Logic
-
Posts
9,731 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Gallery
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Logic
-
-
1 minute ago, Pbomb said:
Some more good numbers for tyrod
THESE are the stats I found most telling. They're Tyrod in a nutshell: Good enough to start, good enough to keep you in a game as long as your defense and running game are humming. Will make some spectacular plays with his legs and his arm....BUT....when it's crunch time, and the game hangs in the balance he's well below average. For that very reason, it is time for the Bills to turn the page once and for all.
I wish I could just send a screenshot of these stats to every clueless national media pundit who thinks Tyrod gets a raw deal or that Bills fans are crazy for wanting to move on from him.-
1
-
-
Kwame Cavil WR Texas
Was with the Bills during training camp in 2000 and maybe a bit beyond that. This was the beginning of my long history of latching on to "Training Camp Superstars" and projecting them for greatness. At 6'2 and 205 lbs, I thought he was a future star in the making. Turns out....not so much.
Apparently, he DID go on to have a long career in the CFL and won a Grey Cup in 2005. So there's that. -
Just now, Manther said:
As much as I (as a fan and seen what teams can do with comp picks) think comp picks are good. This FO showed last year that at this point or last years point the comp picks were not a priority as we could have released guys to get a 3rd round pick. I know the FO is different this year as McD ran the show for the start of FA last year and now McBeane is doing it this year and I know each year is different. But, don't fully believe that is the main reason behind these moves.
JMO
Yeah. If they bring in Kurt Coleman for a visit -- thus going 3 for 3 on visits with "won't count against the comp pick formula" guys -- then we'll know there's something to it.1 minute ago, Manther said:As much as I (as a fan and seen what teams can do with comp picks) think comp picks are good. This FO showed last year that at this point or last years point the comp picks were not a priority as we could have released guys to get a 3rd round pick. I know the FO is different this year as McD ran the show for the start of FA last year and now McBeane is doing it this year and I know each year is different. But, don't fully believe that is the main reason behind these moves.
JMO
Does anyone know Davis' contract at this point?
Nope. But even if it's for vet minimum, which I doubt, I STILL don't think they bring back Gaines. Availability and buy-in are big to this coaching staff, and Gaines seems to lack both, based on his injury history and his seeming eagerness to leave Buffalo at season's end. -
Don't care.
Won't affect his draft position.
Only fans are bothered by this. NFL front offices couldn't care less. -
EJ's gone.
Davis and White are your starting CBs. Johnson likely to be re-signed for vet minimum or close to it. Depth in draft.
Anyone holding onto the notion that Bills will pay Gaines AND Davis for this season -- when there's only room to start for one of them, since neither are slot corners -- is kidding themselves. -
Just wanted to pop in to say that Ivory has lower mileage on his tires than many 30 year old RBs, since he has spent so much of his career splitting time with other backs. Less hits, less wear and tear.
McCoy, Ivory, and a late round rookie will be just fine for this year. Or heck, even McCoy, Ivory, and Cadet.
I want a true successor to Shady as much as anyone, but you can't fill all your needs in one offseason. This year, rebuilding the o-line and front seven and finding a QB are more important. Young RB, CB, WR1 can wait until next year. -
17 minutes ago, YoloinOhio said:
The pick was the main compensation in the trade. Gaines was thrown in, and as a pending UFA i doubt he was counted on as a contributor past the 2017 season. But he gave them solid play when he was out there and if he is someone they are able to keep around at a reasonable price, I think they should.
Indeed. If it turns out the compensation was "2nd round pick and a corner who will help you reach the playoffs this year, then walk away in FA", I'd still take the deal.-
1
-
-
This is a triple positive:
1.) Fills a position of need before free agency even starts.
2.) Does not count against the Bills in the compensatory pick formula.
3.) If he DOES do well and walk away after 1 year, it works in the Bills' FAVOR in the compensatory pick formula.
Great work by the front office in being proactive and crossing a need off the list before March hits.-
2
-
2
-
-
This was very interesting to me. It told me three things:
1.) The Bills need to build through the draft and do it well the next few years, as they've done an awful job at it of late. (This was obvious any way, right?)
