
KurtGodel77
Community Member-
Posts
932 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Gallery
Profiles
Forums
Events
Everything posted by KurtGodel77
-
Eric Moulds ranked 70th, 55th, 54th, 45th
KurtGodel77 replied to AKC's topic in The Stadium Wall Archives
Eric Moulds has been on the team about ten years, and he's not the player he used to be. -
Eric Moulds ranked 70th, 55th, 54th, 45th
KurtGodel77 replied to AKC's topic in The Stadium Wall Archives
It does seem that some of the 2nd option receivers are rated more highly than they should be when compared to the double-covered go-to guys. Someone pointed out that Pinkston is higher on the list than Moulds, but Pinkston is not the go-to guy. The list is useful for comparing one team's go-to guy with another team's go-to guy, because both players have to deal with the same double coverage, facing the other team's best secondary members, that stuff. Seeing where Moulds stands in comparison with other teams' go-to guys shows he's not that great. So we should either make him take a pay cut down to his market value, or we should cut him. -
Eric Moulds ranked 70th, 55th, 54th, 45th
KurtGodel77 replied to AKC's topic in The Stadium Wall Archives
Moulds' rankings have been fairly consistent on that site, even though as you point out his numbers have varied. Let's say Moulds catches two passes out of every three thrown his way. When the team's offense as a whole is doing well, as it did in the first half of 2002, drives will be longer, and there will be more pass attempts going to Moulds. He's still only catching 2 out of 3, but because of guys like Price and Centers, there are more first downs, therefore more opportunities for pass plays, and ultimately more yards for Moulds. In 2003 Moulds was hurt, so his numbers went down. He didn't get open as often, putting himself in fewer "situations" where the ball came his way. Those factors led to fewer yards. But presumably he'd still be catching that same 2/3 ratio as before, leading to a similar ranking as in past years. -
[OT] Sirius Stock Taking A Dump
KurtGodel77 replied to ubhockey's topic in The Stadium Wall Archives
I agree. Howard Stern is an old man trying to make a living by shocking a desensitized nation. Signing him isn't worth as much as it's cracked up to be. -
Eric Moulds ranked 70th, 55th, 54th, 45th
KurtGodel77 replied to AKC's topic in The Stadium Wall Archives
Football Outsiders' system for ranking the WRs works in the following way: each "situation" a WR is involved in is analyzed. If a pass comes his way, it's a "situation." If he makes the catch, he gets positive points. If he drops the pass, or worse still fumbles the ball, he loses points. That gives him his gross totals. But these are then adjusted for the strength of the defense and the situation. So if it's 3rd and 10, you'd get more points for an 11 yard pass than for a 9 yard pass. You're not just getting credit for an extra two yards, you're getting credit for the 3rd down conversion. If the defense is better than normal at preventing 3rd down conversions from WRs, your points are adjusted upwards. If it's worse than an average defense in that situation, your points are adjusted downward. Eric Moulds is lower than Lee Evans on that list presumably because Moulds had a lower percentage of "situations" where he was successful; meaning he probably dropped a higher percentage of passes than Evans. -
[OT] Sirius Stock Taking A Dump
KurtGodel77 replied to ubhockey's topic in The Stadium Wall Archives
Getting back to the original post, there are three cases in which you'd like to buy an individual stock, and only two of them are legal. The illegal one is of course insider information. If you know something about a company that is important to its stock price, and that is not available to outside people, it's illegal for you to trade on that information. For example, in the Martha Stewart case, the prosecution pointed out that Inclone was going to announce that a drug under development had not received FDA approval. Martha Stewart sold her Inclone shares days before this announcement took place. The prosecution alleged that the CEO tipped her off about the upcoming announcement as a favor to her, and that she acted on inside information. Stewart alleges she placed a stop-loss order with her broker, resulting in the sale of shares based on an action anyone could have taken. Clearly, I'd advise against any kind of insider trading. The next way to make money on a stock is through financial analysis. Basically, you're betting you can do a better job with that than the market can; because if you just wanted a market-level rate of return, you'd buy an index fund. The market is really good at financial analysis, so unless you're an expert it's not useful to bother with this technique. That leaves the third method: a general familiarity with a given industry (without relying on inside information, of course) can lead you to make better judgements about a stock than could be the case if you just analyzed financial statements. If you notice that nobody seems to shop at a certain store any more, it would be wise not to own stock in that store. Anything you learn by this form of observation isn't insider information, because anyone at all is free to wander around stores and draw conclusions. The same goes for industry magazines. It sounds to me like the original poster MAY have enough industry familiarity to allow him to make a better judgement about the stock than the market can. However, the problem with basing a buy decision on a public announcement (like the Ford one) is that the market has already taken the information into account. -
[OT] Sirius Stock Taking A Dump
KurtGodel77 replied to ubhockey's topic in The Stadium Wall Archives
Well, there is a difference: when you buy a stock, you can only lose whatever money you put into the stock. But when you short sell a stock, it is theoretically possible to lose an infinite amount of money, because the stock could (theoretically) go up by an infinite amount. An obvious example would be the dot-com stocks. Those were clearly overvalued, but they clearly had the potential to go up by ridiculous amounts before the crash finally came. You would have been very foolish to have short sold dot-com stocks without buying call options. -
[OT] Sirius Stock Taking A Dump
KurtGodel77 replied to ubhockey's topic in The Stadium Wall Archives
I have some background in finance, and you are right: short selling a stock with huge potential is a TERRIBLE idea unless you buy call options also. Let's say that a stock is trading at 50. A call option could give you the right to buy 100 shares of the stock at $80 a share (the strike price), any time within the next 90 days. If the stock goes above 80, the options are "in the money." So a stock is trading at 50, and you think there is an 80% chance it will go down to 12, and a 2% chance it will go to 200. You short sell 100 shares, and you buy call options to cover 100 shares. The short selling position means you own a negative number of shares, so the stock going to 200 would cost you $150 for every share you short sold. But that's okay, because the call option keeps you safe: you only lose the difference between the $50 the stock is currently trading at, and the $80 strike price of the call option; in this case $30 a share. When the stock is at $50, you might be able to buy $80 call options at $0.75 a share, whereas $70 call options might cost you $1.50 a share. But with those $70 strike price options, the most you could lose would be $20 a share instead of $30 a share. It's like paying more for car insurance to get a lower deductible. The price you pay for call options is based on several factors: the strike price of the option, the time until expiration, and the volatility of the underlying stock. If you don't want to spend a lot of money on options, get options that have a high strike price, a low time until expiration, and that are based on a stock that doesn't change in value very much. The problem with options like those is they are not likely to do you very much good. -
What teams will be in the market for OTs?
KurtGodel77 replied to pm73's topic in The Stadium Wall Archives
If it came down to a choice between keeping Jennings and Moulds, I'd go with Jennings. A good offensive line is more important than good receivers. -
Lee Evans is the best WR in Buffalo
KurtGodel77 replied to KurtGodel77's topic in The Stadium Wall Archives
Saying he's one of the best in the league is going pretty far when he's ranked 44th. Moulds isn't the same player he was in 2002 when he made Price a rich man. -
Lee Evans is the best WR in Buffalo
KurtGodel77 replied to KurtGodel77's topic in The Stadium Wall Archives
They don't take salary into account. -
Lee Evans is the best WR in Buffalo
KurtGodel77 replied to KurtGodel77's topic in The Stadium Wall Archives
I'm not in favor of making Evans the possession receiver. If we cut Moulds, we would have to shop for a possession receiver on the open market. We could probably pick someone up for $3 million a year. He wouldn't be the best, but then again neither is Moulds. -
Lee Evans is the best WR in Buffalo
KurtGodel77 replied to KurtGodel77's topic in The Stadium Wall Archives
A reasonable post. I'd actually keep Moulds if I could get him down to around $3.5 million in base salary. But if he demanded $5 million average compensation, he'd be gone. -
Lee Evans is the best WR in Buffalo
KurtGodel77 replied to KurtGodel77's topic in The Stadium Wall Archives
Well, there were a lot of other number one receivers on that list, and most of them ranked higher than Moulds. Mushin Muhammed was the Panthers' number one target, and he ranked third on the list. Terrell Owens was Philadelphia's only receiver, and he ranked 10th. Even the likes of Joey Galloway ranked higher than Moulds. -
Lee Evans is the best WR in Buffalo
KurtGodel77 replied to KurtGodel77's topic in The Stadium Wall Archives
Sounds to me like your sources don't know a whole lot about football. -
I just went to the following link: http://www.footballoutsiders.com/stats/wr.php This site ranks receivers based on a number of factors, taking into account dropped passes, fumbles, TDs, total yards, the quality of the defense, etc. Lee Evans ranked 14th in the NFL. Eric Moulds ranked 45th. Did I mention Moulds is scheduled to count $8.7 million against next year's cap?
-
I'll get to your point about Bledsoe in a minute. First, I'll start by saying this: your team's goal should be to win the Super Bowl. Not to go 9-7. Not to go 10-6 with an exit in the divisional round. It should be a Super Bowl win. Trying for anything less is unacceptable. To get there, you have to be elite at some segment of the game. Right now, the Bills aren't elite at anything. So they should either improve their defense or their offense, to the point where they are elite on one side of the ball. Until they do that, they won't be winning any Super Bowl rings. If they decided to improve their defense to elite status, they'd need to free up salary cap room. An obvious candidate would be Drew Bledsoe. They could also rid themselves of Eric Moulds and his $8.7 million cap figure, and use the bulk of that space to upgrade the defense. Another possession receiver could be signed for $3 million a year. If you wanted to have an elite passing offense, then obviously you'd start by benching or cutting Drew. To go that road, you'd have to start Losman, and pray he'd work out. You'd also have to hope for a good second year from Euhus. Moulds would need to be upgraded, because he's not good enough to be the go-to guy for an elite passing offense. The only way you could really justify staying with Moulds is if you decided that your running game would be the heart of your team. You'd have to upgrade yourself at center and LG of course, but maybe the draft would be the right way to do that. You could always free up some space by giving Moulds a paycut, and by releasing Drew. After giving yourself elite status at something--running, passing, or defense--you'd make improvements to the rest of the team on an as-possible basis.
