Jump to content

Haplo848

Members
  • Content Count

    348
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

72 Excellent

About Haplo848

  • Rank
    Rookie

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. So I know this might sound like blasphemy to some, but I wonder how much Jim would actually be able to contribute at this point if he were brought in. The game moves pretty quickly, and every year you see some new scheme on offense come out as the next big thing, only to have next year some defensive adjustment that crushes that offense, just to see the following year new offensive adjustments that outmaneuvers that stellar defense from the year before, and so on. I could see Jim helping out Josh in how to go about making sure he does all the little things right to keep him healthy through the season, how to get the most out of his career, etc. But the fact of the matter is that Jim has been out of the league for 20+ years. I just can't see him being able to contribute as much when it comes to the particulars of picking apart today's defenses...
  2. 3rd round draft picks are ALWAYS the hardest to sign. The new rookie wage scale locks in wages for most picks, but that's because there's a slope to the rookie wage scale as the picks go from 1 to the end of the second round, and another slope from the 4th to 7th round, but where they come together in the third means that there's some wiggle room, and so there's more negotiating to be done. That makes 3rd round picks take the longest to be signed, as their reps tend to wait and see where the people around them are signing at, and so let the salary numbers coalesce around them before settling on a fixed number. It's just the reps trying to get the best number for their client, and it happens every year. So settle down, people.
  3. So people keep throwing out throwing stats as all important, especially throwing TDs. But let's be honest, Josh's legs are a weapon that will be utilized, too, and will take away from the throwing touchdowns. As far as I'm concerned winning is all that matters. Scoring is an important factor to winning, but I honestly don't care how those scores happen. If Josh ends up with 30 rushing TDs and 0 passing TDs, I'm not going to quibble with how we got enough points to win, just that we do. So that leads to a much more important question: can Josh Allen's game, throwing and running, lead us to enough victories? To me, that's a much more important question to answer than what I expect for the Bills passing game.
  4. Can an additional "by the time the draft got into the third round, I had no strong feelings toward any given player, and so was rather ambivalent about who to draft, but trust the Bills' front office, and the guys drafted seem talented, so I'm fairly happy" option be added?
  5. I've gotta be honest, there's a lot of good players still on the board, any one of whom I'd be happy with. We're the 8th pick of the second round, and there is still Taylor, D.K. Metcalf, Greedy, Parris, A.J. Brown, Cody Ford, Dalton Risner, Deebo Samuel, Irv Smith... that's nine guys, and I'd probably be happy with any of them as the pick. It remains to be seen what's ACTUALLY done, but I trust this front office, and I think they'll pick a good player.
  6. Ok, I just thought about it some more, and your study is even more ridiculous than I thought. It claims 18.8 AEs for the turf the Bills play on. Based on the OP's definition of an AE up there, that means there are ~100 AEs/game of football played. Which means in 10 weeks, you've got one set of ~1000 AEs. In a 10 week period, it attributes 18.8 injuries purely to the turf alone, or nearly 2 injuries per game, or 1 injury that is directly attributable to the turf that football is played on per game per team. That's utterly ridiculous. There are injuries in football. You get something like 5 injuries of varying degree (out for more than a few plays) per game per team. You're saying that a full 20% of those injuries are purely the cause of the turf that the game is being played on? That sounds like B.S. to me.
  7. This exactly. Your numbers have a range of 4.6 per 1000, without factoring in random chance or any other contributions to injury rates. What exactly do they say constitutes an injury? If a guy has a head-to-head collision and gets a concussion, is that included in the number of injuries? Despite the fact that it had no relation to the turf? Have they compared injury rates among different teams with the same turf to see if there are other factors, like climate, or style of play? Do cold weather teams get more injuries? The Bills and Cowboys have both been big running teams, there's going to be more collisions per play, more chances to hurt yourself than with an aerial attack. There is SO much more to injuries in general than what type of turf you play on. To be quite honest, it really just sounds like you want any excuse to s*** on the Bills, whether it makes sense or not.
  8. So I saw a video on NFL.com where the Bills were predicted to have 6 wins this coming year. I see at least six wins in the first 8 games...
  9. Huh, that back end of the schedule is brutal. Cowboys, Ravens, Steelers, Pats...even the Jets aren't too bad. Could make for an interesting finish
