transient
-
Posts
4,879 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Gallery
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by transient
-
-
I told you so mentality aside, it does add credibility to the FO's decision to (possibly) pursue McNabb, who would have been a clear upgrade despite Buddy's recent gamesmanship, and eschew players who were essentially exactly what they already had to work with, only with a different nameplate on the back of their jersey.
-
Did you read what I wrote? I know YOU understand PTR, but there plenty that seem to think Brohm is this diamond in the rough that just hasn't had a chance to sparkle.
Unfortunately, sometimes you gotta put it under the microscope to prove it's cubic zirconia, though.
-
If he was on the Steelers, he could pass for Dark Helmet
Bonk
It's so big, it's preventing him from getting more than 2 inches of height in his celebratory jump in this picture.
-
I could actually see it being Fitz. He lacks athletic ability, but I think he has a pretty good head for the game, and it would be a natural progression to put a young guy in once he had surpassed Fitz's potential.
-
The odds of Lynch being traded just dropped dramatically
+1
-
it's basically a west coast ivy league school
Stanford may have a good academic reputation, but the Ivy League is made up of Yale, Columbia, Cornell, Harvard, Dartmouth, Princeton, University of Pennsylvania, and Brown. Stanford is not an Ivy League school.
-
What?? It wasn't a tipped pass---Parrish caught the ball--and somebody just took it from him. Just took it.
Given the replay, I don't know that Parrish actually caught the ball... it looked like it bobbled between him and the DB, with it not hitting the ground and the DB coming up with it. It doesn't make your point any less valid, though, since he should have caught it.
-
Only by first overcoming his fear of the football through aversion therapy can Trent Edwards move forward and address his more glaring issue, his overwhelming fear of Lee Evans, in similar fashion.
-
The Bills are bad and will be for the year, probably longer but that does not mean we should continue to go nowhere on offense. By continuing to play Edwards the Bills hurt the development of the rest of the guys on offense, especially the receivers. We have a relatively young group of players who will regress under Edwards. Put Brohm in and see what happens and if he doesn't produce with some passing yardage then bring in Fitzy but with Edwards in no one gets to develop except for the punting team. If Fitzy cant get it done bring in a free agent, someone who actually throws the football.
Your QB, regardless of who it is, is not hindering the development of this team at this point. WRs can learn to run routes, OL can learn to block, LBs can learn to cover in the 3-4, and they can still figure out how to get a pass rush even without a QB in the game. This is an evaluation process this season, and this is not unexpected at this point. It's ugly and painful as a fan, but it is not unexpected. It's two games, and Green Bay is expected to challenge for the SB this year... did you really expect the Bills to look good yesterday? No one was going to come in here and turn this around overnight. 10 years of futility cannot be put at Nix and Gailey's doorstep with the expectation that they would sweep it up in two games. Putting bandaids on it will only slow the whole process down. In the words of Tyler Durden, "Sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken." The Bills are going to have to hit bottom before they can start to climb back up, and that means deciding once and for all who to move on from and who has a future on this team.
-
Jason Peter's game left town with his humility, his work ethic, his diet, and Jim McNally.
-
Chan never gave him a fair chance in the preseason and what he did show, wasn't all that bad. Trent looked great, just like he did the past two years and then screws the pooch during the regular season. I say, give Brohm a chance, how much worse could it be?
IIRC, the first team didn't score a TD last season in preseason, so hardly great.
-
I am certainly not an expert or a scout, just giving my opinion on what I got out of the comments. I am basing my opinion on being a former college athlete and knowing the typical frame of mind those guys are in. It seemed a little off putting to me, but I could be wrong.
Now, regarding the idea that it is more noble to stay in school, I must take issue with you on that. Any person who goes back to school risking injury and potentially losing out on upwards of $50 million dollars (If he realisitcally though he would be a top 3 pick) is clearly not emotionally ready to be a professional. Personally, I think he made the right decision last year by going back to school, because I do not believe he would have been a top 3 pick last year, so this is more of a theoretical arguement. Any rational person, including kids in their early 20's, can certainly deduce that if they get hurt or cannot cut it in the pros, that they can take $20 grand of their millions and go back to finish senior year. Or, he could go to school during the off-season while still playing.
The "athlete's have to finish college arguement" is a fallacy for first round picks who are risking a great deal by doing for free what they could be paid millions for - and also risking not being able to cash in on that lottery ticket if they are injured. Those top 30 or so guys will make more on their first contracts than 95% of college grads will make in their lifetimes. You can always go back to school, an athlete's career is finite.
