John from Riverside Posted March 23, 2005 Share Posted March 23, 2005 Dude, get real. TD sucks. We're five years into a three-year perpetual rebuilding plan because he has done nothing but make crappy draft picks, crappy FA aquisitions that haven't panned out, was cheap enough to let Williams go and STILL has not gotten us to the playoffs. He continues to hold onto a RB who is a worthless, crappy, pedophile blabbermouth with a Wonderlic score that can be beaten by a Palmetto bug...and he does this because he thinks he might get something more out of AZ? Please. He should dump the cancer. But does he? No. Why? Because he's Mr. Ego, that's why. He has something to prove to the world...and when I say the world, I mean the city of Pittburgh. YOU may want to compromise what you're willing to accept from a GM, but not me, cuz I don't compromise anything in life. The goal is the SB, and this guy hasn't even given us a chance to make a run at it, let alone have confidence we can do it. And NOW he wants to start all over again with a new quarterback, an OL that is clearly worse that it's been in years, and NO FA pickups beyond a disgruntled Browns second-hand-rose QB. Yeah. I'd be real upset if TD left. Real upset. I'm already crying about it. 284460[/snapback] How did Ice steal LA's signiture and avitar?..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
San-O Posted March 23, 2005 Share Posted March 23, 2005 Considering that he replaced 51 of 53 starters during that time, filling half of the staring roster with draft picks over four years isn't that bad. If you stretch it and say that picks in the first 3 rounds should be starters, the goal four years ago would have been to pull 12 starters. 10 or 11 is right on target, when you accept the realities of the draft. 284732[/snapback] Well is isn't that bad, and isn't that good either. Did a quick check and it isn't even 10 or 11, it's more like 8 or 9. And notice only one O-lineman. A very high first round pick. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- J.P. Losman Willis McGahee Lee Evans Mike Williams ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Aaron Schobel Chris Kelsay Ron Edwards (Probably not a starter) Terrence McGee Nate Clements Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jad1 Posted March 23, 2005 Share Posted March 23, 2005 Well is isn't that bad, and isn't that good either. Did a quick check and it isn't even 10 or 11, it's more like 8 or 9. And notice only one O-lineman. A very high first round pick. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- J.P. Losman Willis McGahee Lee Evans Mike Williams ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Aaron Schobel Chris Kelsay Ron Edwards (Probably not a starter) Terrence McGee Nate Clements 284786[/snapback] Actually, you need to include Henry and Reed, as they both were starters during the past four years, who were replaced by better players. And I believe Wire was also a starter during that time period. It's impossible to completely rebuild a team through only the draft in 4 years. That's 28 picks, before compensation picks and trades. My guess is that Donahoe has had around 35 picks during the last 4 years, one quarter of whom have started games for the team. And the numbers go up substantially if you consider special teams starters. Donahoe has done a good job with the draft. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
San-O Posted March 23, 2005 Share Posted March 23, 2005 Actually, you need to include Henry and Reed, as they both were starters during the past four years, who were replaced by better players. And I believe Wire was also a starter during that time period. It's impossible to completely rebuild a team through only the draft in 4 years. That's 28 picks, before compensation picks and trades. My guess is that Donahoe has had around 35 picks during the last 4 years, one quarter of whom have started games for the team. And the numbers go up substantially if you consider special teams starters. Donahoe has done a good job with the draft. 284804[/snapback] Actually I do not include starters that aren't starters. Also, upon further review, of the eight starters that I listed drafted by TD, one (1) has come after the second round. One. That clearly shows TD and friends have not done a good job drafting starters. I find this rather shocking. No late round projects or anything that you would normally think would surface after four years of drafts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jad1 Posted March 23, 2005 Share Posted March 23, 2005 Actually I do not include starters that aren't starters.Also, upon further review, of the eight starters that I listed drafted by TD, one (1) has come after the second round. One. That clearly shows TD and friends have not done a good job drafting starters. I find this rather shocking. No late round projects or anything that you would normally think would surface after four years of drafts. 284811[/snapback] So the fact that Donahoe drafted a RB who started 2 years and made the Pro Bowl doesn't speak to his drafting skills? Again, over 1 quarter of his draft picks have started. That's extremely solid. More of his post second round talent would start if it weren't for his excellent FA signings. I credit Donahoe for managing the cap in order to sign Milloy, Adams, Fletcher, Posey, and Spikes, who are keeping the later round picks on the bench. And finally, you completely ignore the special teams, which are built on late round picks. This is a huge mistake in your analysis considering Donahoe has built the best kick teams in the league, and they were a major contributor to the Bills winning record. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