2.) It's downright amazing that the Bills made the playoffs last year with the band-aided together roster they fielded.
3.) Even if you DO draft well and your homegrown talent gets a lot of snaps, it's no guarantee of success. Cincinnatti, Cleveland, Dallas, and Green Bay missed the playoffs, despite being in the top 6.
-
11 minutes ago, YoloinOhio said:
Add to that, I think he was only successful under McDermott. He was originally in philly as a late round pick and did nothing there, then he was the “Jordan Poyer” signing of the panthers a few years ago where no one expected him to do anything but became a major contributor.
Exactly. If he values production, coaching, and a chance to contribute, the Bills are a good fit.
If he thinks he can get a big payday or a guaranteed starting spot (I personally doubt that any team is willing to give him either), then let him seek it out elsewhere. -
14 minutes ago, NewEra said:
How much $ would you pay him? Sure, he’d be nice, but we have LOTS of holes. I’d rather we pay our backup safety under 2.5 mill. I do like the idea of having a quality player as backup, I just don’t think it’ll come cheap enough, I expect Boston to make more that Coleman
I agree that I don't want to spend a lot.
HOWEVER...there's also no guarantee that Coleman gets offered that much on the open market. He may be more valuable to McDermott than to other coaches.
IF he can be had for a reasonable contract, then I'm all in. Certainly, if he wants a big payday or a guaranteed starting spot, then no dice.
I will also say that, given McDermott's history of employing extra safeties in obvious passing situations, he would likely get more playing time as a "backup" in Buffalo than he would elsewhere.-
1
-
-
One more thing: I'm convinced McDermott is "The Safety Whisperer".
First, he turned career-long backup Kurt Coleman (10 interceptions in 5 years) into a quality starter in 2015 (7 interceptions that year).
Then, upon coming to Buffalo, he took S/CB tweener Micah Hyde and Browns special teamer Jordan Poyer and turned them into arguably the best safety tandem in the league.
I'm not sure how he does it, but it's pretty undeniable.-
1
-
-
Tre Boston and Kurt Coleman are BOTH scheduled to be free agents.
I'd love it if the Bills were able to sign one of them to a reasonable deal. Not only would it be valuable to have an experienced backup in the event that Hyde or Poyer is injured (does anyone want to see Colt Anderson get snaps on defense?!), it would also allow McDermott/Frazier to deploy 3-safety schemes. Buffalo Nickel type personnel. It would improve depth and increase scheme versatility.
And if Coleman is the one chosen, as someone else mentioned, it wouldn't count in the compensatory pick formula.-
1
-
-
To me, the best case scenario for Buffalo is still trading up to spot 2 or 3 with the Giants or Colts, respectively. This guarantees them one of the top 3 QBs.
Second best option is trading to spot 4 or 5 if the Broncos or Browns get Cousins and want to accumulate more draft picks.
In truth, I see picks 2-5 all as being attainable for the right currency. Giants and Colts, in my opinion, aren't taking QBs. Browns have picks 1 and 4 and are likely willing to trade one of them. Broncos will be open for business IF they land Cousins. -
I have ZERO interest in signing Keenum.
Sadly, I could see the Bills' decision makers disagreeing.
Yuck. Whole bunch of yuck.-
2
-
-
7 minutes ago, jmc12290 said:
Yes. And clearly you don't, with this ignorant statement.
There are PAGES of diseases in which the pathophysiology is poorly understood.
Your ignorance to this simple fact proves you should bow out now.
There is very little evidence that cannabis isn't. Which is important to the medical community. First do no harm, anyone?
The question is relevant because there is a campaign of misinformation against opioids which is having the harmful effect of making patients suffer needlessly because they are afraid of the grossly exaggerated risks.
Just to be clear, rather than provide any proof whatsoever -- any at all -- that cannabis is the answer to either of the questions I posed, you responded "Well there's no proof that cannabis ISN'T the answer to your questions!".
Got it.
I think I'm done here. You've made your (unfounded, still-not-backed-up-by-ANY-evidence) position in this matter clear. Have a lovely day. -
Just now, jmc12290 said:
I'm not sure that data is out there either. Especially when studies of opioid include heroin, which hasnt been prescribed for a century, and opioids that are not taken as prescribed.
As an aside, did you know that chemo drugs can kill you if you OD on them? Do you think it's reasonable to include the death profile on those when they are used incorrectly?
I don't believe that question has any relevance in this discussion.
Simple question: Which drug poses the greater threat of real, dangerous, physical addiction? Cannabis or any opioid (take your pick)?
Next question: Which drug poses the greater thread of death due to overdose? Cannabis or any opioid (take your pick)?
Can you produce any evidence whatsoever that cannabis is the answer to either of the above questions? Because there seems to be myriad evidence that opioids are the answer in both cases.
And, as JohnBonham said above, can you find even ONE irrefutable, scientifically vetted case of cannabis itself being the cause of death in a person? I can't. I don't think you can either.-
1
-
-
1 minute ago, jmc12290 said:
I stopped prescribing heroin in 1888.
Double blinded studies and that "jargon" is the basis of every medical decision made in the modern era. You also have no idea how medicine is practiced. Surprisingly, you don't realize the science matters.
Please show me the science, then, that lends any credence whatsoever to the idea of a reasonable equivalence between the addiction and death potentials of opioids and cannabis. I'd love to see it. Studies not in any way funded by pharmaceutical companies or others with vested interest would be preferred.
-
3
-
-
Just now, jmc12290 said:
Here, I'll give you a chance. Show me a randomized double blinded clinical study that conprares the efficacy and adverse events of opioids and canniboids. Maybe I am ignorant to such a study, but I haven't seen it.
Dude...you can try to tie everyone up in double blinded studies and all sorts of jargon, but there's no reasonable way to assert that cannabis is as dangerous as opioids. There just isn't.
From https://www.cdc.gov/drugoverdose/index.html
"The United States is in the midst of an opioid overdose epidemic. Opioids (including prescription opioids, heroin, and fentanyl) killed more than 42,000 people in 2016, more than any year on record. 40% of all opioid overdose deaths involve a prescription opioid."
Now how many people did cannabis kill in 2016? I mean, seriously, this isn't even a debate.-
2
-
-
6 minutes ago, Bob in Mich said:
If you honestly think there is a safety equivalence between opiates and cannabis, you are either plain ignorant or willfully ignorant. Which would you say it is?
By 'another doctor' you are implying that you are a doctor, then I would suspect the willfully ignorant.
This.
Is it even a reasonable discussion?
Cannabis is, without question, safer than opioids, and kills FAR less people and destroys FAR less lives. Everybody from medical doctors to McDonalds fry cooks can see that. Well, everybody except Jeffrey Beauregard "my private prisons depend on weed arrests to make money!" Sessions.-
2
-
-
1 hour ago, BillsVet said:
Inept QB play does not equate to a defensive battle.
I think that blaming it all on inept QBing is selling both defenses short. How many points did the Jags hang on Pittsburgh the very next week? -
Meh. There are plenty of defensive slugfests out there.
10-3 Jacksonville Buffalo was one of them.-
1
-
1
-
-
https://www.vox.com/2016/2/29/11120184/gun-control-study-international-evidence
A huge international study of gun control finds strong evidence that it actually works
A 2016 study, published in the academic journal Epidemiologic Reviews, seeks to resolve this problem. It systematically reviewed the evidence from around the world on gun laws and gun violence, looking to see if the best studies come to similar conclusions. It was the first such study to look at the international research in this way.
The authors are careful to note that their findings do not conclusively prove that gun restrictions reduce gun deaths. However, they did find a compelling trend whereby new restrictions on gun purchasing and ownership tended to be followed by a decline in gun deaths. -
Trumpie indictments, guilty pleas, and those turned state's witness piling up. Still nothing to see here, I'm sure.-
2
-
Random Bills and what you remember them for
in The Stadium Wall Archives
Posted
Darwin Walker.
For...um....TECHNICALLY being a member of the Bills at one point? I Guess?