K-9
-
Posts
26,032 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Gallery
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by K-9
-
-
Gotta be best player available every damn time. You need FOOTBALL players, regardless of positon in this league. It just doesn't matter if you have a real good player already in place in a position, if there is a can't miss blue chipper available you jump on him. Can't go wrong with best player available. You can go wrong when reaching for a need. Now, if it so happens that the two shall meet, all the better.
GO BILLS!!!
-
As I read and review various draft reports and publications I find that I can't get over the feeling the Mario Williams is th ebest player in this draft.
There are three positions that you draft a franchise talent with the 1st pick in the draft, QB, Pass rushing DE and LT. History has shown that teams that do that are successful in the long run.
Go back to the 2002 NFL draft. Houston took David Carr, the best player in that draft has turned out to be Dwight Freeney or Julius Peppers. This is why I think there is going to be a shocker on draft day. The Raiders want to get access to Mario Williams, the Texans would prefer to trade down and have no takers so I think the draft order goes as follows:
Houston - Mario Williams - DE
New Orleans - Matt Leinhert - QB
Tennessee - Vince Young - QB
NY Jets - Jay Cutler - QB
Green Bay - AJ Hawk - LB
San Francisco - Reggie Bush - RB
Oakland - Michael Huff - S
The Bills are at 8 with Ferguson, Ngata and Vernon Davis on the board. What to you all do in this scenario?
Questions and comments would be appreciated.
You have alluded to the Bill Polian rule for team building. I've posted it several times in the past but it's worth repeating. In the early nineties he was asked what are the most important ingredients in building a team; what positions do you place the premium on. While he talked about character and "football mentality" which are important, he listed the 5 positions you start with. They are:
1.) QB - for obvious reasons, but one who can take control of a game.
2.) DE - to rush that all important QB
3.) LT - to protect that all important QB from the all important DE
4.) RB - to take pressure of the QBs passing game
5.) WR - a reliable go-to guy for the QB to pass to.
If you look at his teams, he's built them all the same way. Not necessarily in the order listed (not all positions are available all the time in every draft) but all his teams have these basic 5 ingredients. It's a can't miss formula on a team with character guys to fill the cracks. The Bills, IMO, are about PERHAPS 1 maybe 2 of the 5 right now.
While I've always been a big propopent of taking the best player available no matter what, Williams' grade is either superior to or a tenth under anyone else's so I would love to see him if available.
GO BILLS!!!
-
I hope he grows up, too. But it is not the job of the coaching staff to motivate any player. If a player is not intrinsically self-motivated he just won't succeed. That's what Levy means when he says he wants high character players. I do think Willis is highly self-motivated as his comeback (and the rehab it entailed) from such a devastating injury suggests. Maturity often comes from experience and I think Willis may turn out ok.
GO BILLS!!!
-
The Bills' lease agreement currently allows them to break the lease for 25mil anytime they want. That clause kicked in in 2003 and remains until the current agreement expires in 2013.
Secondly, the Bills' worth as a franchise will not be any more in LA than it is in Buffalo. As a matter of fact, given that LA has repeatedly lost franchises due to non-support in the form of low attendance and low TV ratings (consistently placed 3rd in the ratings; that's because so few games sold out to be televised locally).
I've posted this many times in the past: The size of LAs 2nd largest TV market is a giant two-edged sword: If games consistently sell out it becomes more attractive to local advertisers and affiliates. If not, it's a vast waste land that routinely comes in third in the ratings which is anathema to advertisers and an embarrassment to the league in such a big market.
I won't even get into the fact that there is not a good NFL facility available.
GO BILLS!!!
-
Anyone remember the Weenie Whammie? God, that was embarrassing. Who the hell thought up that promotional gimmick? Nothing like having 80,000 plus fans waving dildos on national TV after we scored.
-
... The success that Levy had with Thurman can be tied to Pete Metzalaars...
Gotta disagree here. The success Marv had with TT can be directly tied to the five OLmen he had, four of whom received Pro Bowl honors and a fifth (RG John Davis) who deserved it. Additionally, the K-Gun (named for TE Keith McKellar whom often split wide and caused matchup problems) really spread the field for TT to find all sorts of running room.
