Buffalo Junction
-
Posts
2,612 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Gallery
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Buffalo Junction
-
-
I'd take him on the condition that he can't drive a vehicle with more horsepower than a Fiat 500.
-
53 minutes ago, BillsfaninSB said:
I just don’t think Hock will get past 12. If we truly want him we should just take him at 9.
An interesting trade to ponder would be with GB... we give up 9 & 40, and receive 12, 30, & 76. I believe that’s a little under the 20% premium. We’d only move back a few spots, get a second player with a 5th year option, and the extra 3rd would afford us some flexibility. They’d obviously get a targeted player, but still have 3 picks in the first 3 rounds.
Its going to be an interesting draft.
-
48 minutes ago, SouthNYfan said:
Still had the wrong Sharpe ??
Please quote my post and highlight where I wrote Shannon. I’m pretty sure I just wrote Sharpe without a first name since, you know, Favre never played on the Broncos or Ravens.
If you wanna beat this like a dead horse feel free.
-
2 hours ago, SouthNYfan said:
Ironic.
Somebody quoting taskers ghost who's also posting made up stats.
Sterling Sharpe retired after the 1994 season.
Sterling Sharpe was also a wr, who was mostly an immediate to deep threat.
His brother was the TE, who never played for GB.
Favre comp% 1994: 62.4%
Favre comp% 1995: 63.0%
Hard to take you seriously when you are so egregiously mistaken.
I mistook 95’ for 96’. Fun with charts and phones... My mistake.
-
1
-
-
7 hours ago, TaskersGhost said:
Well, to your point, there isn't a single QB that came into the NFL lacking a short-medium game anywhere near to the extent that Allen struggles that ever made it to even average much less franchise status. So as I've pointed out numerous times, if Allen can do it he'll be the first. I'm just not a fan of staking my entire career on "firsts" in the NFL, much in the same way that trading up for a WR (Watkins in our case) has never been worth it. And as if we need to rehash all of our misteps as such as Bills fans, we of all fans should know about that.
Otherwise agree with your post, but again, that renders what needs to be done a tall order. I mean how does one get into a QB's head to get them to take his time, scan the field, much less effectively for which the jury's entirely out right now?
One reason we rarely see guys coming into the league and improving with a poor short game is that they usually don’t see the light of day for at least a year. Rivers sat. Aaron Brooks sat. Jeff Blake sat. Favre sat.
Go watch the Falcons 1991 game against the Redskins. Favre literally pulled a Peterman; 4 pass attempts, 2 incompletions (one high another in the dirt), and 2 interceptions. The first two games he played for the Packers weren’t much better. His first pass as a packer was intercepted. The second game he was booed off the field after fumbling 4 times.... He was horribly inconsistent. Crappy footwork and body position lead to tons of inaccurate passes. He benefited greatly from having Sterling Sharpe.
Fun fact... Favre’s completion percentage dropped by 5% to the high 50’s after Sharpe retired.
A few of these guys can improve. It’s not usually for guys to improve like Favre. The reason to have faith is that Allen seems to have a similar will to succeed as Favre along with enough intelligence to learn from his mistakes. Time will tell whether we have a Favre or a Kyle Boller.
-
While he wasn’t underrated in his playing days, he’s certainly been forgotten about since then... Rickey Watters.
Another forgotten guy... Ahman Green. He put up six 1000 yard seasons with a 4.5 ypc career average.
-
46 minutes ago, Juror#8 said:
Maybe not the “most” underrrated but he should be in the “underrated” discussion: Tiki Barber (don’t laugh, I’m being serious)
And to a lesser extent, Shaun Alexander. Alexander is not talked about because he had three phenomenal years, peaked, and then hit a wall like nothing I’ve ever seen before (or since) in the nfl year-over-year.
Interesting thing about Tiki Barber... He got to run behind his college fullback (Charles Way) with the Giants. Way was certainly underrated in his own right. Definitely a top 5 blocking FB, and a beast in short yardage... until his knees deteriorated.
-
53 minutes ago, TaskersGhost said:
To even hint that Allen's short-medium game is even anywhere in the ballpark of where Newton's is is the definition of ignorance in the matter.
To add to that point, you cannot name one QB in the modern era, not one, that has even average much less Allen's horrific-ness in the short-medium game that is a franchise QB based on his rushing. In fact, you can't even name one QB with great passing that is considered a franchise QB because of his rushing. Wilson's about the closest and Wilson's passing is so much better than Newtons, on TD/INT alone.
Interestingly, Rivers had some similar issues his first few years. He consistently forced/pushed the ball down the field instead of taking the easy yardage. It was really chunk yardage or bail to the back at the last second. His short game numbers are actually inflated because of those swing passes and screens, which is expected when your backs are Tomlinson and Sproles.
