CosmicBills Posted February 9, 2011 Posted February 9, 2011 I agree with you on the qB situation, but Newton is not the guy to take a risk on. Regarding Freeman, he started for almost 3 full years at K-State, compared to 1 for sCam. It's hard not to watch that Super Bowl and see Rodgers slinging the ball all over the field and not think, "Damn, we need something like that". I fully admit that while watching the Super Bowl I got excited thinking how awesome it would be to have Cam Newton, a big strong armed QB who's mobile, throwing the ball around the Ralph and making plays. Of course, I wasn't exactly sober ... I know nothing about Newton having only seen one game (the NC). I know even less about the other QB prospects coming out this year which is why I don't really like to weigh in on who we should draft. I leave that to the experts and draft nicks who know far more. But I do agree with Bill that getting bigger, stronger and nastier is a must for this team along both lines and in the LB corps. While finding a franchise QB is a must for this club (I don't believe Fitz is the guy -- but he's also not the problem either), if he's not there in this draft ... he's not there in this draft. There are plenty of holes on this team. In order of most glaring I have them: LB, DE, TE, OT, RG, DB, WR. QB trumps all of those positions IF the right guy is available since they're so hard to find. ... wow, this post is a rambling mess. That's what I get for posting before I have my coffee.
Sisyphean Bills Posted February 9, 2011 Posted February 9, 2011 The trend is so heavily towards passing across the NFL, that it is worth asking if it wouldn't be wise to, instead of chasing the trend, to go counter to the trend? The spread-option obviously uses the pass, but it can be a dynamic running offense and absolutely gash a defense for huge chunks of yardage (not unlike the pass). With the NFL defenses generally trending towards smaller and quicker, a quick hitting power run game might actually put an offense ahead of the curve. On the other hand, the Bills seem to like mimicking the latest trends.
dave mcbride Posted February 9, 2011 Posted February 9, 2011 I agree there's a correlation between running the ball and victory. Any time you have a correlation between A and B, one of the following must be true. 1) A causes B 2) B causes A 3) C causes A and B 4) Coincidence If a team has the lead, it will tend to run the ball more to kill the clock. The opposite is true of teams that are behind. So does running the ball cause teams to win games? Or does having the lead cause teams to both run the ball and win games? I realize it's possible that the answer to the above is "a little of both." But that answer cannot be determined by a simple correlation between rushing yards over the course of the game and winning. The New York Times performed a regression analysis which showed the following: A one SD improvement in passing offense was four times better than a one SD improvement in rushing offense. Of the above-described measurement of passing offense, 25% was based on your effectiveness at avoiding INTs, and the remaining 75% was based on their non-turnover related measurements of passing efficiency. The mirror image was true of defenses. Passing defense was four times more important than rushing defense; with 25% of the total importance of passing defense stemming from your ability to intercept passes. The above conclusions were made on a passing/rushing yards per play basis, not by determining the number of yards a team rushed or passed for over the course of the game. All this being said, I agree that the turnovers, alone, wouldn't have killed Pittsburgh if they hadn't let those turnovers turn into Green Bay points. Green Bay was able to turn turnovers into points off turnovers because of the efficiency of its passing attack and its ability to avoid turnovers of its own. Um, I said indicative, not causal.
Bill from NYC Posted February 9, 2011 Posted February 9, 2011 The Bills play relatively very few games at home in bad/tough wintery weather. Their record is usually poor well before December. I agree, but there is more to it than snow. I attended a game on Halloween in which it was very hard for Bledsoe to throw due to swirling winds. This is not an isolated incident. Looking back, it would appear that Edwards really didn't have a strong enough arm for the elements WNY. Or, at least one could say that more arm strength would have helped him a great deal. Fitz gets off better throws because he is more athletic. And, he is aided big time by the fact that he is a good runner. Either way, when passing is less of an option, the Bills are not big and strong enough to pound out big rushing yardage, and they are too small and weak to stop teams from running at will. The losses will continue until this is fixed.
JohnC Posted February 9, 2011 Posted February 9, 2011 I agree with you on the qB situation, but Newton is not the guy to take a risk on. Regarding Freeman, he started for almost 3 full years at K-State, compared to 1 for sCam. You are right that Newton played only one full year at Aurburn. In that one year he demonstrated, at least to me, that he was the most influential player on that team, winning a SEC and Natinal Championship. In addition, at JUCO he also won a national championship. Are there risks drafting a player with relatively little prime college experience. Yes. But if you are going to take a risk on a player why not do so for a player who has so much obvious talent and who has played at a high level in the best conference in the country? Also, there is no immediate need to play him right away because we have an adequate qb who can be a bridge player for when Newton is more ready to play. As Aaron Rodgers has demonstrated there is nothing inherently wrong for a backup qb to learn and develop before thrust into a starting role. My ideal scenario is to trade down a bit and then take Newton. Will it happen? The Bills are not noted for being creative and smart on draft day. That is why they are what they are: irrelevant.
Orton's Arm Posted February 9, 2011 Posted February 9, 2011 Um, I said indicative, not causal. Fair enough.
Recommended Posts