jad1
-
Posts
1,345 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Gallery
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by jad1
-
-
Except, she has shown no poise at all to date. Every single time she has been in a position to win something, she comes up small. Has she even won anything yet? I will agree that she has the potential to dominate the LPGA, but she more than likely won't win on the PGA tour. No way she can hit the ball out of the men's rough with those little twig arms...
Uhm, she's 15. For a 15 year old, she has incredible poise. And I agree with you about the rough, especially the majors. There are some tournaments, though, where the rough is not as thick as it would be in the majors.
She'll win money on the men's tour, but she won't be a top 50 player. On the other hand she could transform the women's tour and really increase it's popularity, moving it more into the mainstream.
-
-
Limbaugh's dispicable conduct was a poor choice of words by him- other than that, he was right. Limbaugh wanted to view McNabb as a good QB, while ESPN wanted to report on a black QB. ESPN made race an issue. I compare this to what happened with the Oklahoma baseball coach- ESPN turned that one into a story as well.
Actually Limbaugh greatest error was that he was wrong about McNabb. McNabb is not overrated. He's an extremely good QB, one of the top 5 in the league. At the time, McNabb was also fighting an injury.
Rush's comment about McNabb being hyped by the press because he's black is idiotic because he assumes that the "liberal" press is fighting a prejudice against black QBs, a prejudice that hasn't existed for almost 20 years.
So you got a guy who can't evaluate NFL talent, can't analyze an injury report, and doesn't understand that the black-QB prejudice died when Doug Williams won the SB with the Redskins.
ESPN made a good decision in dumping him. Rush should stick to hyping republican talking points on radio to make his millions of dollars each year. Leave the the football talk to those who have half-a-clue what they're talking about.
-
They arent even a lock to win their division- Lindy's picked Detroit, who could have a potent offense....I think Chicago could be good if Grossman can step it up right after the injury. Tampa Bay will be good offensively with Cadillac Williams as well. Williams better take one step at a time, especially at his age.
Tampa's in the NFC South now. It'll be interesting to see if there will be more pressure on the Vikes running game, now that Moss is gone.
They could probably use a strong between-the-tackles, every-down back. Anyone know where they can get one of those?
-
Actually, the money chase has been around forever in the NFL.
There were bidding wars between the NFL and AFL in the 60s, the WFL in the 70s, and the USFL in the 80s. And the final bargaining chip was always the CFL.
Look back and you'll see that several Buffalo Bills of note in the 70s and 80s held out at one time or another.
This is really nothing new. In fact, since the overall number of holdouts are so much fewer in number compared to the old days, the NFL is going through a period of relative economic bliss.
-
Like I said, I was in bad shape, so I had a number of procedures done for my case. Tonsillitis (removal of tonsils, mine wear swollen), Uvulopalatopharyngoplasty (uppp for short, basically the shaving off of tissue from the back of your throat and the uvula, septoplasty (straightened out my deviated setpum), and a turbinates reduction.
I know it was a lot, a 2hour procedure, but I slept last nght and hardly snored.
Again, pardon the typos.. I cant believe they actually gave me liquid morphine.
That's good news.
Now the only thing that will keep you up at night is thinking about that lousy team you root for!
-
"He brought his b*tch to the Waffle Hut?!??!??!"
(Lady Killers anyone, anyone?)
-
i take all of your points, although the one big difference between 1988 and now is that kelly was already good when he came into the league, and was entering his third nfl season that year. with no disrespect to smith, bennett, thomas, etc., kelly is the primary reason the bills became so consistently good. obviously, our qb situation isn't so settled. one similarity - in '87, the bills choked bigtime at the end of the season (kelly in particular against the pats at home) and it cost them the playoffs.
He also didn't have a good running game until '88, when Thomas was drafted. On the defensive side, the team was young in '87, with Conlan and Bennett (and Odoms?) being rookies, and Bennett didn't play a full season.
Losman will have a better running game and a more solid defense to rely on than Kelly had in his first Buffalo years.
I doubt the team will need to rely on Losman as heavily as the Bills relied on Kelly in '86 and '87.
-
If you use the mid-80s Bills as a rebuilding model, 4-6 years, ending up in the Super Bowl. You'll find that most teams that do end up in the SB go through a similar reconstruction time period.
