.png.395d368d8b720b1e31cfea1d1789947a.png)
Mikie2times
-
Posts
8,371 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Gallery
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Mikie2times
-
-
1 minute ago, natedawg3535 said:
would like draft #1 except i would put jackson or rudolph in for hurst
Jackson was gone by then, I could have taken Rudolph
-
I did two separate mocks on Fan Speak. Settings I used were Fanspeak Mock, Fanspeak Needs, Difficult. This does not allow for trades. My thoughts entering this was where do I look at Jackson and Allen if at all. I decided I would consider Jackson at #22 but not Allen at all. I don't like either. College QB's with the amount of rush yards Jackson had in college have a huge bust rate. Only Michael Vick and Cam Newton have really worked out as comparable players to Jackson in rush yards in college, then a long list of busts. Allen seems afraid to just step up and that scares the crap out of me. His line was bad, but he doesn't step up when he has time. Bails very early. I just don't want him. Mayfield/Darnold/Rosen all were selected before I could take them.
Here are my drafts with the settings I mentioned above as well as a link to the site: https://fanspeak.com/ontheclock/
Draft 1
Round 1 #12: LB Tremain Edmunds: With only Jackson and Allen left to choose from, Bills go best player available at a need position.
Round 1 #22: DT Maurice Hurst: Bills decide to pass on Allen landing a very disruptive pass rushing interior lineman.
Round 2 #21: WR Christian Kirk: Thick, quick, great hands. Bills go best WR left on the board
Round 2: #24: CB M.J. Stewart: Bills love his flexibility on defense, great run defender, physical, can play S or CB, some people comp him to Micah Hyde
Round 3: # 1: C/G Billy Price: Torn Pec makes this former first rounder slide. Bills get a steal with a guy that can play C or G.
Round 3: #32: DE Rasheem Green: Bills love Greens pass rushing ability. 10 sack year in 2017, some question run support, with Shaq it gives the Bills a great rotation
Draft 2
Round 1 #12: DE/EDGE Harold Landry: With only Jackson and Allen left to choose from, Bills catch a break and have one of the drafts best pass rushers fall. Some comps have him with Vic Beasley. Imposing pass rusher that will mature to be a 10 sack a year guy.
Round 1 #22: DT Maurice Hurst: Bills decide to pass on Allen landing a very disruptive pass rushing interior lineman.
Round 2 #21: WR Christian Kirk: Thick, quick, great hands. Bills go best WR left on the board
Round 2 #24: CB M.J. Stewart: Bills love his flexibility on defense, great run defender, physical, can play S or CB, some people comp him to Micah Hyde
Round 3 #1: QB Kyle Lauletta: Bills pass on the first wave of QB's and eventually land a guy they like
Round 3 #32: LB Leighton Vander Esch: Bills continue to fortify the defense with a guy that could go as early as round 2.
I don't think either of these drafts gets the fan base going, we all want the franchise guy. I think the Bills trust AJ enough to avoid getting fleeced in the franchise QB war. If the right guy doesn't fall we could be out of the market.
-
1
-
-
13 hours ago, NewDayBills said:
Well, take Goff, Wentz and Watson off the list then, which makes my reasoning behind this thread even more meaningful. Fans want to trade the farm for a QB when the odds of landing a franchise guy is 33% at best.
Bust rate doesn't change if you trade up. 30-35% is about the likelihood of getting the right guy in the top 10. Multiple studies have been posted on this. Trading up doesn't reduce or increase the likelihood of finding a hit.
-
1
-
-
I would prefer a player wanting to know the deepest meaning behind every action so he could apply that learning to the highest level vs a player that just does what he's told. The former personalty can rub people wrong. It's questioning. It's not yes sir. If it doesn't make sense it gets questioned. That's how this guys is and it rubs some coaches wrong. I don't care, I like it.
-
1
-
-
Opportunistic, bend but don't break
-
Gaines is gone. His compensatory pick value will be 3rd rounder in 2019 so long as we keep the rest of our comp book balanced. Davis was such a great signing for multiple reasons. Potential boom player AND he didn't count against the comp formula. This is a very smart front office.
-
Good decision by the front office. I don't see it as more at this time. I'm sure we will add another corner, I don't expect that to be a 1st rounder. Davis is a nice layer in that equation, has boom potential but we need a few more layers for depth and the potential for bust.
-
1
-
-
Not exactly the best way to measure this. I imagine a strong correlation exists with total snaps and total plays. If you want this stat to just focus on what it's intended you need a denominator.
