teef Posted June 26, 2019 Posted June 26, 2019 2 minutes ago, Chemical said: https://www.chiefs.com/video/patrick-mahomes-makes-back-foot-54-yard-pass-to-sammy-watkins https://www.chiefs.com/video/patrick-mahomes-makes-on-the-run-38-yard-pass-to-sammy-watkins these two plays alone are worth 16 mil considering the circumstances. you think 2 pays are worth 16 mill? oh my. sammy has such outstanding talent that he makes it look easy at times. it just doesn't happen enough.
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted June 26, 2019 Posted June 26, 2019 3 hours ago, Royale with Cheese said: I'm kinda amused by this thread because generally, this board criticizes writers when they talk negatively about the Bills. I mean Rodak was hated on here because of his negativity. Same with Sullivan. Now, we have a writer saying good things and he's getting the same treatment! From the same five complainers who are ALWAYS complaining.
SoTier Posted June 26, 2019 Posted June 26, 2019 5 hours ago, SWATeam said: How not to win championships? That's the Bills' specialty, junior. Reid and McVay have been a whole closer to winning championships than any of the Bills teams since the last time the Bills got routed in a Super Bowl, more than 25 years ago. 4 hours ago, teef said: the logic is insane. i don't have anything against sammy either. the reality is he just isn't worth the money thus far. did the bills do a decent job replacing sammy? no, but it doesn't excuse sammy's lack of production. i just find it particular that the people who try so hard to discount or down play anything the bills do, are the same ones making excuses for a guy who just hasn't lived up to his billing. if sammy was on this team, being paid that much with similar production, those same people would be the first ones on here, screaming how awful our gm is for wasting money on a contract like that. The correct word is "peculiar" not "particular". Actually, it's neither peculiar nor particular, though, because you have absolutely no proof that there's any correlation between those being critical of the current Bills regime and those "making excuses" for Sammy Watkins. My objection to the Watkins trade -- and I think it's the same objection that at least a couple of other posters have voiced here -- is that it left the Bills without any viable downfield receiving threat for almost two seasons. It's still questionable if they'll have one in 2019. 4 hours ago, Thurman#1 said: That's not me "choosing to gut a team." It's the universal understanding that they rebuilt. And that you simply can't intelligently judge a rebuild by wins in the first two years. You wanted to reload, not rebuild? Fine. IMO, a really horrible decision, but whatever. A team in a horrible cap situation, with low to middling personnel built around a defensive system that only Rexy uses and a quirky offensive system designed by a coach, Roman, who'd left mid-season, a system built to compensate for no passing game by a good run game, and on top of that they had no franchise QB and no top five pick in a draft that people at the time felt was a bad one for QBs ... is in an absolutely dreadful position to reload. It's hard to imagine a worse situation to reload. And it's very clear that not only don't you get this but you're aggressively against trying to get it. But I'll do what I can. Again, those coaches you're talking about were on reloading teams, teams that had had a GM in place putting a foundation together. More, the coaches you're talking about inherited these QBs: Goff going into his second year. Wentz going into his second year. Bledsoe/Brady. Trubisky in his 2nd year. Whereas the Bills had Tyrod going into his sixth year. See the tiny little difference there? "Reload?" I can only shake my head and roll my eyes in pity. Excuses, excuses, excuses. 3 hours ago, S2 hours ago, Rico said: Some people just naturally gravitate to losers. You do realize that you're describing every Bills fan ever, right? The Bills have not only never won a Super Bowl, they've only had 23 winning seasons in their entire 59 years of existence (38.9%) -- and 5 of those winning seasons occurred during their ten years in the old AFL. Since 1970 -- 49 years -- the Bills have only won more games than they lost in 36.7% of their seasons.
BillsVet Posted June 26, 2019 Posted June 26, 2019 (edited) 1 hour ago, Royale with Cheese said: It seems like this FO is being criticized for not winning with Rex Ryan/Doug Whaley's team. They obviously didn't like the make up of the team so they cleaned house, cleaned the cap. They are taking the "you gotta break a couple eggs to make an omelette approach". If they feel that was the best approach, then do it. We weren't winning before, so why continue going down the old regimes path? Except no one in the NFL does a complete tear-down when it's not required. This reminds me of a Bum Phillips quote about Bear Bryant: "Bryant can take his'n and beat your'n, aand then he can turn around and take your'n and beat his'n." Yet, in Buffalo McD couldn't win long term without eliminating all the difficult personalities from OBD. Most fans don't get that taking 2 years to get ready to compete is a waste as evidenced by the fact that solid organizations simply don't do it. They take what they've got and make the most of it, using roster tweaks and changing the roster over time. No one blows it up and then sells the fan base on how necessary it was to shed so much salary so quickly. 22 minutes ago, Joe in Winslow said: From the same five complainers who are ALWAYS complaining. Let us "complainers" know when you're going to have a decent take. 43k+ posts and I can't remember the last good one. Edited June 26, 2019 by BillsVet 3
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted June 26, 2019 Posted June 26, 2019 2 minutes ago, BillsVet said: Let us "complainers" know when you're going to have a decent take. 43k+ posts and I can't remember the last good one. Really, now that's ironic. How ya been little buddy? Still pining for Tryhard and Rex?
