New title: The Crusaders

[Fezmid]

The reason you struggle to understand this is apparently because you spend all your time wathcing the ball during a game and you consequently fail to see the difference makers on any team.

 

On a somewhat related topic, that's the *hardest* part of being a football official; watching your responsibilities and NOT the ball. Even when the ball's in the air, you need ot be looking at your area of the field and generally *behind* the play as that's where most fouls occur. You're so trained to watch the ball/puck/etc that it's tough to look at other things around you.

 

I learned a lot about football being an official. Everyone should try it out for at least a season (and they pay you too!).

CW

[Coach Tuesday]

Since you're struggling so much with the most basic of concepts let me break it down even further for you. On some teams the QB is their most important offensive player, but it's not exclusive. So let me say it another way because you apparently are unable to remove your blinders about the position. On some teams their most important player is a RT, on others a WR and on others and OC. The reason you struggle to understand this is apparently because you spend all your time wathcing the ball during a game and you consequently fail to see the difference makers on any team. It's fine you choose to believe it- you're like 80% of the casual fans of football who are naive enough to believe that foolishness and I don't intent to make you any more knowledgeable a fan than you have chosen to be.

 

As to your "yes" and "no" questions you again have zero perspective as to my observations- and I'm perfectly willing to prove how little you know about football by asking you to list, in order of importance and impact to the team, the starting players on the Buffalo Bills offense this past season.

 

This should be incredibly simple for you because you have a flawed, and static, view of the importance of players based upon their positions versus the actual dynamic importance structure that exists in any organization based upon many dynamics including scheme, opponent, personnel and sideline decisions. Yours will read something like this:

 

QB

RB

WR

TE

etc.

etc.

195549[/snapback]

 

Except that you're only half right. You're right that on some teams, QB is not the most important position - but I guarantee you this: if, on those teams, the QB had a penchant for turning the ball over at an alarming rate, he would de facto become the most important player on that team - as in, he would be the most important reason that team was losing games.

[LabattBlue]

Since you're struggling so much with the most basic of concepts let me break it down even further for you. On some teams the QB is their most important offensive player, but it's not exclusive. So let me say it another way because you apparently are unable to remove your blinders about the position. On some teams their most important player is a RT, on others a WR and on others and OC. The reason you struggle to understand this is apparently because you spend all your time wathcing the ball during a game and you consequently fail to see the difference makers on any team. It's fine you choose to believe it- you're like 80% of the casual fans of football who are naive enough to believe that foolishness and I don't intent to make you any more knowledgeable a fan than you have chosen to be.

 

As to your "yes" and "no" questions you again have zero perspective as to my observations- and I'm perfectly willing to prove how little you know about football by asking you to list, in order of importance and impact to the team, the starting players on the Buffalo Bills offense this past season.

195549[/snapback]

So you tell me in previous posts that no one position on offense is more important than the other 10, but then you turn around in the post above(in bold), and state that depending on the team, all positions are not equal?? WHICH WAY IS IT?

 

Asking me to list the Bills players by their importance to the team proves what about my football knowledge?? Are you the ultimate authority on this subject?

 

Regardless of which way I list them, you would tell me I'm wrong, so what's the point. Just because you come here and tell everyone that you go back and watch a game 55 times on tape and "here is what is REALLY happened on a given play", makes you more of an expert than me?

 

 

I'm done replying to your posts. An "average fan" like myself is not worthy of talking football with an expert like yourself.

[AKC]

   

I'm done replying to your posts.  An "average fan" like myself is not worthy of talking football with an expert like yourself.

195595[/snapback]

 

You mean I won't see any more snipey and insulting posts from you with virtually no logic to back them up? Glad we worked that out!

[AKC]

Except that you're only half right.  You're right that on some teams, QB is not the most important position - but I guarantee you this:  if, on those teams, the QB had a penchant for turning the ball over at an alarming rate, he would de facto become the most important player on that team - as in, he would be the most important reason that team was losing games.

195588[/snapback]

 

I'd agree with you that if a player's negative impact is so great in balance with his positive impact that the difference is a cumulative negative, and that negative difference is greater than any other players overall positive sum then that former player can hold the position of most important on the team. So to your post, I'd completely agree with a personal addendum that not only is the QB not the most important on "some" teams, he's not the most important on "most" teams AFAIC.

 

But I don't find your scenario the case for Bledsoe in the 2004 campaign. First of all the offensive strategy was designed so that it would be almost impossible for him to become the most important player. His reduced role was handled by him very well for the most part both in the opening losses and through the winning run. The role of the RBs and OL became more critical in this particular system, and that's why a player like Chris Villarail became the backbone of our offense and why I'd rate Villarial equally as critical and impactive as Willis McGahee. Bledsoe remains far down the ladder in the scheme we used. Another player who became much more important this year was Mark Campbell, who jumped maybe 4 to 6 places in importance based on scheme versus our use of TE in the '03 season.

 

Bledsoe was the typical poor accuracy in the short game passer he has alwasy been against Pitt. Moulds was also his typical poor handed self in dropping at minimum one, and IMO two of our early games, losing them single-handedly by letting important balls go. His Pitt performance was awful too, letting two perfectly thrown balls hit the ground while being unable to get any separation from singel coverage by a Pitt nickel back coming off something like an 8 missed game injury stretch. I keep hearing the screams of "big players make big plays in big games". Funny how I can't remember Moulds making any "big plays in big games" over the course of his career. In fact, it may have been your post in this string with the position ranking by TFO. If you really buy their formulas for grading players how do you justify paying MORE money in '05 for the #43 player at his position in Eric Moulds versus paying less for the #30 player at his position in Bledsoe?

 

While I'd refute both their numerical positions, the stats were brought up and they illustrate exactly what I've been saying all along- if you make the argument that we've heard Ad Nauseum for a year about dumping Bledsoe, the exact same measure applied to Eric would seem to argue even stronger against HIS retention. Why do some refuse to insist that other high-priced players should also be held responsible when they underperfom when the going is toughest?

[GG]

While I'd refute both their positions, the stats were brought up and they illustrate exactly what I've been saying all along- if you make the argument that we've heard Ad Nauseum for a year about dumping Bledsoe, the exact same measure applied to Eric would seem to argue even stronger against HIS retention. Why do some refuse to insist that other high-priced players should also be held responsible when they underperfom when the going is toughest?

195965[/snapback]

 

But this is not an either or scenario.

 

Moulds' stupid moves and lack of concentration at key moments has been properly called out. But, other than the Jags game, I cannot think of another instance where you can point a direct line between his failings and a loss in 2004.

 

The other issue to consider is that Bills also regained an offensive flair of 2002, when Evans emerged as a true complement to Moulds, and TEs began to play a bigger role.

 

With the natural spreading out of the offense, Moulds' contribution will not be proportionate to his salary cap. Even he admitted to the reality on WGR.

 

The question to be asked is what are the alternatives to the status quo? Can Bills realistically expect to get a FA to effectively replace Moulds? I highly doubt it. Other than Owens, I can't think of another successful WR story in free agency. I think that Eric recognizes that the grass will be greener at home, and he'll be willing to rework his deal to stay.

 

With Drew, it's a question of whether he's peaked, who eles is available in FA and whether Jp is ready to go.

[34-78-83]

I'd agree with you that if a player's negative impact is so great in balance with his positive impact that the difference is a cumulative negative, and that negative difference is greater than any other players overall positive sum then that former player can hold the position of most important on the team. So to your post, I'd completely agree with a personal addendum that not only is the QB not the most important on "some" teams, he's not the most important on "most" teams AFAIC.

 

But I don't find your scenario the case for Bledsoe in the 2004 campaign. First of all the offensive strategy was designed so that it would be almost impossible for him to become the most important player. His reduced role was handled by him very well for the most part both in the opening losses and through the winning run. The role of the RBs and OL became more critical in this particular system, and that's whi a player like Chris Villarail became the backbone of our offense and why I'd rate Villarial equally as critical and impactive as Willis McGahee. Bledsoe remains far down the ladder in the scheme we used.

 

Bledsoe was the typical poor accuracy in the short game passer he has alwasy been against Pitt. Moulds was also his typical poor handed self in dropping at minimum one, and IMO two of our early games, losing them single-handedly by letting important balls go. His Pitt performance was awful too, letting two perfectly thrown balls hit the ground while being unable to get any separation from singel coverage by a Pitt nickel back coming off something like an 8 missed game injury stretch. I keep hearing the screams of "big players make big plays in big games". Funny how I can't remember Moulds making any "big plays in big games" over the course of his career. In fact, it may have been your post in this string with the position ranking by TFO. If you really buy their formulas for grading players how do you justify paying MORE money in '05 for the #43 player at his position in Eric Moulds versus paying less for the #30 player at his position in Bledsoe?