-
Stoked, could be a complete steal if he remains healthy
-
2 hours ago, Mr. WEO said:
You know, you should focus on keeping your own arguments consistent rather than fabricating ones that I am not making.
Others may share your sentiment, but that doesn't make your loose grasp of the facts more firm.
You need to bail out. Just trying to help.
Since you live in a vortex of league averages and you have clearly demonstrated all PPG data falls in line the last 30 years, let me ask you to consider a question...
Top 3 QB today faces the most elite coverage in NFL history, who posts a 100QB average on the year vs a top 5 defense?
Top 3 QB 30 years ago who faces league average coverage ability, who posts a 90QB rating on the year vs a top 5 defense?
This is where your argument turns to crap. That QB 30 years ago played against defenses with much more diversity. All 32 teams did not focus a #1 priority in stopping the pass. Today's good pass defenses are the best in NFL history and they still aren't enough to stop the best pass offenses. 30 years ago you might face a lot of puppies, but then you might run into an elite pass defending squad. Same with running the ball. Teams had diversity and depending on the strength they had those strengths could lead to some compelling match up's. Now what is your match up? I'm a Bills fan, that's all I am. I will follow the Bills. But I don't watch anymore NFL football. College football has been able to maintain that unique identity each team has in the ways the NFL has lost it. PPG does not capture anything being described. To answer the original question I posed, if the goal was winning, you would take the first scenario every time.
-
2 minutes ago, TheFunPolice said:
2 of the top defenses (Jags and Eagles) looked like they were playing 7 on 7 in practice as the offenses marched up and down the field at times in the playoffs (Jags: PIT in divisional round and the 2nd half of the AFC Title game) (Eagles: Super Bowl)
Even the vaunted Seattle defense couldn't stop NE in the SB with a 24-14 4th quarter lead. It's just too hard to keep a good offense down with all the rule changes and timely penalties, plus the reluctance to call offensive holding.
Nope, the game is played exactly the same way as when they had the single wing. Just ask WEO. PPG is only up a smidgen so it all has to be the same.
-
1
-
-
14 minutes ago, Mr. WEO said:
If you shifted one source of my income down by 10% and yet the total income stayed the same, why would I care? Or is one revenue stream more "boring" than another?
Dramatic, to anyone, would at least have to include a change in outcome.
I have presented all the facts. You tried to rewrite your original post. Now you are flailing----and I have the agenda? You are bothered by your perception of the game.
Enjoy your 3 and outs and those long lazy days at the ballpark watching pitchers strike out.
Lot's of ways to arrive at the same outcome, the ride is not material. Gotcha.
-
1
-
-
3 hours ago, Mr. WEO said:
Look ,for the final time, the changes were not "dramatic". You've certainly "illustrated" that (more accurately, I did for you at your request).
Defenses ARE still formidable. The fact that they are preventing these "best QBs" (and offenses) as well as they did 15, 20, 25, 30, 50 from scoring more points is proof that you are pining for a perception, not a reality.
We get it, you would prefer that teams score those 21-22 points per game they have averaged for 50 years with 9-11% less passing offense so it will somehow look better when you watch.
A great argument for nostalgia.
What does dramatic mean to you? If I took 10% of your annual earnings would you consider that a dramatic reduction or would you minimize it in the same fashion you have toward every stat that doesn't fit your agenda?
-
58 minutes ago, Mr. WEO said:
This is a thread about scoring and defense or the perceived lack of defense. I have consistently shown that scoring hasn't changed--there were no good old days in anyone on this board's lifetime where 10-7 games dominated the Sunday scoreboard.
It has morphed (for you) into a thread about how the 1994 rule change "drastically" changed the game. All passing stats are up, you say...except passing TDs per game, which goes back to the point of the OP. The rule change has not changed the passing TDs per team per game significantly, so, in the end, what is the OPs beef?
Anyway, from 1980-90, the passing TDs per game per team was 1.33. passing ypg was 204. Passing 1st downs 10.4.
In the 10 years after the '94 rule change, the passing TDs per game was 1.33. Passing ypg was 208. Passing 1st downs 10.8.
In the last 10 years the number increased to 1.48, ypg 229, passing 1st downs 11.8. A 13% increase in TDs per game and ypg. I don't consider that dramatic or radical. And it clearly refutes the OP's claim that there is "a lack of defense" in today's NFL.
I also don't think that if all of the passing stats have so significantly increased, a 13% increase in 10 years (less than that if you take all years since '94) doesn't count as "drastically more efficient". The only conclusion that can be drawn is that, since all of this dramatic change in the passing game hasn't changed the amount of points scored, it has to be true that defenses have gotten better as the game has favored the passing game.
