Tolstoy
-
Posts
351 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Gallery
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Tolstoy
-
-
I think the offensive line--as so many of you have pointed out-- is like a cancer on this team. Its pathetic play has slowly destroyed the confidence and play of, first, the running backs (no holes), second, the quarterback and wide receivers (bad protection, no running game), and third, the defense (which has its problems) because it no longer has confidence in the offense, and is being put out in the field almost immediately after it gives the offense the ball.
What is strange is that this line played so much better last year. Why is it so bad now? Two possibilities: the new coach, or the Jason Peters holdout. As for the new coach problem--I say bring Mouse back--entice him with a lot of money to come back for the rest of the year. As for the Peters holdout, Peters lost his confidence somehow. Perhaps he needs a temporary time-out to recover it. A return of Mouse also might help.
Of course, no one will listen to me, so I don't know why I am wasting my breath. It is just so depressing to see this team actually going backward...
-
I agree that the lack of stars is disturbing. An elite football team typically needs elite difference makers. I put them into three categories. A category 3 difference maker is not necessarily better or worse than a category 1 or 2 difference maker:
1. A guy is a difference maker if he can be productive while using up two or more of the other team's players. As you pointed out, Bruce Smith still produced even when he was getting double teamed. Guys like Michael Irvin and Jerry Rice still produced even when getting double covered.
2. A guy is a difference maker if he cancels out a category 1 difference maker. You can put a Tony Boselli one-on-one with Bruce and be just fine. You can put a Deion Sanders one-on-one with a Jerry Rice, and know that things aren't going to get out of control. These are category 2 difference makers.
3. Other. These are players who can dramatically change the outcome of the game despite not really falling into one of the two above categories. Examples include Barry Sanders and Joe Montana.
Lee Evans is probably the closest thing we have to a category 1 difference maker. But he's more likely to be shut down by double coverage than you'd typically expect from a category 1 difference maker. Marcus Stroud can, at times, also look like a category 1 difference maker.
Last year, Jason Peters would have been a category 2 difference maker. As he plays himself back into shape, he might become more of one this season. Other than him, we don't have too many other category 2 difference makers. Donte Whitner certainly isn't one. It's not like you can have him cover an elite TE one-on-one and expect to be okay. Nor is any other member of our secondary a category 2 difference maker.
Trent Edwards our only bona fide category three difference maker. But there are other players who come close, such as Poz.
I agree with you that adding a few key difference makers should be very high on the Bills' to-do list. Doing so is the only thing that should make the Bills even consider doing something other than drafting an offensive lineman with their first pick. Of course, if they got a difference maker on the offensive line with their first round pick, they'd have the best of both worlds. But it's even more important that their first round pick be a difference maker, than that he be an offensive lineman.
Nice analysis. Upon reflection, the Bills' drafts of late have been good (very few busts), but not great, for the simple reason that they have not produced the playmakers that you describe. At least so far. Maybe some of these players will emerge as stars, as another post observes.
-
Sorry if this has already been pointed out:
I saw that Bruce Smith was nominated for the Hall, and I was led to reflect on how dominant he was. There were games that he would singlehandedly take-over. He was so disruptive that he would singlehandedly destroy an offense, even when they triple-teamed him (and because they triple-teamed him). Speaking of those Buffalo Bills, Thurman could bust out and run for 150 yards, and catch another 150. Kelly could throw for 400 yards and 3 TD's (to Reed) routinely. Kent Hull and Wolford were pro-bowlers on the O-line.
What disturbs me:
This edition of the Bills is a very good football team, but it arguably does not have one legitimate star, not one. Last year I would have said Jason Peters, but not at this moment. Evans is close, but not a star (yet). Lynch might get there some day, as might Paul P., Edwards and a few others.
Does the 2008 Buffalo Bills have one pro-bowler, much less a hall of famer? If not, what does that mean?
-
I wasn't able to see the game, but I did notice from the stats that Hardy didn't get a catch. Was he on the field at all? Just wondering.
-
How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love MLS
Graham Fox is a freelance soccer writer from Manhattan, Kansas. He is a KC Wizards fan, a du Nord regular, and an advocate for fun. Find him at grahamfox@gmail.com
Do you know that:
Eurosnobs look down on you for watching MLS?
Low attendance is your fault?
The level of play in MLS could be higher if you would have eaten one less pickled egg last night?
You made your grandma cry when you told her the latest Columbus attend numbers?
Many MLS fans worry so much about attendance and what people think about MLS that they contemplate harai-kari when they read the latest Kansas City attendance numbers. As a fellow du Nord and MLS fan I’ve composed this small guide to stop you from doing anything drastic.
In Which I Start Watching Soccer
I started following soccer the way most Americans do. I shelled out money for Fox Soccer Channel and started watching English Premier League games. I become addicted and started a ritual that many males my age in the US take part in: Waking up at 5am on Saturday mornings to catch the day’s games. I napped my way through a season before I decided to follow Liverpool.
For the soccer fan in the United States, it is hard to pick an EPL team to be a fan of. We cannot experience regional pride or community pride, all we can experience is a false sense of belonging. Does that mean I woke up my roommate at 6am by jumping up and down and yelling when Peter Crouch scored his first goal for Liverpool because I had false emotions? No, but they were anchored in false connections.
After a season of watching the EPL I realized something that those English chaps don’t seem to have a problem with. Only four teams have a chance of winning (or as everyone points out when they realizes I like Liverpool, three teams).
In Which I Become Bored With the EPL
As I watched and learned I became increasingly bored with the Premier League. What is the point? If you aren’t a fan of the top four you can hope your team will maybe make it to a European spot or crack the top ten but that is it. Everyone knows who is likely to win at the start of the season. They win. Everyone knows about who will go down, and they do. How exciting.
I turned to Major League Soccer. I wanted to actually go to a game instead of watching it on TV. I wanted a league where more than four teams had a chance of winning.
The more I followed MLS the less I cared about Liverpool and the EPL. My devotion to Liverpool was based on a vague connection to a team thousands of miles away that I had no chance of seeing live. Major League Soccer is solid and real.
In Which I Start to Worry
At the start of last season I started to closely following MLS and the Kansas City Wizards. Towards the middle of the season I headed to Arrowhead to cheer on KC. I could actually see them live, had a regional connection with them, and a couple friends who I knew would be at the game. After my first live game I was hooked. From that point on I join the rest of you in:
Watching as many MLS games as possible
Posting regularly on several message boards
Arguing with anyone who made fun of MLS
Worrying about the level of play
Anxiously reading the latest attendance numbers
Wondering what Europeans though of MLS
Arguing about how MLS compares with other leagues
Worrying about DP spots
Hating Beckman for being a punk-ass and pretending to drop-kick the ball at Eloy Colombano
Go look at BigSoccer and scan the general MLS forum. Everyone is worrying. Almost every thread is moaning about quality, refs, attendance, or the league in general. The more I read the more I became concerned about attendance and how everyone perceives MLS, especially those Europeans with their fancy leagues.
In Which I Have A Realization
Then it happened. As I was downing my Admiral Nelson in the sun pounded Arrowhead parking lot I stopped caring about all of that sh--. There was no reason to worry, the league was out of my hands, and all I could do for attendance is show up when I can scrounge the gas money.
Be like me. Stop caring as much and enjoy the unique league that is MLS. Do yourself a favor:
Buy a handle of Admiral Nelson
Drink it
Yell till your voice crackles at the opposing team’s goal keeper
When he switches ends, follow and throw streamers at him until security tells you to stop
Scream “Waiiiiibeeeelllll” whenever he runs near you
Congratulations, you didn’t worry at all while you were doing that. Now go home and do the same (the not worrying, not the drinking of handles).
