Long Suffering Fan
-
Posts
245 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Gallery
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Long Suffering Fan
-
-
Quote
Is there one thing that @AlbertBreer is concerned about them though? Yes... their punter
But if you never have to punt, do you really need a punter?
-
1
-
1
-
-
I own stock in Lifetime.
Learning first hand the gravity of table breaking.
Only 6.4 - didn't stick the landing.
Can everyone see my calves?
-
1
-
-
2 hours ago, aristocrat said:
Do these guys not have any self awareness?
No. No, they don't. It is in tragic short supply nowadays.
-
1
-
1
-
-
11 minutes ago, BillsFan619 said:
...Josh Allen is my favorite because he makes it look effortless.”
What a coincidence. He is my favorite quarterback too. 😀
-
5
-
-
48 minutes ago, C.Biscuit97 said:
My platform for becoming president is the Monday after the Super Bowl is a national holiday called America Day. Also, we are searching for better cheese to be American cheese. We can do so much better as country.
Pepper Jack cheese. Get behind that and I will vote for you.
-
2
-
-
3 hours ago, FireChans said:
The players that ALWAYS have topics about them on TBD are pretty much not good.
TrentMaybin
Losman
Whitner
McKelvin
EJ
Brandon Reilly
Edmunds
Millions of topics. Not good players.
When was the last “Tre White” topic? Probably 2 years ago. Because he’s a good player and it’s obvious to everyone.
When was the last “Milano” topic? Again, probably 2 years ago, because he’s good and we all know this.
Edmunds is mediocre. Time to accept it.
If there was a...wait a minute...this made me think, emoji, that is what I would have used on this post. As a long time lurker, I really think this is true. All of those threads on other players...once they dragged out for years...it seems to turn out that they were not that good.
Does anyone have a contrarian example?
It is possible that Edmunds could be the first, but....
2 hours ago, Shaw66 said:So, who's established himself as a core player? Josh, Diggs, White. (Miller, but he's unusual. Core players are long-term leaders. Miller is a short-term leader with great talent, so he's gotten paid like a core player, but he's not a guy the team is building its future on.) Kyle Williams was a core player. The Bills will pay their core players whatever they have to pay them to keep them. (Remember a few years ago when Beane said he hoped Josh would force him to write a big check? That's how you know the guy is a core player. Diggs, White, and Miller each forced Beane to write a big check.)
Then you've got guys who are the model McDermott players, the guys McDermott will keep for as long as they're useful but who are expendable. These are guys that Beane will not overpay - he won't write a big check, because he knows he can't afford to pay a lot for every guy he likes. Hyde, Poyer, Morse, Milano, Johnson, Singletary, Knox. Even some lesser guys, like Neal and McKenzie. McDermott loves them, knows he needs guys like that on his team, but he's ready to move on from them if need be. Shaq Lawson and Jordan Phillips were and are in that category - the Bills actually did, reluctantly, move on from them, but the Bills were happy to bring them back at the right price. (Belichick has always had this discipline in New England. I was flabbergasted when Belichick let Lawyer Milloy go, but he was just the first of many talented guys the Patriots let walk.)
Shaw66, this is just one of many excellent posts you've had on this thread. I think you nailed it on this point. (as much as we can know being on the outside)
I agree that he is not a good traditional LB. Whether or not he is the leader of a new breed....the argument is interesting.
-
When a 4 year college basketball starter marries someone who has all of the track records....your offspring should have a good chance of being athletic. 😀
-
1
-
1
-
-
I hate to say this, but one of the reasons why you want this depth is because of injury. It is probably a 50/50 chance that one of these receivers will get dinged up in TC or pre-season. For that reason, the Bills will not move quickly on the decision unless something becomes glaringly obvious at this stage.
-
It is really just a flip of the coin....sigh...
-
Just now, Allen2Diggs said:
This sounds like the complete opposite of whatever the hell Rex Ryan was trying to do with our roster
Yep. I was downright depressed the day the Bills hired him.
Even older, that was what Greggo did. We had the number 1 defense and the number 3 defense in successive years (by the yards metric which is far from perfect, but still). He came in the following year and completely scrapped our scheme for his and none of our players were suited for it. When asked about it, he pointed to the fact his defense was number 1 the previous year so it was a better scheme than our number 3 defense. I knew in that moment that he would fail.
-
8
-
2
-
4
-
-
36 minutes ago, YoloinOhio said:
You can't hit a round peg into a square hole and hope that you're going to run this zone play if that doesn't fit, or hope you're going to run this gap play if that doesn't fit.
