LeGOATski
-
Posts
17,557 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Gallery
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by LeGOATski
-
-
4 minutes ago, klos63 said:
Not sure how accurate a statement that is. Jury is out.
Why? The one constant during Brady's career as an OC has been the success of his WRs. The jury is still out on his use of TEs.
-
18 minutes ago, PBF81 said:
He also had 97 targets, no receiving talent on that team that was worth a turd besides Moore, and a 79.4% Catch%.
How many targets do you see him getting here?
Do you see him repeating that Catch%?
Moore and Robbie Anderson were both great. That receiving corps was better than the Bills' current one and Samuel was their third option. He should be the Bills' 4th option behind Kincaid, Shakir, and Coleman. The big difference between that Carolina team and this Bills team is the tight ends.
-
1 hour ago, klos63 said:
Like many have mentioned, Cook and Kincaid will be the focus of the offense's targets. The WR will be complementary pieces to the offense.
Brady couldn't or didn't want to get the ball to Diggs and Davis after he took over, wondering if he can do anything with the new group.
I would say he didn't want to. They needed to right the ship after that 6-6 start, so they threw the ol' curve ball at the defenses. They relied heavily on their running game and unproven receivers, who defenses weren't focused on, and it worked out.
They can't do that this year, obviously. These unproven receivers are now proven, and also don't have the proven guys taking attention off of them.
McD will still want Brady to emphasize the running game in order to play complimentary football. As long as the running game is successful, the intermediate routes should still be open.
This off-season, they acquired receiving targets specifically for Brady's offense. They may be a poor man's version of what Brady had at Carolina and LSU, but Brady still knows exactly how to use them in order to be successful.
The big question mark for Brady is the TEs, which have never been an emphasis of his offense. Dalton Kincaid did just fine last year, which is a good sign.
-
3
-
1
-
-
30 minutes ago, Billl said:
What makes you think that Samuel who signed a 3 year, $24 million contract is an improvement over Davis who signed a 3 year, $39 million contract? In three more season played, Samuel has 650 more yards and 5 fewer TDs than Gabe. I can see how he could be a better value at their respective price tags, but Davis got 63% more on the open market with nearly double the guaranteed money.
That's the Allen effect, not Davis's talent.
The year Samuel had Brady as his OC, he had a better statistical year than Davis has ever had...and that was with Teddy Bridgewater as his QB.
-
2
-
2
-
-
2 hours ago, Rochesterfan said:
IDK how overall true it is. The NFL had an agreement in place with the XFL and the Rock to test certain things before coming to the NFL - so I am not sure how that agreement transferred to the UFL and how much the NFL really cares as long as the UFL stays a podunk league with little to no attention - I just don’t think the NFL cares about it and that goes for both players and coaches. I also do not think they see it as a pseudo farm team, but just another minor place to pick up some preseason roster fillers - similar to the arena league in years gone by.
As for a college player - if I am on the bench - I am 99 out of a hundred using the transfer window and staying in college over the UFL at this point. The combined spring leagues last year with 2x the players saw several guys get try-out and I think only 2 made active rosters. A few made practice squads, but if you compare that to the college draft and UDFA rate - it is still significantly lower.
This year we may see a few additional kickers make NFL rosters - especially as they have experience with the new kick-off rules, but I still think the number of position players that make actual NFL rosters will be very low compared to other avenues.
There is also the pay scale - which the UFL actually lowered compared to the XFL with the lack of competition - it was especially noticeable with QBs and the terrible QB play in the UFL. Players actually have a much better chance to make more money with a limited licensing deal in college than the up to $5500 a week in the UFL for 10 games potentially - where you still have to find living accommodations and some meals - with a small stipend.
There may be a few guys that get kicked out of college and need a second chance, but until the UFL can expand and actually get some talent - those types of stories will be limited.
I honestly think the biggest problem with the UFL is actually the same thing that keeps it afloat. The UFL exists because the TV networks want the product. Fox, NBC, ABC, and ESPN basically fund the league which is the only reason they have survived, but only provide enough to ensure it is able to function. The league itself had less than adequate attendance at games and unless the numbers go up - the networks are not going to have a bidding war over a product they own - so financially they are in a limbo - surviving on what they are given, but unable to financially grow significantly so they will struggle to compete with college ball for players that are in good standing.
If the UFL was independent of the networks - they could force a bidding war and maybe make some money to really grow, but they could not afford the production costs as that has doomed other leagues and needed the networks to survive the early years.