It should be obvious to anyone that as the offenses have become "dramatically" better, the defenses have become equally better.
Does this help?
Yes, thank you for illustrating my point clearly, 11% increase in passing TD's, 10% increase in passing yards, 9% increase in passing first downs. That's going off your data from 1994-2004 vs 2004-current? (2004 being a key year as that was the year heavy enforcement of illegal contact started). I already stated about 4 times in this thread the thread title should have been about how the game is played more than scoring defense. The original language in the first post discussed frustration with a passing league. So I felt that was in bounds to discuss? You stuck on a strawman fixating this discussion about points scored when it was conceded long ago that it was not a material difference. All the while, you have no earthly clue how that moderate and not severe incline came to be...... Bad offense perhaps or great defense? I don't know the answer, but I know you know. At least either that or we will talk about points scored for another 2 hours.
-
29 minutes ago, Mr. WEO said:
It's fun debating invented stats. There are a grand total of 32 MLB players who hit more than 30 HRs last year.
Anyway, the NFL isn't doctoring the balls to change the game. TWENTY THREE years ago they changed the rule so that defenders couldn't contact the receiver beyond 5 yards unless it is incidental, or unless he is trying to and is in position to, intercept the ball.
The OP's claim is that "defense" went missing and scoring ruined the game. We see that scoring has not changed to support that claim. So where is the massive impact of these new rules? Looking back now, I was wrong about the FGs--the number made per game is at its highest in the past 5 years or so.
In 1952, the avg passing TDs per team per game was 1.51 and scoring from all means was 22.3 pig.
1956: 1.57/23.1.
1987: 1.45/21.6
1997 (4 years after the change): 1.37/21.3
2004 (10 years after ): 1.43/21.5
2015 (NFL's highest): 1.64/22.8
2017: 1.45/21.7
Dude. Give up. I conceded a 2 point increase in PPG wasn’t material and that the thread topic should have been more about how the game is played. You have no chance of winning an argument that the passing game is not drastically more efficient then years past. So unless you want to debate that, drop it. Points per game are not up THAT much. Passing attempts per game, completion %, yards, 1st down through the air, quarterback rating are all up dramatically. Are you saying that isn’t the case? If so please provide something outside of random years to your liking. Provide at least a decade sample.
-
2 hours ago, Mr. WEO said:
The NFL did nothing remotely similar to juicing the balls, if that's what you are charging MLB did.
The "chuck rule", as you call it It didn't outlaw chucking (which is bumping/contact within 5 yards). The "balance" was not perfect. In fact, it was widely felt that the NFL had become boring and unwatchable. That'seoactly why they changed the rule---it's the only reason. It hasn't changed total scoring in any significant way.
More likely, it has shifted scoring from FGs to TDs. Who on earth would complain that they would like see fewer TDs and more FGs? That's exactly what you are saying.
It’s boring debating with somebody that assums what they say is right without anything to support it. I already conceded it’s not so much about points as the way the game is played.
The enforcement of the chuck rule was well documented, not my opinion, in giving WR’s a decided advantage. Of which all the statistics verify conclusively. This is exactly like the MLB. The pass to the NFL is the HR to baseball. MLB has now ordered teams to keep balls in climate controlled humadors to see if teams can combat the HR impacts. Some fans apprently don’t like half the league averaging 30 HR’s. Do your research on that topic as well. Not really a claim at this point. The two things are the same. Shift the rules to push a part of the game casual fans find exciting.
More likely it it has turned FG into TD’s? You can’t have it both ways. If that was the case points would be up at a rate that you have all ready went to great lengths to refute.
-
4 hours ago, Mr. WEO said:
In the 15 years before '94 scoring averaged 20.4 PPG. In the in the 15 years afterwards, it averaged 21.2. That's it. in the past 10 years, it has averaged 22.4 PPG--clearly an insignificant amount.
Your claim that QBs hovering at 60% (over their careers) doesn't help your 50/50 claim.
Elite QBs always dominate the NFL. Nothing new.
"Diversity in elite rushing"??? Go back and look at the rushing leaders in the 80's and 90's. Pretty much Barry Sanders, Eric Dickerson and Emmett Smith at the top. In the past 10 seasons, 7 different players have led the NFL in rushing.
