Mojo44
-
Posts
1,413 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Gallery
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Mojo44
-
-
9 minutes ago, Doc said:
It hinges on Coleman. If he's a hit...
No it doesn’t
-
15 minutes ago, BADOLBILZ said:
The only thing surer is that some randoms will whine incessantly about posters being unsatisfied with draft selections.
Now that’s what I call a figure – ground reversal. 😂
-
1
-
-
This must be the “highest character” draft in the modern draft era
-
3
-
-
Overly simplistic.
-
4
-
-
5 minutes ago, Beast said:
The Bills are not a run first team.All evidence to the contrary after Brady took over. Cook was the main offensive weapon for this team for the second half of the season. I don’t see how that is debatable.
-
1
-
-
For all of you adhering to the overhyped “don’t take a running back too high.” Remember with Brady we are a run first team. This is an offensive weapon. Seems like a great complementary pick for the running back room. Besides, he seems like a special person will fit right into the process
-
2
-
1
-
-
Just now, Warriorspikes51 said:
Keon could be great or out of the league in 4 years
I like how you narrowed down his window.😁. But I agree with you 100%
By the way, did I mention that I was numbing myself up with Irish whiskey? Well, I am. So………..Let’s get that punter before someone else does!
-
5 minutes ago, ndirish1978 said:
I don't have that confidence. We gave Diggs a big extension and then cut him loose even though we had him in the building and knew his history and still didn't realize he was nuts.
Good point well taken. I’m not actually confident about this. I’m just hopeful.🤔
-
1
-
-
1 minute ago, ndirish1978 said:
Mitchell has all the tools to be a #1 and enough questions about his work ethic/maturity that he scared WR needy teams out of drafting him in the 1st round. I'd be happy if he's the pick, but I would feel zero peace that he's going to become a consistent player.
I have the same concerns. But if Buffalo does take him then I have to think, or at least hope, that they fully vetted these issues and are OK with taking him. We will see.
-
12 minutes ago, Back2Buff said:
The profile of Dayle Forness says adult entertainment enthusiast and he is a Bills fan. I would throw this out the window.
So he’s a Bill’s fan and he likes porn. I don’t see the problem.
-
6 minutes ago, Buffalo4Life01 said:
I guess because I'm a fan of the team and one of the benefits about being a fan is that I'm allowed to make an opinion or forecast based on my own homework and or my own discretion. I just hate the optics of willingly agreeing to a trade with KC. If that doesn't bother you, then great, that's your opinion. I'm not going to knock you for it. We can agree to disagree. I just have a really bad taste in my mouth right now and It's obvious I'm not alone here.
OK. Fair enough. In my opinion it’s not a rule but a consideration. I again would implore you to wait and see what the team does today before you finalize this opinion.
-
16 minutes ago, Buffalo4Life01 said:
That's not the point. You don't trade with your BIGGEST rival. I don't care what you gain from it. Andy Reid and Mahomes will continue to be our dad and grandad until they both retire, unless we grow some balls and do something about it.
There is no such rule! And the fact that you don’t care what you might gain from such a trade is really a bad take my opinion. It seems like so many posters think Worthy will step on the field and be all world. Beane may actually pulling a fast one here. I’m fine with the trade and I don’t care that Kansas City got Worthy. He is way too boom or bust for me.Why don’t you wait and see what happens today before you render an opinion?
-
1
-
-
4 minutes ago, SirAndrew said:
I agree it’s not prevalent, I just don’t think that being 300 pounds is ever “healthy”. They are very strong guys, and better athletes than me, but there’s a reason most offensive linemen lose a ton of weigh in retirement. It isn’t healthy to maintain, and they’re intentionally gaining weight to be lineman throughout their football careers.
Referring to them as athletes is the key here. Even at 300 pounds their cardiac functioning is optimal which is crucial. As long as they maintain an adequate muscle to body fat ratio they would be considered healthy. Also, the fact that their physical activity level is off the charts is another positive factor. As to whether or not lineman lose a lot of weight after they retire I don’t know. Do you have some data. That would be interesting.
-
Just now, SirAndrew said:
To be fair it wouldn’t shock me if there have been offensive lineman with type 2 over the years.
Certainly possible. But I would be shocked if it was prevalent. You can be overweight and be in good shape and not have type two. My assumption, which is all it is, that it’s not prevalent
-
Just now, That's No Moon said:
You're right. It is easier to manage. That's why if it's currently poorly managed it begs the question why.
Unless you can show conclusive evidence that he is not managing it adequately it’s not an issue in my opinion. Is it possible? I suppose. But unlikely. Have to go with the null hypothesis here.