Metzalaars, while a nice guy, was nothing special as a TE. He's the only player I can think of who had TD reception nullified because he was called for holding. Metz was a pedestrian (at best ) TE.
-
I've said it before and I'll say it again: You CAN'T have a QB named Todd! That name commands NO respect in the huddle and sounds like the guy who went to the prom with Muffy after he helped his friend Biff get the pennies in his loafers.
No Todds!!!
-
Don't you just hate it when fans put on their 20/20 hindsight glasses and tell you how bad things turned out because, because, because.
It's all a crap shoot people.
GO BILLS!!!
-
1247 yards in a 16 game season isn't so great. averages out to about 78 yards per game. 1000 yards should no longer be the measuring stick for a good or better running back. I can think of several times when he was stuffed on successive carries for no gain. Granted the OL is poor at best, but great backs find a way to gain yards when they have to. His attitude is questionable at best.
Personally I'm wondering if McGahee will ever be any better than he is now. He shows no ability to break the long run and doesn't seem to have gotten his speed back after the injury. He doesn't make people miss, he runs through them sometimes. He just might be a Travis Henry clone without the fumbles.
I think next year will be the proving ground. The OL should be better, I'm guessing the play calling will be better and then there will be excuses. He either shows or doesn't.
Well, if 1,000 yards was the benchmark in a 14 game season, then actually 1247 is a bit better than that over 16 games. Do the math, you'll see.
I'm curious as to how be was second in the league in runs of 20+ yards in '04 and TOTALLY regressed this year.
Next year is his make/break year and I agree with you that the oline will be better. But I also think a little coddling my Marv (a la TT) will do him good. He's got character (nobody outworks him. my god, just coming back at all from that injury show us that).
Don't worry about his lack of breakaway speed. That's a NICE to have in a back, not a HAVE to have. Like TT, who didn't scare anyone with his speed, WM has the ability to pick up yards in 7-10 yard chunks. Otherwise known as controlling the run game.
Marv WILL make a better player out of him. If WM really wants to be here. If not, GTFO!
GO BILLS!!!
-
If he did something...then there's an issue. If not and it's just perception...that's a management issue that doesn not involve punishment of the player.
As far as Moulds past, he has been "responsibly outspoken" in my book. Sometimes his comments have been overblown by the goons at WGR and the screwballs here at TSW. He has never, in my recollection, said anything remotely inflamatory a la TO.
I agree and that's why it seems out of character to me. But everyone has their breaking point I guess. Moulds has always been a class act who responsibly questioned coaching decisions. However, I suspect there is a lot of animosity between JP and EM. I don't ever recall Moulds questioning his QBs ability and advocating a QB change like that. And that's gotta effect his relationship with JP. To, I'm afraid to say, the detriment of the entire team.
GO BILLS!!!
-
Exactly lets remember that there are more players that are pissed as well. Sam Adams, Fletcher, etc. Its not just Moulds running his mouth. But for some reason they want to suspend Moulds for not showing up to a meeting but not suspend Sam from leaving the stadium. Sounds to me Mularkey really dislikes Moulds more than Sam. I believe Moulds, Sam Adams, and Sams agent.
I'd like to see the Fletcher quotes. Where can I find some? Fletcher at least plays balls to the wall regardless. Certainly can't say the same for Sam "I'll take some plays off" Adams. And I'm wondering about Moulds now if he did indee take himself out of the game Sunday.
GO BILLS!!!
-
I think even MM admitted it was a bad call. It was stupid...but, let it rest. EVERY coach makes some bad decisions. Ours is making too many these days.
I seriously doubt Moulds threw a hissy-fit because he wasn't the focus of the game plan But, if I read your post correctly, Moulds was unprofessional if there was a REMOTE possibility he was resentful or removed himself from the game...not if he ACTUALLY was resentful or removed himself from the game. So, a remote possibility of something action or feeling makes the person who may or may not have had that feeling or engaged in that action unprofessional? That's what you're saying right?
