jad1
-
Posts
1,345 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Gallery
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by jad1
-
-
I watch EVERY game.....I watch them...tape them....break them down....
I have gone for what seems an eternety of "well yes the QB isn't changing things but somebody else screwed the pooch"
The fact of the matter is that this team is not good enough to have a "facilitator" at quarterback......we dont have enough other guys making the great catch, breaking a tackle, coming up with the key interception, etc etc etc
Somewhere we need the QB....because this isn't a good team right now.....to make a play......
I am not saying that other people didn't mistakes.....but we seem to have one person in particular that is making mistakes IN EVERY GAME.....and they all seem to happen at in opportune times when it comes to Drew.....
The moral of this team is going to fall apart very soon if something is not done........and since they drafted JP Losman for a reason....we need to look to the future.....
Now....maybe I will feel differently tomorrow.....but that is def the way I see it right now
Anyone notice that the Steelers are 2-0 with Roelithsberger starting?
-
Agreed.....
When you take a look at our situation...there is no doubt we would have taken a QB next year....so what I do when I look at the trade is just how high JP Losman would have gone in next years QB depleted draft....
And after looking at him play for the bills I would say top 10 EASILY....probably much higher.....
Losman's injury really skews this too. If he were healthy, people wouldn't be talking about next year's draft pick, they be clamoring for JP to start the next game.
-
Actually, he appeared a bit out of control and looked like he was preparing to dive for the endzone.
He should have been more concerned with protecting the ball at that point.
Regardless, it's just another example of how the Bills of late have been incapable of making big plays at crucial points of the game.
For all the bitching people have been doing about the Bills getting screwed by the refs, here was a perfect chance to turn the tables, and Fletcher blew it.
-
So who do we get to replace Moulds, another draft pick like Josh Reed?
Have things gotten so bad that we're really thinking about dumping the only guy who has scored a TD for the team this year?
-
Gotta give credit to Moulds though, as he scored all three. The rest of the offense is really rising to the occasion. Nice work guys!
-
-
The play was called back after Buffalo challenged it. The call on the field was a fumble. NE couldn't challenge it.
If Fletcher runs out of bounds instead of fumbling through the endzone, it's the Bills' ball inside the ten.
-
Fletcher recovers a fumble on the field, and returns it to NEs 5 before fumbling it through the end zone, which is a touchback for NE.
But Buffalo challenges the the catch before the fumble, and it's ruled to be an incomplete pass, so NE punts.
No big deal, right? Wrong. If Fletcher doesn't fumble the Bills get the ball inside the Pats 5, because Belichick had already used up NE's two challenges (McGee's interception and Mould's TD).
So, for NE, the play wasn't reviewable. That would have been a huge break for the Bills, giving them the ball in perfect position to tie the game.
To me, this is a perfect example of how Buffalo lacks a winning mentality right now. For some reason, they lack the mental toughness to finish plays in the clutch. This is an area that Donohoe looked to improve by hiring Mularkey, but through 3 games, there's been no improvement at all.
-
I posted this elsewhere earlier - it applies here I think...
"Harsh as it is, they seem to be falling into some sort of version of teams fielded by the Bengals that I had the pleasure of watching since 1990.
The commentary seems familiar...we have talent, no moxie, playcalling, chronic weak parts of the game, inability to judge talent, lousy bench, calls, and so forth. Fortunately, bickering players are not a problem yet.
I feel that it is management - which was the B'gal's chief problem. Teams "turn" around all the time - win a few improbable games, do the occasional smart thing such as ignoring the urge to play prevent defense, an unheralded player steps up his performance, etc.
A management that did not discharge the coach last year as well as a QB who took it game after game without storming off the field in disgust has a certain odor about it IMO.
We'll see - but I'm not going to stick it to Mularkey - recall Mike Tice's 1st year."
I don't think this is anywhere near as bad as Cincy, where the main problem was ownership's refusal to spend the money to run a real NFL franchise (no scouting dept, no FAs, lousy facilities, etc).
Donahoe has built a team that just doesn't hang together. The pieces don't fit. He's entrusted the team to inexperienced HCs, who have trouble putting their players into a position to make big plays.
