Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

25 Excellent


  • Rank

Recent Profile Visitors

479 profile views
  1. I agree with ya JJ. If there's a difference maker when the 9th pick is up, stay there and get him. I don't see the Bills picking inside the top 10 for a while after this draft, so take advantage of this year. Hell after the FA moves this offseason trade up and get your guy and bring some top level talent to our team. It's really the only thing we don't have enough of after the solid moves Beane made in March.
  2. Then the Bills have to take N'Keal Harry in this situation imo. He very well could end up as the best WR in this years draft. He's got size(6'-4"), can make plays all over the field, has put up numbers in back to back seasons and would be steal at pick 40. I don't know another player you can pick @ #40 and have a legit chance of getting the best player at a skill position.
  3. Brady is 207-60 or 77.5%(Including playoffs 237-70 or 77.2%), since Brady has become the starter Bill Belichick's record without Brady starting is 13-6 or 68.4%. I don't know where you got the Pats*** win an identical, if not higher, percentage of the time without Brady than with, it's almost 10 percentage points higher with Tom in the lineup. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_National_Football_League_career_quarterback_wins_leaders https://www.footballdb.com/stats/qb-records.html
  4. Tom's win percentage for his career is 77%, the 29 games they played without Gronk 76%.
  5. I hear ya about the longevity and guys hanging around to break records, that's why I don't think Emmitt is the best RB & why I think Barry is the best, even though he only played 10 years. Jim Brown was obviously really good, but the players weren't the same as they have been for the last 25-30 years(And getting better by the year)When you say, when he was on the field he was utterly dominant, I agree for some of his career and disagree in other parts. Always a great blocker, but when just as much, if not more, of your job is to catch passes and rack up yards and in 44% of the years you played you fail to hit 700 yards receiving, to me that doesn't say dominant. Don't get me wrong there were times I didn't think anyone could stop him, but there just wasn't a long enough stretch of that play, in my opinion. With him not being able to crack the top 100 in receiving yards, I just can't do it. I appreciate the discussion Dave, but on this I think we'll have to agree to disagree.
  6. Ok I'll bite, who's your "greatest RB of all time"? Because Barry Sanders played more than 118 games and there's never been and will probably never will be a better RB. The Lions had nothing on offense to help him and he still tore it up like no one we've ever seen. EVERYONE knew he was getting the ball, yet still averaged 99.8 yards a game on the ground and almost 120 yards from scrimmage per game for his CAREER, no one was even close. 10 year career, over 3,000 carries, only missing seven games, while averaging 5.0 yards a carry. Never finished a year with less than 1,115 yards, while being the workhorse every year. I know what you'll say, he didn't win Super Bowls. I guess he wishes he drafted better or that he could've come 10 years later and put himself on the Pats*** so he could play with the best QB & Coach of all time, just like Gronk. The Pats*** are 22-6 without Gronk since he came in the league and more importantly 13-1 since 2016.
  7. I'm not forgetting Gronk's 16 games in the post season, but I was comparing him to Moss, who played in 15 post season games and Rice, who played in 29 post season games. Why include it when the two guys I'm comparing him to played in as many or in Rice's case almost double the post season games. As far as Gronk being the second most dominate player on the most dominate NFL dynasty of all time, who would be the 3rd most dominate? Exactly, after Brady who cares because they haven't had that many really good players for any stretch during Brady's time playing. Not saying he wasn't really good, just not putting him up with the all time greats with only 4 really good years and ranking 104th in receiving for his career. He didn't even crack the top 100.
  8. Because he played with the best QB of all time and the best coach of all time? As it was mentioned before, Brady has started 18 seasons and he has as many rings in the 9 years without Gronk as the 9 years with him. Win percentage is about the same with him as before him. Did he matter that much or was it way more to do with Brady & Belichick? They plug and play people all over the field and have been doing it for years.
  9. Nope same win percentage and same 3 Super Bawl wins during his 9 year career and the 9 years that proceeded him.
  10. 4 dominant years in his career and your putting him up with the best of all time, sorry just can't do it with that small of a window of being dominant.
  11. In reality he had 4 very good seasons, the others 546, 790, 592, 540 & 682. Let's take Charles Clay's 2013-2017 seasons 759, 605, 528, 552 & 558. Side by side the stats look pretty similar don't they?
  12. Moss played in 215 games, Jerry Rice played in 303 games and Gronk played in 115 games. A good part of being in the discussion of an all time great is longevity.
  13. Pfft....he played with the best QB ever, for his entire career. Very much like the careers of fellow teammates Wes Welker, Julian Edelman & heck even Deion Branch, Tom made them much better than they would've been elsewhere.
  14. Brady has started for 18 seasons, 9 with Gronk and 9 without. He has 3 rings with Gronk and 3 without. Did he really make them much better or as I said before was it the best coach and QB ever that got them 6 rings.
  15. Absolutely agree Boat, 115 games is not enough and durability was an issue with Gronk after his first 2 years. Like I said before it's like comparing Calvin Johnson(Who played 9 years) & Jerry Rice. Yards per game go to Calvin, but career easily goes to Rice.
  • Create New...