34-78-83 Posted January 8, 2005 Posted January 8, 2005 uh.... no. I understood your post just fine. What did I miss? I highlighted the summary of your post and addressed it. You said the easiest way to pick out personal bias is when they blame a certain player for a loss and refuse to give credit when they win. What's not to understand? I think maybe you are the one lacking the comprehension skills, sir. Okay, the rest of your post was just a bunch of insults and this highlighted sentence doesn't make sense. Try again. 198257[/snapback] The insults , as always for me, were in response to your oh so cleverly hidden insults not only to me but to countless other posters on this board and no, you still don't understand the point based on your explaination. Do not try to pretend here that the insult parade started anywhere but with yourself.
Grant Posted January 8, 2005 Posted January 8, 2005 The insults , as always for me, were in response to your oh so cleverly hidden insults not only to me but to countless other posters on this board and no, you still don't understand the point based on your explaination. Do not try to pretend here that the insult parade started anywhere but with yourself. 198653[/snapback] I didn't try to hide my insults, nor do I care if you insult me. I merely pointed out that's all your post was, where as mine at least had a point. But you can keep pretending your posts have some sort of glorious hidden meaning that I somehow missed (although you still have failed to point out what, if anything, I missed in your post - and I suspect you'll hide behind a "well, if you can't figure out, I won't tell you" sort of response because you know there isn't anything else there besides what I responded to). Don't cry, baby blue. It's just the internet.
RunTheBall Posted January 8, 2005 Posted January 8, 2005 Why is it so bad to expect more out of the QB position than "Just don't fug it up, Drew!". Our expectations are so low for that position now. Why is it too much to expect your QB to lift the team up once in a while and win the game? Drew doesn't do it anymore. When you're just asking a guy not to screw up in the biggest game of the season against scrubs and he can't even accomplish that, then there's a problem. No, I don't think Drew is the only problem on the team. I do think he'll be back, I think he'll probably start, but i do think JP will be given every chance to win the position. If he can't do it, we're in for another year of "Just don't screw it up!" RunTheBall
34-78-83 Posted January 8, 2005 Posted January 8, 2005 I didn't try to hide my insults, nor do I care if you insult me. I merely pointed out that's all your post was, where as mine at least had a point. But you can keep pretending your posts have some sort of glorious hidden meaning that I somehow missed (although you still have failed to point out what, if anything, I missed in your post - and I suspect you'll hide behind a "well, if you can't figure out, I won't tell you" sort of response because you know there isn't anything else there besides what I responded to). Don't cry, baby blue. It's just the internet. 198668[/snapback] Believe me son, it bothers me to no degree. In fact , I thoroughly enjoy arguing with chumps like you. It's a big part of the reason I spend time here as pathetic as that really is. BTW the meaning is not hidden, you just don't seem to understand it as it was typed. Everyone has a different perspective, whatever. Your constant arrogant underhanded responses to posters is more what got me going, right or wrong. But hey, I've been there too...
Grant Posted January 8, 2005 Posted January 8, 2005 In fact , I thoroughly enjoy arguing with chumps like you. It's a big part of the reason I spend time here as pathetic as that really is. 198684[/snapback] Well, at least you know. Knowing is the first step.
34-78-83 Posted January 8, 2005 Posted January 8, 2005 Well, at least you know. Knowing is the first step. 198687[/snapback] You seem to enjoy it as much as I
AKC Posted January 10, 2005 Author Posted January 10, 2005 Actually, that's already been refuted by the fellas at http://www.footballoutsiders.com/ . Their offense/defense/ST rankings are weighted, meaning that they take into account strength of opponent. And, not surprisingly, even taking those factors into account, the Bills' D and ST still rank NUMBER 1 OVERALL, while the Bills' offense ranks 23rd overall. So your theory is totally bunk, thanks for playing. 198387[/snapback] You bring in a statistical entity like Football Insiders and lay zealous praise to their methodology. The methodology that ranks Eric Moulds as the 45th best WR in the NFL. The same methodology that ranks Drew Bledsoe as the 21st best QB in the NFL. Eric Moulds, according to YOUR OWN chosen statistical service, is slated to make MORE MONEY IN 2005 while being worse than 44 other players at his position while Drew Bledsoe will make less than Moulds while being better than all by 20 of the players at his position. It's time for you to end your hypocrisy. Based upon the analysis YOU INSIST UPON there is no justification for keeping Moulds on the roster if in fact you are also calling for the head of a much more effective player at his position who makes less money.
