-
Posts
7,128 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Gallery
Profiles
Forums
Events
Everything posted by Dan
-
Well, I turned my head. But left the laptop in its original position. But then I couldn't read the remaining instructions. I figured that's why I didn't get it - I was obviously missing some important piece to the puzzle after turning my head. (I was just about to call my wife over and ask her to read the rest of the post, but then I realzed she'd probably just tell me to get off that damn message board web site thing, again. So I figured it was better to be ignorant.)
-
Given that notion... for me it would be a fairly short list: Lori, KTFBD, Bill in NYC, Dibs. I used to love reading the Ice posts, just for the pure entertainment of watching a train wreck. Although I'm not sure posters like that should be recognized (if anyone seriously considered it). Imagine all the new trolls seeing that and trying to stir things up just for the sake of saying hey look at me, I exist. Not that it matters much I suppose. I've been around in one silent form or another for quite some time. Longer than I'd care to admit, suffice it to say I still have a bookmark for the HyperBills site. Not that it really matters - with my lack of brain cell development I find it hard to remember what posters said 2 days ago, let alone 10 years.
-
Ok, I can purchase the failed drive for $200 + shipping...
Dan replied to SDS's topic in The Stadium Wall Archives
Yes... much as I hoped like crazy for the Y2K bug to crash the American banking system and erase my debt. Unfortunately, that didn't happen; but I'm hopeful the "TBD crash of '08" will be more beneficial. -
Ok, I can purchase the failed drive for $200 + shipping...
Dan replied to SDS's topic in The Stadium Wall Archives
I can attest to the fact that I have not posted anything with any intrinsic or extrinsic value over the last year. So, in a way, losing all those posts provides me with an oppurtunity to re-invent myself, to erase my past, to recreate myself in an image of substance an intellect. So screw the lost data. I beg of you - give my life meaning and purpose again. -
You make some very good points. However, you're neglecting the primary premise of the anit-FO arguement. Yes, the FO did something in the last 2 years, but they did nothing good for the 8 years prior. For some reason, the current FO is held accountable to the decisions that were made years before they had any control over the team's acquisitions. IMO, the current FO has done a very good job of rebuilding the team. We're heading into year 3 and we've had 3 solid FA periods. The team is financially in great shape. And, despite, the concerns over taking a safety, they've drafted quite well the last 2 years. They've released the attitude players (McGehee, Clements) and the aging players (Spikes, Fletcher) from the previous regime, while re-signing the players that best fit the new team (Schobel, Parish). It's nothing flashy, but its solid team building. The problem, I think, is that people (1) expect immediate results and (2) don't distinguish the current FO's actions from the prevous FO's actions. For the latter, well either they get it or they don't. My guess is they don't just because it's fun to complain with little care for what you'r ecomplaining about. For the former, I attribute it to the recent trend of expecting instant gratification. When you build through the draft, as the Bills are currently doing, you have to remember that it takes several years for a rookie to develop and be a consistant contibutor. But, today, we want instant gratification. Too many people expect draft picks to produce probowl-type performances from year 1. However, the reality is just the opposite. IMO, you have to judge a FO in years 3-5. We're just getting there. It takes at least 2 years to get the players that a coach wants, to install the systems that he wants, and for the players to learn those systems. So, in year 3, we should see some progress because we've had relative stability on both offense and defense as we're building. The biggest concern I have is the QB. Not because I don't trust Trent; but because Trent is only a 2nd year player and 2nd year players are often erratic and inconsistent. And, on top of that, he's playing the most important position on the field. So, the QBs inconsistent play has a way of trickling through the entire offense. Hopefully, he's got all the immeasurables that people seem to think he has, most importantly a short learning curve. Because, if so, then I truly think we're contending for a playoff spot. If not, then I'd say we have another year of falling just short.
-
Dan Fockers!
-
I agree completely.
-
Yes, on the surface, this all seems rational and you make some good points. But, come on, you really think we wouldn't be better if we signed a bunch of aging, question mark, vets to high salaries; just so we can get in cap hell in 2 years when they haven't panned out and are being cut or walking because we can't get under the cap. As if anyone even cares about 2 years from now. You know, as well as I do, that's its better to sign big name, big money contracts in March so we look good on ESPN. Screw the future, I want to win now. And by now I mean before the end of March.
-
We all have our moments of doubt. We all question our faith at times. But, its in these darkest hours that our faith is needed the most. It is in this darkest hour that the Chroise will shine the brightest... but you must allow yourself to see the Chroise. We all understand the doubt. And that is why Hamdan's bandwagon will always be here for you. When you're ready the Chroise will there for you... again.
-
Hamdan Rocks Long! Hamdan Rocks Strong!
-
How do you know you're an addict.... when you're steadily hitting the refresh button thinking maybe you'll get through. A few hours later you give up and consider going to espn.com for some Bills jones.
