jad1
-
Posts
1,345 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Gallery
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by jad1
-
-
And you wonder why I call you a troll.
So Henry has the edge in YPC and McGahee has the edge in TDs. The point is that their numbers are comparable, yet Donahoe gave up so much to go from one productive RB to one who is about as productive.Henry's numbers came in 16 starts (or 15). McGahee's numbers in 11. Same numbers, 5 less starts. How is that comparible?
I've reiterated this several times, yet you continue to ignore it. I doubt that you are that dense. You're continue to push your disproven point, which makes you a troll.
And this edge in YPC you cling to is from 2002, 3 YEARS AGO! In, 2004 Henry average 4.1 YPC. In 2004, 3.5. McGahee averaged 4 yards. There is no comparison between Henry's and McGahee's current YPC.
Your skewing of these stats makes also makes you a troll.
As for winning %, I think that may have had more to do with the cupcake 2nd half schedule than McGahee.Before the Bills reached the aforementioned cupcake portion of their schedule, the Bills' offense as a whole sucked, McGahee included. Notice what happened when they ran into New England on Sunday night.
NE is a good team, I never said it wasn't. Aside from that game, the Bills did beat 3 playoff teams during that stretch, and McGahee posted 7 100 yard games and averaged a TD per game.
And even if these teams are "cupcakes," then so are Oakland and Jax, who the Bills lost to while Henry was the starter. Henry did not rush for 100 yards and didn't score a single TD in these games, or in any of the other ones he started.
And the Bills lost to several "cupcake" teams in 2003 with Henry at RB.
The facts simply don't bear this out. 8-8 with Henry in '02 and 9-7 with McGahee in '04 isn't turning the franchise around by any stretch of the imagination.Clark/Steinbach + Henry > Mcgahee
Well, because in troll-like fasion, you again distort the facts. The Bills were 9-2 in McGahee's starts, not 9-7.
And after 2002, the Bills were 6-14 in Henry's starts.
Going from a 6-14 to 9-2 is a huge turnaround, am I right?
And the Bills were 9-2 with journeyman Tucker starting at guard. So the Steinbach argument is more troll fodder. Clark? Compare Clark's numbers to Campbell's and Euhus' before bringing that weak argument here.
At least in my opinion. Especially in today's win-now NFL.So, in your opinion, how does the Bills collective record of 17-35 with Henry starting over the last 4 years fit into the today's "win-now NFL?"
Just waste a 1st round pick on a guard or TE with him and everything will be fine, right? Do you really believe this?
They opened last year in a 2 TE base offense, but that was scrapped when Watson went down. So you can stop doubting.Hey, if it keeps Deion Branch or Bethel Johnson off the field, I'm all for it.
You must know that Watson was injured all last year, and that Graham caught 7 TDs in 2004. Right?Yes, and I also know that Brady is at his best in the spread offense, and that Belichick likes to use it early to score first. I also know that Deion Branch was the SB MVP last year, and that Mike Vrabal plays TE in the goal line offense.
I hope that the Pats do try to play a double-TE offense next year. Gray has a horrible time stopping their spread formations.
-
I'm saying that, living in NY and without Sunday Ticket, I've watched more than a few Bills games. Henry didn't need replacing, IMO, and put up YPC numbers better than McGahee managed in '04 over the '02-'03 seasons.
Ahh, yards per carry, the defining RB stat
. OK, in '02 Henry averaged 4.4ypc, and in '03, he averaged 4.1. Willis average 4.0ypc in '04.So the Bills lost .4 ypc from 3 years ago. What did they gain?
In '02 Henry rushed for 13 TDs, '03 he had 10. Willis had 13TDs last year, in 11 games. So Henry averaged .81 TDs per game in '02. And .63 in '03. McGahee averaged 1.8 TDs per game in '04. 1.81 TDs per game is much better than .81 or .63.
How about winning percentage. The Bills won 82% of McGahee's starts. The won 45% of Henry's starts.
So while the Bills gave up .4 of a yard, they reaped the benefits in rushing TDs and wins in McGahee's starts.
And you ignore that Henry was the starter in '04 and SUCKED.