34-78-83 Posted January 10, 2005 Posted January 10, 2005 You bring in a statistical entity like Football Insiders and lay zealous praise to their methodology. The methodology that ranks Eric Moulds as the 45th best WR in the NFL. The same methodology that ranks Drew Bledsoe as the 21st best QB in the NFL. Eric Moulds, according to YOUR OWN chosen statistical service, is slated to make MORE MONEY IN 2005 while being worse than 44 other players at his position while Drew Bledsoe will make less than Moulds while being better than all by 20 of the players at his position. It's time for you to end your hypocrisy. Based upon the analysis YOU INSIST UPON there is no justification for keeping Moulds on the roster if in fact you are also calling for the head of a much more effective player at his position who makes less money. 200526[/snapback] AKC, as discussed previously I know you're trying to prove a point here (and you're doing it successfully for the most part) but I still fret to think that you would see EM as anything less than a top 15-20 WR in this league. Even if only based on the schemes implemented by defenses against the Bills.
Bill from NYC Posted January 10, 2005 Posted January 10, 2005 AKC, as discussed previously I know you're trying to prove a point here (and you're doing it successfully for the most part) but I still fret to think that you would see EM as anything less than a top 15-20 WR in this league. Even if only based on the schemes implemented by defenses against the Bills. 200563[/snapback] >>>>AKC, as discussed previously I know you're trying to prove a point here (and you're doing it successfully for the most part)<<<< Yeah, he sure seems to be, doesn't he?
AKC Posted January 10, 2005 Author Posted January 10, 2005 I acknowledge and laud Drew (as well as Mularkey/Clements/Wyche) for his improvement this year, yet at the same time I can't dispell the feeling that he's hit his ceiling and that this was simply as good as he's ever going to get. And unfortunately that's just not good enough. I think we both know that in order to claim the prize which we ultimately seek, we just cannot afford for the QB position to have so many troubles with decision-making, ball security, field recognition and fundamental execution. 198388[/snapback] The question of his improvement this past season is fundamental to evaluating any justification for carrying him again this coming season. And in doing that it raises this question for me- was his improvement due predominantly to some changes in coaching adn scheme- or was it due predominantly to our line getting a little bit better and him having a more equal stage to exhibit his talents in comparison to other QBs around the league? If I'm reading you correctly you fall in line with the former while I'm favoring the latter. I still look at the succesful guys with Drew's vertical assets around the league and it's impossible for me to ignore that they all have reliable TE targets- Manning has 2, Favre has a very good one, etc. I watched when we actually offered him a pocket this season (versus last) and he seems to make good use of it if it's there. He ran. He rolled out. Was it coaching and scheme? To some degree no doubt. But he also hasn't tossed for all these historical yards without some desirable talent, and at least this season some of that was evident. Is he the guy for us? That's the multi-million dollar question. Alternatives are the key- what we've seen of Losman makes it hard to imagine this kid has any chance of being prepared to lead ANY team to a serious playoff run next year. Matthews- the lost dimension of the big toss could diminish the one thing that's drawing all extra attention to Lee Evans. Is there a chance to bring someone else in? That's the only question in my mind. And while we're talking about personell I firmly believe that there are other high profile players who SHOULD be talked about the same way Drew is- somebody around the league will pay Jennings top 8 money- is he worth it to us or has he been a disappointment in the running game? Does Moulds restructuring make up for his lack of reliability or could the money he's scheduled to receive be used better? Is Ron Edwards ready to assume a full time roll, allowing Pat Williams to go elsewhere for premium money? We've both seen it happen over and over again in the NFL- fans and GMs putting an inordinate amount of faith in QB changes that leave the team no better or worse off than they were before- is it REALLY the big "problem" on a 9-7 team who are arguably improving going into '05? I just reread a pre-season pub from the '04 off-season that had us winning 4 games. I'd say somewhere between 4 and 7 was the going number on us. We did better than that even with a rough start. If we showed a like improvement just by keeping this corps together we'd end up probably 11-5 next year. We'd both like to end up 11-5 next year. For me the question is do you start over at the QB spot on a improving team that looks playoff bound next season or tinker with the QB spot to try and make a theoretical improvement? I'm not unsupportive of making a move from away from our current roster- but it would have to make a lot of sense.