Using the Bills as an example, here's their fall and rise during the '80s:
81 - 10-6 (playoffs)
82 - 4-5 (strike)
83 - 8-8
84 - 2-14
85 - 2-14
86 - 4-12
87 - 7-8 (strike)
88 - 12-4 (Div Champs)
89 - 9-7 (Div Champs)
90 - 13-3 (SB)
So 6 seasons between playoff appearances, during which time they built a team that would post over 100 wins in the 1990s.
And here's the record break-down since the last playoff appearance:
99 - 10-6 (playoffs)
00 - 8-8
01 - 3-13 (TD's first year)
02 - 8-8
03 - 6-10
04 - 9-7
It would be wrong to make a complete comparison between the teams of these two eras, but there are a couple of interesting similarities:
--Both teams followed up their last playoff year (in '81 and '99) with a .500ish record. They were at the end of their runs, and were erroded by age. The 80's team, having no salary cap consideration, was able to eek out one more .500 season before collapsing. Donahoe, under cap constraints, started rebuilding sooner.
-- Both teams bottomed out, hard, and both had chaotic QB situations. Donahoe was able to stabilize the QB position with Bledsoe, which is why the team was able to rebound more quickly than the 80's squad, who suffered through Kofler and Dufek before Kelly arrived.
--The biggest increase in season-to-season wins is 5 games for both teams. Polian's team jumped from 7 to 12 wins, while Donahoe's jumped from 3 to 8. Donahoe's jump happened earlier in his tenure.
So if you're a long-time Bills fan, you seen this type of rebuilding effort before. You understand the up-and-down cycles that NFLs parity-promoting rules cause.
And if you judge Donahoe's record against the last rebuilding effort for the team, you see that he does have the team on a good track, not out of the realm of reasonablity for creating a strong and solid team that can win season after season.
-
You're using selective quoting. Here's what you left out:
``To show you how radical I am, I want carjackers dead. I want rapists dead. I want burglars dead. I want child molesters dead. I want the bad guys dead. No court case. No parole. No early release. I want 'em dead. Get a gun and when they attack you, shoot 'em.''So children should carry guns to shoot molesters? Man, think of the carnage in Catholic Churches around the country.
On second thought, maybe this guy should be elected.
-
oh really? it would seem to me that if i were to take a poll of TBDers, the vast majority would say that donohoe has been a better gm for the bills than john butler. in the 8 years he served as gm, the bills made the playoffs 5 times. he also supervised most of the drafts in the glory years under polian. in 4 years, donohoe hasn't made it once. yet he saved the team from "cap jail", put butts in the seats, has done wonders with the marketing stuff, and has the organization running like a more smoothly greased business machine, all in all. these are not things to sneer at, especially if you're collecting checks like ralph wilson and his family. i, however, am not ralph wilson and his family. the profitability stuff that matters to wilson (as it should) doesn't matter to me. i'm a simple man when it comes to the nfl -- my prime concern is that the team i root for be good, and that it make the playoffs. as for moving the team, well, if the bills move after a couple of decades of stellar fan support and the locality bending over backwards, the hell with them. not like it would ever happen -- the bills ain't going anywhere in the forseeable future.
Yeah but you have to recognize that Butler's Bills were built on the momentum of a rebuilding period during the mid 80s, during which the Bills went through a period of 3 seasons where they won 8 games.
Good leadership during that time however, netted the Bills core of talent that lasted almost 15 years. Kelly, Smith, Reed, Hull, and Talley were all added.
Donahoe has just brought the team through a similar down cycle. There's no question that he has brought talent to the team, what remains to be seen is if the team can take the next step after improving over the last 3 years.
As fans we all want our team to win every game. We want our team to make the playoffs every year. But the reality is that the NFL, through design, is cyclical in nature.
-
Stupid subject. I won't care a whit about women's orgasam problems until they once again:
take out garbage
change oil
mow lawn
paint
wash dishes
rotate tires
snake plumbing clogs
plow snow
shingle roofs
wash windows
beat carpets
dig ditches
plow dirt
plant crops
reap crops
can crops
make breakfast at 4 AM
weave
sew
feed livestock
make beds
like I do and they used to do.
You weave? How big is your loom?
-
He's not a rookie, but that's what everyone is waiting to see. If Losman can't get the ball out to the WRs consistently, McGahee is going to be running into 8 man fronts all season. It might not be completely disasterous, but it won't be much fun to watch either.
