Mr. WEO
-
Posts
47,146 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Gallery
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Mr. WEO
-
-
I don't know. Maybe moving him to LT/cutting him just before the season starts?
Was he moved to LT because he was such a great RT? Because he was such a great LT??
No, he was a wildly overpaid bum who sucked in Oakland. Pretending that the Bills O-line suffered because he wasn't around to play a position he didn't like and wasn't any good at is silly.
-
Is there such a thing as a "no trade clause" in pro football? Not sure I ever heard of it in the NFL.
You can get whatever your owner agrees to put in your contract. There have been several over the years.
-
"Mind your effing business" works for me but STFU is more succinct. I vote for STFU.
Tebow is going to be an annoying guy in the lockerroom. "Guys let's huddle up and have a pre-jockstrap prayer."
Oh bullsh**T---these guys are all doing their phony prayer circles on the field after the games and they are all quick to thank "Jesus" or "God" after they make a decent play--or get drafted in the first round..
Tebow is at least genuine in his beliefs, by all accounts.
-
Holt, Harrison and TO are gonna make some awesome flag football "Three Amigos"!
-
I like the idea, but Philly does not have the bargaining power here.
As indicated in an article about this, they locked up Vick and think Kolb is the future. They will need to unload McNabb because he is going to want to be paid.
A 2nd is way too high for a 33 year old QB- even of McNabb's stature.
The highest I would go is a 4th. If that can't be done, then just hang tight because Philly is not going to keep 3 QB's on its roster of their caliber. If there are no takers, McNabb will be waived.
Waive McNabb and keep Vick?
-
I've googled this a few times, but the only subject that comes up is the "safety risk" associated with an extended overtime. What I want to find out is this: what happens if a team scores a safety in Overtime? Since the ball is kicked off to that team again, I would think the game is over.
Safety=game over.
-
Also, whereas Buddy reportedly let CG decide the team's vote, Ralph actually put the vote in when it counted. Only owners get to vote and there were no coaches or GMs in the room. Guess they wheeled Ralph in and put the pen in his hand for the "X".
-
Hmm I didnt know players dictated who they where traded to. If the Rams offer the Eagles a better offer then of course the Eagles will take the Rams deal.
And the Rams rumor is false if you read the end of the article
Actually they do. A no trade clause will have the result that a player can chose where he is traded to. Don't hink McNabb has one, though.
Still want him ? I have other reasons to be against his coming to Buffalo but if the above is true, then I sure as hell don't want him here except to receive an a$$ kicking whenever his new team plays in Buffalo.Really? A Pro Bowl QB who has won a handful of Conf championships and has played his entire career with one team doesn't want to get dumped on some crappy team in the middle of an endless "rebuild" and you have a problem with that?
-
I think the point is that our HC (rightly so) doesn't care about last year's statistics. I think he intends to put the players with the proper skills in the proper positions. Whitner, no matter how well Wilson was rated by anyone, anywhere, can play the run, play near the line, diagnose plays, get other players into the right positions, and ultimately provide the best versatility of any of the safeties. It's not about salary, it's about putting a player a position that he's suited for and playing to his strengths.
??
-
Rules changes should first be tried in pre-season, then the regular season, then the playoffs. That was the point of voting no, along with 3 other teams who made the playoffs last year, one of them getting burned by the old system.
There is no need to "try" or test this rule. What would be the unintended consequences? None.
That is no the reason the Bills gave for voting no anyway. They wanted it for the whole season---which guys who voted yes have said also---but that wasn't on the ballot. They realize that a good rule change is better than no rule change. Voting no still makes no sense.
-
Yes. Too bad Lynch wasn't caught doing that THIS summer, seeing as how California is currently voting on legalizing marijuana.
This might be a clever comeback, if Lynch would have been busted for possesion of weed.
It's a start. A suspension is what's in order, though. I mean, if a parking ticket can merit a sit-down and then a gun leads to a suspension, 2 accusations of rape certainly should merit one.BR didn't even get a parking ticket in the first "rape" incident. You should probably aquaint yourself with the details of that case--particularly the more recent details. As for the second allegation, there is nothing other than the woman's complaint at this point. The fact that Goodell is going to "sit down" with BR before the case is legally adjudicated is somewhat unprecedented--so you're wrong about him again. But he's obviously not going to suspend him based on this allegation.
You've lost your mind---or you simply won't let go of a losing argument. Goodell did everyone a favor by suspending Lynch last year. The Bills were fine without him and they realized what a solid back Jackson was. Come to grips with this reality and move on.
