Mr. WEO
-
Posts
47,146 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Gallery
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Mr. WEO
-
-
Many of you on here have said you want him. I have no idea what he would bring, but seeing what Gailey did with Kordell I think he could do the same with Troy. He has a strong arm, I'm just not sure what else he can do in the NFL. Anyone have an opinion on us using a 5th for him?
Stewart sucked.
Smith's tonsilitis was the best thing to happen to the Ravens since 2000.
-
I wouldn't mind it but if I hear one more "move Levitre to tackle" comment I'm gonna call Christopher Walken and have him stab somebody in the face with a soddering iron.
"Buckwheats for everybody!"
-
What would be the point of this stat? If your QB holds on to the ball too long, despite good coverage and open receivers---he's not that good. If he's getting decked quickly after the snap of the ball, he's not well protected. This is already known. How would a coaching staff not be able to see this on film? What new information would the staff have that is not already evident?
I agree with others who say it is a meaningless stat and doesn't need to be a unique metric to be measured.
-
Then we would have had to admit that getting rid of Peters was a bad idea. Instead they pulled the wool over the eyes of some of the more foolish Bills fans that thought that Bell could replace a 2 time probowler.
Yes, if Peters were here, at least we would be 7-9 again and have the 28th ranked offense.
-
I've got a novel idea. Why don't you just go buy this instead and pair it with Direct TV:
http://www.bestbuy.com/site/Panasonic+-+VI...p;skuId=9431242
I guarantee it wont let you down like the Bills do.
Nah, if you really want to live--take the Club Seat money and get a Pioneer Elite.
-
My point hasn't changed a bit. You must be confusing me with yourself. The Bills' offense was bad but would have been much worse without TO. In the grand scheme, they still would have missed the playoffs, the coaching staff still would have been fired, and a new regime would have been hired. But instead of 5-11, they'd probably have been 1-15 and owning the 1st overall pick in the draft. There was no "bench warmer" that was going to magically become the Bills' leading WR last season, as TO was, much less be a WR to take coverage away from Evans.
How do you know there was not someone onthe bench who could equal TO's modest production? No doubt you felt the same way about Dalls without TO (and with WIlliams as their #! going into this season). Also, Evans had over 1000 yards the season before he had the great benefit of TO "drawing coverage" for him.
So the only benefit, as far as you can describe accurately, of having TO is that he may have saved us from picking first in the draft. Hmmmm. OK.
And now your point (it changes) with Moss is he was dogging it? Whereas before you blamed Kerry Collins and the Raiders' offense?Moss was ridiculed by the press for his childish behavior/legal problems--and rightly so. He was also widely called out by many for absolutely dogging it in Oakland--where he was a pathetic quitter. .Oops. That was in October. You can only revise so much history Doc.
But okay, tell me which WR's the Patriots fans would rather have: Moss/Welker or Branch/Patten/Givens?I already answered that---see above. Moss.
-
I need someone to sell me on why we should draft Clausen if he is available. Frankly, I don't get the hype behind this guy. What has he done to warrant this type of attention? I can see the rationale of getting Bradford, McCoy, Snead, or even Tebow, or even trading for Vick. I just can't understand where all the love for Clausen comes from. Again, I need someone to sell me on this. I look forward to reading your comments.
Maybe you're bored and just want to get a rise out of people.
McCoY? Sold on....Snead?
-
im sorry, but i wouldnt take him at all. He is a good WR but he gets hurt to many times. Plus he going to as for a lot of $$$$
Gets hurt too many times? In 2008 he missed 5 starts with a facial fracture after a helmet to helmet hit. Still had over 1000 yards and 11 TDs.
Even when he misses games, he's more productive than any one we have.
-
The only thing "classique" is watching your patented contorting to justify your misguided beliefs. With you it's a religion; you just believe, nevermind the facts that prove otherwise.