-
1. i don't think that oakland's d is that awful. charles woodson, who was banged up last year, is allegedly totally healthy. when he's healthy, he's one of the best CBs in the league. they've got the guys to stop the run. it's not a great d, of course, but their offense is just so good - much better than the bills' good offense of 2002.
2. re dallas, some of their more talented and important players are coming into their own -- roy williams and terrence newman. they also picked up both anthony henry and aaron glenn, both of whom are players. newman had a good rookie year but was poor last year. my guess is that a guy with that much physical talent will overcome the sophomore slump. as for the rookies -- the first rounders they took are real talents who may well be very good in 2005. plus chris canty, who would have been a high first round pick if not for a blown out knee, is apparently fully healthy and blowing people away in camp.
3. seattle - robinson didn't do much for them last year at all, yet they still had a very good passing game. and alexander in all likelihood will be starting for them this year.
4. kc - as for buying defensive help, well, you can say the same about the bills. it sure worked out for the bills, didn't it?
the bills are arguably as good as these teams. the key word is arguably, however. i happen to think all of these teams are better in terms of talent than the bills, but it's a close call (except for the raiders, who i think will be really strong). to reiterate, though, i am not confident that losman will be good this year. in future years he could be, of course. instead, i'm hoping for average, which, depending on how the ball bounces, could help the bills squeak into the playoffs.
Thanks for the reply. I think it shows that, like the Bills, these other teams have to have some guys step up to be competitive.
I enjoy discussing other teams in the league, so I'd like to comment on your points, not be be argumentative, but only to carry on the discussion.
1. I'm not as high on the Raiders as you. No doubt their offense will be a monster, but they dumped Buchannon last year, and Woodson is really the only guy worth mentioning on the D. Sapp hasn't done anything of note in years, and Washington is on the wrong side of 35. They traded their best LB for Moss.
They'll be tough to stop, but I don't see them stopping many teams next year either. Their division games will be shoot outs, but there's going to be a lot of pressure on Collins to score 35 points a game to win. I'm not sure Collins has shown the wherewithal to carry a team like that.
2. Roy Williams is overrated. His tackle, sack, and int stats just don't back up his status as one of the best safeties in the league. Henry is a cast off from the Browns who had his best year two seasons ago as a nickle back. Age should begin to affect Glenn's performance.
The rookies might pull through, but then again, they might not. In the end, Bledsoe has to face the Philly, Washington, and even the Giants defense 6 times next season. The defense might have to keep their division opposition under 17 points a game, and that will be hard for this young unit to do.
3. Robinson was a non-factor last year, and Jackson dropped too many balls. The problem is that the team did not really improve the WRs this offseason. So Jackson will have to elevate his play, they'll have to find a new #2 WR, and it's unclear how far the team is willing to go to retain Alexander. Holmgrem is high on Maurice Morris, so they just might be breaking in a new RB to start the season.
And the defense, while it does have a player or two, is still NFC West quality, which is to say, not very good.
4. If KC brought in players as good as Spikes, Adams, and Milloy, yes, they would be certain to improve their D. But their signings aren't of that quality, and they still have problems with their defensive line.
I think I like the Bills roster better than these teams because of the Bills defense. It has more playmakers (Clements, Milloy, Fletcher, Spikes, Shoebel, Adams), and will do a better job stopping the run than the teams we've discussed.
-
every year some teams get better and some teams get worse. all of these teams to my mind have improved their roster significantly. KC especially has gotten some defensive players who can actually run. as for oakland, believe it or not, kerry collins threw the ball pretty damn well last year. and now he has randy moss, the best receiver in the league, and a healthy ronald curry. plus gallery in all likelihood will be a monster this year. finally, lamont jordan ran the best he ever ran last year, and solves a lot of problems for that offense. dallas is markedly better across the board, and julius jones is one of the better backs i've seen come into the league in the past few years. as for seattle, they have a good qb, a great offensive line, a good back, good TEs, and a young, improving, and most of all talented secondary. i also happen to think the coach is pretty good still.
in a nutshell, i have my reasons. all of these teams improved their rosters, while on the face of it the bills didn't, unless you believe in addition by subtraction.
Not to be too argumentative, but you also have to consider that Oakland's D is pretty awful. They could look a lot like the 2002 Bills.
Dallas is relying heavily on rookies on the defensive side of the ball, and their best LB, Dat Nygun looks like a poor fit in the 3-4. They also need their aging line to protect Bledsoe, and have a less than steller corpse of receivers.
Seattle's receivers have also taken a step back with Robinson's washout, and their TEs are unproven at best. Alexander is on the trading block, and their front seven on the defensive side is shakey to say the least.
And KC has bought a lot of defensive talent, but so has Washington in the past. The middle of their D line is still soft and the DEs are nothing to write home about.
I like Buffalo's chances better, because Losman or not, they have shown they can run and stop the run, and play excellent special teams.
-
This is an interesting one. What do you think the reaction of this board would be if the Bills lost the AFC championship game 3 years in a row (twice at home), and the team was still something like $15 million under the salary cap, while it was letting quality players leave the fold?
For as much success as they have had over the last four or five years, there's still something that's not right with the way they've built that team.
-
Yeah, I think we all assume that the best way to defense young, inexperienced guys is to beat the hell out of them.
But most young players excel at the physical side of the game, but they struggle with the mental part of the game.
Most savvy DCs realize that and try to force young players into mistakes by disguising coverages.
-
Not really. They could play off the line 7-10 yards, zone up the coverage and keep him under control.
Most DCs will probably do this to make Losman beat them with a bunch of passes, rather than risking a mistake that lets him beat them with one pass.
-
-
Back to my comment about getting him off the line 3 out of 10 times. You can try to knock him down, but you better not miss, because if you do, it's Roscoe vs. the safeties; in other words, touchdown.
I don't think DCs will take that gamble too many times.
-
I hope so, but it will take a qb who notices and a line that gives a qb time to notice. 4.3 is not required in 10 - 15 yard patterns. I think they drafted him as Mould's replacement - in this business, having a big numbers guy fills the stands pretty much as well as a winning record does.
Yes, no doubt the Bills offense will be a work in progress this year. Just look back to last season on how long it took McGahee and Evans to work their way into the starting lineup.
Losman will be there from day 1, but early on, the Bills will be a smash-mouth team.
Parrish's speed in the slot is more of a benefit after the catch that before it. That's why I don't think many teams will even try to bump him on the line. It's too risky.
I'm not sure that Parrish is Moulds replacement though. He's more of a Randle El-type receiver than a Moulds-type guy. Once Moulds leaves, the Bills will need to either draft or sign a big possession receiver to go along with Evans. Parrish is more of an x-factor type of guy.
-
Actually, Parrish is a 2nd rounder. And if my 2nd rounder with 4.3 speed causes the defender to whiff 3 out of 10 times on the chuck, I'll take it, because that's probably 3 TDs.
Parrish will need to work himself into the lineup, but when he does, the Bills will have two sub 4.4 guys on the field who can catch. At that point, the Bills offense will dictate coverages to the defense, not the other way around.
-
FFs, again, here's your exact quote:
Lat round choices like Delhomme or late picks like Brady have been far more successful than the heavy investments in a McNabb (or Palmer, or Smith or even Leaf and Manning) when it comes to SB apearances not to mention wins.So, while Brady has been certainly more successful than McNabb, Delhomme has not been, as your quote indicates.
It's easy to look at the way that Pats, Rams, and Bucs aquired their QBs and say, they won the SB with a "non-marquee" QB, this is the way it should be done.
But for every Brady, Warner, and Brad Johnson, there are dozens of Fiedlers, Garcias, Fluties, Grieses, Ferottes, Petes, Nagels, Feelys, and the like.
Just take a look at the non-first rounders that the Bills have had start for them immediately before and after Kelly: Ferragamo, Dufek, Kofler, Collins, and Johnson (already mentioned Flutie above). Sound like SB winning QBs to you?
The underlying truth here is that counting on a late round pick or UFA to come in and start for an NFL team is a MUCH bigger crapshoot than drafting a first round QB.
And that's why GMs use the first round to select their QB. Of course the ultimate goal for any player drafted or FA signed is to have that guy help the team get to the SB. But the more immediate question is can the player make it at the NFL level. The the first round offers the largest pool of players who can meet that need.
And while you dismiss first round QBs that move to other teams, it further proves that the size of the talent pool for QBs in the 1st round is much bigger than the QB late-round or UFA talent pool.