San-O Posted March 23, 2005 Share Posted March 23, 2005 So the fact that Donahoe drafted a RB who started 2 years and made the Pro Bowl doesn't speak to his drafting skills? Again, over 1 quarter of his draft picks have started. That's extremely solid. More of his post second round talent would start if it weren't for his excellent FA signings. I credit Donahoe for managing the cap in order to sign Milloy, Adams, Fletcher, Posey, and Spikes, who are keeping the later round picks on the bench. And finally, you completely ignore the special teams, which are built on late round picks. This is a huge mistake in your analysis considering Donahoe has built the best kick teams in the league, and they were a major contributor to the Bills winning record. 284889[/snapback] The Bills winning? When did this happen? They haven't won since TD got here. 26-38 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jad1 Posted March 23, 2005 Share Posted March 23, 2005 The Bills winning? When did this happen? They haven't won since TD got here. 26-38 284909[/snapback] 9-7 is a winning record, right? Or do I have their 2004 record wrong? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
San-O Posted March 23, 2005 Share Posted March 23, 2005 9-7 is a winning record, right? Or do I have their 2004 record wrong? 284916[/snapback] One win over .500 in four years isn't winning, it's win. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jad1 Posted March 23, 2005 Share Posted March 23, 2005 One win over .500 in four years isn't winning, it's win. 284930[/snapback] So last year the Bills had a win record? Do you speak gooder english? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ajzepp Posted March 23, 2005 Share Posted March 23, 2005 One win over .500 in four years isn't winning, it's win. 284930[/snapback] Do you agree that often times new players need time to gel as a team? Do you think that going 9-3 after an 0-4 start is a good sign or a bad sign? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
San-O Posted March 23, 2005 Share Posted March 23, 2005 Do you agree that often times new players need time to gel as a team? Do you think that going 9-3 after an 0-4 start is a good sign or a bad sign? 284960[/snapback] Yes, and Good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steven in MD Posted March 23, 2005 Share Posted March 23, 2005 Do you agree that often times new players need time to gel as a team? Do you think that going 9-3 after an 0-4 start is a good sign or a bad sign? 284960[/snapback] Maybe it means they played weaker teams after week 4. Or maybe they are gelling. But the team that left the field at the end of the season is NOT the same team that will start the season this year. Almost 25% of the starters will be changed. How can you gel when every year you change 20-25% of the starters? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jad1 Posted March 23, 2005 Share Posted March 23, 2005 Maybe it means they played weaker teams after week 4. Or maybe they are gelling. But the team that left the field at the end of the season is NOT the same team that will start the season this year. Almost 25% of the starters will be changed. How can you gel when every year you change 20-25% of the starters? 284991[/snapback] At the beginning of last season, the WR, RB, and both S positions were not right. As those four positions solidified, the team improved. Hopefully, if they avoid injuries during preseason, these players will pick up where they left off last year. Best case scenario is that only 3 starters will change this year, QB, LT, and DT. Other players might step up and steal positions in training camp, but thats a good thing. If the Shelton trade happens, this could be the case going into training camp. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kdharge Posted March 23, 2005 Share Posted March 23, 2005 Dude, get real. TD sucks. We're five years into a three-year perpetual rebuilding plan because he has done nothing but make crappy draft picks, crappy FA aquisitions that haven't panned out, was cheap enough to let Williams go and STILL has not gotten us to the playoffs. He continues to hold onto a RB who is a worthless, crappy, pedophile blabbermouth with a Wonderlic score that can be beaten by a Palmetto bug...and he does this because he thinks he might get something more out of AZ? Please. He should dump the cancer. But does he? No. Why? Because he's Mr. Ego, that's why. He has something to prove to the world...and when I say the world, I mean the city of Pittburgh. YOU may want to compromise what you're willing to accept from a GM, but not me, cuz I don't compromise anything in life. The goal is the SB, and this guy hasn't even given us a chance to make a run at it, let alone have confidence we can do it. And NOW he wants to start all over again with a new quarterback, an OL that is clearly worse that it's been in years, and NO FA pickups beyond a disgruntled Browns second-hand-rose QB. until you whiny fans come up with a better solution for a G.M. shut it up .................He supplied decent talent ......he made 1 huge mistake that set the franchise back but corrected that with Mularkey ..........Buffalo will not find anyone better so quite you bitchen Yeah. I'd be real upset if TD left. Real upset. I'm already crying about it. 284460[/snapback] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dry martini Posted March 23, 2005 Share Posted March 23, 2005 Great. So instead, he'll sit on the bench and then walk next season and we won't see a thing for him. BRILLIANT! 284712[/snapback] We can only hope that is the case should Henry not be traded. You cannot confine the analysis to the potential present and future lost value coming in should a Henry trade not materialize. Any value in trade coming in must be offset with the present value lost with Henry leaving. TD knows this. So, if WM goes down in week one and is lost for the season, not letting Travis go for a 4th round pick, conditional or not, suddenly becomes brilliant. Conversely, getting a LT and an additional pick may offset the lost "insurance" you're giving away with Henry. I have no problem with TD's approach. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts