Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

62 Excellent

About Haplo848

  • Rank

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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...
  4. 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
  5. 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.
  6. 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.
  7. 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.
  8. 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.
  9. 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
  10. 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.
  11. Just happened to find this gem on youtube, it's the birth of the Legend of FitzMagic where the Bills snapped a 15 game skid against the Patriots. How pissed off Brady looks at the end is just glorious. I remember that win well, and it makes me miss Freddie all the more. Thought I'd share with Bills fans on here.
  12. Doesn't this statement just contradict everything you said previously? Because Ed Oliver's upside is Aaron Donald level production. That doesn't mean he will actually deliver Aaron Donald level production, but that is where his upside is. Ed Oliver is NOT a "safe/high floor/ ground-rule double" prospect. He's an undersized DT who shows remarkable penetration, but was used horribly in college as a 2 gap DT instead of a 1 gap penetrating type DT, and so was not used to his best ability most of the time. His upside is that he is used correctly in the NFL, penetrates Olines on a regular basis, and becomes just as disruptive as Aaron Donald. His floor is that he's out of the league in two years after he gets pushed around by superior competition because he's undersized. I was with you 100% until that last line. But yes, the draft is where you obtain (and perhaps more importantly, RETAIN) your stars. FA is used to fill in around them. Which is why it's never made sense to me that FA comes BEFORE the draft...
  13. Drafting for a certain position instead of BPA is inane. That's what got us in the position we're in in the first place. There's not really any Olinemen in this draft worth better than 9 other players. If you draft for need, you end with decent players that are not resigned after their contract is up, instead of star players with the organization for a decade plus. Draft your star players as they come to you instead of reaching, and use FA and later draft picks to fill in around them. You draft for need, you end up still needing to fill that position the next year and the year after, and the year after, and the player is gone the year after that. It's what got us C.J. Spiller instead of Earl Thomas, Marcell Dareus instead of A.J. Green, Julio Jones, or Patrick Peterson, Sammy Watkins instead of Khalil Mack, Aaron Maybin instead of Clay Mathews, etc. The draft isn't where you fill needs. It's where you get and develop stars. There are better players at 9 than O-linemen. And just because those better players aren't at a position of need THIS YEAR, doesn't mean they won't be at one NEXT YEAR. Load up on the best players you can, get as many blue chip players as you can, things will fall into place.
  14. I just had another thought. What about dime formations, for when there are 4 WRs on the field? At least in 3rd and long situations, I can easily imagine having Lorenzo Alexander and Lawson as DTs, Hughes and Edmunds as DEs, Milano and White as LBs, and three CBs on the field. That's scary enough in a "get after the passer" way, but considering that the offense would never know who's ACTUALLY rushing, as pretty much all of those LBs can rush and the D-linemen can drop into coverage, the front six is virtually interchangeable, and you can create a pass rush from anywhere. And that doesn't even consider blitzes. That would be a scary defense.
  15. So the people saying that the Bills and the NFL have been moving to two LBs in a nickel formation, and so we don't need a third really good LB seem to be missing something. The reason for the change towards nickel is that more athletic people who are able to cover are needed in order to stop pass heavy teams that regularly go in 3 WR sets. But here's the thing: the Bills run a lot of zone defense. And if you have three very athletic LBs that do really well in coverage, then you don't NEED to play nickel. You can stay in your base 4-3 even when teams go to 3 WR sets. Then you have the flexibility to still be able to defend the pass, but also are better able to defend against the run than if you had taken a LB off the field. So if we had Edmunds, White, and Milano, we wouldn't NEED to take any of those three off the field for nickel situations. There's not a whole lot of reason to ever take any of those three off the field in that case. If White somehow miraculously lasts until us in the draft, we should absolutely run to the podium to draft him, put his locket next to the Lorax's, have him attached to the hip to the Lorax through training camp and practice, learning everything he can from him, and use the Lorax in more pass rush situations, instead of needing him to come in and play in coverage like he occasionally had to do last year. It would result in a phenomenal defense that was able to fly all over the field, stuff the run, that would inspire fear in offenses for a decade or more.
  • Create New...