McGahee has had a much bigger impact than you recognize or admit.
So instead of spending a 2nd round on a productive RB and drafting a player at a need position in the 1st round of '03, the Bills spent a 1st round on a RB who put up the same production, traded their productive 2nd round RB investment for a 3rd rounder, and blew the chance to get a player at a need position in the 1st round of '03.It doesn't make sense to me.
It doesn't make sense to you because you didn't consider the numbers. McGahee has proven to be a much bigger impact player than Henry, and the Bills drafted their starting RDE in the 2nd round.
It was an impressive deal that has turned the franchise around.
But you said yourself that McGahee's production only matched Henry's.Yeah, McGahee's 11 game stats match Henry's 16 (or 15). See the difference now?
they needed a TE and an OL as well, and missed the chance to draft productive pros Dallas Clark and Eric Steinbach.Neither Clark or Steinbach would have the impact that McGahee has. The Bills used Ross Tucker at guard during their 9-2 run last year. They were 0-5 with Henry as their starter.
Let's see, impact RB or Guard/TE? Hmmmmm..
Both of the Pats' first round TEs are set to start this year.Well either they're going to play the 2 TE offense all season, which I doubt, or they're going to start 12 guys.
And if these guys are so good, why are they throwing to a LB in the red zone. You'd think a 1st round TE would be a better target than a LB.
-
In other words...Leaf's college performance was NOT a predictor of success in the NFL.
That's pretty much what you just said. Leaf and Manning had comparable college numbers, but played in different systems and had different character. And you're saying that the systems and their character were the determining factor...that almost sounds like you agree with me.
But then of course there's McNabb...who performed in college and, near as I could ever tell, was of good character, but played in yet another system. So maybe it IS college performance that's a predictor, along with character...
Or, like I said, it's a crap-shoot...in that there are no predictors, just general tendencies on which you place your bets and take your chances. And ultimately, the guy performs on the field...or not.
Try a little harder here. You assume "on-field performance" only equates to stats, it doesn't.
There's more to on-field performance than just stats. There's a difference between Peyton Manning, who drove the Tennesee offense and Danny Wurffel, who played in Spurrier's college run-and-gun.
McNabb garnered good passing stats, even though he was in a run heavy offense. The fact that he was successful proved that he had ability rather than was a product of the system.
McNabb (and Montana) also showed toughness and character on the field, and led their teams on improbable comebacks.
And there are predictors, both on the field and off. At the either end of the spectrum, it was pretty easy to see that Manning was going to be a star, and Lawrence Phillips was going to be a flop.
Good GMs research players and measure them against those predictors. Bad GMs ingore them and make bad picks.
That's why teams spend millions on scouting departments, because if it were really the crapshoot you claim, teams could replace their scouting departments with a stat sheet.
The draft is definitely more science than crapshoot. Good GMs understand that and make it work for them.
-
False. I simply said that I didn't expect Belichick to handle the situation this way, but that I'm not going to question someone with his track record.
It's not, and it never has been. Problem solved.
Again, I never said that.
It's obvious that you're only interested in hyperbole. I'm hear for real football talk, so if you ever want to participate in that, I'll be here.
See you say this:
Again, I never said that.It's obvious that you're only interested in hyperbole. I'm hear for real football talk, so if you ever want to participate in that, I'll be here.
After you say this:
False. I simply said that I didn't expect Belichick to handle the situation this way, but that I'm not going to question someone with his track record.Like I said, I'm really interstested on the ramifications of this signing. And I hope for a better answer than "I'm not going to question someone with his track record."
-
McGahee's year last year < Henry's '02-'03 stretch.
I think he'll be a solid pro, but acting like it's already a huge coup for the Bills when it forced out your Pro Bowl RB and cost you the opportunity to draft a player at a need position makes no sense to me.
Are you criticizing McGahee, because he couldn't match in 11 games what Henry did in 31? You can't possibly be saying that, right?
If you compare Henry's 2002 OR 2003 season to McGahee's 2004 season, the number are comparable, with McGahee only playing 11 games.
Donahoe replaced a 2nd round running back with a top five running back. It was a good move, and McGahee's production in 2004 backed it up.
