Marv's Neighbor Posted December 14, 2012 Posted December 14, 2012 Yeah, it's not Chan's fault. Lets blame Bush!
NoSaint Posted December 14, 2012 Posted December 14, 2012 Right, but he is not markedly better. Lynch has made a probowl and been to the playoffs, Spiller has not. We should have kept Lynch. The Spiller pick was stupid. If Spiller was blowing away Lynch and scoring a bunch more TDs then I could justify the pick. He was supposed to be the "home run" back. He isn't. Chan doesn't use him enough. Is that because Chan doesn't trust him? Spiller doesn;t know the playbook? Spiller gets winded? Not sure. The point is, We are not better off today than we were 3 years ago. Spiller is roughly equivalent to Lynch and cost a top ten pick. That's a high price for little no improvement. if only that was the question. Is it a better team? we have a younger, more explosive and trouble free running back. Someone said the production wasnt there - im sorry but it is there. whether it was an efficient use of resources can be debated but is spiller producing? yup. yes he is.
KOKBILLS Posted December 14, 2012 Posted December 14, 2012 The Bills are a better team than three years ago, same results Galley is why! I think you're 50% right...It is Gailey, but it's the QB as well...That's why I don't fault Gailey completely...If he had a better QB to work with the team would be better despite his shortcomings...The same way the team would be better with Fitz and an outstanding HC or OC...It's both of them...And the combination of the two results in way too many losses on Sundays... And we can't forget about how bad the Defense has been at times as well...UGH!
BobChalmers Posted December 14, 2012 Posted December 14, 2012 And, I think Fitz is better than Losman or Edwards ever were on their best days. That part is just wrong, sorry. Losman when the offense made sense for his talent, finished an entire NFL season rated #11 and Losman->Evans was as feared a deep ball combo as there was in the league. Then Dick "it's hard to win" Jauron retooled the offense for short passes and runs behind a bad OL, and Losman failed in the transistion. Edwards - in retrospect arguably the best QB in his draft class - played for the same lousy offense and an even worse OL than Losman had.
Maddog69 Posted December 14, 2012 Posted December 14, 2012 if only that was the question. Is it a better team? we have a younger, more explosive and trouble free running back. Someone said the production wasnt there - im sorry but it is there. whether it was an efficient use of resources can be debated but is spiller producing? yup. yes he is. Yes, Spiller is producing at roughly the same rate at Lynch. So, are we better off with Spiller and a late 3rd round pick or Lynch and a top ten pick? The whole conversation is about whether the Bills roster as a whole is better than 3 years ago and I say no. I would rather have kept Lynch and use the Spiller pick on an OL or LB or WR to improve the roster as a whole. Marginally improving the strongest position on the roster at the time was stupid.
BobChalmers Posted December 14, 2012 Posted December 14, 2012 Better at RB Roughly the same - Lynch is and was a beast, the RBs just look better now behind a much better OL. Better at O-line MUCH Better at D-line MUCH Better at CB Only in potential - past Gilmore it's young and shaky. I am happy with the roster, but this season they looked young. Better at TE Same at QB (Fitz vs Trent) Same at LB Wow - you are watching different LB's. Who do you have as the LB lineup from the past? Same at Safety Unfortunately worse because Wilson looks like he's hit a wall. Same at K/P Powell has potential, but he's not Moorman in his prime (yet). Lindell is no longer (trsuted/able??) to try a 50. That's both worse. Same at ST They haven't looked very good in coverage. McKelvin is close but not quite Roscoe. Slightly worse at WR PTR
NoSaint Posted December 14, 2012 Posted December 14, 2012 Yes, Spiller is producing at roughly the same rate at Lynch. So, are we better off with Spiller and a late 3rd round pick or Lynch and a top ten pick? The whole conversation is about whether the Bills roster as a whole is better than 3 years ago and I say no. I would rather have kept Lynch and use the Spiller pick on an OL or LB or WR to improve the roster as a whole. Marginally improving the strongest position on the roster at the time was stupid. the question isnt if we are better off with a lynch and a first or spiller and a third but simply lynch vs spiller.
Maddog69 Posted December 14, 2012 Posted December 14, 2012 the question isnt if we are better off with a lynch and a first or spiller and a third but simply lynch vs spiller. Read the title of the thread.
NoSaint Posted December 14, 2012 Posted December 14, 2012 (edited) Read the title of the thread. is the team better now than 3 years ago i guess we have differing interpretations of what that means. that doesnt mean "have we built the most efficient way" to me, it means "are we more talented" or "in a 10 game series who would win more" Edited December 14, 2012 by NoSaint
Sisyphean Bills Posted December 14, 2012 Posted December 14, 2012 the question isnt if we are better off with a lynch and a first or spiller and a third but simply lynch vs spiller. Lynch has been a beast this year & is 2nd in the NFL in rushing. It's quite debatable that Spiller is a huge upgrade. Jackson is still Jackson, but with more mileage on the tires and starting to show it.
NoSaint Posted December 14, 2012 Posted December 14, 2012 (edited) Lynch has been a beast this year as is 2nd in the NFL in rushing. It's quite debatable that Spiller is a huge upgrade. Jackson is still Jackson, but with more mileage on the tires and starting to show it. spiller is only 100 yards back in yards from scrimmage. granted, he done more with screens than marshawn to close that yardage gap but... 100 yards off with 100 less touches. that speaks volumes to spillers actual talent and PAST production, not just upside. with 100 less touches hes only 100 yards behind whats shaping up to also be marshawns best season. and hes done it with grace (ie no off the field headaches, like lynchs arrest this year). Edited December 14, 2012 by NoSaint
HamSandwhich Posted December 14, 2012 Posted December 14, 2012 This thread makes me laugh, lots of trolls here. Cmon, none of you believe that this team is NOT better than 2009. The DLINE by itself is HEADS AND SHOULDERS better than any we've had in the past and that is HUGE in this day and age. This, however, is my opinion. You can't compare due to record because the teams we faced back then could have been better or worse than the ones we face this year. Its all subjective, and all this incoherent rambling is not going to convince either side of the isle to come to your opinion. There is such a thing as the "eye test" and anyone who sees this team play vs that of yester year can see this team is much better than any of the previous years. They ARE getting better, regardless of what the naysayers are saying, and they WILL continue to get better. But hey, that's just my opinion, take it for what it is. Just like the rest of yours, just opinoins!
Sisyphean Bills Posted December 14, 2012 Posted December 14, 2012 spiller is only 100 yards back in yards from scrimmage. granted, he done more with screens than marshawn to close that yardage gap but... 100 yards off with 100 less touches. that speaks volumes to spillers actual talent and PAST production, not just upside. with 100 less touches hes only 100 yards behind whats shaping up to also be marshawns best season. and hes done it with grace (ie no off the field headaches, like lynchs arrest this year). The ironic part of that is that Spiller's OC is the guy putting him in the positions to do what he's done.
HamSandwhich Posted December 14, 2012 Posted December 14, 2012 Lynch has been a beast this year & is 2nd in the NFL in rushing. It's quite debatable that Spiller is a huge upgrade. Jackson is still Jackson, but with more mileage on the tires and starting to show it. So, you think the Lynch of old would have been the same way. You have to take it in context of their own seasons, not how they're doing now. is the team better now than 3 years ago i guess we have differing interpretations of what that means. that doesnt mean "have we built the most efficient way" to me, it means "are we more talented" or "in a 10 game series who would win more" Interesting, what I think is annoying is when people decide to put monitary value compared in consideration of talent. The title of the thread is, "Better than we were 3 years ago", not how much did we pay for every player. We're talking about talent, not monitary value. So the fact that Mario cost 100 mil is irrelevant to the conversation. He's still MUCH better than Schobel, and I think Schobel was great.
KOKBILLS Posted December 14, 2012 Posted December 14, 2012 They ARE getting better, regardless of what the naysayers are saying, and they WILL continue to get better. Not if they don't fix the QB position... Otherwise I agree 100%...