-
First, I'd echoe MLBs' comments... the Patriots and Bills are in 2 completely different places and therefore can shop for players on a completely different basis. Second, I'd say that money and chance to win certainly are the primary factors, but what if 2 teams offer similar money and a similar chance to win? What if Buffalo and the Lions are after the same guy and offer very comparable salaries? How then does the player decide? My guess is somewhere down the line they think about where they'll be, how they'll be treated, and the teammates they'll be playing with. And if so, then that is where being a decent GM and treating players with respect comes into play. I guess the difference here is you prefer to treat players like commodities to be traded and utilized; whereas, Marv has chosen differently. Both methods have their advantages and disadvantages.
-
Agreed! I definitely missed one or two oppurtunities to call someone a nappy headed hoe. I'll try to do better I think the key to this whole Nate situation comes down to Youbouty. If Nate's replacement is currently on the roster and plays well next season, its all a wash in my opinion. If we draft a CB at #12 to replace Nate, then it'll look more and more like a huge mistake.
-
I completey agree its always good to have high draft picks, low picks even. However, there certainly are years with less talent coming out of college; therefore, poorer draft classes. 2007 appears to be such a year (at least from what I'm reading here and elsewhere). I'm not saying this year is a complete wash, but it doens't appear to be a deep draft. Perhaps Marv and co. saw this coming. To answer your question.. am I glad we recieved zero compensation? In short, no. Of course you want compensation for any player, especially the ones of Nate's caliber. However, I'm suggesting (as I think the Dean is) that perhaps we have to look at the forest and ignore some of the trees. There are many forms of compensation and I would argue that the compensation we got for Nate was respect and a positive attitude towards Buffalo by many players and their agents. And that is not completely without value. I wouldn't suggest or be happy if we did this with every player, but I can see the value in making an example out of Nate. Not too dissimilar from benching a player for not performing. I know there's concern that we let all our best players walk rather than pay them the big bucks. In the past few years, who could argue with that? However, I'm not sure Marv will operate as such. We'll have to see how he handles certain key players (Losman, Evans, Peters, for ex.) before I say that's completely true. To this point, I think Marv's let players go that either he (or the coaches) didn't like, or who wanted to leave. Conversly, they've kept some that they presumably wanted - and paid them quite well I might add. Marv certainly makes mistakes. And I would certainly call this a potential huge mistake. If Youbouty blows, then it'll look alot worse. However, if Youbouty plays reasonably well and we gain the good will of players, would it have been a mistake? Maybe still, but maybe one that we can all live with.
-
Perhaps Manning, respecting the well-established curse, refused this oppurtunity to end his career prematurely. Young, however, being..well, young and brash and thinking he's bullet proof dismissed the curse and signed away. First the Titans lose Pacman, now Young blows out his knee in week 3... it looked like such a promising season for the Titans.
-
Thanks. I know we get it, many other people get it, others will continue getting it for years to come; but I fear some will never get it.
-
That... is something that I don't think should be quickly dismissed. How often do people here ask why a FA would want to come to Buffalo? Or question how much extra we'd have to pay to get a high profile FA? Yet this year, alone, Marv brought in one of the top FA guards on day one and re-signed Kelsay. I think you have to factor into that, that the players like playing for a team that respects its players. Sure, Marv could have franchised Nate again. But does he not make that promise, a year ago, you have a disgruntled player and agent that bad mouth the Bills to every player that listens. The bottom line is Nate wanted to test the market and for good reason. I'd suggest Marv knew that and Marv probably knew they'd be unable or unwilling to match any offers. As was suggested, Marv got another year out of Nate. So why push it for two when you know the guy wants to leave? I agree, we could have tagged Nate again and gotten some compensation. However, look at the bigger picture. What would we have really gotten? Another pick in a weak draft along with more player negativity. By making the moves Marv did, we got Nate for an extra year (theoretically giving someone like Youbouty time to acclimate) and we gained the respect of players in the league. The thing about Marv is.... he leads by example. He wants character players. So he displays character himself. Look at the TKO situation as yet another example. That could have gotten ugly in the press, but both sides appeared to win and both sides are wishing well of each other. I would argue that one of TDs biggest flaws was this apparent lack of character in player dealings. Sure he was shrewd in his dealings and made some great moves, ala Travis and Peerless. But in the end, so what? None of that shrewdness got us any closer to the playoffs. I'm more than eager to gives Marv's approach a try. If after another 2 years or so, we're still no closer to the playoffs then I'll be the first to say lets try something else... Marv failed. But, for now, Marv seems to have turned the attitude at OBD around. And that is arguably the first and most difficult step to turning a team around. Now, we have to see if the players and coaches he's bringing in can in deed begin winning the games.
-
Don't all these mocks change every other day? That's why I always say if you don't like a certain mock draft... wait a day and it'll change. So which one do you finally judge as right/wrong? The last one just before the draft? I think the only healthy way to look at any of these mocks is as a starting point for discussion. None of them seem very accurate in the end. It's entertaining discussion to help us football junkies get through another month of offseason, that's all.
-
Of course it's just that simple. It's kinda like trading up or down in the draft. You determine you want to move up/down, snap your fingers, get or give a few extra picks and presto magic you just moved up/down. Re-signing players or getting free agents is just as easy. I know its so because I can do that sort of thing on Madden all the time. Note: I really have no idea what its like in Madden. I've never played it. But it seems to be the gauge by which all transactions are judged. So I thought the reference appropriate.
-
Just a quick and dirty run through on www.nfl.com/draft looking back to 1982 and here's what I came up with regarding "stars". Not just successful because who the heck can remember if all these guys were long term starters and if they were good starters. Certainly there's plenty of good starters in the top 50 of each year, but I believe the first fella asked about stars. So, I used my highly subject filter... have I heard about them and did they make some significant contribution (that I know of) to their team or teams. For example, in 1984, I know Gregg Bell was a good player but a star?? So, guys like that weren't counted. Boomer however I did count from 84. So you get the idea - completely subjective BS, but something to do to keep me from working. 1982 - 2 1983 - 12 (one hell of a draft all around) 1984 - 4 1985 - 7 1986 - 5 1987 - 6 1988 - 9 (still hard to believe Turman went at #40) 1989 - 8 1990 - 4 1991 - 7 (Favre goes at #33) 1992 - 6 1993 - 5 1994 - 7 1995 - 6 1996 - 9 1997 - 7 1998 - 5 1999 - 10 2000 - 5 2001 - 10 2002 - 5 2003 - 4 2004 - 5 2005 - 0 (still too early to tell in my mind) 2006 - 2 (still too early, but I counted Reggie Bush and Vince Young, just because they seem destined for stardom) So if we take the top 50 from 1982-2004; we have 1,150 players and 148 "stars" or 12.9% of the picks (If I did all the math correctly). So what can we deduce from my lack of doing work and BS statistics... the great "star" picks are few and far between and its amazing how many early rounders that are talked up to be the next great thing, really aren't. Obviously, there are alot of great starters in there, but not many super stars. Makes you appreciate the few we've had and the difficulty in finding the next ones. Given that judging talent seems so difficult and its not always the top few picks that are the best players in a draft, I'd conclude that quantity is the way to go with the draft. I'm not suggesting trade out of the first round (it certainly seems more "star" players a drafted in the first round), but I would be against giving up picks just to move up a few spots to get a player that has a 10-15% chance of being the next Thurman.
-
Bills will have a better chance to win the Super Bowl
Dan replied to firstngoal's topic in The Stadium Wall Archives
Why not just trade all of this year's draft picks for the number 1 spot this year, then we can win the Superbowl a year early? It's alot easier and quicker than waiting a whole year and finding ways to lose games just to get the number one pick in 2008. -
4th Annual "Dinner's On Me, Smartass" Contest
Dan replied to IDBillzFan's topic in The Stadium Wall Archives
Sept. 9 DENVER BRONCOS - WIN Sept. 16 @ Pittsburgh Steelers - WIN Sept. 23 @ New England Patriots - LOSS Sept. 30 NEW YORK JETS - WIN Oct. 8 DALLAS COWBOYS - LOSS Oct. 21 BALTIMORE RAVENS - LOSS Oct. 28 @ New York Jets - WIN Nov. 4 CINCINNATI BENGALS - WIN Nov. 11 @ Miami Dolphins - WIN Nov. 18 NEW ENGLAND PATRIOTS - WIN Nov. 25 @ Jacksonville Jaguars - LOSS Dec. 2 @ Washington Redskins - WIN Dec. 9 MIAMI DOLPHINS - WIN Dec. 16 @ Cleveland Browns - WIN Dec. 23 NEW YORK GIANTS - LOSS Dec. 30 @ Philadelphia Eagles -LOSS 10-6 -
Are the Bills really better or worse at this point?
Dan replied to Rubes's topic in The Stadium Wall Archives
Well said and completely accurate. I think the idea of pondering are we better or worse ...at this point.. is a little like turning a game off because someone ran the opening kickoff back for a touchdown. Sure, the one team is at a disadvantage and you could only conclude that they now ...at that point... have a decreased chance of winning the game. However, we all know there's a lot of game left so we watch the rest. Certainly, at this point we're worse off because even if all these guys we picked up are great; they don't know the playbook yet. So, put them in a game and we'd look miserable. But its a long offseason. We still have players to acquire and release. The existing players have a chance to improve. In short, there's still plenty of time left for the Bills to become a better team in 2007. Patience is not a four letter word. -
One thing you can definitely sat about Marv... he's definitely trying to fix the lines. How many Defensive and Offensive linemen have been signed/drafted in the last 1.5 offseasons? For that, I certainly thank Marv. All the moves haven't been great (i.e. Reyes), but you have to give him credit for saying the lines need upgrading and then going out and trying to do something about it. Thanks Marv, indeed.
-
We are now at, where we feared we would be
Dan replied to daquix's topic in The Stadium Wall Archives
I thought Walker signed a 5yr/25mill deal? How's he getting a guaranteed $22mill? That seems odd to me. And I still say Nate seemed determined to test the open market. There's absolutely no reason to think he would have accepted any offer from the Bills. Its possible, sure, but unlikely. If the cheap old Bills are offering $70mill, what will the Redskins offer would probably be his mindset. Not to mention, his agent probably had a pretty good idea of what he would be offered.