dave mcbride
-
Posts
23,994 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Gallery
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by dave mcbride
-
-
you do realize, don't you, that 10-6 over ten seasons works out 100-60, which is generally regarded as a dominant performance in baseball? 183-121 works out to a .600 winning percentage, which is actually quite spectacular in the pro football ranks ...
-
I guess Supply-siders and Keynesians need interpreters when they debate. Two things you've left out of my argument:
1. I said that taxes under Clinton were still 9% of GDP before the cap gains tax. The cut in the tax may have fueled stock bubble it my not have. Capital gains taxes went up because stock prices went up so much.
2. That's why I've been arguing that long term GDP growth is determined by labor force growth and productivity growth, and that it's averaged around 3% for the past 60 years. You want to argue that supply-side tax cuts create faster growth; the numbers aren't there unless you play with the starting period.
The difference for those sitting on the sidelines: Keynesians believe that personal tax cuts for individuals fuel the economy by expansionary deficit spending--witness the deficits under Reagan and Bush2; GG, a SS, believes tax cuts on individuals create incentives that must either increase participation in the labor force or increase productivity. Unless there's another way to increase long-run growth?
Bib: you're an idiot! Come on 999 (or turn that upside down...)!
sorry to chip in here, but "Keynesians believe that personal tax cuts for individuals fuel the economy by expansionary deficit spending--witness the deficits under Reagan and Bush2" is wrong. in essence, keynes advocated a much larger role for the state in generating demand, which was a persistent problem in what were essentially laissez-faire capitalist economies (excluding trade tariffs) earlier in the century. in recessions, cutting taxes and increasing government spending are the tools to use; in times of growth, increasing taxes to curb excessive demand are ok. moreover, fostering greater income equality through taxation and fiscal policy was a fundamental goal of keynes and his followers. in the oecd, this in fact occurred up through the early-mid 70s. notwithstanding the justice or injustice of capital gains taxes (or the degree to which clinton cut such taxes after 95), clinton's policies were by and large keynesian. the eitc was intended to increase income and demand among poorer earners, for instance, and it did just that. what clinton did not do is decrease inequality, one of his stated goals, either with regard to income or wealth. for a variety of reasons, mostly related to increasing neoliberal dominance across the globe, inequality has been trending upward for a couple of decades after decades of decline in the oecd.
-
You just described a bunch of fill-ins (as well as overstating the value of Bryson) for the most part. Winfield was the only one who you could point to as being a marquee player for a few years. Price was almost out of the league and certainly is not playing up to a 2nd round level.
1999 is just another example of a draft that provided role players while our top-flight talent aged another year.
if a fill in comes in the fifth or seventh round, that's a pretty good pick. also recall that except for 95, the bills drafted in the late end of the first round every year. in 95, they drafted ruben, who was in fact a perrennial pro bowler (and deserved at least 3 of those trips to hawaii).
look - i think that donohoe is certainly an ok drafter. so it's not really the issue in terms of comparing the two of them. i think it comes down to the fact that you seem to have a real animus - almost to the point of malevolence - toward butler which i don't really understand. as you can probably guess, i've always felt that the hatred directed towards him after he left was more than a little irrational. he did the best he could while was here and did it for a long time. he tried to win the super bowl, but it didn't work out. they were close but not good enough. he left because he was offered a boatload more money than what wilson offered him and he probably felt that it was time to try something new in one of the nicest cities in the country. is that underhanded? i don't think it's any more complicated than that, actually.
-
Up until that point, Brees had shown nothing and rather than stand pat and spin a rosy picture the way our GM does, AJ Smith decided to do something. He took the best player on the board. Having done that, Brees ended up playing at a high level and they will now trade Rivers. Having 2 good QBs on the roster is a good problem to have.
In Buffalo, they could have done exactly what you propose... and remained faithful to Rob Johnson. But that agressiveness brought Doug Flutie into the fold and that's the reason you at least got to enjoy a few good playoff seasons in Buffalo.