NoSaint Posted December 14, 2012 Posted December 14, 2012 (edited) This thread makes me laugh, lots of trolls here. Cmon, none of you believe that this team is NOT better than 2009. The DLINE by itself is HEADS AND SHOULDERS better than any we've had in the past and that is HUGE in this day and age. This, however, is my opinion. You can't compare due to record because the teams we faced back then could have been better or worse than the ones we face this year. Its all subjective, and all this incoherent rambling is not going to convince either side of the isle to come to your opinion. There is such a thing as the "eye test" and anyone who sees this team play vs that of yester year can see this team is much better than any of the previous years. They ARE getting better, regardless of what the naysayers are saying, and they WILL continue to get better. But hey, that's just my opinion, take it for what it is. Just like the rest of yours, just opinoins! agreed. just saying look at the record is merely a baseline. especially when the records will likely be pretty close. the nfl can be such a game of inches, or lucky bounces, or good/bad matchups against specific opponents, key injuries.... my gut tells me that this team is better built than that one moving forward. unfortunately both are hampered with erratic qb play which puts a low ceiling on what you can do (both had other issues, but thats the biggest commonality). when i watch the two teams, this one had more growing pains early in the year, but even though DJ and Chan were both in year 3, this defense was still in year 1 and seems to be coming around. i think this team is a better team even if they come up a game short or even in the win column. it is disappointing that they havent shown more but... Edited December 14, 2012 by NoSaint
tennesseeboy Posted December 14, 2012 Posted December 14, 2012 the 2009 team won 6 games. I'm not at all confident this bunch will do better. It had better running back combo (Jackson and Lynch) judging by yards gained. The linebackers were better in my opinion. The pathetic nature of this discussion is we are arguing over which team sucked worse. The takeaway of all this is that we have not shown any significant progress in three years.
TheBrownBear Posted December 14, 2012 Posted December 14, 2012 From a pure talent standpoint we are much better. It's not reflected in our record because our coaching sucks, but you can see it in the way we are able to hang and compete physically in almost every game (save the 49ers debacle). If we had a solid head coach/DC and a QB with some poise and/or killer instinct we'd likely be sitting at 9-4 right now. It's too bad Ralph is a lame duck owner that nobody wants to work for, because we have the talent on hand to attract a decent coaching staff.
HamSandwhich Posted December 14, 2012 Posted December 14, 2012 the 2009 team won 6 games. I'm not at all confident this bunch will do better. It had better running back combo (Jackson and Lynch) judging by yards gained. The linebackers were better in my opinion. The pathetic nature of this discussion is we are arguing over which team sucked worse. The takeaway of all this is that we have not shown any significant progress in three years. Wow, really, judging by yards gained? How about by YPC? CJ is better than any of those two RBs and FJ is pretty darned good when healthy. I'll take CJ, getting the ball of course, over any of those three From a pure talent standpoint we are much better. It's not reflected in our record because our coaching sucks, but you can see it in the way we are able to hang and compete physically in almost every game (save the 49ers debacle). If we had a solid head coach/DC and a QB with some poise and/or killer instinct we'd likely be sitting at 9-4 right now. It's too bad Ralph is a lame duck owner that nobody wants to work for, because we have the talent on hand to attract a decent coaching staff. Our D was shaky at the begginning but what do you expect with all these new players and a new system. For the last 5 weeks, they've been playing top 5 and have been downright dominant. I don't think D is really a problem. I'm of the belief that continuity is best right now, lets not start all over again like we've done with the two previous regimes. It will be business as usual if we do that and we'll start all over again. Not what we need. At least one more year for Gailey and Co.
Since 1972 Posted December 14, 2012 Posted December 14, 2012 Wow, really, judging by yards gained? How about by YPC? CJ is better than any of those two RBs and FJ is pretty darned good when healthy. I'll take CJ, getting the ball of course, over any of those three I'll take a winning season over any losing season...when is that gonna happen?
Recommended Posts