-
Being a veteran, he'll provide leadership to the youngsters who are currently vying for the RT position. And as for Edwards or Davis not being "good football players," please.
An RT from the Raiders? A real refreshing change of pace. What could go wrong?
-
I think the lump is in your brain. You've wasted 50 years purportedly watching football.Leadership is an intangible....either you have it or you don't.Some of you have replied to my previous post and asked for specific examples of where Clausen showed a lack of leadership. Well since football is a team sport, and the QB is the face of the team, I'll start by citing the fact that ND lost its last 4 straight. That tells me that Clausen didn't put the team on his shoulders and will them to win at least one of those last 4 games. There was no shame in losing at Pitt or at Stanford. But there is no excuse for losing at home to Connecticut and at home to Navy. ND also had to come back late at home to beat a mediocre Washington team. The only thing close to a "quality" win this year was against a Boston College team that finished 8-5.
For those of you that will now respond with, "well Notre Dame had a down year/bad team", aren't the two most prominent figures in the making of a bad team the coach and QB (see Buffalo Bills 2000-2009). We've been saying for years we need the Bills to get a QB who can put the team on his shoulders and make the players around him better. Clausen did not do that. ND's record the last three years were 3-9, 7-6 and 6-6. As Bill Parcells says - "you are what your record says you are".
I've watched football for almost 50 years. The intangible that the great quarterbacks almost universally have is that aura around them that they can bring their team back no matter what the score. They get their teammates to believe that as well. Clausen has not demonstrated that trait.
So count me among those who has made up his mind and won't change it. I hope Clausen is gone by No. 9 so the Bills don't have to make the decision. If I'm wrong and Clausen becomes the next Peyton Manning, I will live with the comfort that "real football men" in the past have passed on the likes of John Unitas, Dan Marino, Joe Montana, Tom Brady, and Dree Brees over can't miss prospects who went in the 1st round like Ryan Leaf, Akili Smith, Todd Blackledge, David Klingler, Rick Mirer and Kelly Stouffer. (And please don't call me an ND basher. I've been following ND since 1970 and I still get a lump in my throat every time Rudy makes that damn tackle!).
"Da Bills - they're an ugly mutt, but their MY MUTT!"
I've not been a big Clausen fan, but to have watched those last 4 games and conclude that he didn't make the players around him better means that you don't understand what you are watching. In that stretch, he threw for 1400 yards, completed 70% of his passes, threw 10 TDs v. 2 picks and his team averaged 28 points per game. Unfortunately, his defense gave up 32 ppg.
-
Quick, check the trunks of their cars for loaded guns!
Still hurts, doesn't it doc?
Hey, looks like the Commish is going to have that sit down with Big Ben. Feel better?
-
Does Clausen have the arm for the Buffalo winds? I ask because I don't know.
aye aye aye
-
Just what do you think they'll "see" in the playoffs that makes it not (yet) worth implementing during the regular season? Will something magically pop-up that they didn't expect, and is the playoffs the first time you want to see that happen?
I'm with you---there is nothing that will be unexpected as a result of this very straightforward change. So it doesn't matter that it isn't implemented for the playoffs. But I also agree that it should be for ALL games.
Doesn't change the fact that it made no sense for Buffalo to vote against it if Gailey thinks it's a good rule change. Absolutely no sense.
Really? Lets's do a no harm playoff "trial" run of the rule? Why not try, let's see....oh maybe, pre-season? might be a little more harmless IMO...See above---it doesn't matter when they start it--there is no mystery to it. Changing the rule for the entire season wasn't on the ballot. It was a choice of some change or no change. For any voter who thought the rule change was a good thing, there is no logical argument for voting against it's implementation in the most important games of the season. "All or nothing" is nonsense.
-
That's what I heard as well. and it makes sense, why change it only for playoffs? As a coach, you're kind of going into the playoffs blind this season with no experience with the new rule. Does a team kick on 3rd down any more? or do they go for the first and try to end the game, rather than extend it...
Actually, it makes no sense to vote against a rule change that you favor. Saying you don't want the rule in any games if it can't be in all games shows a....lack of forethought, not to mention ill logic. There is no harm in the playoff "trial" of the rule.
Seeing it work in some games will lead to its adoption for all games. That's how the NFL works.
So they didin't even bother to wake Ralph to put in a vote with the other owners? And Chan and Buddy thought theirs was solid thinking?
