mannc
-
Posts
15,640 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Gallery
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by mannc
-
-
So, how much does it change even if EJ starts? I say not by much.
I completely agree.
-
I didn't miss any point. I'm excited to see our QB of the future play New England at home on opening day. What don't you get about that? Would you rather watch Jeff tuel? Do you think we have a better chance to win with Ej? Do you want the Bills to win? You don't get the point.
Of course i don't want to see Tuel, i want to see EJ play when he is healthy and fully prepared to play. I can't think of a worse scenario for him than starting the opening game of the season coming of a knee injury, maybe not even fully healthy, against Belichick and Brady. Only good thing is that the game is at home, but that has not meant much vs the Pats. Can you really say that in this situation EJ gives them a much better chance to win?
-
It's amazing that you signed up for this board. Go away
You and the other homers missed my point, which was not a criticism of EJ. My point was that, as good as he may prove to be eventually, EJ is a very green rookie who will be starting his first NFL game--not exactly a sure-fire win.
-
Amazing how excited people are getting over the possibility that EJ will start vs the Pats, as if he was a seasoned NFL star rather than a rookie who has played a handful of series in two practice games. I am sure belichick is licking his chops, no matter which rookie starts. Gonna be a long season.
-
11.5 is generous, indeed. Tuel starting, and can you imagine what Brady will do to that secondary???
-
Dareus was a great pick for the Bills. Filled a big need and was considered a blue chip prospect by pretty much everyone. I remember Mike Mayock saying he was the best player in the draft after the selection. That said, his play has been a big disappointment. Knowing what they know now, no way would the Bills draft him at #3 again. I have been critical of Nix but this pick was not his fault. Dareus can play in the NFL, he's just an average defensive tackle and not the impact player Bills nation hoped he would be.
So it would be Buddy's fault only if he had been considered a "reach"at the time of the draft? I don't understand the logic.
-
People who use hindsight to criticize draft picks are morons. I'm glad Buddy is gone, so that's no defense of his decisions...but people make it sound like it was just so obvious who the probowlers were going to be at the time of the draft. Horsehockey.
And what should one use to criticize draft picks, if not hindsight? Or are we not allowed to criticize them at all?
-
I would rather have polamalu right now than any of those guys in their prime.
You are living in the past. Not a single GM in the league would take that trade.
-
long but very good article
Yep. All of the articles in the series are worth reading. So far, two Bills in the All-22. More to come?
-
Everyone misses on draft picks. What makes them a good FO is the ability to own up to the mistake and move on as quickly as possible.
Well, that and having a lot more first round hits than misses. It also helps to be able to pick up a franchise QB in round 2.
-
Not at all. I do think that you over-stated it in your OP, and that your subsequent posts have been more reasonable.
Fair enough. Now, I would love to read some comments from posters who have read the Grantland series.
-
Your reading comprehension leaves much to be desired. Apparently, criticizing Dareus (or the Bills' front office that drafted him) is off limits. We'll see how he performs this year.You say excuses. I say empathy & not being a heartless Richard. http://m.thepostgame...ackle-nfl-draft
Quick breakdown: this 22 year old had his father died at 6; his mother who was in a wheelchair died, his mentor die in a car crash, and just had his brother murdered. On too if that he was dirt poor, his mother couldn't work, & he had 7 siblings. This would have broken many people.
And answer this question, if Wilkerson had Edwards & Wanny and Dareus had Ryan & Pettine, would is more likely to benefit? The kid has show great flashes but to not acknowledge what he has grown through personally makes you a very cold person.
According to the OP, sacks for DTs don't count.
-
How many other DT's/interior rushers get 11 sacks their first two seasons? Come on.
Sapp had 12, Suh had 14, Cortez Kennedy had 7.5.
Although hardly irrelevant, number of sacks is not really a great performance measurement for interior linemen. If you are trying to say that those numbers show that Dareus has lived up to expectations as the number three pick in an absolutely loaded draft, I'd have to strongly disagree. Again, I didn't say the Bills should kick this guy to the curb, but if they had it to do all over again (and of course they don't) there is no way the Bills would take Dareus. In fact, I doubt he would even go in the first round.
-
I do agree its a good list. But I do find it funny that it has turned into another way to bash Dareus. MD has more sacks through 2 years than MW. And as fat & annoying as he is, Rex Ryan is a top 3 DC. MD has played for a 1st time NFL DC & a DC who was 10 years removed from the game. Dareus is also a year younger & I'm pretty sure Wilkerson didnt have his brother murdered last year.
Fans need to get of this kid's back. Any team would take him in a second. Hopefully he has someone made peace with all the tragedies in his life & with a DC with recent success in the NFL, his game will take off this year. But the fact is that this 22 yo kid has gone through more death & heartache than most people will their entire lives.
The excuses for this guy are endless. What can't be denied is that, in the most talent-laden draft in the last decade, Dareus was picked third overall and he has been a big disappointment so far. Does that mean he will never be any good? No, of course not. But the early returns are not promising, especially when his performance is compared with other players taken later in the first round that year. My intent was not to trash Dareus, but to point out that, as a Bills fan, it is painful to read about the exploits of players on other teams drafted after Dareus. Heck, Wilkerson was taken only three picks before Aaron Williams.
-
ESPN/Grantland's Robert Mays is doing a series of excellent, in-depth profiles on 22 under-the-radar stars of the NFL, one at each position. So far, he's profiled Eric Weddle (Chargers, S), Muhammad Wilkerson (Jets, DL), Cameron Wake, Evan Mathis (Eagles, G), and John Sullivan (Vikings, C). I particularly enjoyed the profiles of Weddle and Sullivan, two guys I had heard of but knew nothing about. No Bills so far, but each of the players is asked to nominate another player for the All-22 team and two Bills were "nominated": Byrd (by Weddle) and Kyle Williams (by Mathis). It was a little sickening reading about Wilkerson, another Class of 2011 draftee who has vastly outperformed Dareus. He has been called "a young Richard Seymour"--great, just what we need. If you are an NFL fan, you should definitely check out this series.
-
Straight from the Bills, they have said that Whaley "managed" the draft process this year. Tells me all that I need to know.
Yep. Obviously, the Bills have known for some time that Buddy was leaving very soon after the draft, just as they have known that Whaley would be replacing him. Does anyone think any organization (even one as bumbling as this one) would allow a lame duck to decide which players the team was going to draft, especially when one of those choices is the expectant franchise QB and especially when his replacement is already on board? I expect (and hope) that Buddy had little or no influence on the Bills' draft this year. What I can't figure out is why the team played this charade. The only thing I can think of is that there was a clause in Buddy's contract that would have required the team to pay him more money if they terminated him before the 2013 draft.
-
You miss the point that public opinion is most often led by media speculation and not inside information.
And secondly you insist on saying that Kelly was "the hottest prospect by a wide margin" but you have no proof of this.
And as for your straw man point about the draft vs free agency, are you saying that if the Bills didn't draft EJ Manuel that he would have gone after Barkley and Nassib who were taken in the 4th round?
The media is often wrong.
Moving to another of your points, Oregon tried retaining Kelly because they're a major program and can compete with NFL teams.
Syracuse knew that they couldn't compete with the NFL job offers.
Actually, I think the proof is that Kelly was able to negotiate a contract with the Eagles worth several times what the Bills are paying Marrone. Now, you can say that's because Oregon was already paying Kelly a boatload, but if other franchises really wanted to hire Marrone, his asking price would have been far higher. Look, I'm not criticizing the Bills here. I believe they handled the HC search process far better than the last time. But I don't think there is much real debate that Kelly was the hottest prospect on the market, even though there are some franchises that appear to be Kelly skeptics. I can't prove this, but if I had to guess, I would say Kelly was the Bills' first choice, but they realized early on that they were not going to be able to get him, and looked elsewhere. It was a smart move, unlike last time when they got publicly jilted by about five different candidates. Of course, none of that will matter if Marrone turns out to be another Mike Mularkey.