Don’t stop caring, stay informed, keep reading du Nord, browse BigSoccer when you want to kill some brain cells, but remember to enjoy the game. It’s all we’ve got.
Labels: attendance, mls, soccer
POSTED BY GRAHAM AT 11:11 10 COMMENTS FROM MENTAL GIANTS LIKE ME & YOU (CLICK TO ADD YOURS HERE MUCHACHO!)
-
Think about it: roughly 5 million additional people in the Greater Toronto Area will now potentially consider the Bills their favorite team as well. They support the team we support; they will be cheering on Sundays for our very own Buffalo Bills. How can you not like this? Its like having other parents cheer for your own child at an athletic contest.
As a result of this, the Bills will get increased exposure and coverage in the Toronto media, and probably in national media in both Canada and the US as well. How can we not like this either?
Hell, when you put the entire Western NY population together with the Southern Ontario population, including Toronto, the Bills could have one of the most populous fan bases in all of the NFL.
At any rate, it just struck me this morning that we now share a NFL kinship with Toronto, a truly great city that is not even in our own country. No other NFL team can boast that.
-
This is a good read. The Boston sports writers can surprise us sometimes.
http://www.boston.com/sports/football/patr...most_revealing/
-
With nothing better to do, I was thinking: if I was King, what would I do to make the NFL better?
Well, as I have stated before, the first thing I would do is reduce the amount of commercials. That doesn't really change the game (or maybe it does, since it reduces the time-outs), but it would certainly make watching it easier.
What change would you make?
-
I usually judge the potential of a draftee by their performance in a rookie mini camp.
RTB
I'm with this guy. I appreciate the updates from DC, but I think it is a wee bit early to be judging this Kelly kid, and patting ourselves on the back for not picking him. And what is the evidence? A ball sailed over his head so he stopped running? Sounds sensible to me...
-
It is a different world now. I agree soccer will most likely never surpass football in my lifetime. But I feel soccer will grow in popularity from here on out most every year. I was a kid in the 70's and did not have any friends that played soccer- I hardly even knew what soccer was. That changed as I got older. Ever hear of a Soccer Mom before 1995? Our country is growing in population. Look at demographics. Lots of Eastern Europeons, lots of Asians, Africans, and lots of Hispanics- all soccer fans. If every current American gave up soccer, just through immigration the next 50 years I think soccer interest would grow. Factor in youth programs, immigration, more exposure- how does soccer not catch on? It is a timeless game, a nice product, and the world's passion. One reason soccer does not catch on in the USA- 45 minute halves with no commericals. The networks would never go for it. The NFL is almost unwatchable with all the commercials now
Right, I agree about the NFL now. But I don't think people need to have played soccer in order to enjoy it. While I enjoy watching any soccer, for the average fan, the MLS is like anything else: the more other people watch it, talk about it, and enjoy it, the more s/he is inclined to turn it on and see what it is all about. Imagine, for a moment, that we lived in New England, and all of New York and New England was talking about the upcoming match between the Red Bulls and Revs--newspapers, TV sports shows,radio talk shows etc. Imagine the stadium was sold-out, and tickets were being scalped at 300% there list price. Would I not be inclined to turn it on and watch? And even if it was a 2-1 game, I would learn to cheer each save, shot, tackle, etc. No need for high scoring games!
I happen to think the "quality" of the sport, in itself, as viewable is hard to determine (though I personally think soccer is great fun to watch). What is more important is how much other people care about it. It could be watching paint dry, for that matter (I do think watching baseball comes close to this), but if everyone else made an issue of it, I would think it is high drama. I guess it is a bit like fashion: big, big sunglasses are really great right now, not because they really are better than the smaller ones, but simply because other people think so.
Anyhow, because soccer is getting more exposure now, and attendance is going up, I think it will keep becoming more popular. Popularity breeds popularity. In twenty years, I suspect it will be the number 2 major league sport in the country.
-
blah, blah, blah. The field fairies have been saying this for 30+ years. If it was gaining so much popularity, football, baseball, and all other sports would have been out of business long ago. Soccer is just a brutal sport to sit and watch either on tv or even live. Sure it's great for your saturday morning kid thing to help your child stay in shape, but please, the pro and even higher level amateur levels are just boring.
Uh oh. I am getting out of the way on this one. Bullets will start flying. If I had to pick a side, however, I am backing up the soccer side.
But not to get sidetracked, hey VABills, what do you think about hockey? On the rise or fall?
-
Soccer is becoming more and more popular. Seeds are being planted with the youth of America playing soccer. It's popularity is gonna continually rise, slow and steady in America the next 20 years. I bet we win a World Cup in the next 20 years too- which will really boost Soccers appeal. Boxing is dead- MMA is gonna become one of the biggest sports in the world IMO. NASCAR I don't understand- but I agree it is only gonna gain more popularity. I think Hockey will grow. I mean can it go anywhere but up from 2006? Hockey needs to get back on ESPN and needs the exposure. Players like Ovechkin and Kovalchuk are marketers dreams. And Football is America's game! What other sport do people sit around all weekend and watch the draft? Heck baseball, hockey, golf, basketball, etc- are on TV- and people choose to watch the draft. That is very telling!
I agree with everything you say, though I will reserve judgment on hockey. You might be right.
Oh, at the risk of sounding stupid, I have to ask: what is MMA? Is that mixed martial arts?
-
Heard this on the Dan Patrick show the other day, and it got me thinking. What sports do you think are in a slow decline in terms of popularity and interest? Which are becoming more popular?
Here's my own preliminary list of each (with some help from Dan Patrick).
On the Decline:
Hockey (though not in Buffalo!)
Boxing
Indy Car Racing
Horse Racing
Bike Racing (after the Tour de France debacles)
On the Rise:
Nascar
Soccer
Football (can it get more popular in the USA? But it seems to be expanding internationally)
Mixed Martial Arts (added after suggestions)
Rugby?
-
My best friend, who is the Warden at a "prestigous" State prison, will tell me over and over again that the determining factor is not as much the color of the inmates skin, but whether he was raised by just one parent (Usually the Mom). The odds are much harder for children brought up in a socially bad environment, especially if they have to raise themselves because the parents aren't around and/or don't meet all of their needs. Naturaaly, it is not a Universal that children in a good situation will live lives without trouble nor if someone has adversity in their lives will they fail... but the odds are stacked against the latter.
It takes tremendous character to overcome such odds. From personal experience, my mother was killed when I was three, and I (thru the Grace of God, and my Sports coaches) was the only one of the four children in our family to graduate High School. Further, I am the only one without a criminal record. If it wasn't for mentors , I don't doubt that I could have ended the same way.
However, not to belittle your point of view, because I agree with much of it, having a good upbringing, with loving parents who are involved in their children's lives is a big advantage and maybe you didn't learn the statistics in your psychology class but the reality is that the odds are that the better the upbringing, the better the chance to stay out of trouble and live a productive life.
Good post.
-
These are all good points, especially the one about Marv's view of character. Suppose, however, that Marv was looking for a player who is talented but also:
has a strong work-ethic
loves the game
has a more or less clean legal record
doesn't have an alcohol or drug problem
is confident without flashy arrogance
is honest with his coaches
is loyal to his teammates
isn't it the case that such a person is more likely to be one who has had a good upbringing, of one sort or another? Such a person is more likely to come from a good family, or from a family where the mother or father provided a good role model, strong work ethic, etc. While I do think, as someone said earlier, someone who has been through hard times is battle-tested, and "fired in the forge of adversity," these are rare cases. In the end, I think these sob stories about these athletes do not mean much until we have seen what they are made of, and that takes a few years!