AKC Posted January 10, 2005 Author Posted January 10, 2005 AKC, as discussed previously I know you're trying to prove a point here (and you're doing it successfully for the most part) but I still fret to think that you would see EM as anything less than a top 15-20 WR in this league. Even if only based on the schemes implemented by defenses against the Bills. 200563[/snapback] Actually I've decided to take '05 off by just watching the ball so I can get better understanding of the concept of one player having some mystical and inordinate effect on a game being played by 11 guys on each side. I mean, why even bother wasting salary on these other unimportant guys where we could just have true QB challenges, with maybe 5 QBs going against 5 other QBs to find out who the best "most important" players are? And no- Moulds really pissed me off early this season with his continued loss of concentration on third downs, killing drives that were otherwise engineered and executed as they were drawn up. Statistically the best WRs in the game don't drop the number of balls Eric drops. We've seen Evans and it's clear for me that he already is a better "receiver" than Eric in the area of concentration. If we're talking about improving our team I believe Eric Moulds based upon his salary and status as the #1 WR, has got to be a primary topic of conversation when we talk about "flaws" with our money players. He might crest into my top 20- more likely he's a top 25-30 if I gave it a lot of thought.
taterhill Posted January 10, 2005 Posted January 10, 2005 You bring in a statistical entity like Football Insiders and lay zealous praise to their methodology. The methodology that ranks Eric Moulds as the 45th best WR in the NFL. The same methodology that ranks Drew Bledsoe as the 21st best QB in the NFL. Eric Moulds, according to YOUR OWN chosen statistical service, is slated to make MORE MONEY IN 2005 while being worse than 44 other players at his position while Drew Bledsoe will make less than Moulds while being better than all by 20 of the players at his position. It's time for you to end your hypocrisy. Based upon the analysis YOU INSIST UPON there is no justification for keeping Moulds on the roster if in fact you are also calling for the head of a much more effective player at his position who makes less money. 200526[/snapback] Spin master
AKC Posted January 10, 2005 Author Posted January 10, 2005 Spin master 200592[/snapback] Would you like me to turn the pages for you too?
Rico Posted January 10, 2005 Posted January 10, 2005 Actually I've decided to take '05 off by just watching the ball 200586[/snapback] Cool, you'll have more fun watching the games. You can always watch the linemen during a replay.
Dawgg Posted January 10, 2005 Posted January 10, 2005 Bill, there is no need to be bowing down to AKC. Just because his posts are inundated with prose and condescending drivel does not mean that there is any value to his points. His primary point is that the defense had it easy while the offense was faced with a much more daunting task. I disagree. This defense was extremely solid this year and should be given the credit that it deserves. They more than doubled the number of takeaways from the previous year and often gave the offense the ball on a short field. During the first 4 games, when the offense couldn't muster a single score the defense kept the team in the game despite being on the field for so long. >>>>AKC, as discussed previously I know you're trying to prove a point here (and you're doing it successfully for the most part)<<<< Yeah, he sure seems to be, doesn't he? 200573[/snapback]
AKC Posted January 10, 2005 Author Posted January 10, 2005 Bill, there is no need to be bowing down to AKC. Just because his posts are inundated with prose and condescending drivel does not mean that there is any value to his points. His primary point is that the defense had it easy while the offense was faced with a much more daunting task. I disagree. This defense was extremely solid this year and should be given the credit that it deserves. They more than doubled the number of takeaways from the previous year and often gave the offense the ball on a short field. During the first 4 games, when the offense couldn't muster a single score the defense kept the team in the game despite being on the field for so long. 200604[/snapback] And of course it doesn't matter that the level of competition faced by the offense was far better than the same seen by the defense! I provide facts, you provide prose. Funny how that works!
Dawgg Posted January 10, 2005 Posted January 10, 2005 I actually do concur on Eric Moulds, though I don't think he has lost it. I think Eric Moulds needs to get back to the basics and regain his concentration and that is something that he can do. Defenses respect him, often devoting 2 players to him because they know he is still a game breaking receiver. To that end, he is a valuable player on this team. On the other hand, defenses do not respect Bledsoe. It is common knowledge throughout the league that if you get into his face and shake him up a bit, his mechanics tend to go south. He starts throwing off his back foot, he loses his accuracy and his pocket presence (whatever was left of it) is thrown to the curb. Yes. You are right. When Drew has all the time in the world and the blocking scheme is executed flawlessly he can really do some damage. But in today's NFL, where defensive players are stronger and faster than ever, that is a difficult task. Offenses need to live with the fact that the pocket can be broken at times, making it all the more imperative that an NFL quarterback can sense the rush. Actually I've decided to take '05 off by just watching the ball so I can get better understanding of the concept of one player having some mystical and inordinate effect on a game being played by 11 guys on each side. I mean, why even bother wasting salary on these other unimportant guys where we could just have true QB challenges, with maybe 5 QBs going against 5 other QBs to find out who the best "most important" players are? And no- Moulds really pissed me off early this season with his continued loss of concentration on third downs, killing drives that were otherwise engineered and executed as they were drawn up. Statistically the best WRs in the game don't drop the number of balls Eric drops. We've seen Evans and it's clear for me that he already is a better "receiver" than Eric in the area of concentration. If we're talking about improving our team I believe Eric Moulds based upon his salary and status as the #1 WR, has got to be a primary topic of conversation when we talk about "flaws" with our money players. He might crest into my top 20- more likely he's a top 25-30 if I gave it a lot of thought. 200586[/snapback]
34-78-83 Posted January 10, 2005 Posted January 10, 2005 Actually I've decided to take '05 off by just watching the ball so I can get better understanding of the concept of one player having some mystical and inordinate effect on a game being played by 11 guys on each side. I mean, why even bother wasting salary on these other unimportant guys where we could just have true QB challenges, with maybe 5 QBs going against 5 other QBs to find out who the best "most important" players are? And no- Moulds really pissed me off early this season with his continued loss of concentration on third downs, killing drives that were otherwise engineered and executed as they were drawn up. Statistically the best WRs in the game don't drop the number of balls Eric drops. We've seen Evans and it's clear for me that he already is a better "receiver" than Eric in the area of concentration. If we're talking about improving our team I believe Eric Moulds based upon his salary and status as the #1 WR, has got to be a primary topic of conversation when we talk about "flaws" with our money players. He might crest into my top 20- more likely he's a top 25-30 if I gave it a lot of thought. 200586[/snapback] Well if anything, please take into account (and I know I'm off your main point) that I was able to see the whole field by attending the Miami, Cleveland, Jets, and Pitt games and saw the Safety on EM's side roll coverage over him creating double teams on consevatively no less than 85% of all pass plays run by the Bills. This should speak volumes as to what the true NFL evauluators think of the man. I do agree with your frustration on the drops though....
Dawgg Posted January 10, 2005 Posted January 10, 2005 Perhaps you are right. Over the course of the season, the offense faced stiffer competition. Are you saying that on an equal field, if the offense faced the same competition that the defense faced, the offense would fare just as well? If so, I disagree. You don't need statistics for that one. The defense, as a unit, is FAR superior to the offense. And of course it doesn't matter that the level of competition faced by the offense was far better than the same seen by the defense! I provide facts, you provide prose. Funny how that works! 200610[/snapback]
Rico Posted January 10, 2005 Posted January 10, 2005 I actually do concur on Eric Moulds, though I don't think he has lost it. I think Eric Moulds needs to get back to the basics and regain his concentration and that is something that he can do. 200621[/snapback] My take:Instead of raising his game and making our QB better, Moulds played down to our QB's level. Most unfortunate, but nothing that can't be fixed once Drew leaves town.
Recommended Posts