Geno Smith's Arm
-
Posts
1,965 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Gallery
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Geno Smith's Arm
-
-
I am very happy with this draft, and think they have taken care of some key problems.
Now that the draft is over, what do you all feel are the weakest links on this team? I'm thinking Tight-End, Outside LB, Back-up QB, and still WR.
For a team that talked about how much they liked their O-line, they sure spent some picks on it. I am still concerned that they might not have really upgraded at WR.
-
We didn't necessarily need big, we needed fast. Methinks TJ Graham could have solved this.
I thought this too, but the Bills have some decently fast guys when comparing their 40's to some of the WR's that were at the top of the draft. The Bills WR's just don't get open, or maybe don't "play fast".
-
I predict failure. She will ruin him! He will be too comfortable, his career will plummet, and she will take all his money.
-
If a D lineman is there who is waay better than all the other players...Id say grab him---cant have enough D linemen(Giants)
Really? 10? 15?
I think you can, especially when you don't have a good LT or any WR's that can make a play. The Giants have those too.
-
I believe that adding another key element to Wanny's scheme makes that unit potentially lethal. A Defender who is ready, and I emphasize ready, to come in and start gives us an advantage on one side of the ball. Adding a WR who needs to learn a route tree, to run nfl routes, read nfl d backs and coverages, in my mind doesn't have the same high probability of vaulting a unit from middle of the pack to top dawg. If the other team can't score the worse that can happen is you tie. The reverse is not true on O. But then again my checks aren't signed by the nfl or any of its affialites.
The defense was 30th(?) last year. A new DC, switching to a 4-3. If they add another defender to start, that would be 2 rookies, and three 1st year starters/2nd year pro's, plus two free agents. I know the defense sucked, but that is also a lot of new guys, and very young players. Experience helps. I know "on paper" it looks glorious, but the Washington Redskins have had some great paper teams too.
They need an influx of talent on the offensive side of the ball, too. Fitz is good, but he isn't a superstar, and needs good tools. Even with a great defense, the rules favor offenses, and the Bills are going to be scored on. They will have to keep up. How about "boldly" adding to the offense.
-
Fortune favors the bold.
How exactly is another defensive selection any more bold than selecting a wide receiver?
-
They need to upgrade a position on the offense with this next pick. Be it lineman or receiver, it needs to be an improvement over what they have already. Maybe that sounds obvious, but just adding another WR that is no better than what they have isn't going to accomplish anything. I think it would be easier to find a lineman that would be an upgrade.
-
Get over it.
Spilled milk. Let's talk about Jim Leonard! Better yet, let's talk about Maybin!
Sometimes teams have to make tough choices, and they are wrong. But it wasn't a "make or break" type of error. I doubt his presence would have changed their fortune (or misfortune) at all.
-
> I think perhaps Matthew's Bag is right.
You're making it very hard for me to respect your opinion.
Look out, here comes a sack!
-
You're being presumptuous to say the least. Take it for what it's worth and knowing that I fully appreciate the fact that anything anyone says on an anonymous internet forum is full of crap, but I actually DO know some of which I speak about here both through personal experience in and around the game as well as through contacts, both current and past.
When I think of the thousands of man-hours spent by both Blesto and National in compiling their player rankings each year and then the thousands of additional man-hours that team scouts themselves put into taking those evaluations further and then add the additional countless hours of time it takes each team to construct their boards based on all of the previously compiled data, I cringe at the arrogance you display here at times.
I can say with certainty that nobody I know currently or in the past, has a tiered positional value chart ranging from 1-4 (I thought your 3.5 was a self-deprecating reference to a legendary thread on PPP, but maybe you were actually serious). Nor do teams think in terms of 'value' in the sense that draftniks do.
The only time the term 'reach' is used is in reference to 'reaching for a need.' I first heard that phrase in 1971 as a twelve year old gopher at the Rockpile in reference to Al Cowlings who was taken the year before. Teams are just reluctant to do that for obvious reasons. Sometimes BPA meets biggest need and everybody is happy. Teams literally believe that playmaker is always a position of need. I use that phrase a lot around here. But I didn't make it up.
Perhaps my biggest gripe is that NFL personnel evaluators seem to be acutely aware of one thing that you and all your moneyball number crunching seems to take for granted: that these players are young, flawed, human beings and no matter the amount of preparation, there is simply no compensating for that with a scientific formula. You make your best guess, hope you can coach them to their potential, and hope for the best. Sometimes it works. Often times it doesn't.
I won't lower myself to say that "subjective=worthless." I was being honest when I suggested you start a draftnik site using these various formulas because people will probably buy it. You chose to accept that as an insult because I don't think it would sell in an NFL front office. Well, don't take my word for it. Send it out. See what happens. Here's a word of advice if you're gonna talk to NFL teams: they don't mind 'subjective' so much as 'arbitrary'.
Good luck.
GO BILLS!!!
I think he is trying to over-intellectualize the drafting process ("if I just supply the right stats, I will prove I'm right!"). Unfortunately, there are so many variables from team to team, player to player, and year to year, that he ends up with his head up his own...
-
I think you're right that it will be Kuechly. Just remember that we have had success at WR outside of the 1st round (Reed, Beebe, Johnson).
What do Reed and Beebe have to do with the current the current front office? Every team has had some success finding receivers over a 20 year period. The fact is, most don't pan out. That's why it's prudent to select the Best Player Available.
As far as the LT effecting the receivers career, it's more likely a QB problem.
-
I wasn't being sarcastic, and I didn't contradict myself.
The problem Bill Walsh was addressing was that scouts were beginning by trying to slate players into particular rounds. As I stated earlier, that's not a good starting point. The right starting point is to clearly visualize the team you want to have, and then to ask whether the player you're looking at has a place on that team. If the answer to that question is no, then you move onto the next player, without trying to pin a round onto the player you've just decided to pass up. If the answer is yes, then you start figuring out where you need to be in the draft to take the player you want.
Joe Montana would have been great draft value even if he'd been taken first overall. The reason he would have been great draft value at first overall is because there weren't other, better players available in that (or just about any other) draft for the 49ers to take! But taking a Pro Bowl punter first overall is a boneheaded move--and represents bad draft value--because there are going to be plenty of other players in that draft who could have contributed more to your team than the punter. While it's impossible to perfectly predict how any given drafted player will perform, every draft pick you make should represent a good faith effort to add whichever player will contribute the most long term value to your team.
Really now, I think it's generally accepted that punters, and place-kickers are outside the normal rules when discussing the draft. It would be a real pain to have to qualify EVERY post with "this discussion doesn't apply to kickers or punters".
As an aside, my screen name "Matthews' Bag" was a direct response to "Edwards' Arm". It was inspired by the teabagging of Edwards by Clay Matthews in his final game as a Bill, and the lowest point in franchise history in my opinion.
-
Thursday is my anniversary. I told my wife who is 3 months pregnant with #2 that I was going to skip the draft party this year. She asked why, I said it falls on our anniversary. She said she didn't want to go anywhere or do anything and that I should go.....as I sat there stunned, I muttered , "meh i don't really care to go anyway"
I think this is a trap of epic proportions. What should I do TDB.....and yes advice is needed for once....
hire a private investigator, and ready you divorce papers...
-
I didn't say there was no difference.
I said "huge" difference.
Huge enough to waste a #10 pick on the difference?
Kuechly fans are working on the above premise
If the above premise is true why wouldn't you have the bigger, stronger, faster, smarter player be the QB of the defense?
If the Bills draft Kuechly at #10 there is no doubt he will be drafted to play MLB and be the QB of the defense.
It doesn't make any sense to draft a 4-3 LB "that can play all 3 positions" at #10 and not have him play the most important LB position over the 3rd round pick.
Now that would be stupid on top of stupid.
Crayonz, is this you?
-
JPP in Buffalo Bills would be Maybin 2.0.
JPP was full of potential but needed to be the right system with that right coaching.
JPP over Spiller in hindsight, foresight, rearsight, or frontsight is a mistake for the Buffalo Bills.