 

While I'd refute both their positions, the stats were brought up and they illustrate exactly what I've been saying all along- if you make the argument that we've heard Ad Nauseum for a year about dumping Bledsoe, the exact same measure applied to Eric would seem to argue even stronger against HIS retention. Why do some refuse to insist that other high-priced players should also be held responsible when they underperfom when the going is toughest?

195965[/snapback]

 

 

Good post AKC.... Some random big plays in big games by Moulds: '98 Jax game (caught the long ball that got them down to the 3 leading to the Flutie TD), '02 (Long ball over 2 Dolphin defenders to put away the Fish in the snow. We still had playoff aspirations at the time.) '03 vs. Cinci (reception that EM got injured on allows us to keep the winning drive alive , and the Bills get back to winning after starting 2-0), '98 Pats game in Foxboro (splits and stiffarms defenders on a long RAC play to keep Bills in the game but we lose on "just give it to 'em"), cinci '98 game (the week after phantom loss to patriots, Moulds single-handedly wins must win game to help get us to Playoffs. He also made tons of plays in the Miami playoff game that year although he did fumble on one of them). This is all I can think of without consulting the records...

[AKC]

The question to be asked is what are the alternatives to the status quo?  Can Bills realistically expect to get a FA to effectively replace Moulds?  I highly doubt it.  Other than Owens, I can't think of another successful WR story in free agency.  I think that Eric recognizes that the grass will be greener at home, and he'll be willing to rework his deal to stay.

 

196017[/snapback]

 

The incident of immediate impact WRs from the draft is increasing. Anquin Boldin comes to mind as a non first-round impact WR. Don't underestimate the valuethe Chargers got in picking up the ever underrated Keenan McCardell during the season. For me, our #1 is already on our roster and he's going into his sophomore campaign. He's a real receiver, with great hands and speed plus a year under his belt. Moulds has never had the potential to impact our offense like Evans can at the 1 spot.

[AKC]

Some random big plays in big games by Moulds: '98 Jax game (caught the long ball that got them down to the 3 leading to the Flutie TD), '02 (Long ball over 2 Dolphin defenders to put away the Fish in the snow. We still had playoff aspirations at the time.) '03 vs. Cinci (reception that EM got injured on allows us to keep the winning drive alive , and the Bills get back to winning after starting 2-0), '98 Pats game in Foxboro (splits and stiffarms defenders on a long RAC play to keep Bills in the game but we lose on "just give it to 'em"), cinci '98 game (the week after phantom loss to patriots, Moulds single-handedly wins must win game to help get us to Playoffs. He also made tons of plays in the Miami playoff game that year although he did fumble on one of them). This is all I can think of without consulting the records...

196035[/snapback]

 

The only problem with those examples is that the measure "Big Game" being used by the Dumpsoes appears to only include the Super Bowl, and therefore since Bledsoe took a team there and lost he's a "Big Game Loser'. These same Dumpsoes agree that Jim Kelly is a "Big Game Loser". It seems only fair to hold Eric to the same standard for the purpose of this exercise in consistency.

[34-78-83]

The only problem with those examples is that the measure "Big Game" being used by the Dumpsoes appears to only include the Super Bowl, and therefore since Bledsoe took a team there and lost he's a "Big Game Loser'. These same Dumpsoes agree that Jim Kelly is a "Big Game Loser". It seems only fair to hold Eric to the same standard for the purpose of this exercise in consistency.

196046[/snapback]

 

I see what you're getting at. As you were then......

[GG]

The incident of immediate impact WRs from the draft is increasing. Anquin Boldin comes to mind as a non first-round impact WR. Don't underestimate the valuethe Chargers got in picking up the ever underrated Keenan McCardell during the season. For me, our #1 is already on our roster and he's going into his sophomore campaign. He's a real receiver, with great hands and speed plus a year under his belt. Moulds has never had the potential to impact our offense like Evans can at the 1 spot.

196036[/snapback]

 

Actually McCardell is another of a small sample of successful FA WRs when he went from Cleveland to Tampa. But I would use Boldin as an abberation of impactful rookie WRs, and I doubt that Evans would have been 1/2 as effective without Moulds on the opposite side.

[AKC]

Actually McCardell is another of a small sample of successful FA WRs when he went from Cleveland to Tampa.  But I would use Boldin as an abberation of impactful rookie WRs, and I doubt that Evans would have been 1/2 as effective without Moulds on the opposite side.

196104[/snapback]

 

I'd agree early on in the season, but it appears that Lee got a lot more of the safety attention and double brackets as the season wore on and by the time we played Pitt Eric was seeing a lot of single coverage.