Mikie2times

I can get long winded at times. I know others that make my posts look like cliff notes. What's your take on long posts? I usually try and read them but give up quickly if I'm not interested.

Dwight Adams hates us

No, I think they have a chance at the playoffs. I just think at that point they have no chance at the Super Bowl. When he has time to throw I would pick few QB's in the league over Drew. When he doesn't he literally goes the polar opposite direction. His mental clock has only slowed with age, and I don't see any line in the league capable of protecting him when every coordinator in the league will send the house. You need to show you can beat the blitz to stop the blitz. Drew can't do that anymore. So regardless if they get in beating up against weaker clubs they will face strong teams in the playoffs. Drew will then turn it over, and Dallas fans and Jerry Jones will be left to wonder what other peaces Drew will need to win it next year.

My opinion of Drew Bledsoe isn't that he has nothing to offer, it's that what he does have to offer is negated by turnovers and mistakes. For having such great hands I wonder why he's fumbled more then any other QB over the last four years. Maybe it's because he takes so many sacks. People thought that might be more the Bills line, that was until he posted another 49 sack year in Dallas, a year which he also tied for the NFL lead in fumbles The problem is great performances by a QB will probably get you a win, but 4 turnover games will guarantee you a loss. Drew Bledsoe will guarantee these types of games every year, and the probability of this happening drastically increases against stronger competition. Just the type of competition he would have to face in the playoffs.

QB- Still no clear starter RB- Will MaGahee rebound? WR- How will this unit look without Moulds, and no clear QB? TE- FA known more for blocking, 2nd year player never played a game OL- Is Villerial done? Can Peters be more effective in run blocking? How will Flower and Reyes look? DE- Will Kelsey or Denny step up? Can they apply pressure to the QB? DT- Are any of the DT's legitimate starters? What happens if Anderson goes down? LB- Takeo's Achilles, Posey slowing down, Fletcher isn't getting younger DB- How will Whitner and Simpson develop, will Troy Vincent rebound? HC- New OC- New DC- New GM- New Some of these have a better chance at working out then others but all of these question marks exist. We’ are really only set at a couple positions, then you factor in depth, and all the coaching changes. I just think it's to much to overcome.

I see that being Marv's plan. We could have done more this off-season. We had the money, and lord knows we could use the talent. I think what Marv did was differ the major talent upgrade until we have more knowledge of who we will need. Players like McCargo,Whitner, Parrish, Simpson, Losman etc are legit prospects, and if they develop it would drastically change what this team needs. We have so many question marks and even more when you consider everybody will be in a new system. Instead of bringing in the major veteran help in the midst of such uncertainty we decided to wait, and build our future depth. Once we get a better read on what we need then we will add the last few peaces of the puzzle.

With the way our roster looks I don't expect us to be a legitimate contender anytime soon. Players could develop and accelerate the process but a new HC and GM almost certainly include some rebuilding. Year 3 is often looked at as the year a rebuilding team should see results. With that in mind I decided to look at our current roster to see which players would be 30 or younger three years from now (I didn't factor in the contract status of these players). QB-J.P. Losmon, Craig Nail RB- Willis MaGahee, Shaud Williams WR- Lee Evans, Roscoe Parrish, Sam Aiken, Andre Davis, Josh Reed TE- Kevin Everett OT- Jason Peters, Mike Gandy, Greg Jerman OG- Duke Preston, Justin Geisinger C- Melvin Flower DT- John McCargo, Larry Tripplet, Tim Anderson, Kyle Williams DE- Chris Kelsey LB- Angelo Crowell, Mario Haggan, Courtney Watson CB- Terrance McGee, Nate Clements, Ashton Youboty, Eric King, Jabari Greer FS- Ko Simpson, Rashad Baker SS- Donte Whitner It's rare to look at anybody's roster and say they'll be set in three years but what I like with this roster is the potential for depth and continuity. In three years we could have a lot of guys who will have experience starting, that could either continue being starters or turn into excellent back ups if we upgrade the talent. Then we have several units who could return a plethora of talented starters for years to come. Thoughts?

You don't need a stud QB to win the Super Bowl. But if you don't have that QB you better have one that can manage a football game. Despite the talent on that team the Dallas line is still a question mark, and regardless if they pan out people will get threw no matter how talented you are up front. That is especially the case when you have a QB that will take a sack or turn it over with the consistency Drew has shown the last 4 years (including his first in Dallas). When pressured Drew's game becomes way to erratic to take a team threw 16 games, and the playoffs. No way Dallas wins the Super Bowl, not even in a watered down NFL season.