This is not a direct comparison, but rather an example of improvement. Rivers was light years ahead or Allen his first year as a starting QB. However, he was also more pro-ready coming out and sat behind Brees.
The thing to take away is that these guys can learn to utilize the short game, but for gunslingers it generally occurs after some time and experience. In contrast, it’s damn near impossible to get a timid QB to improve the intermediate/deep game.
-
2
-
-
4 minutes ago, formerlyofCtown said:
Woulda had 4 or 5 Lambardi's if that was our line.
Which is saying something because Wolford, Ballard, Richter, Hull, and Davis were a damn good unit. Probably the second best o line at the time.
-
3 hours ago, formerlyofCtown said:
No doubting the Oline there. He and Aikmen are two of the most overated players in history because of that line.
Definitely one of the most dominant positional groups I’ve ever seen.
-
1
-
-
2 hours ago, Shaw66 said:
Thanks. I'm amused that I never thought of it that way. I try in my mind to imagine Brown playing in a later era, and he'd do great, I'm sure. But I've never really tried to imagine later greats in an earlier era.
Peterson is a great example. I think he would have been a monster in the 50s and 60s. He is like Brown in that he has an amazing combination of speed, power and elusiveness. Bo Jackson translated back to that era also would have thrived. And Simpson. with perhaps the best speed of the group and only slightly less power.
Even I'm not old enough to have seen Thorpe, but I think he dominated because of his size compared to the rest of the league. I know people say that about Brown, too, but in Brown's era there were 300 pound defensive linemen (not as many, granted, but they were there). And in Brown's era there were other 230 pound running backs, but they couldn't do what Brown did.
I like K-9's comment. It is a futile discussion, but that doesn't mean it isn't fun. His conclusion is correct - there are several guys who deserve a seat at the table, and it's a round table. It's true. The guys I'd invite to the table are Brown, Simpson, Jackson, Sanders, Campbell. Maybe Dickerson and Sayers. For some reason, my emotional response always leaves Peterson out, but my brain tells me he probably needs a seat. If, using your test - how would he do if he played in Brown's era, those guys all would have been devastating weapons. Sayers DID play in that era and WAS spectacularly good, and Simpson came shortly after.
One thing about Brown is clear: he taught the NFL the value of a truly elite running back. Brown went 8th in the NFL draft. Only one year later, seven teams were wondering what they were thinking. Simpson, DIckerson, Sanders, Campbell all went right up near the top of the draft. And that's why the Giants took Barkley where they did. When there's a guy in the draft who looks like he deserves to sit at that round table, you gotta take him.
It’s a fun thought experiment, and it’s interesting to see other people’s views and how they remember the players.
As for Thorpe... 6 foot and 200 pounds. His size would translate. The cool thing is that his athleticism is documented thanks to winning two Olympic gold medals (pentathlon and decathlon). His speed is documented... 100 yard dash in 10 seconds flat and a mile in 4:35. Throw in a long jump over 23’ and you’ve got a serious athlete that would probably compete with the combine performances of modern players without any of the advanced supliments and training.
A lot of the freak HOF players would likely translate across eras. It’s just hard to say definitively who would be best.
-
1
-
-
4 minutes ago, formerlyofCtown said:
Brown certainly is not off my list. I defend my stance on Sanders heavily. However it is not an easy arguement. You will see my list in my other post. You wont find Emmit Smith on that list though.
We definitely agree on Emmitt. IMO he’s basically Curtis Martin with a HOF offensive line.
I still put Barry in my top 3. Despite me defending his line, he did what he did against front 7’s stacked with HOF players who were out to stuff him.
-
1
-
-
35 minutes ago, oldmanfan said:
Shaw and I have the privilege of watching guys from Brown's era and beyond. So many greats. No doubt Peterson would thrive back in Brown's day. But the reason I'd put Brown at the top of my list is if you took him and put him into any other era he would be the best of that time.
I certainly can’t and won’t take Brown off my list for the reasons you stated. However, I feel that Brown’s physical dominance is also what undermines your argument; at least with those of us who didn’t see him play in person. He simply never played against a modern roster. In the same vein, Peterson never played under the older rules and field conditions. There’s no definitive answer, but that’s why the conversation is fun.
28 minutes ago, formerlyofCtown said:I disagree strongly. Our Cogs and Wood lines were very good. Cogs played at an AP level. The line was probably an exageration.
As a unit the Lions Olines never impressed me. I believe that is one of the reasons their teams sucked.