Nowhere in my post did I allude to Locker doing this to get his degree. My point was that he took his father's advice to heart and thought about whether or not he would regret not playing college ball for one more year, which is a sign of maturity. The article suggests that his decision was in part based on his relationship with his teammates and coaches. Beyond that, he says very little definitive about why he made this decision, and instead talks about his hometown and his view of football as a sport. The point I was making was that you said you were put off by what he didn't say despite the fact that the article uses very little in the way of direct quotes about this decision. I am basing this opinion on the fact that I am currently an English speaking individual who realizes that explaining your reasoning for a decision such as this probably takes more than 3-4 sentences, and that when the 3-4 sentences that are included aren't even left to the discretion of the person whom the article is being written about, then the likelihood that they are representative of what HE wanted to say is diminished. For all we know they conveniently left out the part about having something to prove, or wanting to go out on a winning season, or wanting to get the most out of this coaching staff. My point is judging people based on what they didn't say when you weren't directly a part of the conversation is an exercise in futility that will leave you making judgements on incomplete information.
-
Maybe Fitz is normally the one to pass him the blunt.
-
I really did not like his answer about staying in college another year for "the experience of being in college". It reminds me a lot of what Matt Leinart said when he went back to USC. If he had said, I wanted to stay in college because I still have a lot to work on, my accuracy, etc, that would be a differrent story.
I think it shows a lack of maturity that he is not ready to emotionally move on from college, even though he seems to think he is physically ready to begin his professional career. (IE, I may have been the first player selected). Seem like he still has some growing up to do and that is not what you want out of a leader.
Based on his accuracy, his record, and my perception of his emotional frame of mind, I would take a much longer look at Mallet and other QB prospects.
I don't have an opinion of Locker as a player. I've never seen him play. But, I think the fact that he actually went back to college because he would never be able to do it again and he might regret it later on if he didn't shows the ability to think long term and not just look at what is staring him in the face right now, and is more emotionally mature than most college students (who don't have the additional lure of millions of dollars) are capable of. You also ignore his reference to his teammates and coaching staff as a motivating factor for returning. Comparing him to Leinart, who was soaking up the LA celebrity limelight, is a bit off base IMO.
As for people hanging on every word that comes out of an athlete's mouth as somehow indicative of a character flaw, this trend is getting really annoying. I defy anyone on this board to say they've never had words come out of their mouth that didn't convey exactly what they meant, let alone under pressure in their twenties with a reporter with a microphone or a notepad in their face and the fallout from the editorial process to deal with. I'm sure the 3-4 quoted sentences that made that article are but a fraction of what was actually said.
-
Didn't listen to the segment... and won't. What I'm guessing I'd hear was Sullivan acting as though it is inconceivable that someone would disagree with him because he is the most enlightened person in his universe. Then, once the disagreement occurred, I'm guessing that name calling and berating ensued instead of rational conversation with presentation of facts to back his argument. Let me know if I'm wrong.
Regarding his writing BS about players, I think he's also the one who's said Lynch is somehow a cancer in the locker room, when by all accounts his teammates seem to love the guy.
sul·ly [ súllee ] (past and past participle sul·lied, present participle sul·ly·ing, 3rd person present singular sul·lies)
transitive verb
Definition:
1. spoil: to spoil or detract from something, especially somebody's reputation, that has previously been pure and honorable, or become spoiled or tarnished
a reputation sullied by scandal
2. make dirty: to make something dirty
Hmm, seems about right.
-
He looks evil...Besides that and the Losman call (yikes), I would still draft him. Tons of potential and a small town guy. He doesn;t seem to be a friggin primadonna and has the tools for NFL success. I wouldn't mind him or Mallett but that would mean that we had a losing season. Catch-22
"It's a barometer," ...It's pronounced thermometer
You should've seen her face. It was the exact same look my father gave me when I told him I wanted to be a ventriloquist.
...I wish someone would give me $250,000 to write my name on a piece of paper with the understanding it was unlikely I would ever work for them.
Gil Brandt's use of barometer in this context is perfectly acceptable. Why do you disagree?
barometer (bəˈrɒmɪtə)
— n
1. an instrument for measuring atmospheric pressure, usually to determine altitude or weather changes
2. anything that shows change or impending change: the barometer of social change
It's a Seinfeld quote... Mandelbaum, Mandelbaum, Mandelbaum (Before you look it up in the dictionary, it's in reference to his avatar).
-
The only reason I can come up with for the current QB roster is that they think Brohm has the skills, but he is slower to learn the scheme. If they could some how put Fitz's head on Brohm, there might be something there. Trent could provide the hair.
If you put Fitz's head on Brohm's body he would fall over from being too top heavy... unless, of course, you also somehow transplanted Poz's neck onto FrankenQB.
-
Why are so many so black and white on this issue? It was TE... no it was the playcalling... this... that... no this... no that.
TE looked similar to last year. That being said, I don't care how wide open receivers were down field, he's not Favre, and he's not going to get the ball downfield without setting up to throw. We know that... he probably does too.
Regarding the run, I still don't understand why we started the game with Spiller. Miami was stacking the line... why not hammer ML into it for a bit to try to soften up the defense, then try to utilize CJ's speed as a change of pace... or throw FJ in there to sort his way through it for a few first downs, then throw CJ in there. I can only assume that part of it is that ML and FJ aren't back to 100%.
As for setting up the run with the pass or vice-versa, one can exist without the other. In fact, at times it becomes a necessity. But you don't abandon one or the other. Abandoning the run makes a bad offense easier to defend.