I will concede it's not so much points allowed as it is the way those points are allowed. All QB stats are grossly inflated compared to the 90's. More of the games production has come in the air. The defensive battles seem to occur more from sloppy offensive play then good defense. Then you have the teams with QB's who resemble NBA teams which is a great analogy by Bills Fan in Maryland. We didn't need the chuck rule. The balance of power between QB and defense was perfect. Now it has become imbalanced and that's not something I enjoy. A lot of people think the measurements in a baseball were either intentionally or unintentionally altered ever so slightly and that has been whats led to the ridiculous HR totals after the 2016 All Star break. I see that as very similar to the current state of the NFL. I don't like baseball with a pitcher hitting opposite field HR's.
-
1 minute ago, Mr. WEO said:
Lazy? Why did you just pick the 90's when you subsequently say "years past"?
What the bolded statement even mean? "50/50"....what?
In the 90's Favre, Moon, Bledsoe, Marino...even Scott Mitchell and jeff George were carving up defenses.
This has been a shift over time toward more passing TDs per game (even today's levels have been seen decades ago), but scoring has remained flat over decades.
All of the "rule changes" haven't resulted in a significant change in scoring. That much is clear. This means defenses have adapted to the changes in the offense, as they always have done over time.
You picked this year, then randomly picked out a year of out a sample size of 50+ years that suited your argument. I "randomly" picked the 90's, you can also randomly pick the 80's or the 70's and get the same data. I also did it pre chuck rule and post chuck rule. So not exactly random. More of a factual way of interpreting information.
Farve had a career completion % of 62%
Moon had a career completion % of 58.4%
Bledsoe had a career completion % of 57.2%
Marino had a career completion % of 59.4%
Only 1 out of the 4 above 60%, meanwhile this year 24 teams surpass that mark
Scoring is up. Not enough for your liking, but it's up. Maybe I should have titled the thread today's games are boring because QB is all that matters and diversity in elite rushing and elite defenses doesn't compete against elite QB's. That seemed a little long though.
-
1
-
-
10 minutes ago, BADOLBILZ said:
I don't think people miss the sound defense.........they miss the violence.........which was as much of what kept the score and completion % down as anything.
Despite the SB result defense actually had an uptick again this year.......and the average DB today is so much more talented than the stiffs they used to march out "back in the day" that it's almost hard to compare. Most corners can actually cover close now without having to grab or beat up receivers in routes.
I really miss that violence though........the last great game of that era was the Seattle/SF title game.........what a wonderful violent game that was.
Sine the chuck rule in 2004 passing TD's are up 13% compared to 1990-2003, points per game are up 1.67 which may sound small, but it's 428 points a year more on average. Elite QB's can take advantage of the rules the most. Brady does not have the career he has had without the chuck rule. That whole offense is timing. It just changes the game in the way teams are forced to find an elite QB because in doing so that can overcome elite running teams and defenses. Exceptions can be found, but that's exactly what they are, exceptions.
-
All passing metrics are up compared to years past as you would expect them to be. With the rules as they are, great QB's are better on average than great defenses. This leads to lack of balance in the product. You see exceptions, but you don't see many rules. In the early 90's a great QB against a great defense was a 50/50. It's just not that way anymore.
-
11 minutes ago, Mr. WEO said:
Yeah, who doesn't love 3 and outs and the punt game!!
Anyway, scoring has been pretty stable through the decades, despite the perception that it hasn't.
https://www.pro-football-reference.com/years/NFL/scoring.htm
Receiving TDs per team per game last year were the same as (oh, I'll just pick one) 1987.
Pretty lazy way of using data to fit an agenda. This decade compared to the 90's Passing TD's are up 29%.
-
I think the great defenses also led to the more exciting story lines. In no way is this supposed go the path of a hate New England thread, but let me see Brady in the early 90's with his WR's having massive timing interuptions....
I liked the great ground attacks. Great defenses. All things great outside of just the QB position. It's what made the game diverse.
-
3
-
-
It's so natural to long for times gone by, but I just appreciated the NFL so much more before it was intentionally converted to a QB league. I like defense. I like seeing defenses that are so formidable they can combat even the best QB's. Consider in 1990 only 3 teams had a completion % above 60%, this season 24 teams did. Anybody else feel similar?
-
3
-
-
Buffalo will not sign Cousins. I certainly wouldn't mind it, but he's going for money we won't compete with. After that Tyrod is equal to anybody else. They will keep him for insurance. If they don't need to cash the insurance they will trade him. I do think he has some trade value. I'm ready to move on from him, but is he among the top 32 QB's in the NFL? Even his detractors would admit to that. He will start somewhere next season and I will be rooting for him. He has been as much of a class act as you can possibly be.
2 Mock Draft Simulations
in The Stadium Wall Archives
Posted
Oh I know, I try an find ones that seem realistic.