If you make the hall of fame based on pass yardage then Drew is a first ballot HOF. If you base it off what he actually brought to the teams he's played for he shouldn't have a chance. Drew is and always will be the most consistently inconsistent QB in the NFL. When he was younger he should have had more TD passes for the amount of yards he was throwing for, and his decision making has always been an issue. As time progressed the TD's and yards kept going down, and the fumbles and sacks began to sky rocket. Since 2002 Drew has averaged almost 13 fumbles and 48 sacks per year, and as AD pointed out these trends always come at the worst times. Drew is only 8-38 against teams that finished the regular season with 10 or more wins. No way Vinny should be in either.

Detroit Chicago

Agree

He did show improvement. In fact I remember posting a few things on his improved numbers in the second half of the season. That said even with the improvement his final numbers were below that of the majority of first year QB's. I also remember doing a post on that if you would like me to dig them both up to see the numbers. I just think JP wasn't confident in his reads last year. I also think that with our turnover based defense coaches over emphasized not turning it over. You might say it's impossible to overemphasis not turning it over. But when you have an uncertain, young QB, who's already hesitant with his throws, you can overstate things. This slight hesitancy would explain accuracy problems given how quick NFL play is. It would also explain his low TD numbers. For JP's sake, and our sake, let’s hope this was the problem.

Look the guys very, very, bitter. He obviously loves this team and some of us just don't take the beatings as well as others. This outlook slants nearly his whole article, but I do agree with him on one point. The Bills will be bad in 2006. To much transition, and way to many question marks in critical areas. I've accepted this to a point, and to cope I'll watch 2006 to see young players develop into the future of this team. If we win it will be the icing on the cake. Call me defeated, but I won't be the one needing Prozac this year.

I see this as a make or break year for JP. This light switch effect we hear about isn't like a QB going from bad to great all of a sudden. The ones that see the light usually show some statistical evidence before hand. For example a high TD ratio coupled with a high INT ratio is sometimes a good indicator of a QB on the verge. You usually also see that coupled with an increasing completition %, and Yards Per Pass Attempt. Comparatively speaking JP was bad last year in those areas compared to QB's of similar experience, and if he doesn't show the usual trends we see in emerging QB's after this season we must start to consider other options. I'm all for giving a developing QB some time, but eventually you need to make a decision, otherwise you might end up with a Joey Harrington like situation that paralyzes the franchise for several years.

FYI

I just can't feel sorry for the guy either. I mean it sucks that he got shafted by his folks but it's not as if he didn’t have ample time to change his situation. He then places all the blame on this loan officer when in reality his situation has nothing to do with this man. Got bad credit DD? Do what everybody else does, rent.

I heard he was cited at a local tattoo store getting "world largest pass rusher" tattooed on his butt cheek.

What freaks me out about this whole thing is the fact that we might be bad in more then one of these areas next year. Teams struggle to overcome 1 of these issues, and rarely make the playoffs if they’re not at least satisfactory in all of these areas. You get your exceptions every year but those exceptions usually come when a team dominates one of these areas. Take the Colts and the passing game, or Chicago defensive/running strategy last year. You can't be bad in more then one of these areas and even be average in this league, and I think we stand a decent chance of being below average in all three categories. If we do any of these things well next season it will probably be running the ball but even that isn’t a sure thing. Our improvements to the line have held pace with the last regime and we all know how that ended up. On defense Larry Tripplet and the Colts cover 2 hasn't solved their run problems since Dungy installed it. Anderson could improve but is probably not a starter on most teams, and McCargo is still an unknown. Finally young QB's, and ones with weak arm struggle in yards per pass attempt, a critical indicator of performance. Even with Moulds it would be a reach to expect either of these guys to be in the top half of the league in this category after how they faired last year.

Your example is valid, but in this sampling only a couple of the teams would produce this result. Last years Colts team would be a perfect example of this. They built leads and teams wouldn't run so they looked like they had a decent run defense but the reality was different. These teams escape this type of testing but they're also rare examples. The vast majority of the league would not fit this profile, and the vast majority of the league's games are competitive.

