Hossage Posted August 4, 2010 Posted August 4, 2010 I think you are mpl, and I would not go to a bar with you. I dont know what trolls get out of it.
The Dean Posted August 4, 2010 Posted August 4, 2010 Heh, at least you're able to be self-deprecating. There's hope for you yet! No, I'm not MPL. Just someone who values community and civility a bit more than some. I think it makes us all look like losers when we snap at each other without great provocation. People say the most outrageous stuff online. I prefer to imagine we're all sitting in a bar in Buffalo, having a beer, eating some wings, talking about the Bills. Would you really spout off like you did in that situation? Are you serious? I'm pretty much the same here as I am in person. (Several people here know me in real life and can attest to that.) I'd probably spout off worse in person than here. Of course, we'd all be laughing our assess off a the same time.
TaskerFan Posted August 4, 2010 Posted August 4, 2010 I think you are mpl, and I would not go to a bar with you. Why not? I'd buy the first round. Sheesh.
TaskerFan Posted August 4, 2010 Posted August 4, 2010 Are you serious? I'm pretty much the same here as I am in person. (Several people here know me in real life and can attest to that.) I'd probably spout off worse in person than here. Of course, we'd all be laughing our assess off a the same time. Yep! That's the part that's missing in an internet interaction...you can't read someone's tone or expression to go with the words. And there's no alcohol involved to smooth the interactions online (unless you're Beerball ,who I hear is a lush)
The Dean Posted August 4, 2010 Posted August 4, 2010 Yep! That's the part that's missing in an internet interaction...you can't read someone's tone or expression to go with the words. And there's no alcohol involved to smooth the interactions online (unless you're Beerball ,who I hear is a lush) Tonight is one of the few nights I haven't had a few drinks in a while. Maybe that's why I come across as angry.
TaskerFan Posted August 4, 2010 Posted August 4, 2010 Tonight is one of the few nights I haven't had a few drinks in a while. Maybe that's why I come across as angry. I hear that! So freaking hot, I'd kill for a nice, cold Molson Gold.
mpl6876 Posted August 4, 2010 Posted August 4, 2010 So MPL has another account? Hossage, I have one account and one acount only. I have nothing to hide. I'm not perfect and have said things that I regret. At least, I can admit to that. You are by far the rudest person on here. Maybe that's something your proud of? Your rude comments do not affect me and they only make you look "very shallow" to be polite. Have a great day fellow Bills fan.
billsfan89 Posted August 4, 2010 Posted August 4, 2010 Well If the Bills thought Bradford was the only QB worth taking with a 1st round pick it explains why they didn't take another QB. Next years class is supposedly better and with new CBA rules possibly in place it will likely be cheaper (This years class had 2 QB's worth anything and 1 was a QB in Clausen that was a huge gamble). All in all they took the best player available and lets hope it pays off. Either Trent or Brohm develops or Fitz plays good enough for the team to win behind him OR we go 5-11 to 7-9 and have to go out and draft a QB. All in all I am pretty sure our 2011 1st round pick will be a QB or a LT (Outside shot at OLB). Its not trolling to say price comes into play but honestly the talent wasn't there for price to be a consideration.
mpl6876 Posted August 4, 2010 Posted August 4, 2010 Well If the Bills thought Bradford was the only QB worth taking with a 1st round pick it explains why they didn't take another QB. Next years class is supposedly better and with new CBA rules possibly in place it will likely be cheaper (This years class had 2 QB's worth anything and 1 was a QB in Clausen that was a huge gamble). All in all they took the best player available and lets hope it pays off. Either Trent or Brohm develops or Fitz plays good enough for the team to win behind him OR we go 5-11 to 7-9 and have to go out and draft a QB. All in all I am pretty sure our 2011 1st round pick will be a QB or a LT (Outside shot at OLB). Its not trolling to say price comes into play but honestly the talent wasn't there for price to be a consideration. I am not sure what will transpire on next years draft day. I keep reading how so many of us say next years draft is better for QB's. It appears to be true but we really don't know that. The QB's in question could get injured, play poorly, stay in college (Luck). When draft day comes around there may only be none, 1, or 2 what we call franchise QB's. I just think it is very dangerous to say wait til next years draft. Also, we don't know where the Bills will be drafting and if they will be able to "land" that elusive franchise QB. (Maybe they will take the BPA and it might be another running back.) Lastly, those quoted words. How many of us said that in this years draft? I know I did. The only sure thing is we didn't address the QB or LT situation this year....
thewildrabbit Posted August 4, 2010 Posted August 4, 2010 Hidden? Not from anyone paying attention . . . Since March we've been talking about this combination of facts. #1) Not even Bradford was a stud lock QB compared to next year's group. #2) Next year's QB draft possibilities are not only better, but will likely be a better value given the impending CBA changes. Nothing new here. Certainly no need to be getting angry with each other. Every team in the league had to figure their way through this conversation. It's not about Ralph bein' cheap. It's about how best to gamble with your millions of dollars. This year the QBs were a roulette wheel, next year's QBs give you odds closer to blackjack. . . Troll? nah. Late to the party? maybe. I disagree, Sam Bradford was and is rated head and shoulders above anyone coming out of next years draft, and had a higher rating then last years draft #1, Matthew Stafford. The only thing that teams were afraid of with him was his injured shoulder, once he proved that his arm strength was fine at his pro day he was a lock at #1. The guy got a six year deal worth 78 million, with 50 million guaranteed...plus the fact that the Bills would have had to give up more draft picks then they wanted to give up to trade up with the Rams to select him. Bradford was the only QB the Bills had a high rating on, so there was no way the Bills were looking at QB's early in this years draft.
