be blamed on a bad route by SJ too, who knows, but you cant say SJ earned all those yards and then say Fitz doesn't deserve credit because they were 10 yarders. SJ only runs short routes anyways so whats fitz supposed to have done?
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?
-
Right, and that's not what I meant. I just meant that Spiller NEEDS to be the focal point.
In last year's NWE games he had 9 and 8 carries. I mean seriously, wtf. I expect him to have 18 carries by the third quarter alone!
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...
-
So he's going to hand the ball to Spiller, right?
Many, many times, right?
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...
-
I'm not trying to put this evil on the Bills, but I've had consecutive dreams of Spiller going down with a knee injury early in the game. i'm talking back to back nights of the same dream.
According to Freud, those dreams are merely manifestations of suppressed, unacceptable sexual or aggressive urges....
Would you like to talk about it?
-
Doesn't matter, they have Brady and will win at least 10 games. Remember the last season Manning played in Indy when they made the playoffs but might have been a 3 or 4 win team without him? Hall of Fame QBs might be the biggest difference maker in all of sports...goalies on a hot streak in NHL playoff games are right up there tho...they can steal Stanley Cups from better teams...
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...
-
Not exactly true. Metz got 609 yards in '93. McKeller had a couple mid-400 yard receiving seasons in '90 and '91. The next best was Riemersma with 590 in 2001 but that wasn't with Kelly.
That is in fact correct. I only went back to 2000, but the Bills haven't had a good TE game in like forever. They have surpassed 600 yards only twice since 1990:
1993: 665 yards
1999: 654 yards
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 understand what you're saying. But if you're going to dismiss the validity of stats based on these factors, then all stats are moot. CJ Spiller took it 90 yards to the house because two linebackers missed their assignment, or because the defense only had 10 guys on the field, therefore CJ's stats are meaningless.
Also, and more to the point, and similar to what somebody indirectly mentioned already, if New England* forced the QB into bad throws by disrupting the line, by getting into throwing lanes, but pressuring the quaterback, or by forcing the quarterback to go through more progressions, then--by your logic--they have effectively "stopped" Stevie Johnson.
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."
-
Yet you don't say why the stats are useless.
In this case, we're looking at his history to make a determination about the very subjective assertion: Pats can't stop Stevie. What would "unstoppable" stats look like? I'd venture to say they're a whole lot better than about 4 catches for 60ish yards and less than half a touchdown per game.
And if stats don't exist in a vacuum, I welcome you to jump on into the many debates I've had defending Ryan Fitzpatrick, that Stevie wouldn't have gotten 3 x 1000 yard seasons if Fitz was as incompetent as posters here will have you believe.
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.
-
Emotional? I posted his stat lines from Patriots* games:
6.5 games, 29 catches 367 yds 3 TDs
Of those three touchdowns: one put us within 8 points, the other, 14. The third we had a 7-0 lead when he scored.
No emotion. Just a factual response to "Pats can't stop me."
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.
-
I didn't know Mesko was a steeler. But did you know he was born in Romania and went to Twinsburg, where they hold an annual twin festival? Jeff Posey, of the NBA, also went there.
-
Go back and re-read the thread. I was the first one who predicted it was because of an injury. That doesn't change my point - this is why you don't draft kickers. (Twice). Now they're stuck, they have to IR a 6th round pick (or cut him outright), or carry two kickers at the expense of another key position.
With all due respect, I have to be honest. The further you carry this argument, the less sense it makes. Really.
-
Are the Bills to be blamed because their kicker got injured? Of course not.
But they should stop drafting kickers. They're wasted picks. Most teams do not draft their kickers. There is no reason to do so. The Bills have done it for two consecutive years and neither kicker has been able to contribute. I didn't like the picks at the time, and nothing that has happened has changed my mind on that. Sign kickers off of the street. Stop drafting them.
The Bills signed two players today - a safety and a kicker. They drafted two safeties and a kicker this year. They did not draft a guard, and they're still scrambling to fill the LG slot (and backup swing spot). Neither of the two safeties they drafted this year look like players, to the point where the organization felt it needed to add a guy off of the street today to man the position. They've drafted two decent safeties in the past several years and then decided both of them were asking too much for their services. So instead they keep drafting more safeties to replace them. Both years they've drafted a kicker when they had a perfectly decent kicker already in the fold. It's just silly. Kickers and safeties, instead of guards and linebackers. It's not how I'd build a football team but hey, I guess I'm just too negative.
