jad1
-
Posts
1,345 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Gallery
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by jad1
-
-
So why is Greenpeace carrying 70,000 gallons of "petroleum products?" Were they slapped for carrying their own fuel for the ship? My guess is that carrying "petroleum products" is much different than carrying oil, which would require a spill plan.
The article could have done a better job explaining this.
-
You guys are glossing over REASON #1 why we lost the Giants: Jim Kelly's refusal to change his game plan in the face of the Giants D. Kelly wanted to win the game with his arm, even though Thurman Thomas was tearing the Giants up on the ground. His ego wouldn't let him to admit Parcells was stopping his vaunted K-Gun. He played right into Parcells hands.
PTR
Yeah, and Thomas had almost 200 combined yards, and the offense averaged a point-a-minute. .
If Norwood made that kick, Thomas would have been named the MVP. It wasn't Kelly fault. It was Norwood's
-
#1. Scott Norwood, and the rest doesn't matter.
We can spend all day pointing out how the Bills didn't play the perfect game, but let's not forget that they were playing the other best team in the league that day, and not the Arizona Cardinals.
They took some punches, but when it was all said and done, they left Norwood with a makeable field goal to win the game.
If you're buying the whole 48 yards is too long argument, consider that 75% of this board wants to dump Lindell because he can't make a 40+yard field goal.
Compare that game with the Pats 3 SB wins, in which they also gave up big plays and made mistakes, but played well enough to win the game on the last play. Their kicker converted, the Bills kicker didn't.
Norwood seems like a nice guy, and he did make some good kicks for the Bills in his career, but honestly, he makes that kick, and nobody is talking about time of possession, or Ingram's first down, or the safety that should have been a TD.
-
Good comments, especially making a defense pay. The questions remain, though -MM's offensive game plan didn't seem notable last year, ercept against po-dunk clubs, and were I a defensive coordinator, I would make it a point to sandwich and heavily ring the bell of the slight Parrish between a set of lb's, safties etc. very early on.
Easier said than done. If your goal is to pound or sandwich Parrish with extra safeties or LBs, Evans or Moulds will be single covered. And if a DC figures out how to double up Evans and Moulds, while abusing Parrish, then McGahee will have room to run underneath.
While Bledsoe was slow to read coverages and planted in the ground, no DC feared Josh Reed catching a ball behind a blitz. That's why TD's move to upgrade the position is a sound one.
Again while Bledsoe is Bledsoe, the Bills still didn't have the speed to make defenses pay for blitzing. Evans was a huge improvement, but Parrish gives Mularkey more and better options for attacking defenses.
-
like i said, roscoe will be facing the same nickelbacks that aiken or reed would be facing.........he doesn't change the defensive personnel based on his presense in the line-up, so your point that the bills will see more nickel coverages because roscoe is around doesn't add up.......
will roscoe push safeties back more then aiken/reed would? i don't think he will intially.......he'll have to prove he can beat the bump of the nickleback (and LB's on crossing routes) before he earns the respect of the safeties in the league.......if the defense can slow him down off the line of scrimmage the threat of him beating a safety deep becomes slimmer and slimmer........if he can beat the bump consistantly AND then beat safeties deep he will begin to garner more attention and defenses will then adjust, but they may well bring the safeties up closer to the box to give him a rougher ride off the line of scrimmage.......like you said, the threat of a screen pass is also there which will also lead to teams playing closer, not farther away, from roscoe, at least until he proves he can beat guys deep......
the bottom line is roscoe needs to prove he can beat the bump before anyone backs off him.......you don't get handed respect in this league without earning it first........
Well the obvious answer to this is that you start the season by putting Parrish in motion, which removes the bump and forces movement in the defense before the snap. Again, this gives the advantage to the offense.
Considering that Evans is a proven deep threat, there's multiple ways to move the defense out of box just by moving Parrish before the snap.
And if guys play closer to Parrish on the line, they're still out of the box, so that's fine too.
And I just don't see Aiken or Reed worrying defensive coordinators. You can zone them up (with LBs), and neither is going to hurt you after the catch. Guys like Parrish, Moulds, and Evans can and will hurt you after the catch. DCs will have to account for them, or they will get burned.
-
The question is: Can your QB locate a receiver, can the reciever gain seperation under the (usually) shortened time to do so with blitz? I'm no fan of excessive blitzing, but defenses will do it facing a weak ol as well as when facing a weak wr corps. Blitzing need not mean 8 man rushes - a db or a fast lb with moves works well.
Sure, but a big part of the Bills problem over the past few years is that they have been hit by odd man blitzes, thanks to a lack of speed at WR and a slow-footed QB.
If Parrish can back the defense off before the snap, the Oline's and QB's reads are much easier. That's a big help to the Oline and a young QB.
Whether Losman can run through progessions is something that remains to be seen (I think he can, but that's my opinion).
-
put any 3 WR's in the game and more often then not the defense is going to switch to a nickel.......i don't think parrish is going to force a defenses hand any more then reed or aiken would........can parrish beat a nickelback more often then reed or aiken? possibly........but either way parrish will be beating the same nickelback that reed or aiken would have been facing if they were lining up in the slot.........
There's a huge difference between Aiken/Reed and Parrish. Parrish can take a screen pass to the house, Aiken and Reed can't.
And Aiken/Reed require no deep coverage, like Evans does. Parrish will require deep coverage, which pushes the safeties back, out of the box.
The offense is going to be radically different with Parrish in the game. The pure speed on the field will dictate adjustments to the defense, something the Bills offense hasn't been able to do in years.
-
You can have the best OT in the league, but if your wideouts are Bobby Shaw and Josh Reed, and your QB has cement feet, you're going to set the league sack-allowed record.
Even the best Oline can't stop blitzes coming from 8-man fronts. The offense needs to spread those guys out, and the only way to do that is with speed.
I'd still like to see the Bills sign Shelton or Walker if they're available after June 1, but those either of those guys will look better if the defense has to back off the coverage due to Evans, Moulds and Parrish.
-
Parrish's value is that he'll move defenders out of the box. Defenses will have to move the safeties back when he's in the game, and will most likely have to play a nickel defense against Moulds, Evans and Parrish, as none can be covered by a linebacker.
This means that the O-line will face fewer outmanned blitzes, and McGahee will get more room to run.
NE uses Branch, Johnson, and even Faulk to keep defenses from blitzing Brady. Buffalo finally has some speed at WR to do the same.
That's why I think Parrish is a better pick than an OT. Even the best OT wouldn't prevent defenses from putting the 8th man in the box. Parrish, as he works into the offense, will make defenses think twice before committing the extra defender.
-
A very good question, and were I not to have the screenplay on my hard drive, I wouldn't have an answer. But I do!
The answer is that "destroying the Sith" and "bringing balance to the Force" seem to be used as essentially interchangable terms.
OBI-WAN: With all due respect, Master, is he not the Chosen One? Is he not to destroy the Sith and bring balance to the Force?
--------------------------------
OBI-WAN: (continuing) . . . You were the Chosen One! It was said that you would destroy the Sith, not join them. It was you who would bring balance to the Force, not leave it in Darkness.
So I guess the Force is out of balance whenever there exist Sith to use it for evil.
Cool, thanks!
-
So let me adjust my tuskan raider headgear and ask you, was the prophecy that the sith would be destroyed, or was it that there would be balance brought to the force? Because I see them as two different things.
Does anyone know where I can find C-3PO poster suitable for framing?
-
Lucas, who's he?
Actually, I have a hard time seeing Vader tossing the Emperor into the pit on his own, if Luke didn't show up.
Maybe we should be having this conversation waiting in line for the movie to open, wearing the gear of our favorite stormtrooper or wookie.
-
Nah, the NFL has much better sources of scouting information. What do you think this is, the CFL?
"Hey coach, how you gonna prepare for the Eskimos, eh?"
"I'm gonna light up a smoke, drink a Blue, and read the Igloo fan forum, hoser! Nuthin' else to do with the Leafs on strike, eh."
-
I don't know if you are asking sincerely or just fuggin with us, but since I'm a SW homer I'll bite......This is just a hunch, but I think you'll see by the end of Ep.III the groundwork for what will eventually be the Rebel Alliance. By the time Ep.IV rolls around, they are already a significant threat to what by then has become the Empire. I'd say it's pretty clear by Ben's actions in Ep.IV why he remained in seclusion until the time was right. As for Yoda, given Ben's fate, Yoda was the only one left to provide the training Luke required. I'd say both Ben and Yoda clearly were better off staying hidden and allowing others to deveop the Rebel forces.
Maybe both realize that Luke is actually the chosen one, not Anakin. (Man, am I a geek
). -
Great idea Einstein, but Belichick doesn't read Buffalo message boards.
Why don't you sharpen your best crayon, and write some letters to Belicheck, detailing your offensive brainstorms. God knows he shouldn't be spared your genius.
-
-
-
-
I hope you're right.
But that seems highly unlikely considering the Bills have a new QB and the worst left side of the offensive line in the NFL. Oh, plus the Bills play NE on Sunday night (we all know how those national games turn out).
NE will finish the year 5-1 in the AFC East, but I don't think that loss will come from Buffalo. My money is on a split with the Jets.
I see it differently. McGahee and Evans greatly improved the offense after they became starters last season, after the 0-4 start. They should continue to improve.
Losman won't be the sitting duck that Bledsoe was in the pocket. Parrish will help move defenders out of the box.
Buffalo's offense is going to be much different this year. As the season moves on, they'll face fewer and fewer loaded fronts, which will make the O-lines job much easier.
Losman's a young QB, but Mularkey, Clemments, and Wyche should they could manage a QB with Bledsoe last year, and Losman has the ability to make a guy miss. Something that Bledsoe never had. And if he falters, Holcombe can step in.
As for the Jets, the Bills lost by a last minute field goal to them in NY and beat them in Buffalo. The Jets aren't that much better than the Bills.
-
Do you think anyone in the AFC East has a legit shot at taking the division title from them?
Won't be the Dolphins or the Bills (rebuilding and too many ? for both)
That leaves the Jets, while I think they will be good, I don't know if they have enough to beat the Pats.
If no one in the AFC East can beat them, then that makes it a certainty that they will be in the playoffs yet again.
I believe the Bills will challenge the Pats this year and will beat them at least once.
-
-
You can argue all you want, but last year there wasn't a team close to NE's level. Not one.
Sure, they lost their coordinators, but they still have a great D, the best QB in the league, and one of the best offensive schemes in the business. They get the most out of their players.
What players did they lose? Bruschi hurts...other than him they didn't lose anyone who isn't easily replaceable. Law? Brown? Andruzzi? Bah.
Who in the AFC East can/will beat the Pats? Certainly not the Bills or Dolphins (far too many question marks). Thats 4-0 in the AFC East for the Pats. The Jets will be better this year, but the most they will get is a split. Baring a major injury or two during the season, there is no doubt the Pats will win the AFC East again this year.
Who in the AFC can beat them in the playoffs? Maybe Indy...that's about it. But the only way they win is if they play the game in Indy.
Deny it all you want, but the Pats are going to be very good once again in 2005.
NE's LBs, including Brushi are all well into their 30s, with no one on the roster to replace them. Harrison is also considered an "old" player. If these guys hit the wall (think Eddie Robinson), NE's reign is finished.
Of course, that's a big 'if,' but players do tend to drop off as they reach these guys' age.
-
-
Donahoe
in The Stadium Wall Archives
Posted
So TD should have hired Marvin Lewis? Lewis has done less with more talent in Cinci than GW had his first two years as Bills coach. And considering the underperformance of the Bengals defense over the last two years, Lewis' stock continues to fall.
I think Donahoe made the right decision in not hiring Lewis, based on Lewis' record.
And the records of Fox and Williams were similar (both DCs of SB losing teams, with highly rated Ds), so the way to differentiate between the two is personal interviews, and Williams did better, due to Fox's need to focus on the SB during the interview process.
So let's pull the reins in while speculating about Donahoe's fictional bruised ego. It doesn't exist. At the time, he made a solid decision.