oldmanfan
-
Posts
12,880 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Gallery
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by oldmanfan
-
-
5 minutes ago, 4merper4mer said:
Cops don’t want to live their lives?
I have no idea where this is coming from, but yes police should be able to live their lives. I am very much pro law and order.
-
1 hour ago, Einstein's Dog said:
True, and I was nervous last year over that spot. I consider that spot less vital though so I wasn't in panic mode.
And who would our hidden gem be? Maybe Shorter? I'm not buying it.
I think the guy in the middle of the defense calling signals is pretty vital.
-
2 minutes ago, Bob Jones said:
One big, BIG difference between Kap and Butker is that Kap did his thing on “company time.” To me, and to many others, that makes a world of difference. An analogy would be if right after the SB win, down on the field in post game interviews, Butker would have said some of the stuff he said at the college commencement speech.
And the company was OK with it or it would not have happened.
-
Just now, Putin said:
Ok calm down Oldman
I’m perfectly calm. We’re in OTAs now? Let’s turn to actually watching what the kid does and quit doing things like trying to predict a kid’s future from a YouTube video. There’s a lot of confirmation bias both ways.
-
2 hours ago, Rampant Buffalo said:
You make a solid point.
That said . . . when I watched some of Josh Allen's college footage, I saw special throws. Throws deep downfield, into tight windows. Big boy throws that most NFL QBs can't make. That wasn't enough for me to make a prediction for or against Allen. I was on the fence about him after the draft, and for his first two years in the NFL. But there was enough there for me to say that he was flashing elite attributes at the college level.
I never got that sense with Coleman. I'm open to the possibility that Coleman's play improves over what he did in college. But I will need to see that improvement actually happen, before I get the anointing oil out for him.
With respect to your last sentence, don’t you think that’s the case for any draft pick?
-
7 hours ago, PBF81 said:
Look, there are exceptions both ways. If you want to believe that he's on the positive side of that, great. Time will tell though, not popular belief or consensus.
Take a look at the WRs picked last year in the first two rounds.
It's a mixed bag. Quentin Johnston and Johnathan Mingo are the two that are most like Coleman and neither impressed in any way, shape, or form.
As stated, there are many people and sites that have noted that however.
Well, OK, that's all fine and dandy, but it still doesn't translate to production nor render the fact that he lacked high-end production false.
Again, talk is cheap. And who really likes hearing that he won't be doing much early in the season? As our first overall pick, even at the top of the 2nd, and given our sore lack of and dire need for WRs, that really shouldn't sit well with any Bills fan. Also, in light of that, how long are we supposed to wait for production? What, two, three seasons? ... until he's up for a new contract?
Just asking the tough questions here.
Yes. Talk is cheap. So why do you continue? And that goes for others on the incessantly positive side as well.
At this point he is a Bill, he is going to play and we ALL need to get behind him.
-
1
-
-
And we are still where we were when all this started. A player has the right to say what he wants, people reading or hearing it have the right to express their opinions if they be negative or positive. The league and the team have a responsibility to the other players and teams to indicate the player speaks only for himself.
And of course as with seemingly everything these days it all comes down to political persuasion. Some of the same people who lambasted Kaepernick for his stance fall all over themselves praising Butker. And vice versa.
Speaking as an Independent, both these guys had the absolute right to express themselves however they wanted. I was OK with Kaepernick kneeling because he cleared it with a Green Beret as being appropriate, and I understand those who hated it. To me the flag stands for freedom, and what you do with your freedom may be repugnant to me but that’s the way it goes.
Same with Butker. But with Butker I am less understanding because of his views about the LGBTQ community. Comments like his get like minded folks charged up and that can result in direct harm to folks who simply want to live their lives. His comments about women? Women I know waver between being pissed at the guy and laughing at him, and they are OK with someone wanting to be a homemaker. That’s not a choice the vast majority of women I know would make, but to each her own.-
1
-
-
2 minutes ago, Doc said:
How many? Maybe 2 (Coleman and Bishop). If any other rookies start, it's gravy.
I think you'll see Davis on the field a lot, and the C from UGA has a shot. Hoping the DE from Troy shows something.
-
3
-
-
10 minutes ago, Einstein said:
The idea that the ‘public’ would ever think that a place-kickers words spoken at an off-season, non-NFL related, non-NFL endorsed, non-NFL created event would in any way represent the NFL is a tad ludicrous.
Yet that is what happens. The NFL protects the shield like it or not. The health care network I work for would do the same if I made remarks that ticked off a lot of folks.
-
2
-
-
14 minutes ago, Mark Vader said:
By that same logic, would that not also mean that everyone who is not an NFL fan would also not know who Harrison Butker is?
They read the stories one presumes which identified him as a member of the Chiefs. Surely you realize that.
-
26 minutes ago, Mark Vader said:
The NFL didn't need to issue a statement regarding Butker's speech at all.
Doing so makes it seem like Butker speaks for the NFL, and that is not the case.
Yes they did. They needed to make sure the public knew the player did not speak for the league. Not everyone out there who read the story is an NFL fan
-
Gailey would have been a good coach for Josh. I wonder if Mularkey would have done well with him.
-
2
-
3
-
-
One of the all time greats
-
4
-
-
4 minutes ago, mrags said:
It was more like 10 times today. You’re already at 2 for Monday now. Let’s see how many we can rack up
Or you could get over yourself, realize people have different opinions on things and not get so sensitive and lash out when someone disagrees with yours. This started with you criticizing McD for not using Williams to stop Kelce. One of the reasons Kelce will be a first ballot HOFer is that teams have not figured out a way to stop him. In response, you indicated you don’t really have knowledge of what teams did with Kelce but were sure some team did slow him down.
So you said you had no knowledge of a subject but then said you were sure of something about it. And I and at least one other person commented on how that is, in my words, funny.
We share opinions around here. And then discuss them. If you don’t like my comments on yours simply use your ignore function. Or do like many do and engage civilly in the banter that goes on. You choose. I’m gong to bed.
-
1 hour ago, mrags said:
Funny, you respond to every one of them.
And twice on Sundays.
-
My nieces love the Bandits. They took me to a playoff game a couple years ago when I was in town. Fun atmosphere; I’d consider getting seasons if I ever move back.
-
1
-
-
34 minutes ago, Einstein's Dog said:
My apologies if I mistook you for other posters.
Please do not put much stock in these alleged wise posters who continue to change their cap/salary implications. It is safe to say Beane has a much better grip on what it takes. And a good GM would have positioned himself to meet the requirements (I believe he has).
For instance it seems quite safe to say that after June 1st there is the potential for a surge in funds that should be sufficient to bring in a top tier WR (Tre money + potential restructures + potentially another preplanned hit to Josh = > $15M). The article above mentions $13M needed for Metcalf and Aiyuk looks to be about $14M. The acquired WR can then have their contract restructured - much like Diggs had his restructured to a $6M cap hit.
Who cares if Beane says he is okay with the WR room? That is just blather, what else is he supposed to say. What matters is if he actually believes it, which is hard to believe any reasonable person would. Only diehard Beane fans can twist the top three WRs of; WR2/3 from Wash, a second round rookie, and last years WR3, as an acceptable WR room. And I agree with you that that is not a rebuild- a rebuild would have been with 2 drafted WRs - right now it's just pathetic. That's not what a good GM does.
It's okay to have different hopes/expectations. You can be anxious for camp, I want to see what the first week of June brings.
I’m sorry, I swore to myself that we’d just agree to disagree, but calling the WR position pathetic based on just one desired player is way over the top.
-
1
-
1
-
-
8 minutes ago, Einstein's Dog said:
Fair enough. And for me:
1. The addition of a good WR changes dramatically the entire off-season moves. It ties in everything he has done (and I was rooting for). But it all hinges on his finishing it off. The state of the WR room is hanging in the balance.
2. Now you're adjusting your amateur capology to say you have to cover the salary. Prior it was cap hit. Some internet quote (you put in this thread) said cap hit minus bonus. The linked article said the Steelers would need $13M to cover Metcalf (and that there could be a restructure done with no void years that would reduce his 2024 salary by almost $6M). And you say I'm making assumptions? Whatever, I'm confident Beane knows what it is and has planned for it. Once again, it's his job. And from the tidbits we have seen it is totally reasonable to think it can be done.