As to your "need" pick, the Bills needed a DE, and they got the guy they were targeting in the 2nd round.
Are you really an advocate for drafting "need" players, because judging by the Pats first round picks over the last few years, they must really need TEs.
In the year before the Pats released him, Milloy made no impact plays for one of the league's worst defenses.Declining.
Well then how do you account for him posting one of his best seasons last year? Fact remains, if Belichick was planning to get rid of him, he would have traded him like he did with Tebucky Jones. Belichick got blind-sided by this. To his credit he was able to overcome his mistake.
Belichick must be the only coach/GM around who can "mishandle" his way into Super Bowl wins.Many SB teams overcome mistakes and miscalculations. Trent Green was the preseason starter for the Rams. Tony Banks was the Ravens starter before Dilfer took his place. Belichick gave Bledsoe a big contract and made him the starter in 2001.
Frankly, I'll take Belichick's "bad judgement" if it leads to consecutive championshipsJust seeing if you can acknowledge that the great one makes mistakes. Obviously you don't want to discuss them.
Like I said before, Noll, Parcells, Johnson, Shannahan were all considered geniuses after they won their last SBs.
-
Uh, yeah....that's exactly it. He doesn't agree with me. So he's a troll
My problem with him is that he doesn't discuss football beyond the point that we shouldn't question Belichick.
If that's going to be the answer to all the issues facing the Pats, why try discussing them on another team's message board? Why not just hang with the Belichick fan club?
There was a time that nobody questioned Chuck Knoll, or Joe Gibbs, Jimmy Johnson, or Bill Parcells. How are those guys doing now?
I believe there are legitimate questions facing the Pats, and the only response I get from this guy is that Belichick is infallible and McGahee was a questionable (formally bad) pick.
Sorry, to me, that's a troll.
-
I don't know if drafting a player who hasn't yet posted numbers as good as the guy he forced out and winning three out of the past four Super Bowls are quite the same.
I assume you're talking about Henry here. McGahee averaged 4 yards per carry last year, better than Henry's YPC. He scored 13 TDs, one less than Henry's career best of 14 TDs. But McGahee only started 11 games. And the Bills won 9 of 11 McGahee's starts, a streak the Bills never matched with Henry in the lineup.
So what's your point, aside from stoking your Belichick fetish.
Releasing declining players with too-large cap figures? Certainly.Declining? Milloy just posted one of his best years in terms of sacks and ints in an injury-shortened season. He was a leader on a top 5 defense. If Belichick hadn't mishandled the cap, Milloy would certainly still be a Pat, as Bill hasn't shown an aversion to playing aging veterens.
There were several way to handle this better. Luckily, the team pulled together, and it only cost them a couple of embarassing losses. But it does show that Belichick isn't immune to bad judgement.
-
From a Pat Kirwin report and Belichick interview on the NFL channel yesterday:
They plan to give Brady much of the play-calling responsiblity this season. Bellichick believes that calls don't need to be made until 5 seconds before the ball is snapped. They haven't explained, to my knowledge, though, how game planning is going to work.
Belichik indicated that they won't have a set 3-4, or 4-3 defense, but would change the defense according to the opponent they're facing that week. Again, relying heavily on weekly game planning.
-
Because I don't question the motives of a guy who's built a football dynasty? That explains my lack of insight.
I'm afraid I don't follow your logic.
I find the Pats situation right now to be very interesting. I wouldn't mind conversing with a Pats fan on how Belichick is going to handle the offense, with no OC, and still help a first-time DC whose lost half his starting LB group a couple of weeks before the training camp.
But all you contribute is 'Belichick knows everything.'
Look back at the majority opinion on issues like the Milloy release. Maybe more people should learn not to question Belichick, lest they end up looking like jackasses.Yeah, and Donahoe hit the jackpot with McGahee. Does that mean that these guys don't make mistakes? And even though the Milloy release worked out for him, do you believe that's a smart way to do business? Would you expect him to release a team captain the week before the opener again?
Or again, is all you have is 'Belichick knows everything.'
It's simple, that I won't argue. I'm gussing complexity is quite beyond you.You're the one who says "Maybe more people should learn not to question Belichick..." It doesn't get any less complex than that.