We’ll probably never agree on this, although I think we’re recalling different sections of Sanders career. I’ll definitely concede that the Lions never replaced the Oline talent, and that line deteriorated after the 95’ season. Prior to that they suffered from poor depth, but average starters. The problem they had was that none of the D-lines in the NFC north were average then except the Buccaneers before Sapp (95’). An average O-line isn’t going to look good when the front 7 across from them has Reggie White, Sean Jones, and Bryce Paup on it and is anchored by a NT that demands a double team. Same goes for the John Randle and Chris Doleman lead Vikings lines. Heck, Richard Dent was the worst starting D-lineman on that 93’ Bears team and he made the pro bowl that year.
-
30 minutes ago, Shaw66 said:
I love this discussion every time it comes. Obviously, there's no right answer to the question, but looking at the posts, I've clarified my thinking about it.
I've seen them all. I've always said Brown is the best, and I'm still there. I've also always said that if I had to watch one running back play, it would be Sanders. It sort of comes down to you standard of measurement. If you want the most exciting running back, it was Sanders. Sanders has the best highlights. He did stuff on the field that no one else ever has done. (In fact, one thing I like about Shady is in his prime, he was about the most-Sanders like of any back I can recall. Start stop, change direction, amazing acceleration. But in that category, Sanders is in a league by himself.
However, Sanders isn't my greatest back ever. Football is about production and making plays, and if you want a back to make plays for you, consistently, it isn't Sanders. I know it sounded like heresy, but whoever said OJ made Sanders look like a gadget back was correct. May have overstated it, but he had the right point. OJ was elusive in a different way than Sanders was, but he had an astounding ability to make people miss. OJ had better speed than Sanders; Sanders regularly got caught from behind on long runs, but no one caught OJ. And Sanders simply was not a good receiver. He didn't catch well, and he never seemed to produce in the passing game, even though the Lions tried for years. OJ was devastating in the passing game. Bills fans don't like it when I say it, but OJ was a better receiver than Thurman. THe Bills didn't throw to him as much as to Thurman, because it was a different era, but he was deadly as a receiver. Excellent hands, and give him the ball in the open field - wow!
And Brown was better than both. He was the fastest guy in the NFL. He may have been the best pure athlete to play in the NFL, ever. (He was so good at lacrosse that they actually had to rewrite some of the rules to neutralize his style.) He had incredible strength and amazing balance. He beat you with speed, with power and with finesse. And HE was an excellent receiver, too, although in those days running back routes were primarily swing passes in the flat.
Brown retired at age 30, in 1965. Brown was the league leading career rusher for about 15 years, when Walter Payton closed in on him and passed him. Brown, who has a big ego, didn't like the fact that someone was taking his record, especially a guy who, as great as he was, was a compiler, not a back breaking, power back or a great break away threat. (I'm pretty sure it was Payton, but it might have been Franco Harris, who ultiimately didn't pass Brown.) Brown was 45, and he said he was still better than anyone in the league. He said he was going to come out of retirement to preserve his record. Now, the interesting thing about that was not that Brown was being a loudmouthed egomaniac, like TO or someone. The interesting thing about that was that Brown was so good, so dominant that FIFTEEN years after he retired there was SERIOUS discussion in the press about how good Brown would be if he came back. NOBODY in 2013 could suggest that Barry Sanders at age 45 could come back and do what he did.
Brown may have been the greatest athlete of the century. The only guy I can think of who could challenge him was Bo Jackson.
Shaw, the biggest argument against Brown is the era. When you consider a guy like Peterson you have to wonder what his stats would look like if he’d have played against the smaller and less athletic guys in the 50’s through 60’s NFL. As a result you have to have this argument defined by era. Maybe construct a “lineage” that starts with Jim Thorpe and goes up to Adrian Peterson. ?♂️
-
5 hours ago, BillsFan1988 said:
Barry a gadget back? I don't know if I should laugh or cry of laughing. ?
The only real argument against Sanders is all the negative runs. People definitely recall the highlights, but what the don’t recall are the 3-4 carries before the 50 yard touchdown. He’d average 5 yards a game, but he had a penchant for negative yardage which was often caused by impatience and a desire to hit home runs. It’s why he often got pulled in short yardage situations and the red zone. Of course people also forget how good a lot of those 90’s defenses were.
-
38 minutes ago, formerlyofCtown said:
Peterman was an exageration but it takes 5 to make a line.
It does, but for the majority of Barry’s career that line was substantially better than our Incognito and Wood led O-line that Shady thrives behind. Not to mention that Herman Moore was an all pro WR keeping the safeties honest with help from guys like Perriman.
I’m not saying that Barry wasn’t the GOAT... Just that comparing last seasons Bills team to a Lions squad that was routinely in the playoff hunt and had a minimum of 6 probowlers (2all pro) is disingenuous. Their biggest flaw was facing Favre and Reggie White twice a year.... A Packers team that held Sanders to negative yardage in the playoffs and won the game by carrying Moore out of bounds after a clutch catch.