Case in point, you entrenched yourself with the wonks who crafted that POS CBA and laughed at Ralph when he sagely voted against it. After the NFL unanimously voted to opt out of it just 2 years later, instead of saying (like any reasonable person would) "hey, Ralph knew what he was talking about," you claimed he voted against it originally because it was a hit to his wallet, but that he benefited from it. You extended that "logic" to the other owners, claiming that they haven't been hurt by the new CBA. Yet when confronted by the question as to why they opted-out of it if they're not getting hurt and have labor peace, you stated "the situation changed." So the "situation changed," yet they're still making money and aren't getting hurt, and they have labor peace. So why again did they opt-out? Oh that's right, because the "situation changed..." at least six months before it actually did. But no one's "getting hurt" despite them opting out...because the "situation changed." Or because a lockout now is better than a lockout in 2008.
And I'm sorry. Perhaps you're not familiar with the term, but by "breaking down film," I meant that some lackey takes the 3 hours or so of raw game film, cuts out the extraneous stuff, and presents the 11 minutes of actual action to the analysts to, well, analyze it. But yes, I'm sure the NFL doesn't care whether the analysts (or should I say "an analyst") on their flagship station don't watch game film like you claim Sanders still doesn't, because they just want him for his snazzy threads. I'm also sure that the other analysts don't see Sanders' alleged lack of preparation, yet latch-onto his observation that TO "was open" and parrot it, as your intellectual superior LaDairus would say.
You've become a caricature of yourself. And that's a hard thing to accomplish.
As an example, in 2006, Jones's Cowboys Cathedral was not yet built. Now it's open and he has grossed over a billion dollars in revenue since 2006 to put a dent in his mortgage. So, yeah, he probably thought that 2008 was not a good time for a work stoppage. Unlike Ralph, Jones gets more revenue from tickets and merchandise sales than from TV. Tough to spend a million a day in constructing a new stadium when the money isn't coming in like it used to.
Also, the guys who negotiate the TV contracts (Ralph isn't invited to those meetings), having just recently inked record deals with three networks and a satellite company, were no doubt thinking about the value of the next contract when they pushed for the CBA.
Your argument against the CBA, essentially, is the "fact" that the owners opted (exercising their contractual right) to end the agreement 2 years early. That's the beginning and end of your understanding of this topic. You won't acknowledge the fact that players, on the average, saw no extra money. Or that the cap increase amounted to only 3% of average revenue--if an owner actually chose to spend to the cap. Or that the CBA is about the owners, not the players--and how they want (or don't want) to share revenue with eachother.
You say I am concrete, yet in your world, things are very simple---the CBA is bad because they opted out. As I have pointed out, things are more nuanced than that. But if you want to go on believing that this group of wealthy business men don't know (nearly unanimously) when to hold 'em and when to fold 'em---and that you are in a far better position to judge the intelligence of their finacial decisions, I'll just let that stand. It speaks for itself.
Also speaking volumes to your "I'll say anything at this point" mode of debate is your bizarre and somewhat sad persistence at propping up guys like Faulk and, particularly ridiculous, Deion Sanders as some sort of thoughtful sage. Is that what you thought of him when he was at CBS doing the same job? That guy IS a clown. That's exactly why NFL hired him. You really think ANYONE at NFL Network (not only their "flagship", but their only network) really cares whether "Neon Deion" watches any film before he goes into his patented act? Of course he didn't watch even 11 minutes of every game the Bills played keying of TO only on each snap. No way you really believe that! He never claimed to do so (link?). He is just giving his opinion in his own......unique way. He's an entertainer, not a statistician.
-
I'd do this in a heatbeat. Tavaris started kindof slow in Minnesota, but in 2008 he had 9 TDs and 2picks and 1 TD and 0 picks last year backing up St. Brett. 21 and 18 lifetime. His QB rating has gone up each year he's been in the league. 95.8 in 2008 in 9 games. Can escape pressure which is a plus for Buffalo next year. I'm for improving our QB position next year even if not getting the "franchise" guy. I think Tavaris could be an improvement. For a 3rd rounder, he'd be worth it.
Buddy, get 'er dun.
I'd give up a number one for Kyle Orton. He's not flashy or sexy, but can play. 21 TDs and 12 picks last year. Just a solid QB. He's only 27 and will only get better. Could settle the QB spot for a while while we build around him.Buddy, get 'er dun.
It's sad how mediocre/crappy QBs can so easily be interchanged---and seem so atteractive.
-
I'd give up a number one for Kyle Orton. He's not flashy or sexy, but can play. 21 TDs and 12 picks last year. Just a solid QB. He's only 27 and will only get better. Could settle the QB spot for a while while we build around him.