-
It's so great that the games are played in Vegas.
This message brought to you by your World Champion 2013 Toronto Blue Jays.
Of course Vegas is not the final word, but it is an indication of how the rest of the unbiased world views the strength of the Bills' roster.
-
I prefer the term misguided. No question that this team is better talent wise than the team that Nix inherited. Anyone who takes a look at today's roster compared to when Nix took over can see that.
That must be why Vegas is forecasting a 3-13 record for the Bills this year and the Bills will most likely be picked to finish last in the AFC East, again. Buddy supporters always say things like "No question this team has better talent than when Buddy took over" and "It's obvious we have a more talented roster now than when Buddy took over" but they never actually offer any evidence to back up the statement. This team had a worse record under Buddy than it did in the Jauron years and had a historically bad defense just this past season, after Buddy heavily emphasized defense in his first three drafts. There is always hope, but right now, there's not much evidence that there is a strong nucleus of talent here just waiting to break through.
-
The roster is much better today than it was when he took over
All four first round picks appear to be solid
There is no evidence to support your first statement; in fact, the available evidence is to the contrary.
Your second statement is simply false. Gilmore appears to be solid, but it's only been one year. Dareus has been a serious disappointment, so far, given where he was picked in the draft and the wild success of the players chosen 6 or 7 picks later. Not saying that he will never be a good player, but so far, he has not lived up to expectations. There is no basis whatsoever to say Manuel is a solid pick. He might turn out to be great, or he might turn out to be Jamarcus Russell 2.0. Those of us who think Buddy was a failure as GM are not "haters"; I prefer the term "realist".
-
FWIW: Here is an article discussing the statistics and rationale for Chip Kelly going for it on fourth down at Oregon:
http://articles.phil...s-wide-receiver
"Punt 4th down? Hell, yeah
In case you were wondering, Chip Kelly does plan on carrying a punter on his 53-man roster. Might not have a fullback, but he'll have a punter. Those rumors that he always went for it on fourth down at Oregon are slightly exaggerated.
The Ducks went for it on fourth down 31 times last season (and converted 20 of them). That total was only 10th among the NCAA's 120 Football Bowl Subdivision members.
During Kelly's four seasons as Oregon's head coach, the Ducks averaged just 2.2 fourth-down attempts per game. They finished tied for 17th in the FBS in fourth-down attempts in 2009 (22), second in '10 (34) and fifth in '11 (31).
In the Brooks Brothers NFL, usually only bad teams go for it on fourth down. Last year, only four teams had more than 18 fourth-down tries: 2-14 Jacksonville (26), 5-11 Arizona (24), 7-8-1 St. Louis (24) and your 4-12 Eagles (24).
Asked about his reputation as a fourth-down gambler last week, Kelly said: "I think there's fallacy and reality. I don't think very often we went for it on fourth down on our side of the field. It would be once or twice a season, depending on the situation."
He pointed out that the leg strength of his kicker often factors into fourth-down decisions.
"If you don't have a guy that can kick a long field goal, what are you going to do when the ball is on the 37-yard line?" he said. "Will you kick a 52-yarder or are you going to punt it? If [the punt] goes into the end zone, you have a net of 17 yards. Or do you go for it because you have a good defense and you're not averse to putting them on the field on the 37-yard line?"
Kelly didn't have a kicker with a big leg at Oregon. In his four seasons as head coach, the team's longest field goal was 43 yards. The last 3 years, the Ducks were just 5-for-14 on field goal attempts from 40-plus yards."
Doesn't sound so radical.
Good stuff. Thanks. It's true that Oregon had lousy placekickers, which to some extent explains the high number of 4th down attempts. (They actually have had pretty good punters, however.) But it is also worth remembering that the majority of the Ducks' games the past 3 or 4 years were massive blowouts. It is safe to assume that when you are up by 40 points in the second half, you are not going to go for it on fourth down, no matter what the distance is. Having watched almost every Ducks' game in the Kelly era, I can tell you Kelly is far more inclined to go for it on 4th down in meaningful situations than any NFL coach, with the possible exception of Belichick, and every major college coach I know of.
-
Read the grant land article about the Cleveland Browns and how they're serious about analytics. Branden, the tool that he is, has yet to follow up on any of his early January grandiose promises. The guy is inept
I don't know. I did not read anything in the Grantland article that convinced me that the "new" Browns organization has any better idea what they are doing than the previous regime. It actually made them seem like a bunch of tools. We'll see, I guess.
-
But that point only emphasizes what the study author is saying...going for it doesn't guarantee success, but the fear of failure is what more often than not sways coaches to make the safe call -- even if it isn't with the percentages. You're criticizing Carroll for taking the percentage play and failing, which is what all fans and media do in these situations because they only look at the specific play and not the game as a whole.
Basically, you need a coach with the balls to stand up there after the game and say, "it was the percentage play, it didn't work, but I'm always going to go with what I believe gives us the best chance."
Exactly correct. Another great example was the Pats-Colts game a couple years ago, when Belichick went for it on 4th and 2 from his own 34, with the lead. He was playing the percentages, but got crucified in the media for making a crazy gamble. If he had punted, and the Colts had marched the length of the field to score, no one would ever have questioned it.
-
You are correct, he did not explicitly say "you should always go for it" so my apologies for misspeaking. His graph, however, does recommend going for it inside your own 20 with fourth and 1, quite often fourth and two.
"He makes it clear that decisions will (and should) frequently vary depending upon the score of the game and the amount of time remaining." So maybe go for it, unless a coach in a game situation doesn't think it's wise. Fantastic stuff.
Yes, I think he does say it is usually a good idea to go for it on fourth and 1 from your own 20 and I think he explains pretty convincingly why that's the case. You seem to be taking issue with that because it is so entirely contrary to what every coach in the NFL has ever done and, perhaps equally importantly, what every announcer says the coach should do. But that's precisely the point: the conventional wisdom is wrong and the decisions most coaches make wihout even thinking about it, like punting from your own 20 on fourth and 1, can't be statistically justified. The fact that he's not able to categorically say "Thou shalt always punt on 4th and less than 2 from your own 20" does not weaken his overall point. There are situations where pinning your opponent back 35 more yards and making them go farther to score can essentially end the game. But that's usually not going to be the case and it will be up to the coaches to understand when that is.
Look, his study isn't perfect, and football is very hard to quantify because there are an infinte number of variables, unlike baseball. But at least he's making a very good attempt to quantify decisions that have for decades simply been made "by gut", without any real thought about actual statistical probabilities.
Buffalo News reporting Byrd wants traded by Oct. 29 deadline
in The Stadium Wall Archives
Posted
Reed and Polamalu are both first-ballot hall of famers--among the very best ever to play their position--but they are both very much on the downside of their careers. It's true that Byrd is not as good as they were when they were in their prime, but it's also true that he is in the discussion for the best safety in the league right now, along with Eric Weddle and a couple others. Safety has become a very important position in the modern NFL. Someone like Byrd who, unlike Reed or Polamalu, is at his peak, is worth a lot. If the Jets could get a first-rounder for Revis, who is older than Byrd and was coming off an ACL replacement, then the Bills should be able to get a least that for Byrd. Because he is playing under the franchise tag, the team trading for him would have to a tacit agreement with Parker/Byrd on the terms of a long-term deal that would get done after the season. People saying that Byrd is only likely to bring a third-round pick are delusional. Whaley should be run out of town if he accepts less than a first for him.