Good to hear. I'm not sure it is super deep, but this is still more than what I would normally even expect from one of these interviews which are normally coach speak. Tailoring the scheme for your players is a good thing to hear from him.
-
4
-
-
1 minute ago, NewEra said:
Hahaha. If you aren’t evolving and reinventing than you’re good at your current profession and don’t need to pretend getting fired for sucking at your job is a good thing.
Ding ding ding! We have a winner.
I mean, you have to evolve and change at times, sure - definitely a grain of truth - but that is a separate thing from making stuff up and getting fired.
-
1
-
-
Kevin Hart has this schtick that he does...and my brain cells don't completely like it and kind of think it is a little obvious and childish at times....but he does it so well, that I can't help but smile or chuckle. His comedic timing and nuance are amazing.
-
1 hour ago, Shaw66 said:
It’s his personal version of The 300
First, props for calling it. Many of us maybe thought or hoped those things, but you put it out there for all to see. Since it could have been thrown in your face if you were wrong, it is only right that we give you a victory lap. As someone who sometimes forgets what happened earlier in the day, I appreciate you posting this. I've enjoyed your reviews quite a bit and this gives me another opportunity to say, great job.
Second, I had to smile at the above line...because I think it is funny and pretty accurate....and a good analogy. People who have argued against character or the process mattering sometimes say things like - well, all professional athletes are great, they all try, etc. I know I have heard Schopp say things like that. That is the same thing as could have been said about the Athenians or the Corinthians, but the Spartans were set apart because among all the great fighters, they had developed a culture which demanded disciples, as you put it. Those that were willing to do anything to be the best. (side note - the Spartans really did do crazy, crazy, sometimes evil things that should never be replicated).
Closely tied to that is their philosophy of a leader in every room. Why keep Lee Smith as long as we did? Because he would not allow the other TEs to slack. I can't prove it, but I'm sure he helped shape Knox. Why Frank Gore? Because he demanded a level of commitment from the young pups in the RB room.
The real positive sign is that - once you have this started, it is easier to keep going. It is also possible now to take in some people that are NOT perfect for the process. They can be neutral to start because the strong leaders will drag them along until they get it.
-
2
-
-
Am I the only one that was a little surprised that Von looked small compared to the rest of the dline? In all the videos I have seen of him in free agency, etc. the guy looks huge. Put him next to the rest of our dline and suddenly he looks on the smaller side. I get that at edge you often play at a lower weight, but it still took me off guard.
Don't take this the wrong way. I am super stoked that he is on the team and excited to have him. The guy is a hall of famer. I guess this just meant that he plays way above his size or that the rest of our dline is abnormally large.
-
4
-
-
53 minutes ago, Greg S said:
I never understood why they played this game. Nobody cares about it. I don't know what they could do to improve it.
It's vestigial. They used to be a good way to promote the leagues that had them because they showcased the stars. The NHL even had a rule that there had to be at least one player from each team in the game so that the entire fanbase would care. Before the era of big money, the extra paycheck for winning the game was a big deal. I still remember when the NHL all star game was held in Buffalo way back in the 70s. Prince of Wales Conference won 3-2. In OT, if you can believe it! Martin scored near the end of the third to force the OT and Perrault scored the game winner in OT. I loved that it was such a good game and that Buffalo's stars won it in Buffalo.
11 minutes ago, Mark Vader said:Every player on the winning team gets $10 million dollars.
Every player on the losing team gets nothing.
You'll get a real football game then.
Exactly right. Back in the day, when the players sometimes worked off season jobs, the little bit of extra money from the game was a big motivator. Now, almost all the players that go are at the top end of the payscale or would be.
-
7 minutes ago, BigAl2526 said:
Right off the bat they're spending a bunch of that rest capital. They go from a Thursday night opener to a Monday night home opener. Almost a third of their rest advantage gone by the second weekend.
Remember it is rest differential - playing on the first Thursday is part of that because we get three extra days. It is not four extra days because the Titans (our week 2 opponent) also get one extra day of rest to Monday (because they played on Sunday week 1). If the Titans played on Monday in week 1, then it would be four. We immediately lose one of those days in week 3 because we are playing on Monday in week 2 and Sunday in week 3 against the fish who played on Sunday the week before. So, by week 3, we are at a rest differential of +2.
Thanksgiving helps also. It is short prep for that game, but the Lions face the same thing. The next week we play on Thurs again, but it is no advantage because the Patriots also play on Thanksgiving (not that would have been epic if the Pats played on Sunday of Thanksgiving week). Where we gain is the following week against the Jets.
In general, Thursday games help our rest differential because the teams playing both have less time to prepare for that game but extra rest to go against a team that normally played on Sunday that week and Monday games hurt our rest differential because the extra rest day is shared by the two teams that play on Monday. Of course, bye weeks have the biggest impacts.