Buddy, get 'er dun.
Oh my.....
-
OT Anthony Davis, Rutgers*
Known to abhor the weight room at Rutgers and rely far too much on his natural ability, Davis showed up at the Combine looking sloppy-bodied and overweight. At 323 pounds, he clocked above 5.4 in the 40 on some watches and managed only 21 reps of 225 pounds, the fewest of any of the top four tackles who grade out the highest in the draft on tape. Known for consistently being late and not being accountable in college, Davis demonstrated his immaturity during interviews.
Sorry if this was posted already.
Sounds like he helped himself to the buffet.
Maybe Buddy will change his view of the value of the combine before he goes forward and drafts this man.
-
simply out of control. to move up to #2 from #9 will require our 1st, 2nd, and next year's 1st..easily. No way. We've got more holes than swiss cheese and can't afford to give up that many picks.
No way. 2 1sts to move up 7 spots? With a team that may be itching to avoid picking second?
-
You're so certain the players won't be dumb enough to bring a lockout upon themselves now. What makes you think they would have done it back in 2008, when they didn't have time to build-up a "war chest" of their own? The answer is, if you think they won't do it now, they definitely wouldn't have done it then. And as I showed you, the owners have spent hundreds of millions more since signing the new CBA. Again, fact, not your "expert opinion."
Perhaps you don't get the NFL Network, and I can only asume you don't, but Faulk, Sanders, Mariucci, and others "get paid" to watch all the games every weekend and analyze them, along with offering their opinions. Not make stuff up. I'm sure they have people breaking down film for them and condensing them into the 11 minutes of action a recent report said that NFL games contain. So when they make observations on what happened in games, you see, I'm more likely to believe them than say, you or "more than one poster here" talking about what you believe and/or the occasional play he dogs. So too would the majority of sane people.
You're the one who says the owners should have forced a lockout back then.
The only fact mentioned so far is thet the CBA in 2006 resulted in an increase in the cap of only $7.5 million over what it otherwise would have increased to. Take away the cash to cap teams and the teams that simply decided not to spend to the cap and there was no increase in pay for the vast majority of players and no "hundreds of millions of dollars" extra paid. You realize that players get raises when they sign new contracts, not simply when the cap goes up.........don't you? The increased cap favors only a handfull of players every year.
The expiring CBA was just that---it had to be redone or there would have been no CBA. Clearly the owners felt that 2006 was the wrong time to have a work stoppage. Again, the facts reveal that the holdouts to signing the deal were not concerned with the imaginary "60%" that you are now, simply for the sake of argument, pretending to believe was "given" to the players. You are just repeating the same crap over and over and labelling it as "fact" without providing any basis.
It's amazing that people would think that a deal that brought a fairly modest increase in the cap was a horrible deal for the owners, yet in an uncapped year (let's call it a "billion dollar cap"!)--no one says a peep about the poor owners. You think that teams who want to dump buckets of money on new players are crying about the "billion dollar cap"? Isn't this a dream come true for the players? Oh, but wait, no cap means no minumum also. Well, all teams who wish to do so cannot simply dump all of their top salaried players can they? Who would they replace them with? There is not an unlimited pool of practice squad players to take their places.
If the owners wanted to pay the players less, they should themselves just make less revenue. Problem solved! Too bad they love making so much money! That's the problem with business---in order to make a lot more money, you have to spend more money. Whew---that just sucks! I'm glad I'm not a billionaire business owner!
As for your Faulk and Sanders thing---I am really enjoying seeing the classic NKM argument in evolution, or should I say, devolution. When it became, even to you, too ridiculous to continue to suggest that, for example, a guy like Sanders, who famously eschewed watching film (or even paying attention in team meetings) as a player actually "watch(es) all the games every weekend and analyze(s) them"---you then switched to "they have someone do it for them". So these guys are paid to read the summary of someone else's observations on screen as their "expert opinions" (also, enjoying how "fact" has morphed into "opinion").
Classique.