Keep sucking on your Belichick lollipop, troll.
-
Which explains your lack of insight on football-related issues.
I've been over this a million times. The screen name is the result of an in-joke with one of your members who posts at my Pats board. My avatar was a harmless Pats-related photo before a Bills fan on this board PMed me and requested a new Donahoe-themed avatar.Blah, blah, blah. You're still a crap-disturber on an opposing team's web site, answering valid football questions with the mindless "I've learned not to question Belichick."
You're a troll, so I call you one. It's that simple.
-
Indeed. All facts.
Depth often leads to winning, but it doesn't equal winning.
I never "expected" anything. This move tells me that the Pats want Seymour in camp, but aren't quite ready to extend his contract at the money he wants, and that they're preparing themselves for the years ahead by locking up Green. Nothing more.
Why would the Pats need Seymour in camp right now, when, in your own words:
Against probably the 2nd and 3rd best teams in the league last year, there was no drop-off whatsoever from Seymour to Green, at least from what I could see.Seymour's a great player, no doubt, and I wish he was out there. But Green's played extremely well in his place, and has proved he's a good starter.
Why not just wait him out with the Green, who's "proved he's a good starter?" Why spend the extra cash just to get Seymour into camp. What kind of precident does this set on a successful team with young talent?
How is this good move by Belichick?
Again, I really don't see what you aim to accomplish through namecalling.I'm trying to accomplish the same thing that you're trying to accomplish with your screen name and avatar. You trolls really don't get irony, do you?
-
Actually, you are. You dismiss the loss of Law, Bruschi, and Johnson and potential holdout of Seymour by saying the Pats have the depth to cover it. You also point out that they won in the playoffs without Law and Seymour.
But now that the Pats cave and sign Seymour to a weird contract, you say that depth DOESN'T equal winning.
Your posts up until know indicate that you expected the Pats to stare down Seymour just like the Eagles did to T.O. But now that they haven't, you say, they can't win without him.
Flip-flop goes the troll.
-
-
-
-
Actually, Joe Montana was never partuclarly well-regarded coming out of college. The Niners only took him in the third round, at least, and while his stats at Notre Dame weren't bad, they weren't shoot-out-the-lights impressive, either. And as I recall, there were questions early in McNabb's career about whether he'd make it or not.
And mentioning Peyton Manning, who was drafted a spot above Ryan Leaf, just shows what a crap shoot college performance is. Leaf's and Manning's performance was broadly comparable (3-1 TD-INT ratio, Leaf had a slightly better yards per attempt and slightly worse completion percentage), they were taken successively in the draft, one failed miserably and one succeeded wildly. If college performance were THAT great a predictor, they would both still be starters.
The Manning/Leaf decision is an example of how the draft is NOT a crap shoot. Leaf had enough red flags about him and his character that he should have warned off the Chargers.
Leaf also worked out of a spread offense, while Manning worked from a more traditional pro offense. System QBs taken early in the 1st round have proven to be huge flops in the NFL. Again, GMs should know better.
Beathard ignored those warnings and drafted him anyway. It was a huge mistake to draft him that high. Teams heeded similar warnings about Aaron Rogers in this year's draft, causing him to fall out of the top 10.
A couple of idiot GMs make poor decisions drafting a guy like Leaf, Klingler, or Ware early in the first round, and all of a sudden the draft is a huge crap shoot that nobody can figure out.
Take the McNabb example. Reid, a good "GM," picks McNabb and Philly goes nuts because they wanted Ricky Williams.
But Williams was a certifiable flake even back in Texas. McNabb is a solid character guy who put up big passing numbers in a traditional run-first offense.
Iron-Mike Ditka then trades his entire draft for the kooky Williams.
So is the draft a huge crap-shoot that nobody can figure out, or can it be succesfully mined by a smart GM while it crushes a bad GM? I believe it's the latter.
-
No doubt Gray has excellent talent to work with. But the 3rd quarter stat that C. Biscuit points out really has to catch your attention. 12 points in 16 3rd quarters? That's really incredible. That indicates that the Gray made excellent half-time adjustments throughout the year.
