AKC Posted January 11, 2005 Author Posted January 11, 2005 With respect to Moulds: Moulds remains one of the most valuable weapons on the roster. It was quite clear last year when he went down with a groin injury that our offense couldnt' move the ball anywhere. Defenses commit 2 people to him on almost ever play, which played a major role in the success of Lee Evans' rookie sesaon. Moreover, nobody is saying that Bledsoe should necessarily be cut. Nobody is even complaining about his salary. The point here is that while Moulds is still an effective WR, Bledsoe is NO LONGER an effective starting quarterback. That is a fact. Can you refute that fact? :-) 201591[/snapback] I see- you embrace the BCS/Football Outsiders "system" for one thing and discard it wholly when it comes to their "analysis" of Eric Moulds, their 45th ranked receiver. You and CT will have to sh-- or get off the pot at some point- your continued refusal to admit that even YOU don't believe in their formulas gives you zero credibility in a discussion where you introduced them in the first place. The two of you exemplify exactly the type of fan I contemplated in the original post- willing to dishonestly embrace a portion of a manipulated set of statistics while pretending as if the balance of the manipulated stats don't exist. It's Jim Rome fandom- I see no reason to accept it without pointing it out.
Dawgg Posted January 11, 2005 Posted January 11, 2005 Sorry pal. You're wrong (again). I don't need the "Football Outsiders" to provide me with feedback about Bledsoe or Moulds. I have watched every game for the past few years and have attended practices and based on that, can reasonably gauge which players are effective and which players are not. I don't think Bledsoe's ranking on that site carries any weight with me. Nor does their ranking of Moulds. It is quite apparent to any "non-neophyte" that Bledsoe is inneffective and that Moulds is still a solid player. Where the stats do come in handy, however, is evaluating the production of the offense and defense as a collective unit. Taking strength of opponent into account, two conclusions can be drawn: 1. The defense was very effective. 2. The offense wasn't effective by comparison. Is Bledsoe the sole reason for this? No. Is he a big reason? Yes. Should he be benched? Absolutely. I see- you embrace the BCS/Football Outsiders "system" for one thing and discard it wholly when it comes to their "analysis" of Eric Moulds, their 45th ranked receiver. You and CT will have to sh-- or get off the pot at some point- your continued refusal to admit that even YOU don't believe in their formulas gives you zero credibility in a discussion where you introduced them in the first place. The two of you exemplify exactly the type of fan I contemplated in the original post- willing to dishonestly embrace a portion of a manipulated set of statistics while pretending as if the balance of the manipulated stats don't exist. It's Jim Rome fandom- I see no reason to accept it without pointing it out. 201728[/snapback]
AKC Posted January 11, 2005 Author Posted January 11, 2005 I don't need the "Football Outsiders" to provide me with feedback about Bledsoe or Moulds. Where the stats do come in handy, however, is evaluating the production of the offense and defense as a collective unit. 201763[/snapback] Thank you for confirming EXACTLY my point. You'll cite some "analysis" as the truth when it suits you, then ignore it when another of your arguments is blown up in your face by exactly the same methodology. Among other words for it: Hypocrisy
taterhill Posted January 11, 2005 Posted January 11, 2005 Thank you for confirming EXACTLY my point. You'll cite some "analysis" as the truth when it suits you, then ignore it when another of your arguments is blown up in your face by exactly the same methodology. Among other words for it: Hypocrisy 201769[/snapback] what are you trying to prove here? I am too lazy to read it all...
Dawgg Posted January 11, 2005 Posted January 11, 2005 Nope. Not quite. According to their stats, Bledsoe and Moulds were innefective last season. I agree with those. But one key difference. Bledsoe has just lost it. Moulds had a sub-par year. Bledsoe should be benched. Moulds should not. That is not the only basis for deciding what to do with a player. It merely refutes your point that the defense "skated" by with an easy season. Thank you for confirming EXACTLY my point. You'll cite some "analysis" as the truth when it suits you, then ignore it when another of your arguments is blown up in your face by exactly the same methodology. Among other words for it: Hypocrisy 201769[/snapback]
AKC Posted January 11, 2005 Author Posted January 11, 2005 Nope. Not quite. According to their stats, Bledsoe and Moulds were innefective last season. I agree with those. But one key difference. Bledsoe has just lost it. Moulds had a sub-par year. Bledsoe should be benched. Moulds should not. That is not the only basis for deciding what to do with a player. It merely refutes your point that the defense "skated" by with an easy season. 201784[/snapback] Let's see- they rank Bledsoe the #21 NFL Quarterback in the world- and your interpretation of that is that Bledsoe was "ineffective"- but their rank of Moulds as the 45th best receiver qualifies him for a big hug from you! Don't let me interrupt your shoveling duties!
AKC Posted January 11, 2005 Author Posted January 11, 2005 what are you trying to prove here? I am too lazy to read it all... 201780[/snapback] It's quite simple really- CoachTuesday and dawgg insist that The Football Outsiders are expert analysts when it comes to ranking offenses and defenses but their player rankings have no validity at all! The politically correct term for it in the real world is "confused".
LabattBlue Posted January 11, 2005 Posted January 11, 2005 I am too lazy to read it all... 201780[/snapback] I'll sum it up for you tater. You can't want to ship DB's ass out of town unless you're willing to do the same thing to EM. If you want the justification of why this is, you will have to try and read on.............or you can just be one of the board simpletons(like me ) who just watch the ball every game and not even try to figure it out!
DC Tom Posted January 11, 2005 Posted January 11, 2005 Is anyone else just totally blown away that we have an eight-page thread that BF hasn't drooled on yet? I thought it was an unwritten rule that once a thread hit six pages, he came in with his usual witless repartee and inane opinions and 'tarded up the whole thing. Amazing...maybe he's growing up. As for the content of the thread...
AKC Posted January 11, 2005 Author Posted January 11, 2005 Is anyone else just totally blown away that we have an eight-page thread that BF hasn't drooled on yet? I thought it was an unwritten rule that once a thread hit six pages, he came in with his usual witless repartee and inane opinions and 'tarded up the whole thing. Amazing...maybe he's growing up. As for the content of the thread... 201856[/snapback] I believe the Rules of The Wall limit any string to 3 pompous asses, 5 certifiable boneheads and 8 nosepickers. You might give him credit for honoring that rule when he discovered the string 3 pages ago.
taterhill Posted January 11, 2005 Posted January 11, 2005 Is anyone else just totally blown away that we have an eight-page thread that BF hasn't drooled on yet? I thought it was an unwritten rule that once a thread hit six pages, he came in with his usual witless repartee and inane opinions and 'tarded up the whole thing. Amazing...maybe he's growing up. As for the content of the thread... 201856[/snapback] yes, from what I have read, there is a lot of nonsense here....
Dawgg Posted January 11, 2005 Posted January 11, 2005 By putting Bledsoe and Moulds in the same category, you have officially shown that your argument is assenine. That argument won't hold up anywhere. Let's see- they rank Bledsoe the #21 NFL Quarterback in the world- and your interpretation of that is that Bledsoe was "ineffective"- but their rank of Moulds as the 45th best receiver qualifies him for a big hug from you! Don't let me interrupt your shoveling duties! 201796[/snapback]
AKC Posted January 11, 2005 Author Posted January 11, 2005 By putting Bledsoe and Moulds in the same category, you have officially shown that your argument is assenine. That argument won't hold up anywhere. 201878[/snapback] When the facts don't support you try verbosity- How Jim Rome of you!
Bill from NYC Posted January 11, 2005 Posted January 11, 2005 By putting Bledsoe and Moulds in the same category, you have officially shown that your argument is assenine. That argument won't hold up anywhere. 201878[/snapback] Drew has a small cap figure when compared to other qbs. Moulds is slated to earn what I think will place him in the top 5 at his position (or close to it). Who is a better bargain in terms of the cap hit?
taterhill Posted January 11, 2005 Posted January 11, 2005 Bottom Line...Bledsoe is not good enough to win games for the Bills, but is bad enough to lose them for the Bills....if you cannot see this, then you must be related to him....for $6 million per year, a QB should dominate, Drew has not dominated a game in a longlong time...
LabattBlue Posted January 11, 2005 Posted January 11, 2005 Is anyone else just totally blown away that we have an eight-page thread that BF hasn't drooled on yet? I thought it was an unwritten rule that once a thread hit six pages, he came in with his usual witless repartee and inane opinions and 'tarded up the whole thing. Amazing...maybe he's growing up. As for the content of the thread... 201856[/snapback] I was thinking the same thing, but didn't want to bring it up.
Rico Posted January 11, 2005 Posted January 11, 2005 Drew has a small cap figure when compared to other qbs. Moulds is slated to earn what I think will place him in the top 5 at his position (or close to it). Who is a better bargain in terms of the cap hit? 201903[/snapback] Obviously Moulds, at least you are getting some bang for your buck.Drew is just $$$ pissed away.
Dawgg Posted January 11, 2005 Posted January 11, 2005 Honestly, I didnt think this argument was about who is better bang for the buck. I thought this was about who is more effective as a football player within the context of the Bills offense. To answer that question: It's Eric Moulds, hands down. Regarding the salary figure: Moulds did have an off-year and is willing to restructure. I don't think removing him from the team will make the team better. I do, however think replacing Drew Bledsoe will make the team better. Drew has a small cap figure when compared to other qbs. Moulds is slated to earn what I think will place him in the top 5 at his position (or close to it). Who is a better bargain in terms of the cap hit? 201903[/snapback]
Dawgg Posted January 11, 2005 Posted January 11, 2005 Again, wrong. Their player rankings are based on last year and last year only. If you decide to can every player who has 1 bad year, then you'd be getting rid of a lot of players. Eric Moulds had one bad year mixed in with some pretty good ones. Drew Bledsoe has had a 2.5 seasons at QB for the Buffalo Bills that were mired in inconstency. So yes, I agree with their player rankings. Drew sucked and belongs in the bottom 3rd of QBs. Moulds also sucked and belonged as the 45th best WR. BUT (now read slowly because this is the part you don't understand) I feel Drew is beyond redemption. Moulds is not. Still "confused?" It's quite simple really- CoachTuesday and dawgg insist that The Football Outsiders are expert analysts when it comes to ranking offenses and defenses but their player rankings have no validity at all! The politically correct term for it in the real world is "confused". 201804[/snapback]
Recommended Posts