34-78-83

Way to show your stuff relative new guy! Good Post... That last paragraph hits home .

Perfectly well stated MDH. Although I was probably a bigger fan of TH, atleast while he was playing in 2002 and 2003.

True, and that's why I brought up all of those factors as a group. My point though was that all defenses give up drives or a big run/pass play here and there (although we did shut them down for most of the day other than the one long run) but Turnovers are swing points (ie. Clements fumbles on a change of possession, Bledsoe giftwraps a touchdown on a boneheaded play) and that constant three and outs by our offense through the middle quarters of the game cause defensive fatigue. A football game to me is "built" over 4 quarters and develops it's own "history" based on events that have happened over the course of the game; events that impact the end of the game. I for one, refuse to include our defense in any blame game about the loss to Pitt last season without mentioning those other factors first.

http://www.nfl.com/gamecenter/teamstats/NFL_20050102_PIT@BUF It looks here (and from my view at the stadium that day) like maybe some other factors including offensive "3 and outs", fumbles, INT's and missed FG's weighed in a bit more than any "crumble" by our D.

Guys, are ya really gonna let Obie Wan get you all worked up like that?

Hey, it's our favorite Quarterback duo! Fueding no more?

Nice! Can't wait to get it

Parrish definitely does have the speed to run past NFL coverage men , but as Badol implies, will likely be used more underneath and on slants to utilize his great quickness. The idea that Parrish was drafted as Moulds' replacement is far beyond the bounds of reality and possibility. He will never be a 1 and likely will struggle even at the 2 position. He is a situational player.

I understood and very much enjoyed the concept when you originally posted it in a different thread some months ago Kelly.

The roster I refer to is the one who won eight out of their last nine games last season when guys like Mcgee and Willis came to the forefront and displayed their talents. So no I don't see it as a problem as of yet , but it will be if JP ends up doing more harm than good.. There were some coaching , O-line chemistry ,RB, QB and discipline issues IMO that condemed last season during the first 4 games and those issues seemed to resolve as the season progressed..

You know , to kick up interest and response for a given topic... He has since explained his reasoning and though I disagree with it, I can respect it. I personally don't think there are more than 4 teams with better overall rosters than Buff, but obviously talent does not directly translate to wins in the NFL. There are other factors like Chemistry, Coaching, Cap, luck/injuries, what division you are in, schedule, etc.

I gotta believe you're doing this atleast somewhat for shock value. Oakland? KC? Dallas? Seattle? You can't seriously believe that, ok well I guess you do... To each his own.

Have a happy one Mr. Bill

It was really more of an expose on the value of statistics...

That's a fair description in my opinion.

Good points for the most part but one must consider that ALL "sack artists" rack up the bulk of their numbers against lesser competition. This goes back to countless examples such as Bruce Smith and Reggie White and on throughout the history of the NFL.

Good call on Hedges

7 flat 5 add 9

Jerry Marley Hendrix Morrison

Bingo!

Please folks, there is no organization under the current NFL salary system that will be able to carry complete Offense/Defense balance over the course of more than a season or two. The Patriots are an exception from the norm, not the rule. And they find ways to put players in the best position to utilize their skills, and not expose their flaws. There's more to this puzzle than just talent. There's chemistry, coaching and luck involved too.

Nice point Badol. I'd agree with that myself.

My new high score is 3272. I can stop playing this game anytime

2671! My co-worker got 3099

Ahh , sorry I misunderstood then.