One final example from recent memory: McGahee came from a broken family, but he seemed to be a "character guy" when we drafted him. Now, three illigitimate children later, we find out he is an arrogant, licentious party boy who badly needed a good father figure in his youth (and now).
-
From Allen Wilson's article in the Buffalo News:
"The Bills value high character players, and Willis has it in abundance. He has overcome a difficult childhood (his mother abandoned him and his three siblings when he was four) and personal tragedy (his 17- year-old brother drowned last summer) to be able to realize his dream of being an NFL player."
My comment:
This kind of inference is becoming increasingly common, but seems absurd to me. Somewhere, we have gotten the idea that the more tragedy and suffering in someone's past, the more difficult their home life, the more crime-ridden and poverty-stricken their childhood environment, the more character they have.
Perhaps the assumption here is this: if X (fill in name of player) was able to make it to the highest ranks of college football despite his terrible past, then X must be made of very strong stuff indeed! While there may be something to this, this reasoning seems specious.
My questions:
Now I don't think you should judge someone on the basis of their past, but I do think it is fair to consider a person's past in the absence of close knowledge of the person. Given that, isn't it just as valid to assume that the more terrible a person's upbringing, the more likely it is that they will have problems and issues, and fail at the Pro level? Shouldn't we prefer individuals with a good upbringing? Isn't is better to be brought up in a stable home, in a good environment, and to avoid tragedy? In fact, I wonder how many of the NFL's criminal offenders were in fact brought up under circumstances similar to Patrick Willis. Perhaps Wilson's kind of reasoning is what has produced the high rates of criminal offenders in the NFL.
Just a thought. Fire away.
-
Take the best player available in one of the most important positions on the team.
Why? The only way to get ahead of other teams in the league is with superior talent. Plugging holes in the lineup will make a team competitive, but not superior.
As I see it, the most important positions on the team are D-line, O-line, QB, RB, CB, and LB. As it happens, withe the exception of QB, they are all positions of need on the team. So, if I were Marv, I would take the player that is rated highest on their draft board at one of these positions (with the exception of QB).
Since I don't have access to their draft board, I have no idea who that will be. No predictions here...
-
There must be a dozen newbies on here since the begining of the week! Are you all Dockery fans? Hate Willis and decided to join "the club"?? What gives?? Its OK though, the Bandwagon has LOTS of room!
It looks like the administrator has required viewers to login in order to peruse Stadium Wall. I don't know the reasons for this (unsolicited solicitors soliciting things?), but I do know that is was required to log-in when I used a different computer. Anyhow, I suspect that many people have been reading the board as guests, but when forced to register, they thought they might as well post!
-
Jauron is a classy guy, much like Marv, and will not badmouth a player on his way out the door. However, it is fairly clear to me from his remarks (and Marv's) that this decision was about two things:
(1) Willis' talent and character
(2) a possible hold-out
I suspect they got together at the end of the year, looked at the position, and thought they could do better: better receiving, better blocking, better at keeping assignments, and better perhaps even at running. They also looked at the character issues--not joining the team during offseason workouts, illegitimate children, failure to study the playbook, and these things factored in. Finally, it is possible that they have had preliminary contract talks with his agent, and demands were made, and they decided he is not worth the headache.
Jauron struggled to avoid saying negative things, but it is fairly clear to me from the lack of praise for Willis, that they really thought they could do better.
I think so too. Get a young guy with talent and work ethic in the draft, and a solid vet. through free agency. I like it.
-
I'm a Roma fan, although I don't give a !@#$ about the Beckham signing.
Well, I don't think his soccer skills match up to the hype, but he is a decent player. At any rate, I do think the league can use some positive publicity, and Beckham at 31 is still a fairly good player who might help the players around him improve (e.g. Donovan).
Now if Zidane signs with NY (as rumor has it he might), I would definitely go out of my way to see a game with wife and kids.
I, too, have become more interested in English Premier League, but so too with the MLS.