But of course, like most posters here, you'd probably say:
Doug Flutie sucked, he was lucky (despite a 29-19 record)/
Wade Phillips was a horrible head coach (despite no losing seasons and a few playoff appearances)
good post. flutie was 20-9 as a starter though; it was wade who was 29-19 (although i always say 30-18 because i factor in the just give it 'em game).
-
Up until his last game? I think not. He was already pretty beat up.
I am not trying to make the assertion that Jones was not a good player. He was. The problem is that Mr. B continued to renegotiate his deal and pay him far more than his value. Then, the Bills took a big cap hit to get rid of him once he was all but useless. Even when he had something left in the tank, he had all of 5 ints in his last 5 seasons as a Bill.
bill: wha?? from the stats you provided, he had a good year in 2000 -- pretty much as good as any of his other years. and as i'm sure you know, judging a db on int numbers isn't the best gauge. and the bills were a sold d in those years, rarely giving up big plays at all. it's part of a safety's job to ensure that.
i have no doubt he was in decline by 2001, but probably would have been better than the guys williams put in there to replace him.
-
So, I see no OL. I see a 5'6" CB who is no longer on the team and had some decent years in Buffalo (not 1st round decent mind you...). A WR who had one good year for us that we took advantage of and a bunch of crap.
Thanks for making my point in 1999. The same holds true for all the other years since Bill Polian left.
hmm. a seventh rounder who is still productive at sacking the qb, getting 7-9 a year still. a third round rb who is still playing pretty well for the lions. a 4th round lb who played well for the bills in wade phillips system. and a 5th round lb who has been a serviceable journeyman for years. as for price, by my count he had one spectactular year and 3 good ones. as for winfield, if he's just decent, why did more than 1 team offer him a $10 million signing bonus when he became a free agent last year? it seems to me that everyone on this board just loved winfield in 99 and 2000, and thought he was a top tier cb in 2003 despite not making enough picks.
i challenge you to look at any team in the league's draft from any year over the past 10 years that has been as productive. i've done it before, and you usually see about 2 to 3 players in the league after 3 years. most don't make it. in this case, 6 guys are still in the league. and 4 of them have had at least one legitimately good season (i.e., above average) seasons over the years.
-
whoa there. jones was a terrific player up until his last game in 2000. he signed that contract in 1997 or 1998, and provided good value. he's one of the bills better players in the past dozen years, truth be told.
-
-
Charles, while you are reminscing about the good old days, perhaps you could scan our drafts from 1993 to 2000 and list those top players that came in and reloaded our empty gun from the early 90's. Try and at least pick guys who have made it to a pro bowl or two.
Then, list the starting o-lineman from the last few years of the Butler era. Don't forget to include such guys as Corbin Lacina, Jamie Nails, Corey Louchiey....
1999 1 1 23 23 Antoine Winfield DB Ohio State
2 2 22 53 Peerless Price WR Tennessee
3 3 25 86 Shawn Bryson RB Tennessee
4 4 24 119 Keith Newman LB North Carolina
5 4 27 122 Bobby Collins TE North Alabama
6 5 23 156 Jay Foreman LB Nebraska
7 6 15 184 Rashard Cook DB USC
8 6 25 194 Armon Hatcher DB Oregon State
9 7 24 230 Sheldon Jackson TE Nebraska
10 7 42 248 Bryce Fisher DE Air Force
-
-
Absolutely asinine... Dave, take that flamebaiting BS elsewhere.
Butler left this team in shambles and you know it. His last draft goes down as the worst in Bills history. Threw money at every mediocre player he could find and stuck us in the ass with fan dividing QB situation.
Wade announces we have a punt catcher and tells the team that they don't have a chance to make the playoffs when they do...