-
Look, even though the owners still might have made money, they lost (collectively) hundreds of millions in would-be profits because they got taken by the players. That's how (they feel) they got "hurt." And just because the "situation changed" doesn't mean that the original deal still wasn't bad, even though again, they opted-out before the situation changed. The old CBA was perfectly fine and would have presented no problem in this "changed situation." They should have forced a lockout back then before the players got a taste of almost 60% in total revenue. You're the only one who can't, or more precisely refuses to, see it.
Ah yes, Rodney "Juice Head" Harrison (who I didn't mention, BTW). He called TO a "clown" because, and ONLY because, TO called the Patriots cheaters. What that has to do with proving TO wasn't frequently open is anyone's guess because as far as I know, he didn't say that TO wasn't. But great example there, chief, as usual.
As for Faulk and Sanders, I don't ever recall calling them idiots. And if I did, it was probably in response to an opinion, which you see, is different from a fact, like whether someone was open. Funny that while you (may have, I don't know) defended them before, now you're agreeing that they're "idiots," "morons," and "halfwits" because they disproved your claim. And that still doesn't explain Mariucci, who no one has called those names, and who was on the wrong end of TO's wrath more than a few times and would have no reason to make positive stuff up about him. Just concede these points already.
So the owners would have made "collectively...hundreds of millions of dollars by instead following your recommendation of "forcing a lockout back then"? There you go---more airtight logic.
Anyway, yes, the existing CBA was very nice and all, but it was set to expire, so, having just recently negotiated record TV money, the owners renewed the CBA.
And again with the "players are getting 60% of revenue" nonsense. Never happened---you know this. What was the ACTUAL immediate impact? The cap went up a whopping........$7.5 million dollars!! WoW!! These guys are bringing in hundreds of millions a year in revenue. You think they would pass on the opportunity to continue to make record amounts of profits over a measly $7.5 million increase (totally voluntary, at that) in labor costs? Really---that's now going to be your position? They didn't even care about the "60%"---the deal was held up because of the revenue sharing portion of the agreement. How can you not know this by now?
Anyway, Sanders and Faulk are what they are---ex jocks getting paid to say things on TV. I didn't defend or support them, just pointing out what most others had concluded a long time ago.
If you want to believe that these two guys sat down and watched all film on the Bills this season before they told you TO was open all the time---well, go ahead---you really have to believe such a thing to be comfortable referencing guys like that. Hey, Mariucci may have watched every offensive snap the Bills took. Who knows!
Disproving my claim? That he wasn't double covered and open the majority of passing plays? More than one poster here has pointed out that ol' TO took his share of plays off and shorted routes and occasionally failed the leave the ground on a pass higher than the 8 and the 1 on his jersey. Are they all so blind also?
-
If you watched any B'gal ball since his knee got destroyed, you would see that he tosses high. Then he had '08's elbow problem. He's not an "elite" qb, despite hype. He had a nice run of late second, early, wins last season, and - finally - learned the value of scrambling now and again...
He stunk overall - something like 1-13 passing in that regular season-ending game against NYJ. He did squat, for such a "name", in their playoff game. Probably not noticed by most - but noticed by me - was a sideline shot showing Palmer admonishing the OL. Whitworth got up and stuck a finger at Palmer. I'm sure he was telling him to get rid of the ball, completion or not, and don't bit*h at us while you fart around.
Palmer's overall record is poor - he can't forge victories, IMO. His signature play is a long ball to the right sideline that is picked when the money is on the line.
They, of course, are stuck with him - huge contract.
Pencil in CIN as a buyer of Tebow, BTW...
While I agree that Palmer has perhaps been overhyped, they could be stuck with worse. And CO has made his fortune on the receiving end of Palmer's arm, no question.
But give the Jets D credit---they simply shut down the passing game, (despite claims of CO injury).
-
The good doc lives in his own fantasy world Ramius. A world in which he's an expert and guys like Marshall Faulk, Deion Sanders, and Steve Mariucci are morons. A world where the owners predicted the recession even though it happened months after they actually opted-out of the CBA, and well over a year before they first started talking about opting-out of it back in 2007.
Neither of you big thinkers can describe any way that the owners were damaged by the "POS CBA"? Come on, boys--this should be easy! How much money did the owners lose? Have Dallas , NE or Wash won a SB since the cap went up? Has any team folded?
