dave mcbride
-
Posts
23,203 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Gallery
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by dave mcbride
-
-
lindell was 24 for 28 this year - 86%. that's the 6th best percentage in the league, and he plays in one of the windiest and rainiest stadiums in the nfl. everyone misses an easy one once in a while, and the one he missed was hardly a pressure kick given that the bills were up at the time. by definition, pressure kicks are the ones at or near the end of games that either put you ahead when you're behind/tied or tie it up when you're 3 points down. he wasn't the one who gave up the 58 yard run or the one who completely missed seeing an oncoming blitzer.
-
moulds does not have to restructure. the bills do not face ANY cap problems. there is no dead money, they're in good cap shape already, the cap is going up, and they have no first round pick.
-
this has to be one of the more comical threads i've read in some time. the fallacy behind all of this is that somehow moulds' cap # is a problem for the bills. the bills are in great cap shape, have no first rounder in next year's draft, and will have no dead money unless they cut either drew or moulds (ruben brown's charge to this year's cap represents the last of it). and that ain't gonna happen. what everyone needs to remember is that the bills cap numbers are all pretty irrelevant - they're like the eagles at this point: way under with no one threatening the structure.
as for moulds, he was at one point in his career -- 1998, 2000, and 2002, to be precise -- one of the 5 best receivers in the league. now he's probably in the top 15 at worst. you put him in the rams offense, and he'll average 14-15 yds/reception. he doesn't play in that sort of offense anymore - he plays in one in which the qb is expected to be a caretaker only lest he singlehandedly screw up the production of a moderately productive offensive unit. by the way, not having an effective receiving te has not been helpful to moulds. the last effective receiver they had at that position was riemersma (not great, but an effective 12 yd/reception receiver and good for 38-50 catches when healthy), and his last year here was 2002. go figure. and by the way, before he got hurt in 03, moulds was sensational -- he played great against ne and jax, and pretty much won the game for them against cincy in OT (the play he got hurt on).
-
McGahee looks like he will pan out. But for various reasons, the NFL success window is only a few years save for teams that have exceptional quarterbacking.
My rules for an offense:
Get a great center.
Get good guards.
An OL that traps and pulls.
Get a heady qb - I don't give a da*n about arm strength.
Get wr's and te's that confound safeties and lb's and curl back for a 5 to 10 yard gain - reliably.
Get a fb who blocks, can catch, and run him 100 times a year.
I want to own the clock, to keep my defense rested and keep other team's offensive big noises on the bench.
My 2 cents.
you just described the jets offense. the problem is, their qb's arm strength is a real problem, even though he is heady. believe it or not, arm strength is a real asset in the nfl.
-
http://www.profootballweekly.com/PFW/The+W...m?mode=nfcnorth
Vikings search for explanation for McKinnie’s road woes
Minnesota
If measuring strictly ability, the Vikings know their top offensive lineman is OLT Bryant McKinnie. But McKinnie’s lack of consistency and horrible performances on the road have the Vikings scratching their heads and wondering when “Mount” McKinnie might realize his incredible potential. Heading into Week 14, McKinnie, 25, had surrendered 19 1/2 sacks in the 28 games since his rookie season — shortened to eight games by a contract holdout — after not allowing a single sack in college at Miami (Fla.). Minnesota head coach Mike Tice, a former NFL tight end and OL coach, considered McKinnie a franchise pillar when the Vikings drafted him in 2002. But he struggled with an ankle injury and fatigue last season, and McKinnie admits he is having a lot of trouble performing away from the Metrodome. Even when he has played well, McKinnie has performed below expectations.
-
A full year working under McNally could pay some dividends for a guy with Peter's surreal size/athletic ability. But I don't think there's a chacne in hell they'd hang him out at LT, particularly if they decide to stick with Drew for another year. I'm beginning to think that our next LT is already on our roster in the form of MW, and that this is exactly what Donahoe/Modrak envisioned when they drafted him knowing that they weren't going to give Jennings a bank a couple years down the road. If McNally can get MWilliams anywhere close to his potential we're set at LT, and the possibility of Peters getting a serious look at RT becomes verrrrrry intriguing.
Cya
simon - don't drink the kool-aid. williams is an RT. he's not as good an LT as jennings. and as for the jason peters option, i have two names for you - mike rockwood and corey louchiey. he wasn't drafted for a reason, and even if he has the physical ability to play the position, i guarantee you that he'll be absolutely terrible next year. and next year is not a rebuilding season.
-
My suspiscion is that Jennings isn't injury prone, but that he has a low tolerance for pain relative to other NFL players. I remember a game a couple years back(believe it was home vs. Dolphins 02') where Ruben Brown had to berate Jennings into playing thru pain and finishing a game.
I thought that said it all. This guy goes out of the lineup too quickly. I think it's fair to assume that the last two seasons will be as good as it gets for Jennings playing thru pain because he is playing for the contract of his life, and yet, he missed much of the second half of last year and has come out of the lineup a number of times this year for what I think it's safe to say are minor aches and pains that a lot of players play thru.
Jennings is a talented player, but clearly his value is diminished by the fact that he comes out of the lineup a lot at a position where continuity during the season is so important. Now that the Bills have a real NFL OL coach in place, it wouldn't surprise me in the least to see them let Jennings walk despite his talent. Hard to justify $5-$6M per season on a long term deal for a guy who you can assume is going to miss a lot of snaps.
I'll say it, I don't think it is a coincidence at all that Jason Peters has been getting PT late in the season and that he got the mop-up duty normally reserved for Marcus Price last weekend. The little bit I have seen of Peters at tackle tells me that this guy has the quick feet and explosiveness to be a dynamic player. I think the issue is does he have the focus to take a big step next season. He's had a couple penalties, and got away with at least one false start in the Seattle game so it's not a given.
I think McNally will have a huge say in how aggressively the Bills pursue re-signing Jennings.
for all the talk about jennings being injury prone, he's actually missed about 6 games in four years. it's a myth, basically. he missed a few in season one, one in season 2, and 1-2 last year (i can't remember exactly, but no more than 2), and none this year (although he was knocked out of a game by a concussion). as for the mental acumen of ruben brown in assessing other players, i wouldn't rely on it. jennings is an excellent LT who we should slap the franchise tag on if necessary. we have no - and i mean no - other realistic options at securing an upper tier LT. walter jones and orlando pace are not coming to buffalo. beyond them, you're scraping the bottom of the barrel or praying that a second round draft choice succeeds. the bills aren't in any cap trouble at all and should be able to easily afford it (especially since they won't have any notable dead money next year).
-
he's an outstanding player, who despite myths floating around on this board, rarely gets hurt (he's only missed a half dozen games in 4 years). continuity on the offensive line is a great thing, and he's become an upper tier LT.
-
Hey DM – I appreciate the comments about not taking it personally- likewise from here. Get as riled up as you want – it won’t bother me.
I think that in the post below you make an important distinction – “dead money on the cap” versus “the cap itself.” Even if they have no dead money on the cap, the salary cap remains very relevant if they are overpaying their players on the roster in terms of productivity. There has to be some reason why they’re not successful when they (essentially) spend to the limit of the cap. I agree that Donahoe’s dead money excuse is played – at this point, he has to look in the mirror and accept that the team has underperformed because of decisions he has made (and not blame it on the prior regime). The entire NFL has moved more towards the Philly/Tennessee/New England model of not overpaying one player, not mortgaging the future and building through middle class depth.
I suspect if you polled the other 30 NFL GM’s, all 30 would say that Eric Moulds has had the better career when compared to David Givens. I also suspect that given the choice in 2004 between Moulds at 8 mill and Givens at .6 mill, all 30 would take Givens. Moulds is not ten times the player Givens is right now – they’re probably pretty close (their 2004 stats sure are). The overall point is that sure Moulds would be productive on the Pats, and perhaps more productive than Givens due to Moulds’ being more talented, but I don’t think that organization would devote 8 million dollars to one wide receiver, and Givens has a brighter future. Their entire receiving corps has a cap figure of less than 8 million and they’re still quite productive. This is Donahoe getting schooled as a GM both in terms of drafting players and assigning value to free agents.
EM always has been and remains an outstanding player who has had a remarkable career given he’s played in a windy stadium with below average QB’s the entire time. I would never say a bad word about the guy – he’s one of my favorite NFL players going. Moulds is however a good example of what the root cause is with Buffalo when compared to Givens. On the one hand you have a great player on the downside of his career being paid for past performance, and in the other you have an improving player on the upside producing far more than he is paid. When in the end each team is allowed to spend 80.5 million total, the team with more Givens’s is winning, and this is no surprise whatsoever.
these are all well argued points, although i disagree in one important aspect: moulds is on pace to get 92 receptions and 1300 yards and 8 TDs while playing for one of the least effective qbs and offenses in the league. that's pretty damn good. remember, bledsoe is not only terrible. because of him, the bills are actively avoiding the passing game because they don't trust him. moulds is not that old, and it's quite conceivable that (barring injury) he'll remain an upper echelon player when he's 34 years old. like i said, jimmy smith is 36, and TO is as old as moulds. jerry rice was excellent into his early-mid 30s, as was chris carter as well as numerous other big over-the-middle guys who had defense-stretching abilities in their repertoire. as for paying certain players a lot, think about the teams you mention -- TO and McNabb have huge salaries, as do McNair, Brady, and Ty Law. they're all elite players, difference makers rather than effective cogs (like givens). as for the titans, certain players had huge contracts -- kearse and eddie george in particular. they're gone, but that team had their best days when they were in their prime (kearse still is, of course). samari rolle has a huge contract too, come to think of it.
-
How on earth can you say that? The cap is always relevant in the NFL. You might argue that people overrate it, but you're going way too far. To say that no one understands it is inaccurate - no one is buying it because it is a ludicrous position to take.
The Pats have David Givens at a cap figure of 600,000 per year. The Bills have Eric Moulds at 8 million. Their production at their position is around the same in 2004. That gives New England 7 million+ extra to spend at other positions. Do you honestly think that this is not one of the relevant reasons why New England is successful and the Bills' aren't?
read my post - i said that it isn't relevant to the bills at present, nor will it be next year. their only dead money next year will be in all likelihood bledsoe, and it won't be that much. they also don't have a first round pick next year, so there will be no big bonuses. as for moulds v. givens, give me a break. moulds is ten times the player givens is. if you put moulds on the pats, he'd be recognized quickly for the great player he is. a better person to compare him to is jimmy smith, one of the greats of recent times who suffered through the lean times and is now leading the league in ypc at the age of 36.
i'm sorry if i sounds a little perturbed. i don't profess to understand all the ins and outs of the cap, but i find it ridiculous that people on this board to pontificate about it ad nauseum without knowing anything (i'm not directing this at you). i suppose this goes back to when donohoe came in and blamed everything on the cap and used it as cover to cut average if productive vets who performed at an adequate to good level in the system they were in (holocek, jones, ted washington, and especially flutie). the wholesale jettisoning of the previous regime was a choice that was not forced on him - although i'll give you wiley (he did have to choose between wiley and moulds, and made the right choice. of course, he made the wrong qb choice - flutie was good for 6-8 wins at that time and in buffalo). he's been able to get the fans to drink the salary cap kool-ade, but i consider myself a proud teetotaler when it comes to that.
-
first off, if you keep him, he costs 5-6 million. if you get rid of him, he costs 8 million. so it's cheaper to keep him (not that the cap really matters that much). secondly, getting rid of good players is not a wise move. talk about new england all you want, but it's abundantly clear to me that they're winning because of three things -- a solid corps of longtime NE veterans who know the system and have talent (buschi, law, vrabel, mcginest, troy brown), tom brady, and coaching. the bills solid corps of longtime Bills veterans consists of eric moulds. the qb situation is a joke. and the coaching hasn't inspired me to compare it to NE's coaching yet (although i'm not particularly down on mularkey).
-
A month ago or so when we started 0-4 I suggested getting rid of Moulds for monetary reasons next year. I don't think one person agreed with me at the time and I could totally understand their thinking as well, but now that he's made these comments and is still set to make 8.5 million (this is still the key) next year are a lot of you starting to agree that he needs to be traded before next year?
excellent idea. let's get rid of all the competent players on the team, keep the cheap young ones who are weak to middling, and start over because it's so damn fun to obsess over high draft picks.
to reiterate something no one here seems to understand -- the cap is not an issue at all with this team as it currently stands, so the fact that x player makes y millions is completely irrelevant.
-
it may be the case that there is an expectation that he'll reshuffle his contract at the end of this season (he won't lose any money, of course) in a restructuring move to aid the team. that's an easy thing to do, and happens all the time. he has to agree to that, and while he may have indicated such earlier to donohoe, he can certainly change his mind. that's the card he holds. he's also on pace for 92 receptions and 1300 yards, so he'll have plenty of suitors lining up for his services. i have no doubt baltimore (especially them), SF, cleveland, and seattle would love to have him, and the bears could use him as well. others that come to mind include the raiders (jerry porter won't be around next year) and san diego (they need someone opposite mccardell, and reche caldwell is out for the year as i recall). kc could obviously use him, but they will probably be directing their resources to defense if they have any sense.
-
-
Bledsoe does need to go, but not until after June 2005 as a cap casualty so his bonus can be distributed over 3 seasons. It appears he is a $6+ million cap hit to stay (reasonable for a starting quality QB, but Bledsoe's play has not since late 2002 starter quality and likely will never be starter quality for the Bills), $4 million + if he is gone ASAP, and $3 million + if heis held and released as a cap casualty.
The million dollar difference in cap hit will determine whether our new players are long risk guys on the way out like Robinson at LB and Jenkins at S, or recent Pro Bowlers like Adams or Milloy (they are also on their way out but certainly more credble risks).
I think having Drew out ASAU (as soon as useful) makes a lot more sense than ASAP.
barry - the salary cap is not an issue next year. the bills will be fine if they cut him earlier than june 1. right now, they're not scheduled to have any dead money next year.
-
I think that you can not fall in love with players, you wish that certain ones could stay forever. But you have to look in todays salary cap NFL,at what each player costs and what they will be able to do in the future as well as now.