The effect is the same, but there is a difference between an unwillingness to do what's necessary to win, and an inability to do so.
-
He wasn't any worse than Shoebel. Of course, that's not saying much.
-
If JP is healthy, has a couple of weeks of practice, and the Bills are out of it, he starts.
Put him on Jacksonville's 'Leftwich' plan from last year for the rest of the season.
If, by some miracle, the Bills decrease their idiotic mistakes and manage to win more than they lose before Losman comes back, keep Bledsoe in there and fight for a playoff spot.
Unfortunately for Drew, with 3 loses on the board, the time to cut bait is getting sooner and sooner.
-
Yeah, but you can also say that if Fletcher didn't fumble the ball through the end zone, the Bills would have had the ball inside the Pats 10.
Belichick had already used up his two challenges, so the Pats couldn't review the bad call.
It would have been one of the biggest breaks Buffalo has received since last year's opener, but Fletcher fumbled the freakin' ball.
The point is, you make your breaks, you don't wait for them to be given to you.
-
Yeah and our jackass candidates are trying to treat it like a sanitized campaign rally. (I think I've gone full circle here!)
-
Actually...yeah, people are saying that. I'm sure - dead positive, actually - that there's voters out there who'll vote for Bush because he's "keeping the queers in check" or the like. None I respect (well...a few. I can understand why a gay couple would vote for Kerry based on that issue alone, having a vested interest in it), mind you...but they're out there.
But my POINT was (as I think you know) that someone who claims the debates are a waste of time because he's informed enough is a fool...especially when he's not fully informed on his candidate. Is DOMA a major issue? For some...mostly either gays (who I have nothing against) or homophobes (who need to stop worring about what other men do with their penises). I chose it merely because Kerry's position on it is quite possibly the most convoluted and self-contradictory of all his positions (save maybe taxes)...and I felt that someone who had such full knowledge of his candidate that he could leave everything forthcoming to the "backwoods morons" should be able to answer it.
But hey, if he has to resort to mental illness jokes...I guess that's a sound basis for casting a vote, too...
If you want to have an intelligent debate on the candidates, come on over to PPP and I'll indulge you. Because it's not going to happen in this thread with this audience...
My point is, and I think you affirm it, is that nobody has a full grip on all their candidates position.
Most people will pick two or three issues that are close to them and decide on those.
BOTH candidates are convulted and self-contradictory on many positions. (Yes Republicans, Bush does flip-flop, like all politicians do). In the 2000 debates, Bush claimed to be against nation building. How has that played out?
I doubt, though, that Bush's flip-flop will prevent any Republicans from voting for him.
Bush and Cheney don't seem to agree on the gay marriage amendment. Will that cost them votes?
Anyway, like you, I believe that the debates could be important, but in reality, they'll probably be worthless.
And I avoid the PPP board, because I've found that intelligent debate is difficult with that audience.
-
I can not imagine a scenario where anyone is allowed to pull Bledsoe out of a game vs. the Patriots to add a spark or change things up. I think, yes, it can happen against another team...but TD put his nuts on the line for this quarterback, and while I'm not one to quickly blame TD's ego for things, I have to believe pulling Drew out of a game vs. his old team would be painful for a lot of people.
One thing is certain...if they DID pull Drew, I'd sure like to be the guy in charge of the sideline camera.
Yeah, that and the fact that Mathews isn't that good (that's why he was a FA until the week before the season started).
And before you ask if Mathews could have done any worse than Bledsoe, yes he could have thown 6 or 7 interceptions.
-
Liar. And a bad one at that.
If that were true, then why is he against state legislation on the matter (specifically quoted as being against the Massachusetts DOMA), citing the primacy of the federal law on the subject?
Care to re-examine that statement of his position? Maybe you'd like to go out and get a little more information? Oh, I forgot...TV's on...
Hey man, I know what you're trying to do, but isn't the DOMA a bit arcane. I mean is there anyone out there basing their vote on it?
Is somebody saying, "I really don't like the way Bush led us into way in Iraq, but he's really keepin' the queers in their place, so I'll vote for him."
Or, "I really like the way Kerry wants to deal with outsourcing, but man, he's going to let fags get married." (I know that's not his actual position, it's hyperbole.)