davefan66 Posted August 4, 2010 Posted August 4, 2010 Or, just maybe, there wasn't a QB available that was worthy of a #9 selection. Freakin trolls. If memory serves, wasn't Clausen considered a possibility that spot?
billsrcursed Posted August 4, 2010 Posted August 4, 2010 Hmmmmm, 5 pages and OP hasn't replied to his/her own thread once. Someone want to run the definition of "TROLL" by me one more time?? Dean, I count 6-8 posters who should apologize to you, but who's counting. I commend your attempt to call out a troll. This site has been over-run with crap lately and it's nice to see someone else cares. mpl6876 - Do you have an off button? Seriously, make it stop...
mpl6876 Posted August 4, 2010 Posted August 4, 2010 Hmmmmm, 5 pages and OP hasn't replied to his/her own thread once. Someone want to run the definition of "TROLL" by me one more time?? Dean, I count 6-8 posters who should apologize to you, but who's counting. I commend your attempt to call out a troll. This site has been over-run with crap lately and it's nice to see someone else cares. mpl6876 - Do you have an off button? Seriously, make it stop... What are you talking about? I didn't do anything inappropriate. In fact, it has been me that has been attacked for no justified reason. It sounds like your doing the same...
The Dean Posted August 4, 2010 Posted August 4, 2010 If memory serves, wasn't Clausen considered a possibility that spot? A month or two before the draft there was talk of that. By draft day that kind of talk had subsided for the most part. The fact that he didn't get selected until after the Bills second round pick speaks for itself, IMO. The Bills didn't avoid him because they didn't want a huge contract, they avoided him because they didn't like him enough to draft him (and/or liked other guys better). Again, the idea that the Bills might avoid drafting a QB early due to contract issues (combined with the possibility of a rookie cap next year) isn't crazy-stupid in a vacuum. It's crazy-stupid when asserting that's what happened in the 2010 draft.
Sabre Bill Posted August 4, 2010 Posted August 4, 2010 I disagree, Sam Bradford was and is rated head and shoulders above anyone coming out of next years draft, and had a higher rating then last years draft #1, Matthew Stafford. The only thing that teams were afraid of with him was his injured shoulder, once he proved that his arm strength was fine at his pro day he was a lock at #1. The guy got a six year deal worth 78 million, with 50 million guaranteed...plus the fact that the Bills would have had to give up more draft picks then they wanted to give up to trade up with the Rams to select him. Bradford was the only QB the Bills had a high rating on, so there was no way the Bills were looking at QB's early in this years draft. I think Bradford will be fine and was rightfully drafted #1. But it's not as if thee were no questions about him. But, we weren't gonna go up and get him. All those other QBs are fairly high risk. Next year there will be 5 guys or more who we can comfortably choose as our QB of the future. We won't need to pick any higher than #9 and we'll still get a stud QB.
Clippers of Nfl Posted August 4, 2010 Posted August 4, 2010 Yes, it's much more likely the Bills didn't draft a QB, like say Levi Brown, at #9 because they are cheap. Not because Levi Brown didn't warrant being picked at that spot. Based on your posts so far, it's easy to see how that kind of logic might make sense to you. everyone is different. i like the info the nerds put up here. the stats and stuff. dont have the time or interest to do that. i like to say stupid things and things i find funny sometimes. my posts wont always be logical. get it in your head!
Motel_Sandwich Posted August 4, 2010 Posted August 4, 2010 A lot of people in here need to get laid or maybe take a good solid dump... Relax a little!
jonramz Posted August 4, 2010 Author Posted August 4, 2010 wow... I don't come to the TBD everyday, I certainly didn't expect to see my post get this much venom. I was not trolling the board whatsoever... what I was saying was that perhaps the Bills are more $$$ conscious than other teams are. The past couple years they have not spent anywhere near to the cap limit, or transfered that cap savings to the next year w/ unlikely to be earned bonuses. I guess I didn't really put enough thought into my post regarding the shallow QB class... The main point of my post was to perhaps suggest the Bills (and I don't hope this to be the case) might be taking signability into account when drafting and FA, like some teams do in MLB. I think a lower rookie wage scale would greatly benefit the Bills. -Ftball
berriesandcream Posted August 4, 2010 Posted August 4, 2010 Let's see. The logic in the post is the Bills didn't take a QB in the top 10 due to contract considerations. In other words. "Ralph is cheap!" If the poster was something other than a troll, he/she just might have noticed the only QB picked in the top half of the first round was Bradford at #1. The only other QB picked in the 1st round was Tebow, and that was a surprise to most and is being roundly criticized by many. So, maybe it isn't a troll post. Maybe it's just a post from a moron. Says the moron. There was nothing wrong with the original post. If you don't like it just ignore it, douche.
Clippers of Nfl Posted August 4, 2010 Posted August 4, 2010 wow... I don't come to the TBD everyday, I certainly didn't expect to see my post get this much venom. I was not trolling the board whatsoever... what I was saying was that perhaps the Bills are more $$$ conscious than other teams are. The past couple years they have not spent anywhere near to the cap limit, or transfered that cap savings to the next year w/ unlikely to be earned bonuses. I guess I didn't really put enough thought into my post regarding the shallow QB class... The main point of my post was to perhaps suggest the Bills (and I don't hope this to be the case) might be taking signability into account when drafting and FA, like some teams do in MLB. I think a lower rookie wage scale would greatly benefit the Bills. -Ftball you're a troll man, just accept it. just kidding. that troll calling out business is retarded in my book.
Recommended Posts