cåblelady Posted January 10, 2005 Share Posted January 10, 2005 ln his defense, he did say he that will be following the ball while watching games in 2005...maybe he will finally be qualified to comment on the QB position. 200849[/snapback] Your avatar is scary ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beerball Posted January 10, 2005 Share Posted January 10, 2005 It is true. Elway was booed in Denver by a noisy-ass fraction of fans who complained because he was the most sacked QB in history- just before he won 2 Super Bowls. 200863[/snapback] But it was the offensive line's fault. Why did they boo the QB? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HOF Posted January 10, 2005 Share Posted January 10, 2005 It is true. Elway was booed in Denver by a noisy-ass fraction of fans who complained because he was the most sacked QB in history- just before he won 2 Super Bowls. 200863[/snapback] AKC I am a big Drew fan! I didn't know that Spiked Lemonade is on this board too! He pretty much statesthe obvious when it comes to Drew! It's clear that Drew is fairly slow, doesn't ave much peripheral vision and let's the moment adversely affect him....it doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that....but.....he's still my favorite and the reason why I am, now, a Bills fan! Are you a "life long" Bills fan??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rico Posted January 10, 2005 Share Posted January 10, 2005 AKC I am a big Drew fan! I didn't know that Spiked Lemonade is on this board too! He pretty much statesthe obvious when it comes to Drew! It's clear that Drew is fairly slow, doesn't ave much peripheral vision and let's the moment adversely affect him....it doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that....but.....he's still my favorite and the reason why I am, now, a Bills fan! Are you a "life long" Bills fan??? 200905[/snapback] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark VI Posted January 10, 2005 Share Posted January 10, 2005 I didn't know that Spiked Lemonade is on this board too! 200905[/snapback] Substitute "was" for "is" . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HOF Posted January 11, 2005 Share Posted January 11, 2005 Substitute "was" for "is" . 200921[/snapback] Sorry! But be "Massachusetts talk"! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coach Tuesday Posted January 11, 2005 Share Posted January 11, 2005 The level of competition our offense faced was 29% more difficult based upon the statistical strength of our opponents using the factual and unmanipulated measures of total offense and defense as measured by the NFL. If you don't like it maybe Coach Tuesday can find you your own manipulated stats- just be careful because based on his Eric Moulds is gone next year. 200846[/snapback] What a joke. First you start off with one of the more arrogant thread-starters of all time, informing us that we've all been asleep at the wheel but that you, AKC, The Great One, will now be stepping down from his altar to bless us with his knowledge. You propose to awaken us from our slumber by pointing to unweighted stats from NFL.com, as if that is some mystical unknown that you've translated from the Heavens for our benefit. In the process, you offend numerous posters with your puffed-up arrogance, even challenging anyone to argue with The Great AKC. Some of us take you up on your challenge, pointing to stats that irrefutably discredit your premise. And how do you respond, Oh Marvelous One? Why, you then have the gall to suggest that the stats that prove you wrong are "manipulated," when in fact it's EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE - it's YOUR stats that are "manipulated" - as you yourself acknowledge, they are distorted in that they don't properly account for strength-of-opponent. It took the work of trained statisticians at www.footballoutsiders.com to iron out the statistical noise in the "official" NFL stats, refuting your bogus argument in the process. Yet you flame on, determined not to let anyone notice that the Emperor AKC Has No Clothes. None of us our fooled - you deserve fully the ridicule you get around here. No doubt you've painted yourself into a corner of the Universe where you're fancied as some sort of genius - but in Cyberspace, snake oil salesmen don't last ten seconds. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevestojan Posted January 11, 2005 Share Posted January 11, 2005 What a joke. First you start off with one of the more arrogant thread-starters of all time, informing us that we've all been asleep at the wheel but that you, AKC, The Great One, will now be stepping down from his altar to bless us with his knowledge. You propose to awaken us from our slumber by pointing to unweighted stats from NFL.com, as if that is some mystical unknown that you've translated from the Heavens for our benefit. In the process, you offend numerous posters with your puffed-up arrogance, even challenging anyone to argue with The Great AKC. Some of us take you up on your challenge, pointing to stats that irrefutably discredit your premise. And how do you respond, Oh Marvelous One? Why, you then have the gall to suggest that the stats that prove you wrong are "manipulated," when in fact it's EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE - it's YOUR stats that are "manipulated" - as you yourself acknowledge, they are distorted in that they don't properly account for strength-of-opponent. It took the work of trained statisticians at www.footballoutsiders.com to iron out the statistical noise in the "official" NFL stats, refuting your bogus argument in the process. Yet you flame on, determined not to let anyone notice that the Emperor AKC Has No Clothes. None of us our fooled - you deserve fully the ridicule you get around here. No doubt you've painted yourself into a corner of the Universe where you're fancied as some sort of genius - but in Cyberspace, snake oil salesmen don't last ten seconds. 201070[/snapback] Anyone know how we gain the enlightenment that God obviously bestowed upon AKC? He is obviously so much wiser that the rest of us. I just hope one day I can have even half of his insight. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ATBNG Posted January 11, 2005 Share Posted January 11, 2005 Coach Tuesday is killing AKC on this one. The refs should have stopped it two pages ago. I think the confusion stems from AKC's childhood. Back then, he and his older brother used to do "guy" things together that included watching sports like football and stag movies. At that time, AKC's older brother wisely advised him "to stop watching the ball" during one of the two activities - he still gets which one confused to this very day. I look forward to my pithy one line insult reply that ends in an exclamation point! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pete Posted January 11, 2005 Share Posted January 11, 2005 Coach Tuesday is killing AKC on this one. The refs should have stopped it two pages ago. I think the confusion stems from AKC's childhood. Back then, he and his older brother used to do "guy" things together that included watching sports like football and stag movies. At that time, AKC's older brother wisely advised him "to stop watching the ball" during one of the two activities - he still gets which one confused to this very day. I look forward to my pithy one line insult reply that ends in an exclamation point! 201079[/snapback] I agree. AKCs cutman is worn out. Someone throw in the towel! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted January 11, 2005 Share Posted January 11, 2005 Two examples of reading what you want to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted January 11, 2005 Share Posted January 11, 2005 Nice. Thanks for proving my point, you pompous douchbag. 200832[/snapback] Care to explain why you even bothered getting involved in this thread? The football banter is pretty good from decent points of view, yet you have to hijack it because? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted January 11, 2005 Share Posted January 11, 2005 It is true. Elway was booed in Denver by a noisy-ass fraction of fans who complained because he was the most sacked QB in history- just before he won 2 Super Bowls. 200863[/snapback] Of course, Elway was far from the weakest link on the Broncos team at the time. I'm not sure I'd say the same thing for Drew at this time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mead107 Posted January 11, 2005 Share Posted January 11, 2005 your post sir ,is no different from the other 1000 plus post from 1/2/05 . you just sound like a snob. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beerball Posted January 11, 2005 Share Posted January 11, 2005 AKC I am a big Drew fan! I didn't know that Spiked Lemonade is on this board too! He pretty much statesthe obvious when it comes to Drew! It's clear that Drew is fairly slow, doesn't ave much peripheral vision and let's the moment adversely affect him....it doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that....but.....he's still my favorite and the reason why I am, now, a Bills fan! Are you a "life long" Bills fan??? 200905[/snapback] Love is in the air da dum da da da dum Love is in the air..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Simon Posted January 11, 2005 Share Posted January 11, 2005 The question of his improvement this past season is fundamental to evaluating any justification for carrying him again this coming season. And in doing that it raises this question for me- was his improvement due predominantly to some changes in coaching adn scheme- or was it due predominantly to our line getting a little bit better and him having a more equal stage to exhibit his talents in comparison to other QBs around the league?If I'm reading you correctly you fall in line with the former while I'm favoring the latter. I would probably weight them equally as I consider the additions of Vilarial, McGahee and Evans to be significant ones. However I would do so with the caveat that the value of those additions was greatly increased by the presence of a staff that knew what to do with them. That caveat may indeed tip the balance toward coaching in this case. If we showed a like improvement just by keeping this corps together we'd end up probably 11-5 next year. We'd both like to end up 11-5 next year. For me the question is do you start over at the QB spot on a improving team that looks playoff bound next season or tinker with the QB spot to try and make a theoretical improvement? I'm not unsupportive of making a move from away from our current roster- but it would have to make a lot of sense. Yeah, I'd like to end up 11-5 next year. However, I'm not fond of the idea of the season coming to another ignominious end the moment our QB has to face a playoff-caliber defense in an elimination game, which I believe will undoubtedly be our fate again. And with the roster we're sporting I find that prospect maddening, particularly after having already watched it in P'burgh for the better part of a decade. Under many circumstances I'd prefer to tinker with the QB position in hopes of finding the improvement we need to take the next step. But given the recent histories of both our staff and our QB, I think the tinkering has already taken place and has resulted in as much improvement as is humanly possible at this stage of Drew's career. I recognize the irrationality of it (which makes my opinion moot), but after watching Donahoe's Stillers fail to get over the hump for so many years with the same affliction (dynamite roster with a weak link at QB), and after having watched Drew struggle with the same problems for so many years, I've just reached the tipping point in which I'm ready to roll the dice and see how the kid reacts to NFL speed. And while the hope that he can step into the role in Year1 may be a fleeting one, I think the hope of Drew showing any of the necessary improvements is even more misplaced. Cya Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coltrane34 Posted January 11, 2005 Share Posted January 11, 2005 ok here you go.... Drew Bledsoe lost the entire season for the bills. He did something in every loss to give the game to the opponent. Every win was caused by a minimalization of Drew's mistakes. He is the only player to make major mistakes and not be punnished for it. Remember Bobby shaw? Where is the retribution? He has the third highest qb contract in the league and he is at the bottom of the league in stats. Give it up he is over, you people have run so many good players out of Buffalo, Why do you have so much trouble getting rid of him? Where's Flutie? Wake up and smell the smoke comming from Drew's Bong it is over. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AKC Posted January 11, 2005 Author Share Posted January 11, 2005 trained statisticians at www.footballoutsiders.com 201070[/snapback] Your problem is the most basic mistake neophytes make when discussing football analysis- you've found a source who supports you in ONE of your postions with their formula for VOA, a contrived system developed and used by them exclusively. It's no different than the BCS, another contrived statistical system used to "determine" the best college teams. There are those who would argue the BCS is a perfect system that is "weighted" to find the best college teams, the vast majority would disagree. On the other hand I've chosen to use pure statistics without any manipulation. I've refused to accept the "BCS" style formula that you've adopted ( but you've adopted it, of course, only to the degree that it supports your position). I've chosen irrefutable stats- Total Defense based upon yards allowed and Total Offense based upon yards gained. Based upon the rank of NFL teams in those categories our offense faced a more difficult schedule than our defense by over 29%. There's no refuting it, anyone can look it up. In fact it's official. But for your argument here's your formula and the tortured explanation for it: Football Outsiders BCS Style Formula The totally disingenuous thing about your position is that although you like PART of what you get from your manipulated statistical anaylisis you refuse other parts of the same system! Your manipulated system rates Drew Bledsoe as the 21st best Quarterback in the NFL while they rate Eric Moulds the 45th best receiver. Moulds is slated to earn more than Bledsoe next year. Are you willing to participate honestly in this conversation by adopting ALL the results of your BCS style stat system and ask for Moulds to be cut or will you continue your selective and dishonest use of a flawed and manipulated statistical analysis that you obviously only embrace when it suits your immediate position? I'll guess you'll continue to "praise" your BCS formula when it leads to your team getting a bowl nod and whine and B word when it doesn't. I on the other hand will just stick to the facts ;-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oneida Lake Posted January 11, 2005 Share Posted January 11, 2005 Curiously, Eric Moulds has not asked for an open competition for the #1 receiver next year. And for that matter, neither has Bledsoe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dawgg Posted January 11, 2005 Share Posted January 11, 2005 Your problem is the most basic mistake neophytes make when discussing football analysis- you've found a source who supports you in ONE of your postions with their formula for VOA, a contrived system developed and used by them exclusively. It's no different than the BCS, another contrived statistical system used to "determine" the best college teams. There are those who would argue the BCS is a perfect system that is "weighted" to find the best college teams, the vast majority would disagree. On the other hand I've chosen to use pure statistics without any manipulation. I've refused to accept the "BCS" style formula that you've adopted ( but you've adopted it, of course, only to the degree that it supports your position). I've chosen irrefutable stats- Total Defense based upon yards allowed and Total Offense based upon yards gained. Based upon the rank of NFL teams in those categories our offense faced a more difficult schedule than our defense by over 29%. There's no refuting it, anyone can look it up. In fact its official. But for your argument here's your formula and the tortured explanation for it: Football Outsiders BCS Style Formula The totally disingenuous thing about your position is that although you like PART of what you get from your manipulated statistical anaylisis you refuse other parts of the same system! Your manipulated system rates Drew Bledsoe as the 21st best Quarterback in the NFL while they rate Eric Moulds the 45th best receiver. Moulds is slated to earn more than Bledsoe next year. Are you willing to participate honestly in this conversation by adopting ALL the results of your BCS style stat system and ask for Moulds to be cut or will you continue your selective and dishonest use of a flawed and manipulated statistical analysis that you obviously only embrace when it suits your immediate position? I'll guess you'll continue to "praise" your BCS formula when it leads to your team getting a bowl nod and whine and B word when it doesn't. I on the other hand will just stick to the facts ;-) 201522[/snapback] A football neophyte? Wow, you are something else. What the hell do you know about football that allows you to call others a neophyte? Have you worked inthe personnel department of an NFL franchise? Have you worked as a talent scout? You constantly stroke your own jock as a self-proclaimed "football expert," yet performance on this thread indicates that you are anything but. You are hanging tightly to your one and only point that the offense faced 29% tougher opponents than the defense. While that point has been acknowledged, you are having difficulty comprehending the salient points of this thread. The stats from footballoutsiders.com take the "official" stats and weigh them according to the opponent. After removing that fact, the defense still remains a top-notch unit. The offense, on the other hand does not. With respect to Moulds: Moulds remains one of the most valuable weapons on the roster. It was quite clear last year when he went down with a groin injury that our offense couldnt' move the ball anywhere. Defenses commit 2 people to him on almost ever play, which played a major role in the success of Lee Evans' rookie sesaon. Moreover, nobody is saying that Bledsoe should necessarily be cut. Nobody is even complaining about his salary. The point here is that while Moulds is still an effective WR, Bledsoe is NO LONGER an effective starting quarterback. That is a fact. Can you refute that fact? :-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts