Cash Posted August 16, 2011 Share Posted August 16, 2011 This article is absolute junk. Sorry. The author writes with a well-educated style, but his content is every bit as ignorant and made-up as typical Marshall Faulk fare. I'm too tired to rattle off all the inaccuracies. I counted over a dozen. Maybe take a nap before posting? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. K Posted August 16, 2011 Share Posted August 16, 2011 The article was well written, the independent movie metaphor was interesting, and he was right in general about the difficulties with the o-line and run defense. I even agree with his overall judgment taht the Bills will have trouble gaining ground in their division. But the particulars are frequently off, and he says things that just aren't true with such calm assurance that it undercuts his credibility. I bet he only ever watched the Bills play the Jets. He got lots of details wrong: Saying Fitz holds the ball too long. In fact, his entire description of Fitz's playing style is completely wonky. He says Fitz isn't cerebral when he is very smart, that his pre-snap reads are "average at best" when his reads are one of his strengths, describes him as "sandlot" when he very much works the game plan and takes what's there from the defense, says he extends plays with scrambling when I can't remember him doing much of that at all. He says Fitz will have to get used to the 3-step drop when he was doing this all last season. This paragraph alone makes me call into question his judgment even when he says things that are reasonable. Saying the management is "cool on Parish" and views him as "a return specialist" when the reality is just the opposite--they were the first coaches ever to use him properly as a receiver. Saying Bell was a liability in pass protection, when he's been quite credible in that area; his weakness is run blocking Saying Gailey is a "run-oriented traditionalist" (think George Halas) when his rep is for creatively using whatever methods he can for getting the most out of his offense. Actually, he may be right in his final assessment, but if you are going to assume a tone of "knowing-it-all" then you ought to get the details right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FLFan Posted August 16, 2011 Share Posted August 16, 2011 This article is absolute junk. Sorry. The author writes with a well-educated style, but his content is every bit as ignorant and made-up as typical Marshall Faulk fare. I'm too tired to rattle off all the inaccuracies. I counted over a dozen. Agreed. Not an issue of being a "homer" as some suggest - this article is just bad. Highly inaccurate observations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bowery4 Posted August 16, 2011 Share Posted August 16, 2011 He is right about one thing, we are going to use Brad Smith. Otherwise well written junk with all the metaphors of a NYT film or art review. And if he didn't use those to mask all of his lack of researched inaccuracies it wouldn't be the times now would it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mattsox Posted August 16, 2011 Share Posted August 16, 2011 Agreed. People just get upset when someone outside Buffalo pisses on the annual August optimism. Yep, get yer popcorn ready for more 4-12 Football people!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts