MattM
-
Posts
2,832 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Gallery
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by MattM
-
-
Basically, if we expect a first round pick to come in and be a #1 receiver, it is rare that this happens.
We need a contributor particularly on third down and in the red zone.
There are many examples of rookie receivers who are strong contributors. I can think of Plexico Burress being that kind of receiver as a rookie in Pittsburgh, Steve Smith for the Giants last year and Greg Jennings with the Packers, Chris Chambers of Miami, Andre Johnson and Marques Colston.
I believe a #2 wasn't addressed in free agency due to the pricey market that developed for some mediocre talent at the position.
I am all for fortifying either side of the line early but a WR/TE is surely on the radar in the first three picks.
Wasn't Burress' rookie year somewhat of a bust? 22 catches for 273 yards and 0 TDs, and he was a Top 10 pick, if I recall correctly. How is that a good rookie year by any stretch?
-
I have not fact checked this, but I bet the $9 Billion is heavily concentrated in the large market teams that are partly financing their own new stadiums....the NFL contributes about $150M of the costs for a new stadium on average--but more and more owners are financing a part on their own...when a part is $500M like the Cowboys Stadium - that's a big chunk of the debt.
Ralph is probably not carrying much debt at all...an interesting advantage for small market teams with supportive governments...
I thought I'd read that Ralph has little or no debt on the team, so if that's the case (and I'm sure he's not alone), then there must be some teams that are close to half their value in debt. While the NFL is hugely popular, you never know what a downturn could cause in terms of economic havoc even for them. Perhaps this is part of why Goodell is fighting so hard to sweep Spygate under the rug--that kind of news ain't good for business......
-
The lifelong Pats* fan part might actually explain why he never came forward on his own in the fall--imagine how you'd feel as a Bills fan and you got your dream job working for them, only to find out they were a bunch of cheaters, willing to do anything (legal or not ) to win.....
-
Can't disagree. What if the Cowboys want to trade up, then we do this?
#22-James Hardy WR
#28-Malcolm KellyWR
#42- Fred Davis TE
#72- Dre Moore DT
#73- Geno Hayes OLB
#111- Owen Schmitt FB
#138- Justin King CB
#142- Chris Harrington DE
#170- Erik Ainge QB
One of those two 3rd round picks and one of those 5th round picks went Jacksonville for Stroud. Not saying we won't get them back (for ex., by trading JP for a 3, but probably a later 3 than the one we lost, and by getting a comp. pick for Gandy's loss last year (I've seen us getting a late 4th for this on other boards)), but at the moment, we ain't got them.
-
Not only that, I found it on the most played page.....
-
I can honostly see the Bills taking a step back this year. I know that the draft is still two weeks away and the June 1st deadline has yet to pass. But does anyoner eallly think we can replace all the players, TALENTED players,we lost with draft picks and other teams cuts and still be a playoff team?
I would love to see the Bills go 10-6 or better and make a run in the playoffs, but I think common sense tells me they have too many holes to fill this year.
But then again, they may catch lightning in a bottle and do better than most people expect. I hope so.
If we draft Patrick Willis and trade for Turner or instead draft Antonio Pittman or Irons then I'd say that the only position we haven't at least stayed the same talent-wise at is CB. IMHO, Willis, Crowell and Ellington would be at least as effective as Fletcher, Spikes and Ellington or Fletcher, Ellington, Crowell, our two LB combos last year. Don't get me wrong--I loved TKO when he was here, but he was just not the same player last year. Ellington looked like a promising rookie and should be even better with another year under his belt. Willis being a high draft pick (for a reason) should be able to fill in for Fletch. The other Willis did not have a great year for us last year (the Jets games excepted) and I think Turner or one of the rookies, along with a steadier does of A-Train, would be his equal or better. As for Nate's loss, we clearly did not compensate for that so far this offseason, and likely won't. We'll be relying on our scheme and getting to the QB better than we did last year, which may be helped by the acquisition of D. Walker (27 sacks or so from the DT spot in his career) and the return of McCargo, who had a rep. as a similar penetrating DT in college. As that also illustrates, we have also upgraded our D-line at least slightly with those two being available this year.
With that, no one will deny that we also upgraded our O-line. This should help both JP and whoever our RB is immensely. We also seem to be getting no credit for our increase in experience. Our players will also have one full year in our systems on both sides of the ball under their belts and our young guys, especially our rookie defenders (Whitner, Simposon, K. Williams, Ellington) and JP, who each effectively had their first years as starters last year, will take a big step up in my opinion based on that experience. We had the second youngest team in the League last year and at times it showed. Young guys do have a tendency to get older and more experienced and I think we see a big jump this year in that regard. Your biggest jump up the learning curve is from year 1 to 2 IMO, so I expect good things from that whole crew. That's one reason why I think it's actually likely that we'll actually get closer to the Pats this year (not saying we'll overtake them in 2007, but I fully expect us to by 2008)--they have played together for years and their learning curve is likely to stay relatively flight, albeit at a higher level. Can't wait for them to strap them on and see how we do.....
-
Here's some more numbers for you Matt:
This is the numbers for the last 5 years, once again. I've listed each team, and their record against teams coming off their bye week, as well as the teams they played. The numbers on the far right are the number of games against teams in the same division, same conference (out of division) and out of conference, and the total number of games in each catergory is at the bottom of those columns. I also listed the number of games teams have played against teams coming off their bye week and which teams they were at the very bottom.
You'll notice that the Bills, Cowboys and Chargers have had the duty of playing teams coming off byes the most, (9 times each!) with the Bills by far having the worst record at 2-7, while DAL and SD both were 6-3 in those games. Some things I noticed were that the Bills have played more teams coming off their bye in the division than anyone else (not to mention 2 more added on to that total this year), and other than Minnesota, we've played at least 2 more of those games than all other teams in the league. Minnesota was the only team other than us that had to play one team after their bye 3 consecutive years, and only Atlanta had to play Carolina two years in a row. That seems very strange, since we're now going to be playing NE after their bye for the fourth straight year. Another strange thing was that Pittsburgh has only had to play a team coming off their bye once in the last 5 years. What is up with that? Of course, in the original post ESPeculatioN pointed out that Pittsburgh has to play teams coming off their bye 4 times in 2007. I also tallied up the number of times teams in both conferences had to play teams coming off their bye and for that stat it was dead even, 80 per league. Tell me what you think...
Teams playing teams coming off their bye week:
Arizona 0-3 bal, sea, stl 2d 0c 1oc
Atlanta 1-5 car, car, det, det, no, stl 3d 3c
Baltimore 3-2 cin, cle, den, no, sd 2d 2c 1oc
Buffalo 2-7 bal, hou, mia, ne, ne, ne, nyj, phi, sd 5d 3c 1oc
Carolina 0-3 no, phi, tb 2d 1c
Chicago 4-1 mia, min, sf, sf, ten 1d 2c 2 oc
Cincinnati 1-4 cle, cle, hou, ind, ten 2d 3c
Cleveland 3-3 chi, cin, kc, oak, pit, sd 2d 3c 1oc
Dallas 6-3 ari, ari, buf, det, hou, ne, nyg, was, was 3d 3c 3oc
Denver 0-3 bal, min, ne 0d 2c 1oc
Detroit 3-2 chi, jac, min, nyg, oak 2d 1c 2oc
Green Bay 4-1 buf, chi, mia, sea, was 1d 1c 3oc
Houston 1-3 ind, jac, min, ten 3d 0c 1oc
Indianapolis 3-0 cin, dal, tb 0d 1c 2oc
Jacksonville 3-1 hou, ind, kc, ten 3d 1c
Kansas City 3-2 buf, buf, cle, cle, tb 0d 4c 1oc
Miami 1-5 atl, gb, gb, nyg, nyj, ten 1d 1c 4oc
Minnesota 2-4 car, det, gb, gb, gb, nyj 4d 1c 1oc
New England 3-3 buf, ind, no, nyj, pit, stl 2d 2c 2oc
New Orleans 2-2 bal, car, den, tb 2d 0c 2oc
NY Giants 2-1 atl, dal, mia 1d 1c 1oc
NY Jets 1-3 bal, dal, jac, sd 0d 3c 1oc
Oakland 1-2 den, den, sd 3d
Philadelphia 2-1 atl, dal, nyg 2d 1c
Pittsburgh 0-1 sf 0d 0c 1oc
San Diego 6-3 den, no, nyj, oak, oak, phi, pit, pit, stl 3d 3c 3oc
San Francisco 3-3 ari, chi, kc, kc, sea, tb 2d 2c 2oc
Seattle 2-3 ari, mia, min, stl, was 2d 2c 1oc
St. Louis 3-2 jac, pit, sf, sea, sea 3d 0c 2oc
Tampa Bay 3-3 atl, atl, car, cin, det, phi, 3d 2c 1oc
Tennessee 3-4 ari, cin, dal, hou, jac, oak, was 2d 2c 3oc
Washington 2-4 chi, ind, kc, nyg, phi, sf 2d 2c 2oc
63 52 45
9 Buffalo, Dallas, San Diego
7 Tennessee
6 Atlanta, Cleveland, Miami, Minnesota, New England, San Francisco, Tampa Bay, Washington
5 Baltimore, Chicago, Cincinnati, Detroit, Green Bay, Kansas City, Seattle, St. Louis
4 Houston, Jacksonville, New Orleans, NY Jets
3 Arizona, Carolina, Denver, Indianapolis, NY Giants, Oakland, Philadelphia
1 Pittsburgh
That's great work, dude. Many, many thanks for pulling all this together. It confirmed one thing that I suspected, namely that we have really gotten hosed in this regard. I'm surprised that the Patsies have gotten stuck 6 times in the past--maybe the "love" from Park Ave. wasn't so strong a few years ago. Only half jokingly, you ought to consider sending this to Marv and the staff, as they may want to gently remind the League office of this for the 2008 schedule somehow, since I suspect we will be alone at the top after 2007, since we have two more this year.....
-
This is getting ridiculous. If you believe this is anything other than complete coincidence then you must believe that there is some conspiracy either against the Bills or for the Patriots, or both. If you believe the NFL is trying to get the Patriots an easy schedule, or to win more games, they would never put the Bills against them after the bye, the Pats have won about 9 of the last 10 games against the Bills regardless of when or where. If you believe the league has it in for the Bills, again, they would never put the Patriots as the team that has the extra week to prepare for the Bills, the Pats beat them every time anyway, they would put a team that the Bills have a good chance to beat, like the Fins or the Jets.
So, in other words, this is a criminally stupid topic, inference or suggestion.
For whatever reason, the odds of this happening randomly 4 years in a row are 1 in 4100 or so (1/8 per year each year for 4 years). Doesn't sound too much like coincidence to me. I'd really love to see which teams get stuck playing multiple opponents after a bye each year (like us seemingly every year--again, statistically it should be one each) and which don't face anyone coming off a bye (like the Pats at least this year). That's where there's something screwy. Combine that with all of the other evidence (horrible pro-Pats officiating in many of their games over a number of years, which no one can really credibly deny, even Pats homers--if you think this is just a sour whine complaint of Bills fans, go ask fans of other teams who the "luckiest" team is in the League when it comes to officiating--getting tons of supplemental draft picks each year through the supposed "black box" award process while teams like us get stiffed (remember how much/little we got for losing Phat Pat and JJ, each among the biggest FAs the years we lost them,), etc.) and it starts to add up. Money talks in the NFL like anywhere else and the big market owners that have it seem to be able to call the shots.....
-
What I'd like to see is how often a team has had to play other team's coming off their bye the last 4-5 years, as I seem to recall us getting reamed every year in that regard. Wasn't it a couple of years ago that we had something like 4 or 5 games like this (so, I'm exaggerating, but it was at least 3, when statistically it should be 1)? How does that not get evened out over time?
Once again, not surprised to see the Patsies "luck out" in this matter--how is it they always catch us off a bye and yet this year don't play anyone coming off a bye? I honestly wouldn't be surprised if we find out 10 or 20 years from now that there was something fishy going on between Boston and Park Avenue.....
-
we traded spikes because he was over 30 and was at his best as a blitzing linebacker. after the first play of the year did we ever see spikes blitz again????
Don't get me wrong, I was the biggest Takeo fan ever--I was doing cartwheels the year we signed him and thought he played great for us pre-injury. It was sad last year, but you just didn't see him making plays. What I saw a lot of last year was Takeo getting there a step or two slow, just as the play was over. In all honesty, I really don't think our D will be all that off from losing him.
-
I'm calling bs on this one.
Jets just got Thomas Jones and have Leon Washington. That's a pretty solid combo. It makes zero sense to add another back to split carries, plus Turner will need a new contract to justify giving away a high pick.
The Cowboys have Jones and Barber. If they get Turner, they will have absolutely no leverage in trading one of their two backs.
San Diegos is just trying to drive up the price by generating competition. Don't believe the media. They are simply people like people on this board except they can type better.
I agree--I'm calling BS on this as well. No way that Dallas or the Jets have any business being interested in Turner considering the backs they already have. It makes absolutely no sense. I see this as AJ Smith trying to make us think there's real competition and a real market for Turner. My guess is that the "sources" responsible for the article are the Chargers themselves.....
-
another player I really like in the 4th, maybe the 6th is Mike Walker out of UCF, at 6'2" 208, his only knock was his speed, but then at the combines he ran a 4.35 40. He was UCFs only real threat this past year, with Moffett throwing him the ball (who let me say might have the worse throwing motion ever) he still had over 1000 yards recieving.
Zemaitis is a Rochester guy (native) as well, but didn't he pretty much ride the pine last year in Tampa--I thought I read about him having trouble even getting activated for games. If that's the case, no way you trade an emerging playmaker for him.....
-
Doesn't anyone wonder where they get all this money from year after year?
Big Market Team--that's all you need to know. A waiting list for season tix that's years long, the pricing power to charge through the roof for regular ticket holders let alone luxury box holders. It's the wave of the future, boys--we cut Takeo because we can't afford to take a chance on his injury and still have to pay him $4.6 million this year, while jackasses like Snyder will be able to spend to their heart's content, year in, year out. The old days of the NFL as a relatively level playing field are soon to be long gone (if not already)....
-
Garcia has a rag arm.
Point? HE did well in this system. And Im not countin on much if anything outta KH except depth,.
as for cap casualties- same goes here for Walker. Signing Reagor and the push of Bunkley to the starting spot had Walker outside lookin in.
Pushing the unabashed homers aside for a minute- I seriously do wish Walker and I guess that means your team to a degree, best of luck. Walker was a class guy here and all I was tryin to say was that the excitement about obtaining him was surprising given his ability.
Ahhhh, Bunkley--I remember last year when the Eagles staff was getting fluffed by ESPN and all the pundits for having such a great draft, getting both Bunkley and Winston Justice, meanwhile we were getting savaged for ours. I myself even wished we'd made the picks you had. From what I hear, Bunkley needs to step it up or be labeled a bust and Justice was no great shakes either, while we got starting production out of our 4, 5, 6 and 7s, in addition to Whitner. So just goes to show you never know what you're getting until they strap on the pads....
-
Correct
On the website, it also says that his wife has an MBA from Wharton (as does mine, so I feel for the guy--only kidding about that last part, dear!).....
-
We just cleared some cap room, we only have 2 RB's on the roster...I expect Chris Brown signed by the end of the week
I would agree--I suspect that the Spikes move may have been linked to that....
-
Ya'll should read his some of his business bio on his website. He has a degree in civil engineering and owned his own enginnering/construction firm before it was bought out. The company that bought him out then made him a VP and Chief Development Officer.
I didn't know he came from Walker Construction in Walterboro, SC. If ya'll remember the movie Radio, that's either where he's from or where they shot the movie, I can't remember between the two.
He sounds like a real smart dude.
And his wife has an MBA from Wharton as well.....
-
1,2,3,3,4,6,7 atm so that makes 7..
I think we got an extra 7 for the McGahee trade this year as well.....
-
How about a straight up trade for Darwin Walker?
This is what I'm hoping, but suspect that it will be a 5th or 6th the more I think about it.....
-
No, we're more of the Montreal Expos.
I'm not quite sure that's accurate either, as the guys who leave would then have to be successful elsewhere--when has that really happened? JJ left and has spent two years on IR, we all saw Bledsoe's humiliation last year, Milloy supposedy had a horrible year last year in ATL, etc.
-
I'd say you can count on two--our first round pick and the law of averages saying that one other guys steps up and becomes a decent first year starter. I think we got lucky/spoiled last year getting 4-5 guys coming in and contributing big right away. If, as most agree, we have 4 holes to fill (LB, DT, CB and RB), that leaves two to fill in FA and/or someone on the team now stepping up. Not an impossible task, but not an easy one, either. Personally I think we'll be anywhere from 6-10 to 10-6 next season. I do think, however, that with losing no one of import next offseason (no big names are up for FA) and a bunch of extra picks (two thirds and seventh for WM and probably at least a 4 or 5 this year for TKO), we get much better in 2008....