Moulds has had 'hissy fits' his entire career about not getting the ball enough so yeah, I think it's quite within the realm of possibility that his frustration level reached it's peak during the week.
As for the 'remote possibility' comment. Please allow me to clarify.
In the context of a confined professional sports locker room where veteran leadership has openly (publicly) questioned coaching decisions and openly (publicly) questioned the ability of another (most key player), in an organizational structure that relies on veteran leadership to lead but leads to dirisiveness when it doesn't (see comment about openly questioning the ability of key player), then even if a 'remote possibility' exists IN THE MINDS of any other, less influential player in that organization that the most prominent veteran leader on the team removed himself from the game because he wasn't the focal point of the passing offense (when, coincidenlty the focal point had a record breaking 1st qtr), then even that remote possibility, perceptions being reality in an organization, can cause major, indeed irreperable harm if allowed to go unchallenged by leadership in the organization. The perception (being reality) by another player that a prominent player quit on his team is the epitome of unprofessionalism. Even if it exists as a remote possibility to any other player in the organization.
GO BILLS!!!
-
I only have two problems with your post... 1) Moulds was complaining BECAUSE they threw the ball on first-and-goal and a twenty point lead. That's not consistent with it being an "all about ME" thing, considering he's a WR ...
2) Don't speak for all fans. What Eric is saying makes me shout "right ON!" As a 40 year fan and 20 year season ticket holder, I HATE the "circle the wagons/Donahoe & Mularkey are always right" mentality. He's not doing ME any disservice...
I can only speak for myself and make no assertions otherwise.
As I understand it, Moulds was complaining long before that pass on first and goal (a play that was the right call in that situation regardless of the Monday morning QBs expertise). He was malcontent all week when he realized he wasn't the thrust of the passing game plan. A good idea given Evans's record breaking 1st quarter.
Is it possible Moulds was a bit resentful of Evans's success? Is it possible Moulds really did remove himself from the game as a result? If their is a REMOTE possibility of either, then his conduct is unbecoming the professional I thought he was and their is no room for any player, regardless of his past contributions, who acts that way. Frustrations aside.
GO BILLS!!!
-
The only problem here is that in 1986 and on the old guard that was wrong and were primarily at fault for the problems the team had. Unfortunately, in this case, a team which TD built to be led by the old guard and transition into a new guard has not achieved due to some bad play by the newest of the new guard (JP) and bad game ions by tne new braintrust (MM,TC).
You are correct that transition is a natural thing that will happen one way or the other whether you want it to not. However, it is relevant and it is TD/MM's job to set that transition up so that the change is from good (though still inadequate since we did not make the playoffs last year) to better. Instead, this team under our HC has gone from good to putrid.
The key question is whether this transition could have been done better with these players. Unfortunately, it is looking like the answer to this question is yes.
The problem appears to be that the main failing of this team was not the old guard bitterly hanging on when better players were available, but team management really failing to manage this transistion well.
As best as I can tell, the old guard still had a bit more in them than this management got out of them and this management also has failed to get adequate production out of the new guard.
I think that's the oranizational dilemma, F-FS: the new guard won't be able to maximize production in the face of a resentful old guard. The new guard represents our three most valuable offensive weapons in JP, LE, and WM. The most vocal and devisive of the old regard resides on that side of the ball interestingly enough.
GO BILLS!!!
-
I only go back in time to show that these things are always cyclical not because the team is regressing. And because their are many similarities to the young QB situation we have now. Although, as you pointed out, the '89 team did regress compared to '88.
I could show you the same examples by going back to 1972 and 1980. And that's only on our team. EVERY NFL team experiences this business organization phenomenom over time.
GO BILLS!!!
-
Not only is Moulds detrimental to the team and MM/TD (don't see how you seperate the two), but he is detrimental to the fans that support the team as a result.
I can guarantee you that the level of Moulds dissatisfaction and resentment is 1,000 fold what it is that's been reported publicly. It's one thing to want the ball more (that's a good quallity) it's quite another to B word and moan about it in the locker room, cause division, and stymie the younger players who need to assert their own leadership as part of their maturation process. Moulds has been dissatisfied for years at his role if he's not the main threat in the game plan. Well, at 32 he's not the main threat regardless. Like Andre, we are seeing a receiver past his prime who can't rack up the YAC anymore and is frustrated by it. Well, it's unprofessional to let that frustration divide the locker room and that's exactly what's happened. Adams is another example.
It's time to purge the resentful veteran leadership and let the younger key players assert their own. Happens to every team.
GO BILLS!!!
-
I acknowledge that Eric Moulds took actions (I'm still not sure what they were) that were detrimental to someone else. However, its hard for me to see how his actions were detrimental to the team.
1. He certainly did not serve JP's interests by apparently advocating a switch to Holcomb several games back. However, it was clear then and even clearer now that JP was in over his head and really needed to sit down, take a deep breath, possibly watch and learn how it is supposed to be done (which thanks to some controlled and productive play by Holcomb he was able to see what could be done with this Bills team by a QB who played within himself).
Moulds thoughts as I understand them were correct and since he did not throw a vocal public hissy-fit like TO do not appear to have been detrimental to the team at all.
2. While all players must be willing to to be used in the gameplan as a decoy rather than as a target for passes, there is a balance here that should be expected and that you want players to have a "just give me the ball" attitude and they want and do step up an make a difference.
While I do think it is detrimental to the team for a players actions to be to sit on the midfield mark and hold his breath because he is not thrown the ball, I do not think it is hands-down detrimental for a player to want, ask or even demand the ball. If Moulds were merely pissed at being used as a decoy I see this as a management problem which is probably best managed by the HC with a stick/carrot talking to rather than a TO nuking of a player with a suspension.
The most disappointing thing to me about this is that it seems to be a case of MM/TD handling this situation poorly.
If anything, my sense is that Moulds may have had some correct ideas which were too the detriment of MM/TD. It may well point out that poor management by MM/TD may be the thing which is truly detrimental to the Bills,
If so, Ralph may be justified in disciplining or canning these two if he has the cojones and cash to do so.
-
The current turmoil and veteran consternation on this team is actually going to be a blessing in the long run, much like the same problems that occurred when Kelly & Co. came aboard in '86. It's essential for the growth and maturation of the younger, key players who can't otherwise excersize their leadership in the face of the entrenched veteran leadership that doesn't want to let go.
Many may remember the mid-eighties when the veteran leadership, notably Devlin, Jones, Smerlas, etc. really butted heads with the young turks that came aboard in that era. It didn't take Marv long to realize who that was and how essential it was to rid the team of that negative influence. Many on the team thought Kelly was a cocky SOB (sound familiar) who didn't know his place i.e. show the proper respect for those that had been around awhile. It' just a natural part of a team's evolution. It's only natural for those who've been around awhile to resent new arrivals when they try to assert their leadership in the locker room. That's what's happening now. And the players who resent it the most are going to cause division in the locker room, question the coaches, and quit on the team. We saw it then and we're seeing it now.
Thanks for your service guys, but it's not your team anymore. It's simply time for you to go. Good luck to you. Here's hoping you can find new starts on other teams.
Go Bills!!!
-
You're right, it is about percentages. But national advertisers care about national ratings. Buffalo is not even close to big enough to move the needle on that front.
LA is home to 5% of the nations television viewers. The LA DMA (designated market area) is about 5.5 Million. Buffalo's DMA is about 600,00. A forty rating (a HUGE number) means about 250,000 people tuned into a given game in Buffalo. LA averaged an 8.3 rating WITHOUT a team last year. That's 450,000 viewers and they're not even trying. The numbers are not going down with a team there...no matter how apathetic you believe the sports fans in LA to be. Hypothetically, lets say that the ratings only doubled. That would mean about seven hundred thousand more viewers for an LA team than Buffalo can provide in it's best week. That's with a measly sixteen percent of the television watching universe in LA.
I don't know what kind of concessions the NFL would have to make to the Networks. A team in LA, without a doubt, means higher ad revenue for the networks. It's a no brainer. NFL broadcast rights tend to be sort of a loss leader for the networks anyway. They use the games to promote their other programming.
Besides what owner wouldn't want to be in LA. All that corporate revenue? The bigger pool of potential merchandise buyers? A high income market?
Bottom line...There will be a team in LA. It will be good business for the NFL. It could be very bad for Western New Yorkers.
But a team in LA really doesn't mean higher ad revenue. Ad revenue as you know is driven by ratings which are driven by audience share. If you have a lower audience share and subsequent lower ratings than 2 other networks competing in the same time slot (the situation LA had when it had a team there) that ad space sells for far less than on those other networks. It's a loser for the local affiliates and that's the bottom line. While NFL broadcasts are indeed loss leaders for the networks, they are revenue killers for the affiliates in LA. The affiliates have a huge say in the matter.
GO BILLS!!!
-
You're on gmac. I'll advertise to the 60% audience share in LA watching reruns of Dallas while you advertise to the 30% audience share watching NFL football there. NFL telecasts consistantly came in third during its time slot in LA when it had a team. Sorry, but that's anathema to TV advertisers in any market, let alone the 2nd largest. In other words, it's an embarrasment for the networks and the NFL to have it's product come in 3rd in essentially a 4 horse race. And that's how it was the last time LA had a team.
Yeah the gross number of NFL viewers in LA would be larger than in most other football cities. But it's STILL the 3rd best choice for advertisers in that market. Many on this BB believe that simply because there are more viewers then it's an attractive market for the NFL and the networks. That's just not the case. At least it wasn't when LA had a team. A 70% audience share and number 1 rating in Buffalo is more valuable to local affiliates (the revenue engine) than that 30% audience share and number 3 rating in LA.
GO BILLS!!!
-
I've read several posts about how the NFL wants a team in LA because of the size of the TV market. The NFL may want it for that reason, but the networks that shell out billions of dollars in broadcast rights don't necessarily feel the same way.
There is a problem with the LA football TV market. Simply put, it historically doesn't draw a big enough audience share for the TV execs to sport wood about. When a home team routinely places third in the ratings during it's time slot, which is precisely what occurred in LA when it had teams, good or bad, then it's not as attractive to LOCAL advertisers, i.e the network affiliates. And that is the driving engine for TV revenues. Simply put, if an advertiser in LA can get more exposure running an ad during reruns of Dallas for FAR FAR less than it costs to run the ads during an NFL broadcast of the local team, well what would you do?
This audience indifference to NFL football is evident in the number of fans disguised as empty seats in the stadiums. Yes. LA has it's hardcore fan base, but unlike those fan bases in other cities that capture huge audience share during telecasts, there simply aren't enough in LA to go around.
It's great to be located in the second largest TV market country but not when that second largest TV market has lower ratings than 32nd largest TV market during football telecasts. It's about percentages, not gross numbers.
LA may very well get a new team. But the league will make extraordinary concessions to the networks for the television rights. And THAT will have a ripple effect that the owners aren't too happy about. Otherwise, there would be a team there already.
GO BILLS!!!
-
Yeah, finding the silver lining is like trying to find a hay-colored needle in the proverbial haystack, but if you're gonna lose three in a row, it's better to make it three losses that carry less weight.
It's Miami week. Then the Yets. Win those two and we're in the thick of it in the division.
Yeah. Yeah. I know. But that's what 40 years of being a Bills fan does to you.
GO BILLS!!!
-
From a 'Phins site. Too funny for words.
http://mb25.scout.com/fdolphinsfansfrm1.sh...cID=13209.topic
-
Not even close, folks. The best Bills DC EVER was Joe Collier in the 60s. It's not even close.
GO BILLS!!!
For All You Pinheads Trashing Ralph
in The Stadium Wall Archives
Posted
Team A = 40% of revenues to meet player payroll
Team B = 70% of revenues to meet player payroll
Yeah, Ralph's an idiot all right.
But how can we expect the igmos around here to grasp that basic concept when they can be SO embarassed by ESPN?
Turn off your friggin TVs long enough to study the true essence of the issue. And, oh yeah, GROW A THICKER SKIN!
GO BILLS!!!