-
4 hours ago, Mickey said:
I'm sure your, ummm friends, who seem to have a lot of experience needing lawyers, have told you both sides of the story. I am sure the lawyers badmouthing other lawyers are not at all self interested. And it totally makes sense that with your life on the line you would have no choice but to hire a bad lawyer. We can have all the speedy trials you want, just invest more tax dollars in the legal system. More courts, more judges, more clerks and more lawyers. Judging a delay as either justifiable under the circumstances or a two-bit tactic is in the eyes of the beholder. Fortunately we have these impartial legal experts, we call them judges, who can decide to grant or deny a request for an adjournment. Sure, our view from reading headlines, ignorant of the details, makes us far better judges of these matters than the actual, real live judges.
Come on, Mickey. With a wave of the hand are you going to just dismiss all of my experiences over the last several decades? I get that these are my experiences and not yours and, since you don't know me, you should not necessarily take my word as gospel, but that also means you should not dismiss them out of hand. I also realize that I have an unusual amount of experience in this area (although it is not much of stretch - all you have to do is know a couple of people with bad divorces and know someone starting a company). That is one of the reasons why I commented. I am not a prolific commenter. Far from it, but I have lived this.
I am going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you are in earnest. I will give you one example. Someone I know is part of a start up company and I am a little more than tangentially involved. We have a product that is significantly better than our competitors and one of them filed a spurious lawsuit against us. It is ridiculous and unfounded. Interestingly they did not sue us in our state, but in the same state as one of their locations. We find out that, essentially, there is a friendly relationship between the judge and the execs of that company. We file to change the venue. Their CEO has a home address in a different state and so they argue that it is already on neutral ground. We finally win and get the venue moved. The process starts again there. Our competitor then withdraws the lawsuit before any judgment could be made against them. A month later they refile the lawsuit in federal court and the process starts up again. We are deep in the process there and we file for a dismissal. Despite all the evidence we present, the judge does not dismiss. The burden of proof is on us for a dismissal and that is hard to do because the competitor is purposely playing their cards close to the vest. It should have been dismissed, but wasn't. Well, you should counter sue. Yeah, maybe, but then the burden of proof that this was a malicious lawsuit once again falls on us and that is very hard to prove. Attempting it opens up an entirely different case and doubles your legal fees.
In this case, through some of my bad experiences and through some of the contacts we have made we have developed some trustworthy contacts. We got what I believe is a really good business trial lawyer. Still, we have already had to pay out $75K and we haven't gone to trial yet. The process has dragged out over years and, as a start up, we don't have that money, but we have to find it somehow. They are trying to bleed us out. This is just one example I can give you about how our system is broken.
Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.
Again, I am going to assume that you are in earnest and that you have just never been exposed to the dark side of our legal system. I know there are good lawyers. I wish I lived in a world where I could trust the authority structures above me. I wish I could trust judges and lawyers and politicians, but our legal system has serious flaws.
57 minutes ago, bigduke6 said:the justice system works differently for those of means or celebrity.
Exactly. It is a pay to play system. If you have lots of cash, it seriously works to your advantage....and delay is a go to tactic that money can pay for.
-
1
-
-
13 hours ago, Mickey said:
I can think of dozens of reasons why it would take longer than 18 months. Discovery, depositions, video tape depositions, motions, expert witnesses, evidence availability, site investigation and on and on. Just juggling the schedules of the lawyers, the parties, the witnesses and everyone else involved can slow things to a crawl.
A billable hour is when a lawyer spends an hour of their time working on the client's case and yes, they do get paid for that just like mechanics, doctors, plumbers and electricians. The reason people pay for that work is because as with plumbers, its worth it.
What are you guys all married to lawyers? People who defend lawyers tend to have very limited experience with bad ones. Without going into details, I or (mostly) my friends have had bad encounters with them in civil, criminal, custody, and divorce cases. They love to extend because they make more money. In some cases it is also beneficial to their client, but the motivation is always there.
Oh, the billable hour argument...yes, they spend that time...well, maybe. They say they spent that amount of time, but you have no way to prove they did or didn't. I know of one case where someone I knew was being just ripped off. When he asked for a list of billable hours to prove, they sent back a list that included ridiculous things. There is no way to prove that they didn't work that time on your case...or someone else's. Well, they should just get another lawyer - yeah, you are 25 grand into a lawyer that wants 5K more to finish your case and if you move now, you have to start over. I have had lawyers tell me even worse stories. I have had lawyers tell me to avoid certain other lawyers because they will milk you for all your worth.