-
Simply looking at player loss vs. player gain doesn't tell the whole story. Most of the players on the team are young, and they get incrementally better every year by adding experience, strength, yadda yadda.
We can lose more and better players than we add and still be a better team next year.
It's that same thinking that leads everyone to believe the patriots will be so great next year because of the new free agents they signed.......People forget that the team is, overall, a little older than average, and the rest of their players are getting incrementally worse - just a little slower, just a little more injury prone.
I'm not saying we are definitely going to be better next year......I'm saying we shouldn't think the team is doomed to take a step backward jsut because we lost more than we gained.
I agree--folks who are saying the "sky is falling" aren't taking into account the facts that (a) we had the second youngest team in the League last year and those young guys like Pennington (who may still end up starting), Whitner, Simpson, K. Williams and Youboty and McCargo who didn't get on the field much for different reasons are only going to get better with a full season and full NFL offseason under their belts and (b) the whole team will be carrying over both offensive and defensive schemes from last year, unlike 2006 when they were learning new systems on both sides of the ball. Both of those facts, especially together, should count for something--perhaps not fully negating our losses, but they seem to not get any credit at all for this from the naysayers, nor often do the signings we did make, like Dockery (I did cartwheels when I heard about that one) or even Walker (potential starter--must have some potential talent to have been a 2nd round pick)/Whittle (at worst a potential backup with experience at a number of positions).
As I see it, we still need help in 4 areas--at least one LB, a CB, a RB and a DT. We should get immediate help at one of those spots via the draft's #12 pick and perhaps one other draftee will step up and contribute right away--we got very lucky last year to have 4-5 guys step up right away, but I'm not even counting on that again this year. That leaves two spots to come via the rest of FA (Chris Brown or Ian Scott perhaps, once TKO and his salary are gone--I'll miss him, as he was one of my faves, but if he's still not over his injury then unfortunately it is time to move on) and players already on the team, like Youboty/Greer or Ki. Thomas or McCargo at DT. Not saying that either of those are likely, but they are possible.
Personally, I suspect that all of these moves are about two things. The first is positioning this team to win in 2008 and not necessarily next year--if you'll notice, now that Willis is gone we've got no major FA's unsigned going into next year and potentially a large number of extra picks this year and next. The second is that this is the Bills new small market team strategy of needing to win with young draftees since they can't financially keep up with the big boys. Those of you who don't get that need to learn more math--if the Bills are run as a business, as all team's ultimately are, there's just no way Buffalo can compete under the new CBA on a straight up competitive economic basis so they need to draft well and often and keep recycling young talent. While this certainly isn't "fair" or what we're used to under the old salary cap era, money talks and that's the way it's going be. It's possible for the Bills to succeed doing this, but it will be very difficult to do so year in and year out. Think MLB and you'll get the idea. Waiting for the Jerry Jones's, Dan Snyder's and Bob Kraft's of the world to think of the sport over their own team and wallet and you'll be waiting until the end of time, 'cause it ain't going to happen. All you Yankee fans out there now understand how the rest of MLB feels--ain't so much fun, is it? And some of those jokers wonder why MLB's ratings have been sinking like a stone for years. Not too much fun when your team has a snowballs chance in h*ll to make the playoffs, but some teams have an economic birthright to the postseason year in, year out.
-
WOW. What a difference some intelligence and humility make. Nice read:
http://www.gazettetimes.com/articles/2007/...u02_ellison.txt
I think this is what Marv means when he says he wants "character guys'. I've also read elsewhere that Ellison realizes he was a little light in the seat last year and wants to play this year at 230 instead of the 215-20 range folks had him in last year--hopefully it won't slow him down any. Articles like this make it easier to root for him. If Marv and Modrak can come up with a few more Ellison's, Pennington's and Kyle Williams' on Day Two this year, I think this team might have a decent future. Perhaps not this year, but I suspect that 2008 may be their real goal--if you look at our FAs coming up for renewal next year, you'll see that now that Willis is gone, we've really got everybody we need under contract into 2008.
-
.... and I must admit that I was in the camp that wanted us to draft him last year--what a bunch of Bunk!
http://www.philly.com/dailynews/sports/200...GURATIVELY.html
Players in attendence today
in The Stadium Wall Archives
Posted
Were Poz and Peters no-shows? (or at least not seen by CB?)