-
15 minutes ago, Lagoon Blues said:
Agree, If he is a type 1 diabetic(which I don't know 1 or 2, havent looked into it other than message board banter)... if he isn't managing it well he would not be able to do anything at an optimal level which he has shown let alone live very long. Most people dont understand the difference between type 1 and type 2
It’s almost certainly type one insulin-dependent diabetes. Young athletes in good shape are not candidates for type two. Also, managing IDDM is much easier with current medical technology. I don’t see this as a major issue. If he has character issues it’s very unlikely they’re related to his diabetes
-
38 minutes ago, UKBillFan said:
I've been watching the preview shows for most of the day. I swear it's different heads saying the same thing.
I actually think there are only two or three real people doing this combined on all the networks. The rest of it is AI. You know, with the layoffs and all.You
-
Ed Grimley. Hah! Nailed it!
-
6 minutes ago, Saint Doug said:
Because you just don’t get it. It doesn’t matter who drafted Sammy. The risk still remains. Josh Allen will be 28 when the season starts. You would like to blow our load on hope. Hope isn’t a sound strategy. What happens after 2-3 years when we realize the guy is a bust? That’s 2-3 more years of Josh down the drain.
Due to Allen’s contract, this team has holes and will always need to plug them via the draft. If you want to mortgage our future, do it on proven players. Otherwise, draft a couple WR in the 1st and 2nd. Leave next year’s picks alone.
I really don’t know what you’re talking about here. You’re not making any sense. It’s a simple point. Try to understand it. A one off example that occurred 10 years ago is not predictive of anything, certainly now. As I have said in my recent post on this issue, it’s always a risk to trade up for ANY pick. This is not about Josh Allen’s contract or when we should draft a one or two wide receivers. It’s simply about using this 10 year old ancient history example. So I guess we never should’ve traded up to get Dalton Kincaid? You see it goes both ways. A better way to make your point would be to provide some good empirical evidence that over the years trading up for any position, even wide receiver, usually doesn’t work. I doubt such evidence exists. But if you could find it I would love to see it. I am simply challenging your logic that using this ancient history example by itself means we absolutely shouldn’t trade up for a wide receiver. I do agree with you that it’s a risk. But that might be a risk worth taking. It sounds like you were suggesting that we should never do it. If I’m mistaken, please correct me.
-
13 minutes ago, Alphadawg7 said:
Huh? He played with McVay and Goff, then Mahomes, Rodgers, and Lamar.How many MVPs does he have to play with to reach his potential?
LOL
Think for a second. What if he was drafted under the current regime. Regardless of what happened after he left here as damaged goods, it’s not inconceivable that he could have fulfilled his potential. I’m laughing back at you. And this is all besides the point anyway. The whole point of my posts on this matter is that this was 10 years ago and posters still use it as a cautionary tale to not trade up to get a wide receiver. It’s just silly reasoning.
-
4 hours ago, Saint Doug said:
Read again please. “It’s a cautionary illustration that trading a bunch of draft picks for a non-QB draft pick is very risky.”I got it. Read my post again. Trading up for any position is risky. Actually, trading up for a quarterback is even more risky than any other position. If you miss it you set the team back possibly years.The Sammy Watkins example is old and tiresome. It really doesn’t apply here. This is not Doug Whaley making decisions. Don’t forget that. If it’s an illustration, with respect, it’s a markedly poor one. The Sammy Watkins “example” needs to go away.
-
7 minutes ago, Saint Doug said:
Sammy didn’t blow up the league when he left. He was only a Bill for 3 seasons. But this really isn’t about Sammy Watkins. It’s a cautionary illustration that trading a bunch of draft picks for a non-QB draft pick is very risky. It’s pertinent to now because WR busts are not that infrequent.That he didn’t blow up the league after he left does not in anyway diminish my point. Trading up for any position is “risky“. Using your logic, we should never have traded up to get Josh. You’re using a one off example that is not relevant.
-
1 hour ago, Saint Doug said:
People are soon to forget what happened with Sammy Watkins. We only moved up only 5 spots and gave up the following year’s 1st and a 4th. And he was basically a bust. Everyone panned Whaley for this move. Now, fast forward to 2024 and we are talking about trading an even higher number of picks for an unproven player. We can’t afford to experiment. Go after a proven player.
The Watkins situation is ancient history. It’s not pertinent to the current one at all. Besides, imagine if we had Josh when we drafted him. Probably a very different result.
-
2 minutes ago, Mikie2times said:
Diggs does dumb things that strain relationships. He undermines coaches and teammates. He needs the attention which is a trait that has only grown more as Josh's spotlight grew. He turns around and masquerades his bad behavior and poor choices as being misunderstood or competitive. He makes you the problem not his behavior. He is a headcase, eroding talent. Somebody who came up as a no show in the most competitive situations since he has been here. Everybody around him is now better because he is gone. You can't measure the impact of a bad apple. You can't just take the talent by itself. It's not how this works.
Well said. This is the context that seems to be unappreciated by those who are against this trade. He just became too malignant. This is addition by subtraction in my opinion
-
1
-
UDFA signing thread. 10 Signed 5 camp invites as of 07:39, 28 April
in The Stadium Wall
Posted
No I’m not happy. I was counting on two receivers named Xavier.No I’m not happy.