3. What about when Beane said "we will never rebuild as long as Josh is my quarterback". That's the Beane I choose to believe.
I think you’re mistaking me with someone else about quoting an article. The individual who did so I believe said you have to cover the existing contract terms if you make a trade, and only then can you subsequently renegotiate. Other folks wiser than me have pointed out cap implications but you choose to ignore them it appears.
And there is nothing I can see that suggests a rebuild. We got younger at some positions which we needed to do. And to say it yet again, a Plus/minus on one WR is not pivotal. It does not constitute a rebuild.
If he brings somebody in great. If not then he’s saying he is OK with the WR room as is. Which he has already said, I believe.
So you have your take, I’ll keep mine. I’m anxious for camp to start.
-
1
-
-
I’ll be interested to see how the Solomon kid looks.
-
1
-
1
-
-
3 minutes ago, mrags said:
Naw. I’m pretty open about arguing with people. Everyone here knows me well enough by now.
As long as I keep living rent free in your head.
You got me. I spend every waking moment reading your posts. How did you know?
-
9 minutes ago, mrags said:
This board is hilarious at times. Like how people can’t figure out how to quote someone and reply to their post
I’m sorry. Was I responding to you? Silly me.
-
3 minutes ago, Rocky Landing said:
I don't know if there will be an upgrade available that we can afford, and I don't know where Beane/McD consider it on the priority list.
But there's a whole lotta hope in your post. All those guys you mentioned have lined up on the outside at some point in there careers, but I don't think you can consider a single one of them a primary X receiver, or #1WR. Maybe Coleman becomes that? I hate to hang my hat on a rookie, but that's probably where we are.
I just think the critical thing is how Brady uses guys
-
1
-
2
-
-
Just now, Rocky Landing said:
"A receiver positioned farthest from center on their side of the field which takes their stance on the line of scrimmage, necessary to meet the rule requiring seven players to be lined up on it at the snap."......... That's a cut and paste from Google.
There's plenty of literature on what makes the position unique, and it's relevance to offensive, and defensive schemes. For the Bills, and Josh Allen, after the loss of Diggs, and Davis it should be a priority.
So I can see several guys on the roster that could do that. Samuel could. MVS could. If Claypool gets his head straight he could. Coleman could. I can see them splitting Cook out wide out of the backfield. Kincaid can split wide.
The success or failure of the offense is going to depend on Brady’s schemes and play calling as well as Josh distributing. If Beane decides he wants to add another WR in a trade fine by me, but I don’t envision it.
-
1
-
-
23 hours ago, Rocky Landing said:
MVS is getting a lot of props on here for being "playoff proven," or whatever-- meaning he didn't drop the ball during the playoffs, and made some nice plays. But, to my mind, that really doesn't discount the fact that he had an egregious drop problem during the regular season. Those happened, and some of the drops I've watched have been terrible. And yeah, he's not fast, and doesn't cut well. But he does have upside. He blocks well, he high-points well, and he runs a nice fade.
Right now, the Bills have six WRs at 6'4", with similar traits, and if any other one of them had been on the Chiefs instead of MVS (with the hopeful exception of Coleman), I would imagine they would have been used in much the same way-- stretch the field ahead of Kelce, throw down some blocks, and target them just enough to keep defenses honest.
Frankly, I don't see MVS as any kind of reliable answer to our X receiver problem. I think he's looking at a five-way competition with Claypool, Hollins, Shavers, and Shorter, and I'm not sure he's at the top of that list. His biggest advantage is that he caught some passes in the post season, and that he played for the chiefs, but I certainly don't think he's a lock. Hollins might have a leg up on him for special teams, and Claypool, reclamation project though he may be, might have more upside. They probably both have more reliable hands than MVS.
Define an X receiver
Harrison Butker…oy vey…what a commencement “speech”
in Off the Wall
Posted
His team owner allowed it. So he got to kneel.