Nobody knows a candidate's position on every issue, nor should they have to. Voters tend to focus on a few key issues and make their decisions from there, because platforms rarely hang together (Pro NAFTA=aniti gay marriage?).
Hell, Bush himself couldn't even name important world leaders before the 2000 election, but that didn't stop Republicans from voting for him.
The debates should be a source of knowledge, but unfortunately, they've been watered down so much, they've become pretty worthless.
Too bad the political parties don't view the electorate as being able to handle a constructive conversation between the two candidates. Instead they package every answer and control every question until the process becomes meaningless.
We're not going to learn the candidates true positions on the war, or economy, or DOMA in these debates.
Why? Because the parties view the voters as backwoods morons, unable to handle anything more intelligible than a 30 second sound bite.
-
Since when did the "Defense of Marriage Act" become part of foreign policy (the topic of tonight's debate)?
Maybe Bush put Rumsfield in charge of it because it had "Defense" in it's title.
-
Oh, I get it, responsibility. Like owning up to the fact that you turned foreign policy over over to neocon chickenhawks?
If that happens in the debates, I'm watching them for sure!
(Actually, I'm watching them anyway, even though I don't expect them to be any more meaningful than a campaign rally -- without the required loyalty oath.)
-
It's the same as Dick Cheney's position. And if people can't tell who my candidate is from that statement, maybe they do need to watch the debates.
-
-
McKinnie's numbers as a LT his first two years still suck. If the Bills drafted him, Jennings would still be the LT, not McKinnie. Like Williams, he would be playing the right side.
So if you want to make the distinction of RT vs. LT, then the comparison should be Jennings vs. McKinnie. And McKinnie loses that battle.
-
I heard a better statement of what it is " A side by side press conference" With all these stupid rules etc they wont debating a thing since Bushy was mainly practicing for those zingers he wants us all to remember(instead of Iraq, economy, health care etc) and Kerry is still trying to figure out what he stands for.
With American soldiers dying overseas, the least these two jackasses could do is agree to hold an actual conversation about foreign policy.
As a voter, I'd love to see a British-parliment style debate, with an objective, but tough-minded moderator who's in a foul mood.
I know. It'll never happen in this day and age of pre-packaged politics.
-
So, what!!! Drew knows how do do all of them, but either doesn't do them or doesn't do them very well. You're still missing the point here... Drew Bledsoe will not get this team to .500 this year, let alone the playoffs in the best case scenario. And I guarantee you that. JP, at worst, will not get this team to .500 this year. What does the team gain by continuing to go with Bledsoe, and in the process, continue to piss off the ofensive player and certainly the fans. And JP has lost a great opportunity to gain experience in live action in a season in which the Bills are not going to the playoffs... unless JP takes them there. This team is not going to get better with Bledsoe in there....
Look, you may be right, but I want it proven on the field that the Bills will be that bad. I don't know where this team is headed right now, but I sure as hell don't expect them throw in the towel after 2 or 3 games.
This team can definitely get better around Bledsoe. McGahee and Evans can be given bigger roles. The D can tighten up the 3rd and 4th and long defenses. The DBs can generate more turnovers. The offensive line could still develop into a solid run blocking unit.
Adding an inexperienced rookie QB into the mix jeopardizes that development.
If after 9, 10. or 11 games the team is going nowhere, put Losman in and get him his reps.
But don't expect him to be able to turn things around this season. At this point of his career, that's expecting way too much.
-
McKinnie gave up 11 sacks last year, Williams 9. Who outplayed who last year? Jennings, a 3rd round pick gave up 2 or 3.
If you compare Pace's first two seasons with Williams, Williams gave up 2 more sacks than Pace.
If McKinnie was drafted by the Bills, he would have been a RT too, especially since he decided to hold out half of his first year. Jennings would have had the LT spot nailed down, and McKinnie's play would have kept him at RT.
The problems with the OL has been inexperience, changing positions, offensive scheme and gameplan, and the loss of Larry Centers, who was able to get Bledsoe out of a jam.
Then again, I don't have the apparent mind reading skills of Peter King.
How many more seasons will we have this defense?
in The Stadium Wall Archives
Posted
Yeah, we can call it the no sack/no turnover/stupid penalty defense.