-
I just looked at the football outsiders description of the defensive rankings. http://www.footballoutsiders.com/methods.php Their system is better than I'd assumed. However, a defense could still get the number one rank by creating truly dominating performances against lesser offenses, while being very average against offenses that were well-run. I believe our defense fits that description.
-
With a top-12 offense we probably could have won two or three more. That's not the issue. The issue is whether you can make it past the divisional round of the playoffs. Unless at least one aspect of your team is elite, you will be exposed come playoff time. Our defense isn't elite; and that's basically all I'm saying. Look what happened to San Diego, a well-rounded team that made improvements on both sides of the ball. They had no real weaknesses, but no overwhelming sources of strength. They are now watching from home. Compare that to Indianapolis, a team with a deeply flawed defense, but an elite offense. Or compare it to Baltimore of 2000, a team without a real passing game, but one of the best defenses the NFL had ever seen. If you keep the defense the same, and get the offense to the point where it's 12th best, you'll have a San Diego; and not an Indianapolis or a Baltimore 2000.
-
Okay, how about the first New England game, when the defense allowed the Patriots to score 24 points as the result of long drives? Asking your offense and special teams to combine for 24 points in regulation against the Patriots' defense is a tall order, don't you think? And the fact those Patriots' drives were looooong meant that our offense would have fewer possessions, and would face a well-rested Patriots' defense. Or consider the Miami away game, where the Dolphins scored 21 points in just the first quarter. So basically the Bills had to score at least 21 points against a top-rated defense to win the game. They did, but that's a credit to the offense.
-
Each of those teams is known for having a better defense than offense. Baltimore just got done firing its offensive coordinator after its offense finished in the lower third of the league. Oakland's poor offense was the biggest reason why it finished with a losing record. The Jaguars' offense was . . . about the same as ours. With Pittsburgh, yards and points don't tell the whole story, because of that nine minute drive. Had Kevin Gilbride been Pittsburgh's offensive coordinator, they might have gotten more yards and more points, but still lost the game. All you need to win a football game is a field goal and two thirty-minute drives.
-
Most of our wins during that run were against weak teams, or teams with weak offenses. I've already said our defense can be truly dominant against a flawed offense, but will get exposed by a team with a strong offense. This is because we heavily rely on blitzing. If the offense doesn't pick up the blitz, the result will often be a sack or even a turnover. But good offenses pick up blitzes and use the man-to-man coverage as an opportunity to make plays. That's what they've been doing to us.
-
My gut tells me that their computer model is flawed, but I'd have to know more about it to say much more than that. It seemed like a lot of the teams we played were better on defense than offense, so I'd like to know whether their model took into account not just how good a team was overall, but how good it was on offense and defense.
-
How can our offense be overrated when it gets so little respect? There are good elements of the offense: we allowed just 15 sacks in the last 10 games, despite having an immoble QB who takes too long in the pocket and doesn't sense pressure. We have a top-10 (possibly top-5) RB in McGahee. We have one of the best deep burners in the league in the form of Lee Evans. Right now, the offense is less than the sum of its parts because of various weaknesses. But with some improvement, it could really be something. As for the defense: the defense played badly enough to lose in the Miami away game, and the offense bailed them out. The defense played badly enough to lose in BOTH New England games; and we lost both games. The defense allowed that nine minute drive to Pittsburgh, so the defense is as responsible for the loss as anyone. That was about 1/6 of the game just for one Pittsburgh drive. It would have been more had the Bills not burned their timeouts. And however well the defense played in the bulk of the Jets and Jaguars games, the fact remains they broke down at the end when they knew the game was on the line.
-
I'm just saying that if you want to win the Super Bowl, you have to make sure that at least one element of your team is dominant. Our defense is good, but it would need the upgrades I suggested to be elite. I agree that the upgrades I suggested would be very difficult under the salary cap. So it might make more sense to look at making some aspect of the offense dominant. We already have the right RB for a dominant running game, but we'd have to replace our C and LG if we plan to do to others what Pittsburgh did to us. A run-blocking TE would also help, but we may already have him on the roster in the form of Jason Peters. Or we could have a dominant passing game. The offensive line does a pretty good job at pass protection, so our major tasks would be to re-sign Jennings, find a good third receiver, upgrade the QB spot, and upgrade the possession receiver. Moulds is not in the same class as Jerry Rice back when the '49ers had a dominant passing game, nor is he in the same class as Marvin Harrison today.