They definitely need some real investors who are interested in owning the teams.
I keep seeing people say college athletes can make more money now, but that only seems true for the top tier. I'm talking about lower tier guys. If my dream is to play football and I'm not a scholarship guy, I'd much rather make football my sole focus and get paid while learning from pro coaches, then go to college later.
It's probably a pipe dream, but these spring leagues need to somehow tap into the college talent pool. It would require some deeper pockets.
Other than that, they need to somehow work it out with the NFL to allow their backups and practice-squaders to play spring football.
The UFL talent pool just isn't interesting enough.
-
1
-
-
Not as interesting as the Kiko jersey exchange story.....
-
1
-
13
-
3
-
-
Reid has already subbed in for an injured Butler before, so it's already a skill he has and is a natural line of thinking for Andy. However, I doubt there will be many other examples of this, if any. Bubble players who are struggling to make the team are going to focus on their positional skills. They're not going to focus on kicking the ball.
11 minutes ago, Ridgewaycynic2013 said:'A new opportunity to make the roster.'
*
Thread title looks like those clickbait come ons in news articles. 😁Yeah, at first I thought McD was gonna hold an open tryout.
-
1
-
-
On 6/20/2024 at 6:49 PM, PromoTheRobot said:On 6/20/2024 at 6:54 PM, PromoTheRobot said:
There was considerably more NFL attention to this league than the past iterations. Idk if it will help get more UFL players signed, but it seems that both sides are more accepting of this idea of a pseudo-farm system.
I still say, if I'm a college player who's just sitting on the bench, I'd rather sign with a UFL team to get developed by some pro coaches and possibly get noticed by the NFL.
If this league stays, I'd love to see stories like that.
-
1
-
-
Over for sure. Kincaid is going to have a heavy workload. I think Knox still spends most of his time inline, but he has to be a receiving weapon. It's a fail on Brady's part if he doesn't recognize what Knox does for setting the physical tone of the offense. Design some early short catches for him where he can run over a defender.
However, we have to remember that Brady really has no history of ever using a top flight TE, let alone two. This is new territory for him.
-
Cook is extremely underrated. Dude was only #6 in yards from scrimmage last year. No big deal.
19 minutes ago, Doc Brown said:Looking at the list I really can't complain as there's a lot of really elite NFL players out there. No Diggs or K. Allen on there (not even in honorable mentions) was surprising considering they were top 10 in nearly every WR statistic last year. I get it with their age but still I'd put them in the top 100. Also, how in the world is Aaron Rodgers #20 when he had him at #29 last year? Was he impressed by his two handoffs, throwaway, and sack in the season opener?
That alone disqualifies the whole list.
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
-
3 hours ago, without a drought said:
9-32, Somewhere between making the playoffs and worst in the league. Lol
LOlolLOOLollOOL!!!
-
-
1 hour ago, HardyBoy said:
I mean people like to hang out together with other people who they have things in common with. I don't think that's going backwards, I think that's totally natural.
So the issue isn't the league existing, right like gay bars are a thing, it's a social place where you can meet people you might be interested in talking to and maybe forming a closer relationship...this flag football league sounds largely like a social kickball league at most levels, where I know a few people who met one another playing kickball and got married, I think a social flag football league where if you are gay you might have a better chance to find a partner is totally a reasonable and fair thing that I don't think we really need to discuss further in terms of if it is something valid, it clearly is from a social hangout having fun hanging out with people you have stuff in common with perspective.
So that leaves the higher levels of the league, like what I imagine being the highly competitive levels that will maybe even get to play a championship game on the field at the stadium because of this. Is your point about going backwards more about why are the Bills putting money behind this and not other flag football leagues?
I have an explanation based on my experience working at a big corporation, just want to see that makes sense in terms of where I'm leading this convo?
Absolutely. This is not a social thing, as far as I can tell. Maybe I'm wrong, but it seems this is supposed to be a competitive league.
It's the National Gay Flag Football League.
As far as I know, they already have national competitive leagues that are open to everyone.
Since that's the case, the rest of your post, while being a totally valid point, is not relevant to this conversation.
-
13 minutes ago, HardyBoy said:
Maybe, but I don't think one of the central plot points of Mean Girls (probably the key plot point tbh) was a girl starting a rumor that another girl was a lesbian was done at all by accident.
I posted this earlier up thread, but feels fitting...I read this when it came out in the actual magazine back in 2011 and I haven't re-read it, but it obviously left enough of an impression that I searched it out intentionally when I was reading through this thread earlier:
https://www.espn.com/womens-college-basketball/news/story?page=Mag15unhealthyclimate
Thanks for sharing. It's obviously a point of contention, but there's no real barrier.