Gotta say, though, I agree with Gailey, this one's largely on him for putting together a bad gameplan. I expect that it was in part due to not knowing what this team was going to look like under fire. Hopefully he can adjust to his team's strengths and better disguise their weaknesses as the season moves along, or it's going to look a lot like last year.
It's the first game of his tenure, and bad teams don't go to the playoffs the next season in the first game. Give him some time. Hey, at least the defense looked respectable... that in itself is a revelation worth talking about.
I like this theory.
Although,.. when there is only one play left in the game,.. and you need a touchdown to win,.. how in the world do you justify a checkdown pass.
How do you justify the pocket collapsing with only a 3 or 4 man rush? Normally QBs have all the time in the world in that situation to stare at all of their receivers covered downfield before heaving it to the one with the fewest guys hanging on him.
-
Resign him to what?
A fate worse than death.
-
His rationale for not improving the O-Line in the off season is beyond weak. Blue chippers all over the boards Rd. 1 and 2. Uncapped year so the Free Agency market was very available as well.
If they are going to be this slow and pragmatic that the two options I mentioned didn't work for them, are we really going in the right direction??? I mean, OT wasn't just a casual NEED....it was 100% a MUST Everyone agreed.
and we got Cornell Green and a 5th Rounder.
So let me be the first to call Bulls-t on Buddy for the O-Line argument.
http://walterfootball.com/freeagents2010OT.php
Cornell was the 31st ranked of the FA's.
Understood....but you saw last season and I did as well. An organization committed to winning, makes sure they get their guys.
Our FO should have had top FA's targeted so that the second they became available, we made sure NOBODY else had a shot.
And there were blue chippers all over the damn board....we go Tackle in 5.
insane....now we cant run the ball and we cant protect QB.....surprisingly we cant move the ball.
Nix has stated repeatedly that he knows the line needed work, but that the only two tackles they had graded top ten that could help them this season were gone by the time they picked. Your assessment of blue chippers all over the board is yours and McShay's and Kiper's... they were your guys, not their guys. The fact of the matter is they had needs at NT and DE also, and if Troup and Carrington were better in their eyes than the available talent at OT they would have been defeating their purpose and slowing down the rebuilding process by taking players they didn't believe in when others they did believe in were available at other positions. Picking up an aging LT with neck problems (Brown) or with reported motivation issues(Gaither) isn't likely to speed the process. ALSO, if they really do believe that Bell and Meredith can potentially fill the tackle roles, they would be wasting draft picks and time by not finding that out before moving on. Determining that they are not the answer based on last year's debacle is premature, as is determining that after week 1. If they aren't improving by midseason, then it's clear they need to invest in the position next year.
It's one game. Did you really expect that they'd look all world based on a few preseason victories? I fully expected that thier defense was going to get torched by Miami's running game. IMO, the disappointment surrounding the game yesterday was that they couldn't pull out a win in a close game that I didn't expect them to be in a position to win going in (and that they were painfully boring on offense again). If their defense continues to look respectable against the run and their linebackers figure out how to drop into coverage, this team is way ahead of where I thought it would be. If the line, WHICH IS 3/5 SECOND YEAR PLAYERS improves over the first half of the season, they just might be competitive by midseason. More than that this season is a bonus, IMO.
With regard to Urbik, I wonder if he doesn't move to R guard with Wood moving to center and Meredith to RT once Bell is healed enough to play a whole game.
-
there is a better chance of the opposing quarterback sacking Maybin
I envision that looking something like Robin Ventura charging Nolan Ryan.
-
1 on Friday during the walk throughs... and man will he celebrate afterward.
-
Ayodele is a better run defender ... just tough luck situation for Mitchell.
The way Gailey phrased the injury yesterday there were strong hints that it was more serious than a game or two ... I agree this might be another injury settlement case designed so we can get a replacement onto the line-up.
Thankfully Ayodele has played in Edwards' system so in the end this should be a gain for the Bills.
+1
This may actually be the perfect pick up for the Bills. Mitchell was second on the depth chart, anyway, and was iffy at best given his talent and recent string of injuries. Ayodele played for Edwards, so he's a replacement part that is already up to speed and was good enough to start a bunch of games the last few seasons. Essentially he's Mitchell with 2 years in the system, already.
-
One of the producers here at work is a huge Dolphins fan. She is also in charge of running the show's football pool. So when I dropped off my dues this morning, I left her a print out of this with "Go Bills" written under it.
She responded by papering my desk in pictures of Ronnie Brown jumping over McGee.
Who has some links to great anti-dolphins pics for my retaliation. I did a Google image search but I figured peeps here would have a better selection.
Not a pic, but you might be able to freeze frame Kelly diving across the goal line.
Jay Ratliff
in The Stadium Wall Archives
Posted
You probably could have edited that a little better instead of leaving it that way for people to laugh at the wording and then feel bad about themselves afterward.
As for the situation, it's rather Shakespearean... his grandparents must have had a truly astonishing bond.