Bill from NYC Posted October 1, 2010 Posted October 1, 2010 You are exactly the problem my friend. LOL! And yours is still one of the top 5 screen names of all time!
NaPolian8693 Posted October 1, 2010 Author Posted October 1, 2010 He's getting better every week. He's going to play well against the Jets.
Punch Posted October 1, 2010 Posted October 1, 2010 He's getting better every week. He's going to play well against the Jets. At the very least, I hope for your sake that he cups your balls. You certainly deserve it after all of your hard work.
NaPolian8693 Posted October 1, 2010 Author Posted October 1, 2010 At the very least, I hope for your sake that he cups your balls. You certainly deserve it after all of your hard work. Hey, after he contributes another couple hundred tackles and a handful of sacks and interceptions to this organization, maybe you will go easy on the hatred.
Punch Posted October 1, 2010 Posted October 1, 2010 I don't hate Kelsay at all, but you seem to love him to an absolutely unhealthy degree. It's telling that you use the phrase "handful" when referring to your honey bear. Not that there's anything wrong with that.
NaPolian8693 Posted October 1, 2010 Author Posted October 1, 2010 I don't hate Kelsay at all, but you seem to love him to an absolutely unhealthy degree. It's telling that you use the phrase "handful" when referring to your honey bear. Not that there's anything wrong with that. That's real cool to imply I'm into gay stuff with Kelsay. Is that really where you're at in life, so bigoted that you try to insult people by calling them gay?
Punch Posted October 1, 2010 Posted October 1, 2010 Like I said, "not that there's anything wrong with that". I just don't understand why you're so into him. You know, like everyone else here stuck in "group think" that thinks you're being weird.
dave mcbride Posted October 1, 2010 Posted October 1, 2010 But what sort of answer is Kelsay at Sam? He can't cover TEs or RBs coming out, and that's a key responsibility of a Sam in the 3-4. I don't get why you think only the Will dogs in this defense. The reason the 3-4 is effective is because you can send any of the LBs and the Sam and Will are both used. Of course, Maybin has no other role, so he's going to be rushing the passer (I say that very loosely) every single time. But that negates the advantage, the initiative, of running the scheme in the first place. I'm saying what I'm saying because anyone who thinks that the Bills can fill both sides with top players is crazy given the state of the forward passing game.
Kultarr Posted October 1, 2010 Posted October 1, 2010 I'm saying what I'm saying because anyone who thinks that the Bills can fill both sides with top players is crazy given the state of the forward passing game. Our OLBs are a liability and weakness, in my opinion, so an upgrade could be made by just bringing in average players (not necessarily top players) at Sam and Will. The Bills are getting good production (relative to Kelsay) from Dwan Edwards, Akin Ayodele, and Andra Davis and none of those guys were superstar free agents. It's a rather sad state of affairs that the Bills have so many holes that the contention is that certain positions shouldn't or can't really be addressed and improved, not to mention rather defeatist; but, you may be on to what they are thinking, sad to say. In football terms, if they are serious about running the 3-4 defense, then having versatile, athletic OLBs is one of the key aspects of running that defense at an elite level. So, I guess I can't really see the point of just slapping a band-aid on it and calling it fine, assuming that the front office is actually trying to build a great team.
dave mcbride Posted October 1, 2010 Posted October 1, 2010 Our OLBs are a liability and weakness, in my opinion, so an upgrade could be made by just bringing in average players (not necessarily top players) at Sam and Will. The Bills are getting good production (relative to Kelsay) from Dwan Edwards, Akin Ayodele, and Andra Davis and none of those guys were superstar free agents. It's a rather sad state of affairs that the Bills have so many holes that the contention is that certain positions shouldn't or can't really be addressed and improved, not to mention rather defeatist; but, you may be on to what they are thinking, sad to say. In football terms, if they are serious about running the 3-4 defense, then having versatile, athletic OLBs is one of the key aspects of running that defense at an elite level. So, I guess I can't really see the point of just slapping a band-aid on it and calling it fine, assuming that the front office is actually trying to build a great team. I just think that Kelsay isn't a terrible option. He's been moderately productive for a number of years and he's durable. The biggest problem by far is the offense, which at present possesses less physical talent than the defense. The offense is terrible, and it's been so since 2003. They're literally dispiriting to watch as a consequence. They're the worst thing a sports team can be: boring. If I'm managing the Bills, I'd want to focus on making them entertaining first and foremost, and while defense is 50 percent of the game, a team with a good offense is more entertaining.