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: -
So it's "laughable" when people set high goals for themselves?
Was it "laughable" when Reggie McKenzie set 2,000 yards as the goal for OJ in '73 BEFORE the season even started? I mean his best season was 1251 yards up to that point. You would have thought McKenzie was out of his mind and laughed based on that alone.
You know what they say about reaching for the stars, don't you?
Well, then again, maybe you don't.
GO BILLS!!!
+ 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 also would find it laughable if EJ Manuel felt he could throw for 5,000 yards as a rookie.....but the only evidence I have that he couldn't do it is past results. That is how it's generally done. CJ has never even run for 1300 yards in a season.....let alone 2,000. He has only had two seasons where he exceeded 1,000 in seven years. Believe what you want. I didn't say it couldn't happen either......I just doubt it strongly enough to think it's funny to even start putting that out there to the public. Time will tell.
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.
-
Whether a 7 year sample size or any of the other statistics I provided is compelling enough evidence for you is also simply YOUR opinion. I have been offering mostly correct opinions on this board since it's inception. You just don't want to argue with facts or figures.....but rather your heart. Which is sweet but misguided.
As for the issue of the punishment Spiller takes......the hits aren't all about head to head collisions...it is any instance that he takes a hard impact. I am well aware that Spiller fell down on what looked like an innocent play in Cleveland and was sidelined the rest of the day and there was concern about him being able to play the following week.
It didn't look like anything, but it hurt Spiller.
The spike in the endzone.......some guys roll off such contact, others absorb it. Proof? Because you almost never see it. On the replays it looked like NOTHING. A glancing blow. CJ looked like he was going to need the gator at one point. If you get spiked, you know there is no structural damage.....just get up and run off the field. The guy had to be helped off with his arms over two trainers. He couldn't put any weight on it. Very odd.
As an extreme example, look at the difference between a Ryan Fitzpatrick and Kevin on the Kolb. Fitz routinely ran and dove head first for first downs and the hits didn't bother him. KoK was tackled routinely in the open field by Alex Carrington last year and dislocated a shoulder, his rib cage and got a concussion. The concussion that ended his career in Washington was a glancing blow as well. Some players absorb contact better than others. KoK much less so than Fitz. Spiller less so than other top RB's IMO.......and as I stated......perhaps that is also the opinion of his coaches for the past 7 years...........and that matters when you are talking about putting up the 350-375 carries in a season it would take him to get 2,000 yards.
Like I said.......I am all for seeing this 2,000 yard season and I have no doubt that CJ can put up 180+ yard games and string some together......but I just don't see any proof that he can sustain it.
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...
-
Holy alliteration Batman!
Irv Weinstein would be proud.
GO BILLS!!!
Well done sir
-
If you are going to be contrary.....please, at least have a point to it.
Yes, OJ was a man amongst boys. A 212 pound RB in 1973 is the physical equivalent of a 240 pound back today.
I didn't start the OJ comparisons in this thread, I just finished them.
The thing I see with CJ that makes it hard for me to envision him taking on a 350 carry workload is that he takes some violent hits.
He is elusive in the open field but he absorbs a great deal of impact for a smaller/elusive type RB.
We saw this a week ago in Washington, we saw it in Cleveland last year, he hobbled off the field a number of times his first couple seasons and truthfully I have been seeing it all the way back to his Clemson days.
Which I think is the root of why his coaches have not given him a bigger workload. If he is injured and loses ANY of his speed, what good is he to your running game? He is more valuable with a spread field on a passing down than he is running up the middle behind a FB IMO......but there is the matter of justifying his salary/draft position and that almost dictates that he become a workhorse and let the chips fall where they may.
I think he is a tough guy but the hits are going to take a toll on him in a way that a bigger back they probably would not.......or in a way that a gliding runner who doesn't absorb hits so violently.....see CJ2K...would not.
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.
I'm afraid Chan was right about Spiller
in The Stadium Wall Archives
Posted