Oh, and the people pay for that work because they are worth it line....ugh. It would be more accurate to say that they pay for that work because they have no freaking choice. Someone facing a problem that needs a lawyer - their life, or their kids, or their bank account is on the line.
Listen, I know that there are good lawyers. I just hope that you don't find out the hard way that there are bad ones.
23 hours ago, Freddie's Dead said:Justice delayed is justice denied. Just ask Marshawn Lynch's lawyers, who got his DUI in Oakland while with the Seahawks postponed for over 18 months, until Alameda County prosecutors just gave up and pleaded him down to misdemeanor reckless driving. He, of course, won a Super Bowl while awaiting trial.
This. Our legal system is messed up on many levels and having speedy trials would solve at least some of the problems.
-
It's ridiculous because there is no reason that it should take 18 months to get something like this to trial. A speedy trial should be the norm.
- Delays are bad for a defendant if they happen to be innocent because it drags out the time that the sword of Damocles is hanging over their head.
- It is bad for a plaintiff it they happen to be right because it drags it out and does not give them closure.
But it all racks up billable hours for lawyers, so I guess it is good for them. Grrrrr....
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
2
-
-
6 minutes ago, Buffalo_Stampede said:
What made it so great was the sell at the 1st down marker. DB was sure they would try to get the 1st, not a TD.
Of course, the DB thought he would go for the 1st down. Going for the TD then would leave Patrick too much time. 😭
-
2
-
1
-
3
-
-
When I was a kid, saving my ticket stubs was a big deal. It was a good memory for me.
-
4
-
6
-
1
-
-
2 hours ago, Buffalo_Stampede said:
I skimmed it but age doesn’t get mentioned either. Age would be a huge variable in a study like this. I wonder why they would leave that out?
38 minutes ago, Thurman#1 said:If "of the eligible players, only 28.5% (n = 59/207) remained in the league 3 years postinjury," is your headline here, you're right that it is a bit shocking, but less so when you remember that the average NFL career is 3 years.
It is hard to know the motivations behind people and why they would leave that out (pre-determined conclusions, wanting a paper that had a newsworthy conclusion, funding, less nefarious things), but I refuse to believe that they didn't consider it. If a bunch of yahoos, including myself, immediately point that out on TSW, I can't imagine that a group of intelligent researchers publishing a paper didn't think of it.
2 hours ago, Warcodered said:Less of not a big deal and more of not a death sentence anymore.
That is so true. Back in the day, you just had to live with it, which likely meant no more competitive sports. It was the old "Trick Knee". Without the ACL, you were just so much more likely to pop it out of joint momentarily. I found that out when I tore mine in my 40s. My knee swelled, but I had no idea that I had torn it. I was out of town so I just iced it and rested it. When I got back in town it was actually feeling pretty good. Three weeks after the injury I was running on it aggressively. Then I started playing sports again and I kept tweaking it. I thought I better get it checked and, when they told me it was a torn ACL, you could have knocked me over with a feather.
I remember really liking Jeff Nixon - four takeaways against the Dolphins in 1980 to help break our 20 game losing streak against them. Then one year he gets a knee injury (in his mid to late 20s - his prime) and never plays again. I think that was ACL, but I don't remember for sure. It was a death sentence for his career.
-
1 hour ago, WhoTom said:
So to clarify your first comment, you're saying that we got the Washington version of Bruce, not the Buffalo version.
1 hour ago, billybrew1 said:I don’t care what anybody says. He lost his world class explosion and that means he’s human now. If we can’t seriously help him with pressure in the middle, pressure from the other side, the right blitz calls, he’s going to have a hard time being an impact player.
Right, which was my view before I read the article. We signed a great player who was no longer in his prime and is probably only really good at this point.
My point in posting was that the article has led me to start to believe that Miller is still great and has not lost it...at least not yet. That was what was brought out by the analysis of his plays last year. His sacks are not as dependent on his burst alone as I might have thought. Not having the time, inclination, or skill to analyze all of Miller's snaps last season, I guess that means I am taking Joe B at his word. I mean it is only one analysis and someone else might come to different conclusions, but I think it is a valid data point.
Albert Breer (MMQB) on the Dan Patrick Show
in The Stadium Wall
Posted
You are so right. Most of us around here had a lot of experience watching bad to middling quarterback play over the course of a couple of decades. After the first year of Allen I was brimming with excitement because you could see the difference, the flashes. I even remember analyzing that first season in terms of accuracy and coming away unworried. The first season revealed that he could make really accurate throws, but had some consistency issues related to mechanics and footwork. Issues which he has since worked hard to correct, successfully.