The reason is that you can't---because there are no damages. Total salaries have been very stable in 2006 were 3.2 billion. In 2009, 3.3 billion. Meanwhile, profits have risen yearly for the league. Free money increased for the bottom feeders 5-fold under that CBA.
Look, if the best you've got is a reference to Faulk and Sanders.....that's pure Doc gold!! Didn't Harrsion (an "expert" like the rest, no?) call TO a "clown"? Don't remember you agreeing with that expert opinion.
In fact, for the past 2 springs, the consensus on this very board was that Faulk was not an "actual analyst", but instead "an idiot", "a moron" and "a halfwit who could barely form a sentence".
But, when he tosses out a little "TO was open all the time", (while simultaneoulsy being double covered almost all the time, right) you recertify him as "an expert".
You're a riot.
-
Perhaps Palmer can learn to place the ball some place other that 3 feet above any receiver...
Yeah, must be his crappy QB (40 TDs to CO so far) hasn't learned how to pass yet.....
I honestly didn't think of that angle. Good pickup.
-
Using a snow shovel to deposit the green snow drifts of money he got from the Redskins into his bank account had nothing to do with it, I'm sure.
But wait, what about the "$10 million a year" that Ralph offered?
-
He is not the answer but he is an upgrade over what we have. Chances are we are not going to get a Franchise QB this year, It may be best to sign a guy like Anderson, Thigpen, Troy Smith and let them compete with Brohm, Edwards, or maybe a rookie.
He is Thigpen 2 years from now.
-
Maybe he'll get more separation between him and his partner on consecutive weeks than he was able to with Revis.
If he falls behind in the voting, look to him to head backstage for an MRI to check for "an ACL injury".
-
I'm not sure I agree with your assessment of Gailey, he did have success at Dallas and is widely regarded as a good coach. If Cowher thought he was the logical choice for an heir then there must be something to him. He was also able to pull in some solid assistant coaches. To me, college success is more a product of recruiting than it is coaching. I'm not saying coaching isn't important but I'm pretty sure that Dick Jauron could win a national championship at Florida.
I can't shake the feeling that we finally have the people in place that understand wtf they are doing when it comes to building a football team. I just have this feeling that Nix was sitting upstairs last year looking down on the field and shaking his head. The departure of guys like Reed and Denney make me think that this guy understands the difference between average players and great players.
I'm as optimistic this offseason as I have been in a LONG time.
Did Cowher ever hire Gailey as his heir?
I think it's a bit early to say "this time they got it right", because, other than a few predicable player dumps, nothing has happened yet. Can't we at least get through the draft before "they got it right"gets whipped out?
-
I don't care what the weather forecast says ... The wind is always a factor at The Ralph. Especially in Oct, Nov, Dec/Jan.
See?
-
I forgot, you're the jackass who thinks the 2006 CBA was a great deal. Those owners loved the CBA so much that they voted to get out of the contract within 2 years of signing it. Sure seems like they loved it sooo much.
And the cap problems of those teams werent the only reason, but you're extremely naive if you dont think they played a sizeable role in the big guys pushing hard to get the POS CBA signed.
Actually, Jones was holding out on the CBA in '06, son. He didn't want to expand the shared revenue pool for the less motivated owners. He was dragged kicking and screaming to the signature table.
As for opting out, I think it is self evident that they got what they wanted out of the 2006 agreement and now, as many of their circumstances have changed since then, they are ready to offer a new one to the players that is even more to the owners' advantage. Or, perhaps, if the Supreme Court agrees with their claim to be a single entity, they will offer the players no CBA at all.
Honestly, I personally have no opinion as to whether the CBA was a "great deal" (for me?, for you?...it really didn't matter)---just that it clearly worked out well for the owners (a great deal for them, I guess)--even Ralph, though he pathetically pretended otherwise. If you can describe how the owners suffered over the 3 year period that the deal was in effect, I'd enjoy hearing you articulate this.
I forgot, you must be one of the 2 people here who actually think that the players are getting, or ever got, 60% of total revenues as a result of the CBA.
James Hardy named Bills' Ed Block Courage Award Winner
in The Stadium Wall Archives
Posted
Child abuse? Maybe he's the poster boy?
So they give out "courage awards" for restraining yourself from threatening or assaulting your blood relatives?