Go rewrite history with your insinuations elsewhere.
this is ridiculous. he had one bad draft - everyone does, including donohoe as you probably know (troy edwards, anyone?). but as with donohoe, attacking butler's drafting record over time is an utter fool's errand. as for leaving the team in a "shambles", well, you probably know that i feel differently about the bs spread by donohoe about the "mess", much of which was addressed after the 99 season. simply put, for reasons that didn't seem stupid at the time to many, donohoe and williams decided to dump a lot of guys he thought were either underperforming or didn't fit their system. that of course accelerated a lot of bonuses, making the cap issue difficult. they chose to do this, though; it wasn't forced upon them as so many would believe. they made choices at qb and defensive line (i.e., not pursuing ted washington even after he came crawling back to them looking for about 2 mill a year) that in the long run hamstrung the franchise.
look, you can spin it any way you want, and you can continue to fixate on the 8-8 season in 2000 and the underwhelming draft from that year. i'll continue to remind people that from the time butler and smith became head honchos in the organization (1987 or 1988), good things happened to the team. from the time donohoe joined the team, aside from the decent player or three plus a decent choice in mularkey, not much has happened in 5 years. they're headed for a 7-9/6-10 season, and frankly, that ain't good enough. 6-10 puts him 32-48 over 5 years (and 29-35 excluding the 3-13 season). 32-48 is a 40% winning percentage.
-
don't think this isn't being noticed by wilson. butler took over a 1-15 team, and donohoe took over an 8-8 team. it's hard to avoid the subsequent results at this point.
-
not that this is of the same magnitude, but does this game remind anyone of the 51-3 championship game against the raiders?
-
did big sam figure it was time to check out of this blowout? thoughts?
-
i know this is ugly and all, but i had no doubt beforehand that the bills were going to lose by 3 tds or so. the chargers are a far superior team, are at home, and are coming off of a bye. most importantly, they have a great, multi-faceted offense featuring one of the best players of the past 10 years and the best TE in football today. it's probably not wise to get too angry about this one. they could easily be 9-0, and beat the pats in NE by a score of 41-17. they're the best 5-4 team in memory.
-
And I strongly disagree with both yours.
Simply asking your QB to not throw over the middle late off hsi back foot to a blanketed receiver is hardly too high a standard. It's common sense.
And demanding a well-covered receiver make a circus catch on a foolishly thrown tipped ball while being interfered with or else he sucks is a little over the top.
the problem, simon, which you seem unwilling to come to grips with, is that he never makes any plays - no game changing ones, and certainly no highlight reel plays. he's a bust, basically. for the 35th pick overall (and projected by many to be drafted in the first round), he's done nothing. productivity is the name of the game in the nfl, and he simply hasn't produced.
-
that's big news, right?
-
This morning's article is his usual blathering and blasting TD and the Bills and coaches. Some of it, as usual, is well founded. Some isn't. But the main thrust was that Mike Williams is underperforming and the coaches and TD want to say that he is still good and this wasn't a demotion, which he repeatedly infers is just bull sh--. Which is true. He starts out the article ribbing TD for circulating an article at PFW about how poorly Bryant McKinnie has been playing. And ends it with an incredibly snide remark about how in wednesday's Pioneer Press there was a little blurb about how "Bryant McKinnie is quietly having an outstanding season", which he quoted.
He just failed to keep the last four words of that quote from the Press, which were "according to the coaches" in an article mostly criticizing the Vikings offense and the "laughable" prediction of their coach: "We will be excellent on offense. That's one thing I can stand here and promise you. I know offense.", and that Michael bennett will have 1600 yards.
Nice job, Jerry. Tool.
but mckinnie is actually playing well this year.
-
McKinnie was the pick. The guy flat out dominated on the field. It wasn't like these guys were 1 and 1A when the college football season ended. At some point Donahoe fell in love with Williams and found justification in picking a RT with a bad knee at #4 when a franchise LT was there.
Last year, the Bills conveniently left copies of a Minnesota newspaper story about disappointment in McKinnie's play out for the Buffalo media to see, in a strange attempt to gloat about having drafted an injury prone Mike Williams who had just that season showed up to camp weighing over 400 lbs., disappeared from camp, got suspended for a day then proceeded to take 4 dreadful weeks to get into playing shape before putting together his first decent season as a NFL RT. Well, 3/4 season at least.
