Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

273 Excellent

About KzooMike

  • Rank
    Returning to glory!

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
  • ICQ

Profile Fields

  • Location
    Stuck in Toledo, OH

Recent Profile Visitors

1,025 profile views
  1. Even as somebody who does take this very seriously, that's a bit dramatic. Evidence is starting to show that some people can have lingering effects. Permanent, certainly unknown. Likely to occur? Hyperbole.....
  2. Maybe, but this information isn't any further sign of it. NFLPA was never going to risk infections on preseason games. They also know at this point they have zero bubble options or ways to truly prevent spread. Throw those ideas in the trash. No safe way exists to do this. Just like no safe way exists to play football and prevent CTE. If they play they're doing so full well knowing that high rates of infections and disruptions will occur. Yes, the NFL will be a total crap show this year, but the players and owners want a season more than the fans even do. Keep in mind what this money means to many of these players. Some only get a shot at that type of money for one year. Even for just one year it's life changing money. NFLPA and NFL will likely come to an agreement that allows for player opt out. If a player deems the risks to be too excessive they will have ______ option. The NFL will likely require players to sign a waiver for liability. No fans will be allowed in the stadium. Rosters will change constantly. It will be horrific compared to any traditional season we have ever seen (if it even does finish) but by then people will want football so bad they will happily pay to watch what amounts to CFL rosters. In the end only a state or federal action will stop the season. It won't be the league.
  3. I love the phrase “feel some type of way”. So versatile. Not required to actually explain how you feel. Just, well, some type of way 😂
  4. Not much is certain in the NFL, just ask Alex Smith. Dude almost died. That said, I don’t know much on the deal. As far as going big on an extensions now with key players. I think that makes sense. You know market value for every position just increases each year. Then again if QB’s start making more than Mahomes in a few years as a result of inflated pay for the position I imagine he pressures to go back to the table and renegotiate. So meh on all of it I guess.
  5. The smartest people in the world can't properly estimate this but you got it nailed to an exact %. 🤣 DCOrange pointed out very clearly that cases were spiking as a % of the total. Was he incorrect? Trying to reconcile the above comments.
  6. I would only argue the 2004 Special Teams was not a small advantage, it was massive. We had 5 special teams TD's, 3 by McGee who was lightning in a bottle, 1 by Clements who was a damn fine punt returner, and one by Jason Peters who made that incredibly athletic big man block punt. In addition one of the best if not the best punters in Bills history. Even Lindell was 24 of 28 that year despite a huge miss (Last game). Coaching, Bledsoe, that's where I see the breakdowns occurring. Bledsoe was just so prone to the fatal error (Last game). The 2019 team was so much more fundamentally sound. I don't think they were more talented. The 2004 squad had the the ability to straight take you to the shed. 2019 squad never could accomplish that. Again, difference in coaching, but also reflective of talent. The 2004 offense often went for the jugular and on defense tried to even prevent a one first down. Where the 2019 offense was more methodical and the defense was OK bending. I think your post was very solid. I don't even know if I would say the 2004 team was better and I'm the one that made the thread. I just have a soft spot for the easily dismissed Bills teams of the past. 1999 and 2004 would be at the top of the list. For those that want a rewind....
  7. Would it sound funny to you if you heard Mayfield or Darnold were traded for a first? To me it would. Does the market view the three that differently at this moment? I don't think it does.
  8. I don't know, those Redskin and Cowboys teams. They were exceptional, the whole NFC was, but I also don't disagree with a thing you wrote. I don't know WTF we were thinking with Wright. That was an Era of stop the run first and we had a high flying offense. Last exposure point you would want on defense is a team that can chew clock and pound. Phil was a very good run stuffing DE, Bruce underrated in that area, both perfect for a 3-4, then Wright was just out of place and made no sense. I can't imagine the difference Teddy would have made on that DL. I also agree about Marv. I do think Marv was a great leader of men, he brought people together in rare ways. I don't dismiss that. I don't think we go 4 straight without him. As far as X's and O's, wasn't his thing and we were out coached.
  9. Outside 1990, 90's Bills just weren't ever as good as who they played in the Super Bowl. The AFC was pathetic, we didn't choke, we just weren't good enough.
  10. You have your football purists, then your analytic types. Then some people hang out in the middle. As an example, I think most here look at the drought ending team as very limited, at the same time they look at last years team as much more deserving. I would certainly agree with that and the advanced stats from Pro Football Outsiders and Pro Football Reference do as well. With that being the case most people see last years team as the best squad we have had since the 2000's. The 1999 Bills could have another thread dedicated to a similar topic, so lets just cut it at 2000/last 20 years. The 2004 Bills get dismissed rather easily here based on the loss to the "2nd team" Steelers in the final game. It's generally a purist argument "if you can't win that game you aren't good enough to make the playoffs" case closed. It's easily forgotten that while Tommy Maddox might have started that game, many of the Steelers starters played a full game and many of the back ups went onto have outstanding careers almost immediately after. That was a good Steelers team we lost to and we didn't play a clean game. We started 2004 with an 0-4 record, we lost Week 1 on the final play of the game on a miracle catch by Ernest Wilford and Week 4 on a FG by the Jets in the final minute. Over the next 5 games we went 3-2, it was at that point we went on arguably the most dominant stretch of 6 games in Bills history going 6-0 and outscoring our opponents 228-89. Closest margin of victory was 10. The 2004 Bills were the highest rated team by Pro Football Outsiders in the history of it's ranking system to not reach the playoffs, well ahead of any Bills team the last 20 years and rated only behind the 64 and 90 Bills using Pro Football Reference rating system. None of these systems care for the early 90's Bills as much as we do (maybe justifiably so). If you don't like those kind of stats what jumps out the most to me is who was on this team. It seemed to have sprinkles of all types of acquisitions and eras. Left overs from the not awful late 90's, like Pat WIlliams and Moulds, then a lot of our higher profile FA's/Trades that decade like Bledsoe, Spikes, Fletcher, Milloy, Adams. Some of the solid home grown players of the drought era in Evans, Reed, Schobel, Clements, Moorman, and McGee. Even some of the major trades we let go in McGahee and Peters started on that team. We led the league by a considerable margin in special teams that year. Bledsoe always had his limitations and would have stopped us eventually. He gave us 20 TD's and 16 INT's. Having said that about Bledsoe, you could make that same argument as it related to Josh and his 2019 season. As far as talent, I see more on the 2004 squad vs our 2019 group. It doesn't always come together. I will likely circle back and also review the 1999 team in the next few weeks. Another overshadowed squad based on Johnson/Flutie and MCM. In most analytics sites, one of the top 25 defenses of all time.
  11. We can talk about this with avoiding discussion of the president.
  12. I certainly agree with your first point. I also agree that it has been more wide spread the entire time (which is why I was/still am inclined to think the mortality rate was always likely lower than reported). I disagree that the data is inconclusive. It is very much conclusive that cases are rising. Under no situation can you have a rising denominator and a rising % without it being statistically significant. We could have been only testing people on Ventilator's at first and now testing people with Popsicle's. If the % is higher and the total is higher, it's statistically significant. How you feel about that data, shut downs, shutting down again. That's all personal opinion. I've bounced back and forth on that topic. Go full out Darwin, rip the band aid off, only the strong survive, save the economy vs flatten the curve, bleed out slow, preserve as much medical resources to save lives as possible and the economy gets crushed. We decided to do a little of both. As it was said in Breaking Bad, half measures rarely work. We needed to go all in early with one of the two options but we missed that window. Now we will bleed out on both accounts.
  13. If your point is to say that it has a lower mortality rate than previously expected, I have thought that was the case for some time but that is still very much open to further data. Lag period on deaths and who is being infected (is the recent surge in just the sub 30 demographic? If so, obviously you won't see that many deaths now, how about a month from now after they spend time with parents and grandparents?). Regardless of who is getting infected they're mingling with all the people that impact the rate of deaths. A nearly perfect correlation exists long term with death and infection totals. Go figure. You're banking on that changing? If your point is to say it is reducing in cases and not accelerating, that is not correct. Even using your own logic, before we only tested the sick and now we test a much larger subset of people in addition a much larger amount of people. So testing a small group of sick people vs a large group of healthier people and as a % you would expect the latter to have a higher %?
  14. Last time the US saw a 7 day moving average positive test % at 6.4% (current) was late May and we averaged about 400,000 daily tests at that time. Now we are averaging over 600,000. You don't need a Harvard degree in statistics to do the math. If it was actually getting better as tests increase the % would be going down, certainly not flat or up. As a country it is increasing as a % from it's low at 4.4% in mid June (500,000 test average) and across 4-5 states it's absolutely sky rocketing. Here is your web site. https://coronavirus.jhu.edu/testing/individual-states/usa Look at Arizona, Texas, Florida, among several others. Ohio, which was one of the most aggressive shut down states in the country is now seeing the same data trend in much smaller numbers as are plenty of other states that nobody is paying attention to yet (I live in Ohio that's why I'm commenting on it). But give Ohio time, I'm sure those small numbers won't be very small in another month. Rising %'s against rising tests is a very bad trend.
  • Create New...