I may be wrong, but I think Soccer will eventually become King in the USA: it may not be in my lifetime, but it will happen. The combination of the popularity of youth soccer, continued immigration rates, soccer's dominance on the world stage, and the strength of the fledgling MLS (along with stupidity and greed in the other major league sports) all point to soccer's success. That is why, I think, smart business minds like Robert Kraft, Lamar Hunt, and many others, have invested in soccer. It was not for humanitarian reasons!!! (Though I do think it is a benefit to humanity...)
-
When things get dull on 2Billsdrive, one can always appeal to a soccer topic to liven things up.
I am a growing soccer fan. I would even say now that if I had to choose, I would watch a soccer game over a football game (unless the latter involved the Bills!). Part of that may involve the commercials in a football game, but part of it is also that I would rather watch the best players in soccer doing their thing over the best players in football doing their thing. If any of you need to know why, here is a clue: watch one person's choice of the 50 best soccer goals (link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yeXoxNP8_xY).
Any more soccer supporters out there? What do you think of the Beckham signing?
Link didn't work. Just go to You Tube and type "50 best goals."
-
When things get dull on 2Billsdrive, one can always appeal to a soccer topic to liven things up.
I am a growing soccer fan. I would even say now that if I had to choose, I would watch a soccer game over a football game (unless the latter involved the Bills!). Part of that may involve the commercials in a football game, but part of it is also that I would rather watch the best players in soccer doing their thing over the best players in football doing their thing. If any of you need to know why, here is a clue: watch one person's choice of the 50 best soccer goals (link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yeXoxNP8_xY).
Any more soccer supporters out there? What do you think of the Beckham signing?
-
Why 96 games? Don't make this like the thread that said Losman would get better in his 17th game. 96 games is 6 years. So over the last 6 years the conferences are even. Great. I'm just talking about this year. There is so much player turnover I don't think you can realistically go beyond 1 year in any analysis.
You are not making much sense at all. According to your logic, the NFC is a tougher conference, so it will have show more losses because its own teams are getting beaten up by each other in their conference games. Conversely, the AFC will show more wins because the conference is filled with a bunch of patsies which are easy to beat.
Ask yourself. What's wrong with your thinking here?
For every loss that an NFC team suffers against another "dominating" NFC team, there is exactly one winning NFC team, and one losing NFC team. And for every win that an AFC team gets against a patsy AFC team, there is exactly one winning AFC team, and one losing AFC team. So, the math works like this:
After a full season, 16 AFC teams played 12 conference games for a total of 192 games. Since each game involved exactly one winning AFC team and one losing AFC team, there were exactly 96 wins and 96 losses (divide 192 by 2!). The same for the NFC: 96 wins and 96 losses.
If there are more losses on the NFC side, it is because they lost more games to the AFC. Thus, the AFC is a superior conference.
-
I agree in principle. When the Buffalo Bills Football Team is playing, winning comes first, let alone when they are playing the jests.
At the same time, I don't think that posters should be discouraged from talking draft (not that you are trying to do so). There are posters here who spend countless hours evaluating the draft; some even watch film, and I love to hear what they have to say. Some of these people are literal experts (NOT ME).
In this sense, sometimes I enjoy the offseason on TBD more than the regular season. During free agency and the draft, hope runs wild (at least to me).
Other than wanting the Bills to lose, it's all good.
Good point. I also like the draft talk, and would not want to discourage it at all. What prompted my message above was that I actually caught myself thinking about the draft, and hoping we get the lowest pick possible. That's when I woke up and realized I was hoping for something not at all good for this team. They need to win. Period.
Jauron: a Player's Coach (Welcome back to Club Dick)
in The Stadium Wall Archives
Posted
Hey, it may be true that the players like Dick Jauron because he is easy, but I suspect that they also want to win--probably even more than we want them to win. They see more of his coaching than we do, so I think they support him because they think he is a good coach, not because he is a pushover.