Kultarr Posted October 1, 2010 Posted October 1, 2010 I just think that Kelsay isn't a terrible option. He's been moderately productive for a number of years and he's durable. The biggest problem by far is the offense, which at present possesses less physical talent than the defense. The offense is terrible, and it's been so since 2003. They're literally dispiriting to watch as a consequence. They're the worst thing a sports team can be: boring. If I'm managing the Bills, I'd want to focus on making them entertaining first and foremost, and while defense is 50 percent of the game, a team with a good offense is more entertaining. The offense has been truly terrible. No argument there, old friend. The decision to switch defenses and spend more off-season resources on that project seemed very questionable. I've read a lot of talk about why that was here, but that doesn't change the fact that the offense was the larger issue.
GG Posted October 1, 2010 Posted October 1, 2010 The offense has been truly terrible. No argument there, old friend. The decision to switch defenses and spend more off-season resources on that project seemed very questionable. I've read a lot of talk about why that was here, but that doesn't change the fact that the offense was the larger issue. Especilaly following the comments that Gialey & Edwards made upon their hirings that personnel will dictate a lot of what they do. So coming in and seeing a horrible offense and a serviceable defense, they decide to also blow up the defense.
RuntheDamnBall Posted October 1, 2010 Posted October 1, 2010 Actually GG this is one spot where I don't take issue with their philosophy. I take the 'personnel dictating what they'll do' approach to mean that while in transition to what they REALLY want to accomplish, they are going to be flexible on schemes (hybrid using 4-3 situationally is an example). I think they needed many parts on offense, but it was tough to judge where to start and which parts were reclaimable due to prior misuse, poor coaching and so forth. Seeing what Trent could do and then deciding he was holdng that evaluation process back makes sense in these terms. And I suppose that retaining kelsay does, too, though I firmly believe they are overvaluing him just on principle. I look at that bend-don't-break jauron defense as a mirage that only wins when you have top shelf talent everywhere. They just got GASHED all the time by running backs and slant routes. Most teams the bills beat the past few seasons inexplicably abandoned the run. You rarely win against the best with that D unless you're Indy, and we dont have their defensive talent or a manning and co. on the other side of the ball. Switching to 3-4 will pay off in the long run, or at least I think so.
ndirish1978 Posted October 1, 2010 Posted October 1, 2010 Resigning Kelsay does NOT fill a hole. If anything it creates a hole for 4 years. You need DIFFERENCE makers to play at OLB who can get pressure on the QB. Kelsay is a liability in coverage, plays the run worse than he did when he was a DE and gets 0 pressure on the QB. He is objectively terrible.
wardigital Posted October 1, 2010 Posted October 1, 2010 Hey, after he contributes another couple hundred tackles and a handful of sacks and interceptions to this organization, maybe you will go easy on the hatred. A couple hundred tackles, a handful of sacks and interceptions in four years is exactly the problem, Mr. Troll.
Sisyphean Bills Posted October 1, 2010 Posted October 1, 2010 Seeing what Trent could do and then deciding he was holdng that evaluation process back makes sense in these terms. The weakness of this argument is that many people with NFL personnel experience watched the film of Trent and expressed major reservations (and were shot along with other messengers). Indeed, the Bills own actions this week kick the legs out from under the argument. After a mere two starts, they gave up completely on him and with nearly 90% of the season left to play. Teams aren't built in late September. The ship has already sailed.
BuffaloBillsMagic1 Posted October 1, 2010 Posted October 1, 2010 Which nfl team was licking their chops wanting to sign kelsay when he became a FA?? Jets, Ravens, Pats???? Nobody would even think of it.
NaPolian8693 Posted October 1, 2010 Author Posted October 1, 2010 A couple hundred tackles, a handful of sacks and interceptions in four years is exactly the problem, Mr. Troll. So, what - every linebacker on every NFL team outperforms these numbers?
RuntheDamnBall Posted October 2, 2010 Posted October 2, 2010 The weakness of this argument is that many people with NFL personnel experience watched the film of Trent and expressed major reservations (and were shot along with other messengers). Indeed, the Bills own actions this week kick the legs out from under the argument. After a mere two starts, they gave up completely on him and with nearly 90% of the season left to play. Teams aren't built in late September. The ship has already sailed. Hey, I expressed those same reservations. But I don't fault Gailey for thinking he could do something with Trent when he'd found some measure of success with less talented guys before. The fact is that if the Trent he had in practice showed up on Sundays, we wouldn't be having this conversation. Gailey pulled the plug when he saw those reservations had merit, and that the poor play was a cycle that was going to continue in Buffalo.
Sisyphean Bills Posted October 2, 2010 Posted October 2, 2010 Hey, I expressed those same reservations. But I don't fault Gailey for thinking he could do something with Trent when he'd found some measure of success with less talented guys before. The fact is that if the Trent he had in practice showed up on Sundays, we wouldn't be having this conversation. Gailey pulled the plug when he saw those reservations had merit, and that the poor play was a cycle that was going to continue in Buffalo. I don't fault Gailey. I fault the front office for not bringing in any new credible talent at the QB position. A camp fodder rookie wasn't enough to change the dynamic.
Recommended Posts