Coach Tuesday
-
Posts
17,758 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Gallery
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Coach Tuesday
-
-
He's horrible, actually. My buddy is a Lions fan and I'm always asking about Raiola b/c I wanted to draft him when he came out. Anyway - he's always getting pushed around - he's undersized. Teague-esque, but he also makes mental errors every game. Not what we're looking for - more of a WCO type of center.
-
Read the article on the front of TBD right now - Donahoe is sick and tired of Bledsoe making him look like an ass.
Also - you're right, of course, it's unorthodox, and not likely to happen. Just my own GM fantasy.
-
I'm not saying JP isn't the man next year - at all. I'm saying, maybe he is, maybe he isn't, but let's hedge our bets either way. If JP works out, great - trade the other guy, a la Jake Delhomme/JT O'Sullivan/AJ Feeley (there have been many others). If JP struggles, give the other guy a shot (and possibly trade JP). If they both bust - hey, we tried (and maybe we need a new GM).
BTW - I'm interested to know what people here think about the guy I want, Jason Campbell. I love him. (I mean, I think he's a great football player.)
-
Why? Why would you rather have some old vet than a rookie QB? A rookie QB will be cheaper and will have a bigger upside. Let's be honest - if we get to the point in the season that it's time for Shane Matthews/Vinny/Kitna/Jonathan Quinn to play, we're DONE - might as well turn the reigns over to a young guy with upside and let him develop.
-
-
I suppose I ought to entitle this post, "Why I'm not an NFL GM," but I think it'll speak for itself. Here are my assumptions:
1) Bledsoe is done. If you disagree with this, move on - you won't like the rest of what I say.
2) QB is the most important position on the team. I know there is some hearty disagreement about this here - I think it's debatable, here are my reasons though: your QB determines the relative value of the rest of your team. For example, if your QB is immoble, your interior line becomes way more valuable, and if your guards/center get injured, you're toast. If your QB can't stretch the field, you need some seriously good receivers and TEs who can create separation underneath. If your QB can light it up against anyone, your D becomes less valuable, etc. etc.
3) QBs are a crapshoot. JPL has about a 1 in 5 chance in really, really succeeding.
4) There are no vet QBs in this year's free agent market that we would realistically sign or that would be an upgrade over Drew. Drew Brees ain't gonna sign here - why would he? The Chargers can pay him more, and he's been successful there.
Given 1-4 above, especially #2, I think if I were Donahoe I'd hedge my JPL bet by drafting yet another QB in this year's draft. Mind you, not with my first pick, but certainly on the first day. And, to further hedge my bet, I'd take someone who is somehwat different from Losman - someone who is known more for "intangibles," who was used to winning in college, who is tough, hard-nosed, wellspoken, a team leader, a tough warrior, etc. Someone who is undervalued by the "experts" and should be around when the Bills pick in the 3rd round. A Tom Brady type, who can at least push JPL to get his act together and memorize the playbook, and who can be dealt later on if he doesn't become The Guy. Who, you ask, is that person? Well, it should be obvious:
JASON CAMPBELL, QB, AUBURN.
Unorthodox, I know. But it's too important a position to put all your chips in on one guy. Just my opinion. I'd draft a guard with the first pick, then Campbell with the next pick. Campbell has all the intangibles - and I think he'll be a player in this league. I also think taking him will send the right message to JPL.
I don't expect a single person here to agree with me... flame away.
-
Since you're struggling so much with the most basic of concepts let me break it down even further for you. On some teams the QB is their most important offensive player, but it's not exclusive. So let me say it another way because you apparently are unable to remove your blinders about the position. On some teams their most important player is a RT, on others a WR and on others and OC. The reason you struggle to understand this is apparently because you spend all your time wathcing the ball during a game and you consequently fail to see the difference makers on any team. It's fine you choose to believe it- you're like 80% of the casual fans of football who are naive enough to believe that foolishness and I don't intent to make you any more knowledgeable a fan than you have chosen to be.
As to your "yes" and "no" questions you again have zero perspective as to my observations- and I'm perfectly willing to prove how little you know about football by asking you to list, in order of importance and impact to the team, the starting players on the Buffalo Bills offense this past season.
This should be incredibly simple for you because you have a flawed, and static, view of the importance of players based upon their positions versus the actual dynamic importance structure that exists in any organization based upon many dynamics including scheme, opponent, personnel and sideline decisions. Yours will read something like this:
QB
RB
WR
TE
etc.
etc.
Except that you're only half right. You're right that on some teams, QB is not the most important position - but I guarantee you this: if, on those teams, the QB had a penchant for turning the ball over at an alarming rate, he would de facto become the most important player on that team - as in, he would be the most important reason that team was losing games.
-
No, Pete's right - it's a blatant lie. "Moulds sucks" would be the analogous opinion. Good luck with the G.E.D.
Done.
-
HE LEADS THE LEAGUE IN DROPPED PASSES.
Link? You just made this up!
Must... use... ignore... feature...
-
Sing it with me, "Travis and Drew for a One and a Two!"
-
He would have gone for it, no question.Neither you nor I can say what Belichick would have done.
-
The Chiefs? Come again?
The Falcons. Vick runs for 900 yards this year.
Let's see how the Eagles do without TO.
The Jets have Curtis Martin. McGahee is NOT Curtis Martin..yet.
Switching the QB isn't going to solve all the inefficiencies in this team. You'd think a "coach" would know that.
Dude, you're in BF territory with this run of posts... I'll leave this alone, because it's obvious your football knowledge is Theisman-esque, but to end, the Chiefs have 1 receiving option. Ditto the Eagles, ditto the Falcons. According to you, a good offense needs more than that. The Bills have at least 2. In the 6-game winning streak, Bledsoe did a great job getting them the ball, especially on 3rd down. In the Steelers game and the rest of the season, Bledsoe was horrendous on third down, plus he turned the ball over at an alarming rate. His numbers during those games are comparable to Kerry Collins, Jeff Garcia, Kyle Boller and Kurt Warner - 3 has-beens and 1 never-to-be. No one is suggesting it's all his fault (or at least I'm not), but let's face it - this team is as good as it's gonna get with him at the helm. Tommy Maddox and Kordell Stewart each performed better in the same exact offense.
-
Moulds is living on his rep. He clearly has you sucked in. You don't seem to remember the key drops.
You just admitted that they need a slot receiver and a TE. That's 50% of a QBs options on passing plays. You think that and 11 penalties might have had an impact on Sunday? Nah.... the QB sucks.
What are the "key drops"? That's already been debunked - those plays would not have resulted in first downs. The QB does suck - look at the efficiency stats I posted earlier. I understand you want new receivers, a new TE, a new o-line, etc., but meanwhile other offenses manage to get by with just a decent QB and one or two options in the passing game (the Chiefs, the Falcons, the Jets, the Eagles, etc.)
-
Another ridiculous post by you. Belichek would've kicked because he would've been POSITIVE that Vinatieri would make it, and that his defense would hold 9 times out of 10.
-
Moulds dropped 3. And he runs his patterns half speed. His completions are for 8 yards or less. He gets no separation. Ever watch a NE game? There have been plenty in prime time this year.
Doesn't it frost you just a bit that the announcers are always saying..."Look at the time Brady has.. Wow look at that protection.. and so on? And his receivers are always open by 5 yards, and they catch EVERTHING!!!
This receiving corps is a joke. A joke. Moulds has stopped jumping for balls, diving for balls and runs secondary patterns half heartedly. Reed as a slot receiver is pathetic. And with Campbell and Euhus out there is NO tight end option. Evans has been good as a rookie, he still has a lot to learn. I'm excited about him.
You want to spend money in the off season? This is and the Offensive line are the areas to look.
Our receivers, as a group, are sub par.
This post is just bizarre... actually, it's just plain wrong. Moulds gets no separation? Why is he still double-covered most of the time, then? He doesn't jump for balls? What about his acrobatic catch against the Steelers (on a horribly thrown ball by Bledsoe that was only 4 yards past the line of scrimage)? Incidentally, he then broke 2 1/2 tackles and came up just short of the first down. Luckily, it wasn't a third-down play. This receiving corps is FAR from a joke, actually. Yes they need a slot receiver and a consistent TE. They also need a QB who can buy time in the pocket and throw accurate passes.
-
-
Ya maybe you're right - I'd say it IS definitive proof that going for it would NOT have been the WRONG decision.
-
-
-
Correct me if I'm wrong, but of the passes Moulds dropped, most if not all were on 3rd down, no? NONE of those passes Moulds dropped would have given the Bills a first down, unless he also broke some tackles.
-
If the waiter keeps dropping the food on the way over, or delivering it to the wrong table, I sure-as-sh#t don't blame the chef or the valet...
-
Won't argue with your cipherin' there Coach, but...
Half of you wants to finish that drive with 6, and the other wants to extend the lead to 4 in a game where your opponent's settling for FGs. You gotta figure the 4 point lead's a sure thing
, so take it, and put pressure on them to score 6. That's where your D's been turning it over.Yeah - I actually agreed with the move at the time - but looking at those numbers, it's hard to argue...
-
From http://www.footballcommentary.com/analysis...eeks16and17.htm
With 2:04 remaining in the 3rd quarter, Buffalo led 17-16, and faced 4th and 1 at the Pittsburgh 11-yard line. Buffalo decided to attempt a field goal.
According to the Model , Buffalo's probability of winning the game is 0.68 if the field goal is good, but 0.56 if it misses and Pittsburgh takes over at their own 20-yard line. NFL place-kickers make about 92% of their kicks from 28 yards, and if we use that value, we find that Buffalo's probability of winning the game if they attempt the field goal is 0.92 × 0.68 + (1 − 0.92) × 0.56 = 0.67.
If instead the Bills go for the first down, their probability of winning the game is either 0.775 or 0.585, depending on whether or not they make it. Using 0.6 for the probability of success, we find that Buffalo's probability of winning the game if they go for it is 0.6 × 0.775 + (1 − 0.6) × 0.585 = 0.699. So going for it would have been the better choice. One can check that going for it is preferred as long as the probability of making the first down exceeds 0.45.
-
Again, no one is saying Moulds shouldn't share blame. Who is saying that? But, if you want to talk about consistency in terms of protecting the ball, Bledsoe simply lacks it - I would not put Moulds in that category (although I would be interested to know what Moulds' fumble-per-touch ratio is, compared to Bledsoe's fumble/INT-per-touch ratio).
You want a good analysis of Bledsoe's stats? Check out www.footballoutsiders.com . They rate ALL of the QBs in the league in weighted effiency (weighted according to how that QB performed in a given situation as compared to every other QB in the league in the same situation. Here are the QB rankings:
http://footballoutsiders.com/stats/qb.php
You'll notice that Bledsoe is listed 21st overall. And here's what the writer for "Snap Judgment" (who also writes for Football Outsiders) has to say about Bledsoe and his 21st ranking (http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=snap/week17/rankings):
"To use a reference as dated as Bledsoe's career: "You are the weakest link. Goodbye." This team has the defense and running game to go 11-5 next year, but they need to find out if J.P. Losman can be Tom Brady. "
Here are the rankings from 2003:
http://footballoutsiders.com/stats/qb2003.php
Bledsoe was ranked 30th overall.
(Incidentally, they have WR rankings as well - http://footballoutsiders.com/stats/wr.php - which rank WRs according to points scored per touches in situations compared to all other receivers - Moulds was ranked 45th, below Lee Evans at 15).
The writers on this site repeatedly bash Bledsoe for his lack of production in comparison to other starting QBs around the league. Writers all over the country (Len Pasquarelli being one) have noticed Bledsoe's poor mechanics in "big games" (including the Steelers game - check out his "Morning After" article from Monday). Donahoe himself acknowledged in his "Ask Donahoe" segment that the offense needs to become more efficient, especially on 3rd down. Oh, and Donahoe also aggressively traded up into the first round to get a quarterback, just in case Bledsoe's struggles last season could not be corrected by the new coaching staff (why else would they have drafted JP? Bledsoe is neither old nor injury-prone?).
Finally, a point about your "crusade" term - it is one thing to get annoyed by repeated posts on the same topic, or "thread busters" or what have you. I suspect, however, that your real issue is that you (you know who you are) don't agree with the Bledsoe bashers. I know that's the case, actually, because you never hesitate to chime in with a flippant put-down of anyone who criticizes Bledsoe. That's fine - that's your opinion. But if you ask me you're on just as much of a crusade as anyone else, and the fact that you're a wise-ass about your comments makes you all the more annoying.
Falsehoods, lies and the new Stadium Wall
in The Stadium Wall Archives
Posted
Actually, that's already been refuted by the fellas at http://www.footballoutsiders.com/ . Their offense/defense/ST rankings are weighted, meaning that they take into account strength of opponent. And, not surprisingly, even taking those factors into account, the Bills' D and ST still rank NUMBER 1 OVERALL, while the Bills' offense ranks 23rd overall. So your theory is totally bunk, thanks for playing.