Are Moulds, Milloy and others worth the money now or next year. What is the upside of keeping them. NE won 2 SBs without anyone nearly as good as Moulds. Could we use his cap money to upgrade positions If not we keep him , if so he is gone. We are 3-6 with what we have now, it is not working
but moulds is clearly not the problem, and he's not showing signs of decline. in fact, he was the only guy scoring touchdowns in the first 4 games. he's still the same sort of player as terrell owens, and if you put him in the right sort of situation - i.e., the last 2 times the bills had competent passing games (1998 and 2002) - and he's a tremendous asset to the team. look at this way: the rams stunk up through 1998, and isaac bruce had been on the teams since 1993-1994. he was good all of that time. keeping him turned out to be a far better choice than ripping everything up and starting over. a similar thing could be said about marvin harrison. from 1996-1998, the colts were absolutely terrible, yet look at where they are now. conversely, the eagles (who coveted moulds before he was resigned by the bills in 2001), struggled for years without a receiver like moulds. they finally got one, and look at where they are now.
-
I think moulds will be traded. it won't be popular, but it might be smart.
if the bills trade travis henry and and Bledsoe AND eric moulds for a player and a first round pick, or a first and 4th or something like that, it would be good for the Bills in the end.
I'm not sure how I'd feel about it, but I do think this team needs to spend a high pick on a new FS prospect, or acquire a FS in FA.
Izelle won't be here next season, and coy is merely a ST player and a backup SS at best. Not big on drafting a lineman early when we can be players in FA. We need a C and LG and hopefully we'll be able to extend Jennings, who's one of the most underrated BIlls of all time.
I also think the Bills MUST trade or release Bledsoe. Don't even think of keeping him around as a backup. There's nothing scarier than a COLD Bledsoe.
Bring in a Dilfer guy and another middle-to late-round QB prospect to develop under losman. Garrard might be an intriguing prospect, if his value remains low.
you've got to be kidding. moulds is on pace for over 90 catches and 9-10 tds, is one of the better receivers in the league, and plays hurt. that's that wrong plan. getting better never means getting rid of your best players. he's not the problem; rather, he's key to any potential solution.
-
they drafted a second rounder this year who is hurt now, but who they're allegedly high on. sounds like he's no better and no worse than henry as an option.
-
-
yeah, they're great at what they do. not sure if you've heard penthouse, but that's the best of their records.
-
Alexander will likely be kept by Seattle. I'd expect maybe to see James go to Miami. The rest aren't as good as Henry and haven't made the Pro Bowl. Williams is a special case because of his drug history and the fact that he said he only wants to play 1 more season. No one will give up a lot to get him and I'd be willing to bet that the conditions a potential team places on him will make him think twice about coming back.
henry really wasn't a pro bowler - he was an alternate who got to go because priest holmes didn't go. he was the 4th choice in 2002 - hardly something to be crowing about.
a 3rd rounder is all i see them getting - he has some real skills, but he can't break big runs, he's a woeful blocker and receiver, and he's got a decent amount of mileage already with the nicks to go with it. in any event, i'd take a 3rd rounder - he was a very late 2nd round choice himself, so that would make a certain amount of sense. good running backs are a dime a dozen, and teams know it. henry is good (not great), but he's not really any better than anthony thomas.
-
hopkins is on the wrong side of 30 and just got hurt. he's been a great player, but i don't think he's the answer. and by the way, i honestly think that jennings is a very good player. he played very well against abraham in his last outing (he played hurt in the first jets game), and did well against the pats.
-
what's your alternative? because you know as well as i that someone will pay him that much and for good reason - credible LTs are - as always - a rare commodity in the NFL.
-
he's been nicked up a bit now and then but has never missed more than a couple of games after his rookie season. and those injuries were legitimate, meaning they weren't the product of some nebulous failing of his internal constitution. sometimes, when a player gets hurt more than once, that doesn't mean he's injury prone. to reiterate, after 2001, in which he missed something to the tune of 5 games (as I recall), he hasn't missed more than a game or two per season. that does not qualify as injury prone - rather, it's typical of all players in the league.
my 2 cents - jennings is a very good player who we should franchise. we'll definitely have the cap room to do it (the cap is not an issue with this team), and we should. the alternative is worse than grim. there will be no good LTs on the market, jennings is 50 times better than price, and we don't even have a first round pick. we'd be lucky to find a player as good as the 2000 version of John Fina. plus, it should be pretty clear to everyone that line continuity is of the utmost importance. think about it.
the facts about rian lindell
in The Stadium Wall Archives
Posted
when did he miss a pressure kick all season? what was the opponents' average drive start and kickoff return yardage average? in case you're interested, the bills gave up 18.3 yards/return, which was second best in the league.
24 out of 28 means exactly that -- he made 24 out of 28 kicks. 5 teams had a better kicking percentage. Pittsburgh was 10th, by the way.