Again I understand it’s picking up instances of teams running out the clock but let's please keep this in perspective. The league wide average for rush % over this span is 46.6%, and in the last two years (playoffs and regular season combined) running over 50% of the time was accomplished only 19 times. Of that group only 6 teams averaged less then 4 yards a carry, and only last years Panthers had a respectful Yards Per Pass Attempt average. To me that indicates that teams either run a lot because they do it well, or they have to run because they have such an inefficient passing game. As for your other comments passing yards per attempt is more of a double statistic. This type of accuracy makes it a perfect compliment to this type of testing. Think of it like TD/INT ratio or SO/BB in baseball. Naturally if you are accurate the yards per attempt will increase but in order for it to increase beyond the norm you still need to complete those passes for decent yardage. The worst players in this category end up always being rookies, while the best almost always have solid TD/INT ratios. With rushing yards per attempt a passing team can excel because they run on occasion to set up the pass. Teams like Philadelphia and Minnesota have historically been strong in rushing yards per attempt, but weak in overall rushing attempts and rushing yards. Since RYPA doesn't accurately measure a team’s true rushing ability it will naturally lose correlation. Also my database goes back to 1997 and I have run these tests many times. Take it for what it's worth but the correlations come up with similar results in the categories I mentioned.

Good post. I agree that this factor does influence the data, but I don't feel as if it explains the data. If you wanted to remove these factors in the rushing stats you could by using rushing yards per attempt for offense, but that would inevitably lead to more problems with the data. For example Philadelphia last year was tied for 16th in rushing yards per attempt, but that's only because they had teams playing the pass so often. In actual rushing yardage they ranked 28th near the bottom of the league. It's clear that rushing success on offense is not only about averages but repetition. Repetition wears down defenses, and it allows the offense a chance to move the ball with little chance of a turnover. A team like Philadelphia runs the ball as a way to keep teams from dropping everybody, but when they need to run they don't do a very good job at it. Last years top 10 rushing teams included Atlanta, Denver, Seattle, Kansas City, Pittsburgh, NY Giants, Washington, Chicago, San Diego and Jacksonville. Just about everybody on that list is known for running the ball, and they do it well. The vast majority of these teams win because they run; they don't run because they're winning. The passing yardage correlation is heavily influenced by the type of behavior you speak of thus it has no correlation. But passing yards per attempt is not influenced by much, if anything. So it should be at least somewhat surprising that correlation difference of this stat varies so much from offense to defense. As for your 3rd down stat request hear it is based on 04 and 05 Offense .4761 Defense -.1021

I got a pretty healthy database built up which allows be to confirm the obvious. I also hear smoking is bad for you.

I do a lot of football research and I pass some of the stuff I find interesting along. What I did this time was run a Pearson linear correlation test with several different NFL stats and compared the relationship they have to win%. For those a little fuzzy on correlation methods all you really need to know is the closer the correlation is to 1 the stronger the relationship between the two variables is. The closer the correlation is to -1 the stronger the inverse relationship of the varibles are. Here are some of the most obvious correlations I found based on the 2005 and 2004 seasons. Offense Rush Attempts per Game .6305 -Playoff teams in the top 10) 2005:6....2004:5 Rushing Yards Per Game .6308- Playoff teams in the top 10) 2005:7....2004:8 Passing Yards Per Attempt .5859- Playoff teams in the top 10) 2005:7....2004:8 Conclusions- Rushing Yards Per Attempt had a moderate correlation at .4054, while passing yards per game had practically no correlation at .1871. If you pass for a lot of yards it most likely means you’re playing from behind or lack balance. Either way this shows no evidence that lots of passing yards will win you games. What it does show is if you pass with efficiency, and a higher yard average per attempt the passing game will matter on offense. In 2005 Buffalo ranked 20th in rushing attempts, 20th in yards rushing per game, and 27th in yards per pass attempt. Defense Rush Attempts Per Game -.7077- Playoff teams in the top 10) 2005:6....2004:6 Rushing Yards Per Game -.6372- Playoff teams in the top 10) 2005:6....2004:6 Conclusions- The importance of Passing Yards Per Attempt dropped off substantially on the defensive side of the ball. On offense it nearly had a .60 correlation, on defense only a -.30. Like offense, passing yardage also didn’t show a strong correlation with win% at -.1143. In 2005 Buffalo ranked 25th in Rush Attempts per Game on defense, and 31st in rushing yards per game allowed. This evidence suggests stopping the run is the most important aspect of football. Second to that is being able to run the football yourself, and finally being able to pass efficiently also plays a strong role. Now obviously football is not as cut and dry as that, but what this does show is that making the playoffs and being successful is most attainable by being good in these areas.

I bet he has no problem opening up a pickle jar

I'm not going to get in a debate about stats, or anything else. It's silly to argue a future event, time will tell.