-
Posts
30,622 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Gallery
Profiles
Forums
Events
Everything posted by Kirby Jackson
-
This didn’t age well
-
The irony of the whole thing is that the first pick is a WAY more valuable asset than another good young QB. In addition, you don’t have to be right about the player. You would have gotten a ton for the pick that netted Jamarcus Russell or RG 3. You would have gotten way less for the player after a little time. The 1st pick in the draft can net you multiple other early round picks as well as other assets. No young QB generates that type of return (at least without a resume). If you want the QB as an “asset” what you are really saying is “trade down to a team that needs a QB.” That’s how it works.
-
I think Hap’s point is that they were running him with the 1’s since April. He stunk in the pre-season and then they decided that he wasn’t worthy of being active. They hid behind “positional flexibility” even though everyone knows that’s a BS answer. He could have said, “Vontae is still getting back up to speed. He isn’t as far along at this point as he needs to be so we went with Phillip. We hope to have Vontae ready in the not-too-distant future.” It’s just a “don’t lie to me...” kind of thing.
-
So does having a top pick to ransom off to QB needy teams. That’s the same thing without having to be right about a QB twice!! I’d rather have the 1st pick and let someone come up for their QB than draft another QB, hope that BOTH of mine are good and then turn around and trade one for less than I would have gotten for pick 1.
-
No, they won’t be. If their hand-picked QB that cost Glenn, a 1st and 2 seconds can’t make it to year 2 they aren’t making it to year 3. That would be the biggest QB draft failure ever. That’s not hyperbole. They’d be the first team to ever draft a QB in the regular draft, in the 1st round, in consecutive years. That isn’t happening (nor should it). It’s a preposterous suggestion. Peyton Manning was 3-13, with a 56.7% completion percentage and 28 INTs. I can’t imagine that you wouldn’t have wanted another QB the next year? If you say otherwise, that’s based completely in hindsight. Another QB isn’t something that is being considered and it shouldn’t be. Get used to Allen for at least the next 18 months. Honestly, every time this terrible idea gets thrown out I am shocked at how many people think it’s reasonable. Fortunately, no football people EVER have thought that it was reasonable. You evaluate the guys, target yours, give him a chance to be evaluated. If he can’t cut it you move on. You aren’t evaluating any QB playing behind Vlad and throwing to Zay.
-
16 games? Was Peyton Manning good at the start? Jarred Goff? Carson Wentz? Pat Mahomes? Jimmy G? Cousins? Alex Smith? Just stop, quit while you are behind. It is an atrocious idea to trade Glenn, a 1st and 2 seconds for a guy that you aren’t going to evaluate. If the Bills need a QB in 2019 it won’t be Beane and McDermott here to make that choice.
-
It’s a terrible idea which is why no one ever does it. Allen is here through at least the next 31 games as the QB. If they determine at that point that they need someone else they will take their shot in 2020. You aren’t going to invest this much in a QB, give him the worst OL and WR group in the league and then pull the plug. The entire thought that this is possible is ridiculous. It happened once, 30 years ago.
-
Report: Martavious Bryant released
Kirby Jackson replied to Alphadawg7's topic in The Stadium Wall Archives
He’s not a process guy; he gets open. -
de Beer dropped from practice squad
Kirby Jackson replied to scribo's topic in The Stadium Wall Archives
Definitely tanking!! -
I just think that Peterman needs more time. He’s a young guy; remember that Tom Brady was a 6th round pick!! Peterman is a young Drew Brees. He just needs a chance to show it.
- 116 replies
-
- 14
-
-
-
Not too give myself too much credit but that’s 6-1-1. ??
-
WR Will be Toughest Position to Fix
Kirby Jackson replied to BuffaloBaumer's topic in The Stadium Wall Archives
This group is tragic. Anyone that thought otherwise entering the year was sticking their head in the sand. As far as I’m concerned it is POSSIBLE that not one of these guys is back next year!! McCloud is probably the most likely guy of all of them to be here. The group needs top guys, slot guys, speed guys, depth guys. They are awful. As far as I’m concerned they HAVE to add a starting caliber WR in FA, a guy no later than round 2 and 2 more guys that will make the team. That’s a minimum of 4 new guys!! I’d like to see something like: - Anthony Johnson in Rd. 2 (or late round 1) - Quincy Enunwa - Phillip Dorsett - Laquon Treadwell (trade a late round pick) That group certainly isn’t perfect but could be a big upgrade over this mess. -
WR Will be Toughest Position to Fix
Kirby Jackson replied to BuffaloBaumer's topic in The Stadium Wall Archives
Diggs and Cooks already signed extensions -
No they aren’t. Gilmore was brutal for 4 games and a Pro Bowl CB the year before. He certainly played better as the year went along but he absolutely has been worse. Hogan is the exact same. He’s playing with Brady now. He was always a guy that was a good athlete and could make some big plays. The only difference is that he makes more big plays in a better offense. He doesn’t make more plays though. He has ALWAYS been a 3rd or 4th choice. He was the 4th receiver here too behind Watkins, Woods and Goodwin. You are trying to make a point that just isn’t based on fact. A giant part of the reason his YPR in Buffalo was less than now because both Watkins and Goodwin were better big play receivers. He didn’t see as many deep balls then as he does now.
-
Yeah, Hogan went from being an okay depth receiver to an okay depth receiver. His best season with the Bills was 41 catches and 4 TDs. His best season with the Pats was 38 catches and 4 TDs. He averaged a whooping 17.9 YPR that year but is largely the exact same player he was here. Chandler, Gillislee, Gilmore were/are worse players now than they were then.
-
?
-
I quote flood with every commercial property that I write. If you don’t have it here you are an idiot.
-
Flood insurance is usually required by the lender. It’s primarily done through the NFIP. There are maximum limits that you can carry through NFIP and everything over that has to be done with excess flood. This includes business interruption for a flood. You can’t get BI with NFIP. The premiums are tied to the flood zone. It’s independent of homeowners insurance. Your homeowners rates are tied to the losses by covered perils. The storms last year have leveled off the property rates that have been declining for the last handful of years. It is the law of large numbers. You aren’t rated on your history as much as you are how well the carrier has done in like situations.
-
????