Yup, we're gonna be just fine with these 3!
-
Wow. He is seriously sudden.
Hmmmm. Antonio Brown..... very speedy....
Wansn't there a guy by that name on the team a few years back? Ran a "4.2 40"?
Anyway, regarding the above A. Brown, there's this (from "mlive.com):
Brown goes on to talk about the school he had scholarship offers from out of high school -- Miami and West Virgina -- as well as the player he models his game after (Roscoe Parish of the Buffalo Bills).
Now we can have bookends on the bench!
-
Maybe Ralph didn't understand that this only applies to teams in playoff games...
-
It is amazing to continue to read the criticims of those who are super critical of some of our players. Whitner may not be All Pro but the comments from the national media and other players all seem to endorse the fact that this is a guy who most teams would want playing for them. In fact, most fan bases would want a guy who strives to rally his team and the public even when the overall team sucks.
link?
No, he wasn't drafted for the 3-4 but what he has done is to help cover our problems and overwhelming injuries to the secondary.Actually you are describing the guy who replaced Whitner as starter.
As for me ... give me a team of players wanting to guarantee a playoff spot and then let them go out the prove it.It's easier to guarantee playoffs when you are twittering from the bench.
And, may the best players win the starting positions .... today's depth chart is tomorrow's kitty litter. We will see in September who the new Buffalo Bills are and there is a chance that by having a coach who plays to win rather than who tries to not lose some of the players we have put down still may rise to the challenge!The best part is that you can say this every spring!
-
interesting quote in Allen Wilson's article about Chan Gailey's comments during an AFC coaches breakfast.
If George is a backup, at least for now, does that mean Donte is the starting SS?
Has Chan seen the depth chart yet? Or does that happen after lunch?
-
I'm coming around on this. If he's there you probably take him.
-
Mark it down - it's happening. All those in denial be prepared. That quote looks to me like Gailey was telling the reporter they need another back, then realized "Uh, oh, they might realize we want Spiller" and then added "but, there's a bunch of those guys..."
There are a bunch of water bugs, but there's only one Spiller in the draft, and he'll be a Bill after pick 9.
What if Gailey announced today that he and Buddy were honestly going to pick Spiller? What would happen?
-
Our need for TEs ls maybe, our 12th or 13th priotity ... maybe. Probably lower.
We pretty obviously value TEs largely for their blocking abilities, and we've got the guys to satisfy that need and we even have a guy we think may develop into a very good recieving TE in Nelson.
The Pats* and the Bills are also in totally different situations. We are rebuildng and are going nowhere next year. You might be one of those who refuse to believe this, but it's the way things are. Whereas N.E.* has a shot at a Super Bowl every year as long as Brady is there.
And yet ...
How many FAs have the Pats* signed from another team this year? Three. David Patten, Alge Crumpler and Marques Murrell. Wow. Man, look at all those superstars.
The Bills have signed four.
You have no complaint.
Since our O-line sucks, it's hard to make the argument that we have good blocking TEs.
Also, you can't argue that the pats are always on the verge of the SB and have few needs and at the same time claim that the Bills did a better job by hiring 4 JAGs instead of 3.
10 - 11 potential first round draft picks
in The Stadium Wall Archives
Posted
So predictable! Yeah, I think the Cali legislature is just about to pass that historic "Legal Driving While Under the Influence of Weed Law". Soon we will see happy Golden Staters toking down the highways as the ChiPs officers smile and wave at them. If only Marshawn had waited a while before parking that car with no license plates (that will no doubt be deemed not suspicious, and in fact legal also, eh?).As usual, you'll say anything to defend a loser argument.
Well, yes--there is a difference between him and Marshall. First of all, since you're listening to lawyers, you know that there are no "rape" charges pending against BR. An obviously false accusation was made against him last year by a crazy person. And there is still no charge against him in the current accusation. He has, therefore never accepted a plea bargain to a lesser charge (why would an innocent person plead guilty to a crime?). In fact, BR has been cooperative with the cops on this one. He apparently feels he has nothing to hide. The ESPN lawyer is right--legal council to a guilty client should not let his client hand the DA the case proving his guilt. We agree on this. That's why Lynch never spoke.
Your suggestion that he be suspended right now speaks for itself. You made a bad call on Lynch's suspension (it proved to have no negative impact on the team and seems so far to have kept him out of further trouble) and now your stuck saying ridiculous things like the above.