-
9 minutes ago, formerlyofCtown said:
Dude Sanders did what he did playing behind our Oline from last year and Peterman for a QB his whole carry if that helps you figure it out.
Come on man. ?. Lomas Brown was an all pro tackle. Kevin Glover was a probowler Center. Herman Moore was an all pro wideout. Kramer and Peete were both infinitely better than Peterman. The Lions had some weapons, and the offensive line wasn’t that bad until Sanders last two seasons.
-
2
-
-
23 minutes ago, Shaw66 said:
It's so hard to compare them. I was going to mention Sayers if no one else did. Sayers was unbelievable. His style was different from Sanders, but he was the only guy other than Sanders who week after did things that you'd never seen anyone else do.
Sayers, had he never blown his knees out, possibly would have gone down as the best. He was simply the best offensive weapon of his era until injuries undid his career. On top of his running you have to factor in his ability to return kicks and catch the ball. His patience and field vision was top 3, and when coupled with his patience and athleticism... The man was a freak and as fluid of an athlete as there ever was.
A 6 touchdown game. A career kick return average over 30 yards. A rookie season of over 2,200 yards with 22 touchdowns... Everyone should watch that Chicago vs San Francisco game. I’ve never seen anything like it... Sayers made everyone else on the field look like they were in slow motion.
-
IDK why everyone is so obsessed with moving Edmunds and/ replacing MM this offseason. I can’t see any reason why the team would be looking to upgrade at their spots this year. Edmunds made a substantial amount of rookie mistakes with fills and seemed to lack strength and leverage at times while taking on blockers. The flipside is that his height and athleticism need to be game planned for because of the amount of area he can take up in zone coverage.
Now... If Edmunds doesn’t improve at MLB or Milano ends up getting injured again I can see them taking care of that in 2020 by using a 1st on a LBer. Until then they’ll be looking at depth and a possible Alexander replacement. That said, they like competition so I could easily see them going LB in the 3rd or even moving up to the late second if someone they have a hard-on for falls.
-
3 hours ago, Chicken Boo said:
I remember thinking that 2008 WR class was going to be nuts!
Jordy Neslon
James Hardy
Limas Sweed
Malcolm Kelly
Devin Thomas
Donnie Avery
Eddie Royal
Jerome Simpson
Desean Jackson...
I'm probably forgetting a couple of guys.
This years class seems very similar.... Round 2 lottery.
-
On 3/25/2019 at 3:43 PM, May Day 10 said:
I often wonder what would happen to a fan base if they were forced to endure the past 20 years that we have had to. I believe that in-stadium attendance for most teams would be in ruin.
I think the Packers are on a short list of teams with enough suckers to keep showing up.
The Packers are definitely on the short list, and their fans have proven it.
“On Nov. 22, 1959, however, in an official league game against the Washington Redskins, just 297 tickets went unsold, so it was a little more difficult to notice even at the reduced capacity of 32,150 at the time. That was the last home game at the stadium — not counting the replacement games — that failed to sell out based on the team’s count of 317 straight games through the 2015 regular-season finale against the Minnesota Vikings.”
-
51 minutes ago, Roch Jim said:
"Jamarcus Russell scored better than Brett Favre.
Air go, Jamarcus > Brett Favre"
Please tell me you were having fun in a Wonderlic discussion when you said "Air go". Please?
I’m pretty sure that comment is sponsored by Nike... Imbedded advertising.
-
1
-
-
Meh. I’m not worried about it. He’ll get his share of crap from Bills Mafia if his performance suffers in Oakland. Not to mention the media circus that’ll ensue if we make the playoffs and they don’t.
-
2
-
1
-
-
26 minutes ago, Coach Tuesday said:
I've always that that Special Teams was a reflection of the Head Coach. It's not just a matter of picking up good bottom-53 players who can man the Teams, it's making sure to focus on it in practice (the best coaches give it almost an equal footing with Defense and Offense), film study, and game preparation.
PLUS in a salary cap league, focusing on Teams is a great way to improve your margin of victory at a low cost - it's inexpensive to sign quality special team players and coaches and focus on it during the week.
Beane seems to understand the importance of it. Not yet sure that McDermott does.
Good points. The other aspect is LB, S, CB, and TE depth. The backups at those positions often make up the core of your “teams” groups, and we had a serious lack of talent at those spots last season. Hopefully Beanes depth changes and the new coach bring us back up to par with the rest of the league.
What would it take to make the franchise tag go away?
in The Stadium Wall Archives
Posted
I'd actually like to see the franchise tag be a fully guaranteed contract that allows for a players option of 1 or 2 years. That way the player could basically lock in two years of the top5 average pay if they're worried about injury and security. The teams would have to gamble a bit which would probably make it more of a pain for position players, but keep the same value the franchise tag holds now for QBs.