  10. I feel like there's a bad assumption that is being made here. I can't help but feel like you're assuming the player that we pick at one of those four positions is rated just as highly as any other we could pick at those positions. And that's a bad place to start from. If you're grading players out of a hundred, the DE or DT likely available is probably going to be graded something like 5 to 10 points higher than the WR or TE that is available at the same place. So it's not a question of drafting a really good WR or TE vs a really good DE or DT. It's the question of whether you should draft a a top 10 DE or DT vs a top 30 WR or TE. If grades were equal, than I would absolutely agree with you, we should draft a dominant playmaker for the offense. But they're not. We could draft a dominant playmaker for the defense, or a WR or a TE who down the line might have the potential to develop into a playmaker, but is by no means one now, and likely won't ever be a top 5-10 player at the position. You just don't pass on talent. Doing that and drafting need is how we got into drought to begin with.
  11. I feel like it's important to point out that just because a guy got signed in FA, doesn't mean he'll make the team. They brought guys in for competition, not as sure-fire roster spots. It's not a sure bet for Senorise Perry, Duke Williams, or all of the FA linemen, both offense and defense, to make it. To be honest, I'd be flabbergasted if all of them did.
  12. Considering it's nearly 4 AM, I'm still in the office, and likely to stay here through all of tomorrow (today?), I'm thinking I'm probably going to be sleeping a lot this weekend. Might not be the right weekend for me to do this. I'd be interested for another week though, when proposals weren't due, if you're doing another one.
  13. Wait, you are seriously saying that Allen did not improve over the course of the year? Congratulations, you've just negated any argument you're trying to make. Did you even watch the games? Anyone that knows anything about football saw that as the year went on, he was more in control of the offense, more poised in the pocket, read the defense better, gelled more with his receivers, etc. There can be no question. He absolutely improved over the course of the season. You could see the improvement week-to-week most weeks. You're right, his stats for a very cherry-picked stretch weren't great. He didn't play well against the Patriots. Then again, what rookie QB DOES play well against Bellicheat? That stretch also included one bad decision that led to an INT against the Jets, and one "we're down 4 points, with 1:30 left on the clock, 80 yards to go, we need to take chances if we're going to win this thing" INT. There were also two running TDs you neglect over that stretch that could have easily been throwing TDs instead, as well. These narratives are unchallenged because it's blatantly obvious to anyone who watched the games. If you want to nitpick over completion percentages of a QB that is more often looking downfield than for a quick swing pass, especially when RBs often had to stay in to help the poor pass blocking, go for it. You want to quibble about stats instead of actually watching the game film to make your point, go for it. Don't be surprised if no one takes you seriously, though.
  14. I don't make requirements, but if you end up without enough people for all the teams, let me know, and I'd be happy to jump in
  15. Yeah, I disagree with this post wholeheartedly. I actually read most of it. I'm kinda disappointed I did. The main jist of the argument is that we should NOT draft BPA, because that would land us superstar talent, but not at the positions HE thinks are most important, and should instead draft inferior talent for need, perpetuating the problems that have plagued this franchise for decades, instead of drafting superstars that will be with us for a decade or more. Here's what he did wrong: He took the entire season as a whole, without looking at the progress made. He ignored that Allen got better as the season went on, as he got more experience and the game started to slow down for him. He ignored that QBs generally make a jump from year one to year two just because they have had more time to experience the NFL game and adjust to its speed and complexity. Despite teams realizing that Foster was our #1 WR by the end of the season, and rolling coverage his way, practically ignoring other receiving options, he somehow thinks that adding more talented WRs to the roster means that Foster will receive MORE attention, rather than less. He ignores that as the season went on, Allen got better at the underneath game, essentially showcasing how much better he had gotten in that aspect of his game in Week 17, with announcers noting that Daboll might have done so specifically to give coordinators next year more stuff to worry about and added wrinkles to consider when preparing for facing the Bills. He ignores the fact that Allen has played QB at a competitive level for a relatively short time, even shorter than other prospects, that he's been shown to be a quick study and also a hard worker at getting rid of negative aspects of his game, while also comparing him to an old, set-in-his-ways Bledsoe to try to assert that QBs can't be taught anything. And that's just Allen. He ignores that Beasely is a much better short range target than anyone we had on our roster last year. He ignores that though Nsekhe was a back-up swing tackle, when he did play, there was literally no drop off, despite replacing a pro bowl LT at times. He says that Feliciano was a back-up on a bad Raiders team, ignoring that the two G in front of him were pro bowlers. The stats were interesting. The assumptions and assertions made were bad, and so any claims made are bound to be false and spurious.
×
×
  • Create New...