Meanwhile, McKinnie has started 47 straight games(he didn't start his first game). The disappointment in him has been for his not yet reaching the elite status of Pace/Jones/Ogden. Truth of the matter is, the guy has allowed just 1 sack this year and is headed to the Pro Bowl. If he were in the AFC, we are probably talking about whether he is the best LT in the conference right now. McKinnie is getting it done and people won't be discussing whether he should take a paycut or be cut because he makes too much money for his position/performance.
interesting. i had wondered how mckinnie was doing this year. i hadn't heard any news from 1 bills drive, however.
to be fair, though, you have to admit that williams was playing pretty well from the second half of last season up until his injury, which is not something he could have avoided. to reiterate, any player in the nfl would have been hurt on that play (ie, it's hardly the case that he's out now because he's 'injury prone').
-
Yes, absolutely. So were Larry Little (a udfa), John Hannah, and some other OGs.
The problem is that MW was not drafted as such, he was a RT; another clear reach with a #4.
His deal was for 6 years. If he makes the switch and IS AS GOOD at OG as was Larry Little, this means he will have played 62 1/2% (3 1/2 seasons out of 6) of his time with the Bills out of position.
Who do you think should get the blame for this?
I am NOT trying to be combative. I merely want to know whether or not you think TD has any responsibility at all for the bad way this draft selection went down.
i don't disagree with you. the only mitigating circumstance that i'll raise is that williams did get hurt this year. it was a nasty injury, and there is not one player in the nfl who wouldn't have been hurt on the same play. i know you're not making the 'injury prone' charge, but many others have. sometimes, it's just bad luck. it's hard to blame any for that except the fates. as for williams himself, while he may not have played up to his draft slot, he played well the second half of last year and looked very good in the first game this year. my sense is that he was due for a big season. the severe high ankle sprain he suffered will probably be with him all year, so he's not going to bounce back fully before the end of the season. with the bills luck, they'll cut him and he'll go elsewhere and stay healty as well as become dominant.
-
Thats definately an issue. But I think PW would still be productive in 3-4 years in limited circumstances. In 3-4 years would he be worth the $$$, maybe, maybe not. But this year he sure would have been.
As another example, take the Red Sox. If they had paid Pedro this offseason, they may have repeated. In 1-2 years, Pedro will be useless, unless he closes.
But sometimes you have to see the here and now, versus always planning for a future that may never come. Take you shot. We needed an uber-defense this year for JP to succeed (See Bears, Chicago). We don't have that.
Also, as a side note, we went for it in 1999, and I respect John Butler so much for that. If that play in Tennessee is called properly, its Bills-Rams in the Bowl and there's not too many of us on this board that wouldn't suffer through a couple 3-13's for just one title.
i also love butler for going for it that year, but there was no way the bills would have gotten past the colts the next week. the bills were a horrible dome stadium team throughout the 90s, and had been blasted badly by the colts earlier that year in indy. they also matched up poorly against jacksonville.
-
2 seasons from now is practically an eternity. sometimes you've gotta overpay for the now. otherwise you run the risk of being in perpetual rebuilding mode (see bills, buffalo).
-
I can only imagine the 'tard fest we'd have seen around here (which would still be going on because Williams AND McKinnie would be message board Pro Bowlers) had we picked ANY other position at that spot.
As far as trading down goes, it takes two to tango. Looking at that draft, there wasn't a single "ready to make an impact" guarantee at four. Peppers was arguably the only one in the draft.
and to show you how hard these things are to predict, everybody - and i mean everybody - lashed out at cincy for drafting levi jones as high as they did. these things are really hard to predict. as for williams, he was playing pretty well this year but unfortunately got hurt. there isn't a player in the nfl who wouldn't have been hurt on that play in tampa.
-
2002 was a horrible draft. there are always going to be guys who pan out, but the number of guys who were busts was very, very high. charles grant for NO should be added to the boldface names, by the way. duckett should be dropped - the only place where he's not considered a huge disappointment is fantasy football. napoleon harris is also terrible and should be dropped. haynesworth has also disappointed, and ashley lelie has not been nearly as good as expected (although he seems to be doing ok this season). kendall simmons has been a pretty good player for pitt, so i'd add him.
sigh ...
in The Stadium Wall Archives
Posted
http://www.gbnreport.com/2006projection.html
anyone know if rod wright is any good?