Like when leagues were racially segregated back in the day. There was a literal barrier that caused the need to create a black league and black universities.
When segregation ended, there was still contention, but that went away over the years.
That's the path I thought the contention with LGBTQ players was taking as well. There's no barrier here that justifies a need to create a separate league. They need to coexist in order to move forward.
Creating a separate league is going backwards.
-
1
-
-
16 minutes ago, GunnerBill said:
Again, see my earlier post. LGBT sports leagues or teams are crested because even though gay people can just walk up and join any existing team or league in practice they often do not feel comfortable doing so. So yes, those are the "real reasons" that such leagues are created.
It's being so normalized and accepted throughout lower level sports (and high level womens sports) that it's just kind of hard to believe it was needed in something like flag football.
Maybe it's just the football crowd, but especially the mens leagues, where it's a bigger hurdle.
Women's leagues, like the WNBA I mentioned before, are very welcoming and upfront about it.
-
On 6/15/2024 at 7:45 AM, sherpa said:
As a Virginia resident, I would be very happy with Younkin.
Truth told, I'd prefer him over Trump as the head of the ticket.
Resume isn't quite filled enough to get there, but he's very good.
Sane, relatively young, understands business needs to operate without oppressive gov interference and a host of other things that have served this country well, as opposed to a host of other things in the pipeline that have not.
The Republicans had a good, young candidate in Ramaswamy. They totally shot themselves in the foot. We're screwed for the next 4 years.
-
1 hour ago, BillsFanForever19 said:
"trans shouldn't compete in sports with non trans people"
maybe they wouldn't have to create a league amongst themselves to feel safe.
Are these the real reasons this league was created? Honest question.
Because as far as I know, LGBTQ people have been able to play flag football without issue.
-
Hakeem Butler hasn't signed anywhere yet?
-
Was Heidi like a hawt bar maid or something?
-
1
-
-
I keep seeing this thread title and thinking "Not Gonna Freaking Lie"
-
36 minutes ago, boyst said:
come to the US. it is most certainly in your face.
Hell, just go to a WNBA game
Wowzer
I kid, I kid ... Those games are actually pretty fun. Unlike an NBA game, I can just walk on down to the end of the court and hang out with a floor view
-
1
-
-
12 hours ago, Mikie2times said:
Minnesota had a 50-37 record with Cousins and made two playoff appearances. They made it to a divisional round game. They came into Buffalo and beat the Allen led Bills. With Allen we have basically ended up no further than Minnesota did with Cousins. So it’s not exactly a leaping conclusion to think if they swapped places we might produce a worse result.
This paragraph discredits your whole argument. You think the Vikings have been just as good as the Bills.
9 hours ago, GoBills808 said:I mean that's kind of the issue in a nutshell isn't it
We have a Josh Allen talent and a Kirk Cousins ceiling
I think so. They've been disappointing at the end of every season.
-
1
-
-
47 minutes ago, RobbRiddick said:
This is clearly a ploy to get me banned.
MUST... NOT... MAKE... ANY... GAY... JOKES...
Arrrrgggggghhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!
I bet the most popular position on the team is a tight end
damn I cracked
This league will give a whole new meaning to the term "butt fumble"
-
1
-
-
21 minutes ago, Mikie2times said:
By all means you're welcome to contribute your thoughts on how this team would be materially different. It was asked like 10 posts ago.
It's your thread that you started. I'm just looking for any actual reasons or facts from you to justify your theory. All I see are unsupported opinions and generalities.
The fact is that they broke the playoff drought, with what everyone considered a poor QB, while playing average, bend-don't-break defense and having the number 4 running back.
After drafting their guy and having another year to build around him, they get back to the playoffs in his 2nd year. Allen was still developing then. He was an above average QB in his 2nd year.
But with no reasons given, you think if they got Kirk Cousins (an above average QB) they would be even worse.
Reality has shown us that there is clearly a winning process under this regime no matter who the QB is. With an above average QB like Cousins, they would be just fine.
I'm really starting to love this WR room. We quietly got better
in The Stadium Wall
Posted
Robbie Anderson changed his name to Chosen.
Worth mentioning that, like Samuel, Anderson had his best year under Joe Brady. Further evidence that getting the most out of his WRs is kind of Brady's forte.
That bodes well for Coleman and the rest of these guys.