And that's ulitmately why GMs take QBs in the first round. Because it's just easier to find a good QB in the 1st round than in other rounds or UFA. And no matter how many teams strike it rich with a Brady or Warner, they're still going to play the odds and pick an Eli Manning or Ben Roethlisberger in the first round, rather than try to make a go with an UFA like Brunell, Garcia, or old Warner.
Again... if you read the post it is not simply a comparison of Delhomme vs. McNabb (one obviously chooses McNabb if you are simply comparing talent) but a theory as to how QB investments overall work out. There are multiple 1st round QBs who have had some success in the NFL FOR THE TEAM WHICH DRAFTED THEM as in addition to McNabb players like Culpepper and Vick got their teams to the conference championship.However, the conventional wisdom (as demonstrated by the theory in the orginal post) is that one needs to invest in a marquee QB in order to get to and win the SB. This has simply been untrue in recent history as for the most part teams which draft a QB in the 1st round (Indy with Manning, Philly with McNabb for example to site the most successful ones) generally sre only one of the four final teams.
I consistently (too consistently for many tastes) argue that one does not need to invest heavily in a marquee QB (you have to pay heavy for success as seen in the Brady case, but I would not call the NE investment in him heavy until his most recent deal this past off-season since they invested lightly and easily managably in him both as a rookie and in his second contract).
If one believed the conventional QB wisdom then the method of winning the SB would be to draft a Manning, a Culpepper, a Leftwich or a Vick in the first and watch the SB trophies mount up. However, alll of these stud QBs share something in common that they have never even seen an SB game.
The Delhomme example (example rather than rule) is important because he represents a QB strategy which has succeeded in getting your team to the SB multiple times and FAR more frequently than draft ing a QB in the first round in that if you get a player like 6th round draft pick Brady, cap casualty Dilfer or Wal-Mart box boy Warner and pay them near or at the NFL minimum so you can build a TEAM within you salary cap limits this is how teams have won the SB.
I'm pretty sure that like most NFL youngsters JP will go through a learning phase this year. I think we can easily survive this is we can rely upon the rest of the team. However, the big challenge for the Bills led by JP is whether he can become the1st QB drafted since Dallas chose Aikman to lead the team which drafted him to an SB win.
I'm not slamming 1st round QBs, i just think that a team is far better off finding thi talent and managing his contract from the reject piles of other teams (Dilfer for example or Brett Favre or Steve Young) or because he forces a trade from the team which drafted him (Elway for example) than picking him yourself. Whether you pick a Leaf who sucks or a Manning whose contract is a rate-limiting factor on Indy you end up with the same amount of SB wins and appearances) or even playoff wins until year before last).
-
Yeah, but don't forget, it was Kitna in for the first time that season. He was very Bledsoe like.
A good game defensively, largely b/c of that. A very, very poor game offensively, no two ways about it. Given that they were Cincy and we were the Bills, we were a better team, yet we couldn't move the ball and had to rely on three big plays to win the game. The game itself was in a sense dominated by them.
If you don't agree, ask yourself how many games you think we'll win this season if we have to rely on three big plays like that each week.
That game was par for the course for the Bills last year, especially during the winning streak. Special teams and defense accounted for 6 TDs during that run, and made countless other big plays.
That's the point. The Cinci game was an example of how the Bills could win games when their offense didn't play well.
Your excuse of Kitna being rusty (he was 2-1 last year, though), shows the difference between Buffalo and Cinci. The Bengals needed their QB to be on his game to win, that's why a top-notch LT is a must for them.
I do think the Bills will continue to make big plays next year on the defense and kick teams. They have playmakers on defense and a great tactician in Gray. On special teams, they have added Parrish, who was a great punt returner at Miami.
That why I believe that the criticism of Donahoe for not bringing in a Levi Jones caliber of LT is off base. Losman is not going to have to pull a Palmer and engineer 58 points to win a game. He'll have to run for his life every now and then, but as long as he dosen't turn the ball over, the running game, defense and special teams will help him win games.
Hockey Management
in The Stadium Wall Archives
Posted
For what? (The Sabres have been around for 35 years.)
The Sabres seem to be well positioned to resume play. If Miller or Biron are able to claim the #1 spot and play consistently, the team should be pretty good.