Kuechly for the Buffalo Bills could fit in very well and be a great fit but really what are you getting over Sheppard? Is there a huge difference?
The people that think Yes. Will think Yes no matter what.
The people that think No are correct.
He wouldn't take Sheppard's place! He would likely take over Morrisons spot. It's not "Sheppard Vs. Kuechly". Wasn't it made clear a few hundred times on this board, and then DIRECTLY FROM NIX'S MOUTH, that Kuechly can play any of the 3 LB positions?
-
I just don't think we can annoint Kuechly a starter yet, nor do I think we can condemn Sheppard to "bust" status yet, either.
The point is that they could both start!
-
He deserves a chance to prove himself in the new defense, seeing has he was robbed of a decent rookie seasin by the lockout and by poor coordination. Besides, Wannstadt's defense has been described as player-friendly, so he should do well.
Why all this concern about Sheppard? There are 3 LB positions, and Kuechly can play any of them. Linebackers take a lot of punishment, there will be some games missed by linebackers this season. It is also one of the glaring weaknesses of the defense.
-
I think they all turned to cook because Cook is the guy thats done all the leg work on Floyd
That's what I thought too. Maybe they were just trying to let everyone up there get involved. I definitely don't think it was rehearsed. I also don't think they would have so much hope invested in a player that is just as likely not to fall to them, that they would get flustered when asked about him.
-
Only two QB's higher than Levi Brown in last 4 years.
I'm watching you now.
At first I thought this was just misleading, but looking at the list, I see it is misleading AND inaccurate.
-
It's the disgruntled Pos fans looking for a new hero. "LUUUUUUUKKE"
Now obviously that's not true for all of his supporters, but for some, it is spot on., I know the Western New York fanbase very well, it is what it is.
There is definitely some of that going on.
-
I think there's considerable overlap between your view and mine, but also some points of difference.
I'm looking for the Bills to use the 10th overall pick on a guy who can make a significant contribution. The level of a guy's contribution depends in part on the position he plays, and in part on how good he is at the position. If it's a choice between, say, a mediocre LT who shouldn't have been drafted before the third round, and a Pro Bowl OG, then you pick the OG. But quite frankly, I wouldn't be very happy with either player at 10th overall.
One way of measuring a player's effectiveness is the extent to which he contributes to the numbers game. Guys like Bruce Smith and Larry Fitzgerald can be effective even while being double-teamed. Any time the opposing team has to use two of its players to deal with one of yours, it adds +1 to your team's numbers game. Another way for a player to help with the numbers game is to cancel out an opposing player who would otherwise have required a double team. Deion Sanders could single cover Jerry Rice, Tony Boselli could block Bruce Smith one-on-one. At 10th overall, the Bills need a player who will contribute to the numbers game, either via the first method or the second.
I don't see how an OG is supposed to do that. Nor do I see how Kuechley is supposed to do that, unless someone is going to argue that he can single cover a pass catching TE who would otherwise have required double coverage. I understand Kuechley does have good coverage skills--at least for a linebacker--but that doesn't necessarily mean he's good enough to be put one-on-one against a good pass catching TE.
I agree with you that what the Bills should not do is to pick some position of need, and then reach for a player based on that need. That strategy has been tried in the past, and has resulted in Whitner, McCargo, Lynch, and other busts. The other mistake they should avoid is to pick a RB, LB, OG, or some other player not likely to add +1 to the numbers game. Avoiding players like that still gives them considerable flexibility at 10th overall. Enough flexibility that they should be able to avoid significantly reaching for a player. I'd be happy with a LT, WR, CB, or QB at 10th overall, as long as the player was graded highly enough to justify his lofty draft position.
I agree with you about the numbers game, but a great player can make the others around him much better. I only see about 7 elite prospects in this draft, and I don't expect the Bills to get one of them. I don't think any of the players after that are projected to be players that would add +1 to the numbers game.
-
Whatever. Why even waste a reply with this nonsense you spew. Opinions such as mine are what we do here. Or maybe we should all just listen to Mayock and talk about other stuff like our summer plans?
Why do I see a trend of folks getting really defensive when talking about this Kuechly kid?
Speaking for myself, it's because every thread has someone posting "we don't need a ILB, we need an OLB", when if they bothered to read about the guy beyond the subtitle under his name, they would know that he is only listed as an inside linebacker because he played there in college, but that he has the skill set to play any LB position. Of course, that triggers "well, I don't want them to draft a guy at 10 that they have to teach a new position", and it just gets ugly from there...
I'm not even that excited about the guy, I guess I just expect people to have done minimal research before posting an opinion about a player.
-
It's really not that hard. A good/above average qb sways a game more than ray could as a HoF LB is the premise. If you get a HoF qb it's exponentially more impactful. Ray neutralizes a running back as a standard where other positions do more to neutralize a qb.
Look at where positions are drafted, and who gets big money in free agency and it really tends to follow this model roughly. Obviously with thousands of players cycling through hundreds of schemes over the years, not everyone will be a perfect fit but as a bar napkin guide on how to be a gm- it's essentially what you need to know about priorities.
So you are trying to tell me a QB is more important than a Guard?
-
The fact that there are Hall of Fame players at tier 4 positions doesn't (and shouldn't) prove that those positions aren't really tier 4. If one wants to argue that Ray Lewis has shown LB isn't really tier 4, then you have to compare him against Hall of Fame players at higher tier positions.
If you were a GM building a football team, and if you had a choice between acquiring a young Ray Lewis on the one hand, or a young Joe Montana on the other, I'd assume you'd take Montana. And I'd assume you'd see a significant difference in the two players' value. (If you think the two players would have the same value to your team, you're wrong.) This shows that LB isn't a tier 1 position, because a Hall of Fame QB has more value than a Hall of Fame LB.
Then let's look at tier 2. There you have a choice between Ray Lewis on the one hand or Bruce Smith on the other. If your goal is a better defensive pass rush, you have to think about the guy who can get double digit sacks for the year despite being constantly double-teamed. If your goal is better pass coverage, you might want to start with a Hall of Fame CB like Deion Sanders, rather than with a LB. Either way, Ray Lewis doesn't bring the same value to your team that a Hall of Fame tier 2 player would bring.
Comparing Ray Lewis to a Hall of Fame tier 3 player--like Larry Fitzgerald--is going to be a little more controversial than the first two comparisons should be. But even here, I'd point out that Larry Fitzgerald can and will have monster games even while using up two opposing players. The defense has to stop this guy, because he'll keep ripping out gouges of yards until they do. I'd argue that a Larry Fitzgerald is more valuable to a team than a Ray Lewis; though I'll admit that the difference is less pronounced than the difference between Ray Lewis and Bruuuuuuuce.
All of which is a rather roundabout way of saying that linebacker is a tier 4 position. A standard-issue LB doesn't rush the passer all that often, and won't be as good at covering TEs as a standard-issue SS would be.
Ugh...
I think you are over intellectualizing this (yes, I know that a QB can have more impact on a game). The chance of the Bills 10th pick becoming a HoF player is slim. The chance of them reaching for a player that turns out to be mediocre is high. Essentially, I think they should select the player that they feel has the best chance to excel (here comes, "what about a punter?" or "how about DeCastro"... You can figure those out for yourself).
I think that any defensive player can have a big impact. Yes, every team has it's own needs, but a highly talented linebacker on this defense will have plenty of opportunity to contribute. On offense, the difference is more pronounced, obviously a Guard isn't going to be as important as a QB (somehow, I anticipate someone on this board wanting to dispute that).
And for the record, I'm not clamoring for them to select Kuechly! I just keep seeing posts about how he is slow (he isn't), selecting him will make Sheppard a wasted pick (it won't), and that we need an OLB not an ILB (he has the skill set for both).
So What are the Weakest Links, post-draft
in The Stadium Wall Archives
Posted
I didn't forget anything, I merely asked where posters feel the weakest links are.
I can see that this thread is going to attract all the Fitz haters. I probably should have excluded starting QB...