If the defense comes close to repeating that stat, Gray will prove to be a great DC.
-
Private footage of someone who attended camp. I don't recall how many plays total, but it was a good length of film.
QBs who don't plant their feet when they throw worry me, is all. Used to be that was a bad thing, now the vogue is to excuse it by calling them "mobile". But bad passing technique is bad passing technique...and as a point of fact, I think Michael Vick is a lousy QB as well, for precisely that reason.
But then, I also thought Todd Collins would be successful.
It's not like I'm infallible...All right, we'll see. My own opinion of Losman is that he won't be the total washout you claim. His mechanics are solid enough for him to make plays in the NFL. He has better skills and a stronger personality than both Collins and Johnson.
Thanks to the surrounding cast of skill players, he'll have a 2 steps forward and 1 step back type of season. Evans, Moulds and McGahee will make big plays for him, but the coaching staff will need to work hard to minimize his mistakes and control his enthusiasm.
I think he'll have a rookie season a lot like Brett Favre's rookie year, where one minute we'll believe the guy is a can't-miss HOFer, and the next we'll be calling for Holcomb.
Whether he continues to develop along the lines of Favre will be fodder for future training camp discussion.
-
-
No, elsewhere. I'm not precluded from sharing it...but frankly, I don't think it's worth the effort, as the "Losman as savior/goat" debate isn't all that important to me (yes, I'm discussing it here...but this is only the second time I've deigned to share my opinion on him since he was drafted, and frankly it's starting to bore me anyway). I've seen what I've seen, you've seen what you've seen...ultimately, we'll see who's right in a couple of years.
Or, more accurately, you'll see I'm right in a couple of years.
:DHow about just sharing where you got it from? I've never asked to actually see it, but you could let on what film you're looking at.
You've made a strong statement that Losman will never be a good QB, but in my opinion you haven't backed it up. That's fine, you're entitled to believe what you want, I just tried to challenge it a little, since this message board is a forum for debate.
-
My recollection is that Parker wasn't coming back, not that the front office cut him. My recollection could be wrong, however.
But I'm not wrong in saying that Dickerson caused a lot of problems with his anti-Parker rants. Ruben Brown was essentially forced to cancel his appearances on Dickerson's show because of peer pressure from the rest of the OL over Dickerson's constant bashing of Parker. I've heard - and it wouldn't surprise me in the least - that Parker basically said "I want out of this market and away from this guy." And I couldn't really blame him, either.
Yeah, right. And the tooth fairy told Glenn that the Giants were going to the SB, so he should sign with them.
-
Yeah, because management bases their decisions about player contracts worth hundreds of thousands of dollars on the idiotic rantings of Coach Chuck Dickerson's mon-syllabic call-in listeners.
And if the position coach you mention is Chuck himself, I'm sure the organization holds the opinion of a fired, disgraced ex-coach in high regard.
-
Well if you got it off BB.com, I've seen them too, and I completely disagree with your assessment of his mechanics. I watched the 30 or 40 throws of Losman's, and he almost never left his feet.
You're full of crap, but judging by your moniker, you probably already knew that.
-
I still see him leaving his feet to throw, and consistently throwing off his front foot...and generally, just not planting his feet to throw. That may have worked for him in college, but QBs can get away with a lot of bad habits in college that will get them eaten alive in the pros. I've never been confident about Losman's chances in the NFL...and as of yet, I haven't seen a damned thing that makes me change my mind. Maybe when the season starts...but then again, I believe in the adage "You don't rise to the occasion, you fall to your level of practice", and if he's practicing this "jump ball" throwing technique, what's there to be confident about?
Where have you seen this? As I said, I'm judging my opinion the camp footage from BB.com and last year's preaseason, where his mechanics look solid.
I saw one "jump-ball" throw in the camp footage, and that was to get a pass over a D-lineman. Where are you getting your info?
I just don't see these phantom throws on which you're basing your opinion.
Seymour got a new contract
in The Stadium Wall Archives
Posted
Yes, I'm serious. I'd rather the Bills defense face a 2 TE set than NE's spread offense.
Whatever you say Hollywood Donahoe.