Rock-A-Bye Beasley Posted June 26, 2019 Posted June 26, 2019 24 minutes ago, Joe in Winslow said: From the same five complainers who are ALWAYS complaining. I see a lot more than 5. I also only ever see you complain about the “complainers”. It brings nothing to the table. 1
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted June 26, 2019 Posted June 26, 2019 Just now, Chemical said: I see a lot more than 5. I also only ever see you complain about the “complainers”. It brings nothing to the table. Because you, and people who think like you, simply aren't worth the effort, man. You formed your opinions two years ago and aren't moving off it. Why bother?
Royale with Cheese Posted June 26, 2019 Posted June 26, 2019 12 minutes ago, BillsVet said: Except no one in the NFL does a complete tear-down when it's not required. This reminds me of a Bum Phillips quote about Bear Bryant: "Bryant can take his'n and beat your'n, aand then he can turn around and take your'n and beat his'n." Yet, in Buffalo McD couldn't win long term without eliminating all the difficult personalities from OBD. Most fans don't get that taking 2 years to get ready to compete is a waste as evidenced by the fact that solid organizations simply don't do it. They take what they've got and make the most of it, using roster tweaks and changing the roster over time. No one blows it up and then sells the fan base on how necessary it was to shed so much salary so quickly. Let us "complainers" know when you're going to have a decent take. 43k+ posts and I can't remember the last good one. Well Beane and McDermott felt it was needed. Just because you as a fan with very little information of what’s really taking place inside those doors, feels the rebuild wasn’t necessary doesn’t mean you’re right.
eball Posted June 26, 2019 Posted June 26, 2019 21 minutes ago, BillsVet said: Except no one in the NFL does a complete tear-down when it's not required. This reminds me of a Bum Phillips quote about Bear Bryant: "Bryant can take his'n and beat your'n, aand then he can turn around and take your'n and beat his'n." Yet, in Buffalo McD couldn't win long term without eliminating all the difficult personalities from OBD. Most fans don't get that taking 2 years to get ready to compete is a waste as evidenced by the fact that solid organizations simply don't do it. They take what they've got and make the most of it, using roster tweaks and changing the roster over time. No one blows it up and then sells the fan base on how necessary it was to shed so much salary so quickly. Title: THE AGENDA Subtitle: "Why I don't care if the Bills become good because they didn't do it the way I wanted them to!" 1 1
teef Posted June 26, 2019 Posted June 26, 2019 53 minutes ago, Coach Tuesday said: Now I know you're just Teefing my Gugny. Read the article I linked. It quotes actual first-hand sources. It's pretty clear what happened. The Rams' Plan A was to keep Sammy. They tried. KC offered him $30M guaranteed and he bolted. They then turned to using their #23 pick to acquire a replacement and reached out to the Patriots about Cooks. At that point their options were more limited and they did what they had to do. Doesn't mean Sammy "didn't live up to expectations, so they decided to look for wr help elsewhere." You're pushing a false narrative (a) because you find it fun, and (b) because you don't really follow football too closely. coach...some on. let's put it this way. do you think if sammy put up the same kind of number cook did, they'd let him walk?
teef Posted June 26, 2019 Posted June 26, 2019 (edited) 52 minutes ago, SoTier said: The correct word is "peculiar" not "particular". Actually, it's neither peculiar nor particular, though, because you have absolutely no proof that there's any correlation between those being critical of the current Bills regime and those "making excuses" for Sammy Watkins. My objection to the Watkins trade -- and I think it's the same objection that at least a couple of other posters have voiced here -- is that it left the Bills without any viable downfield receiving threat for almost two seasons. It's still questionable if they'll have one in 2019. fair enough. and yes it is peculiar. the ones who have complained the most about sammy are absolutely the ones who leaning towards the side of constant drama and negativity. you are one of those posters. they're the same ones that refuse to admit that sammy has been nothing but a disappointment, and still lament letting sammy go wan't a mistake. the mistake was not properly replacing sammy. they tried but failed. still doesn't mean they should have paid sammy an absurd amount of cash for such little production. on top of that...let's be honest. if sammy was on this team with the numbers he put up, you're the exact type of poster who would be on her pounding the table how this team doesn't know how to spend. Edited June 26, 2019 by teef 1
K-9 Posted June 26, 2019 Posted June 26, 2019 29 minutes ago, Joe in Winslow said: Because you, and people who think like you, simply aren't worth the effort, man. You formed your opinions two years ago and aren't moving off it. Why bother? That’s a valid point. Some just aren’t worth the give and take. Intractable myopia is impossible to have honest give and take with.
Rico Posted June 26, 2019 Posted June 26, 2019 55 minutes ago, SoTier said: You do realize that you're describing every Bills fan ever, right? The Bills have not only never won a Super Bowl, they've only had 23 winning seasons in their entire 59 years of existence (38.9%) -- and 5 of those winning seasons occurred during their ten years in the old AFL. Since 1970 -- 49 years -- the Bills have only won more games than they lost in 36.7% of their seasons. No, I’m specifically describing the ones who miss anyone from or anything about the 2001-2016 teams: any of the teams who could’ve, would’ve, and should’ve made the playoffs, but DIDN’T. Their beloved chumps couldn’t get the job done, yet they slam McBeane, who couldn’t have, wouldn’t have, and shouldn’t have made the playoffs but DID. 2
reddogblitz Posted June 26, 2019 Posted June 26, 2019 (edited) 4 hours ago, Shaw66 said: there is no evidence that having kept Sammy would have changed the fortunes of the Bills in any material way while you are right there is no proof (How can there be?) I suspect that if we had Sammy in there instead of Thompson who dropped a key pass and didn't get a first down cuz he ran behind the sticks, We win that playoff game. That would be material. Edited June 26, 2019 by reddogblitz 2
Shaw66 Posted June 26, 2019 Posted June 26, 2019 14 minutes ago, reddogblitz said: while you are right there is no proof (How can there be?) I suspect that if we had Sammy in there instead of Thompson who dropped a key pass and didn't get a first down cuz he ran behind the sticks, We win that playoff game. That would be material. Well sure. We can always bring it down to one play like that. I'm sure you understand the point.
Coach Tuesday Posted June 26, 2019 Posted June 26, 2019 1 minute ago, Shaw66 said: Well sure. We can always bring it down to one play like that. I'm sure you understand the point. The point? That no one can prove what would’ve happened in an alternative universe where Sammy wasn’t dealt? I mean...
teef Posted June 26, 2019 Posted June 26, 2019 (edited) 18 minutes ago, reddogblitz said: while you are right there is no proof (How can there be?) I suspect that if we had Sammy in there instead of Thompson who dropped a key pass and didn't get a first down cuz he ran behind the sticks, We win that playoff game. That would be material. well, in my made up scenario, sammy was hurt and wasn't available for that play, ultimately couldn't help the bills win the game. see how that works? Just now, Coach Tuesday said: The point? That no one can prove what would’ve happened in an alternative universe where Sammy wasn’t dealt? I mean... considering he was on two teams with superior qbs than the bills, and still didn't produce, it's kinda safe to say that his number likely wouldn't have been impressive. Edited June 26, 2019 by teef
reddogblitz Posted June 26, 2019 Posted June 26, 2019 4 minutes ago, teef said: well, in my made up scenario, sammy was hurt and wasn't available for that play, ultimately couldn't help the bills win the game. see how that works? considering he was on two teams with superior qbs than the bills, and still didn't produce, it's kinda safe to say that his number likely wouldn't have been impressive. Maybe it's just me, but I call 100+ yards in the AFC Conference game as producing. And as far as your scenario and mine is we don't know, so they both have the same odds of being right. To each his/her won. Sometimes the difference between winning and losing is very small and can come down to one guy on one play. 1
teef Posted June 26, 2019 Posted June 26, 2019 8 minutes ago, reddogblitz said: Maybe it's just me, but I call 100+ yards in the AFC Conference game as producing. And as far as your scenario and mine is we don't know, so they both have the same odds of being right. To each his/her won. Sometimes the difference between winning and losing is very small and can come down to one guy on one play. Very true and well put.
reddogblitz Posted June 26, 2019 Posted June 26, 2019 (edited) 20 minutes ago, Shaw66 said: nWell sure. We can always bring it down to one play like that. I'm sure you understand the point. I understand where you're coming from sort of but just disagree. You win with studs. Sammy was a stud. I understand the injury concern, but WRs get hurt. That's why you need 2 or 3 top notch ones. Sadly now we don't have any even after the Cole and Brown signings. To my way of thinking if you want to develop a young QB you surround him with quality pass catching WRs/TEs that can catch footballs not perfectly throw and are expert route runners as opposed to surrounding him with Zay "Drop Zone" Jones, Ray Ray McCloud, McKenzie, Foster etc. This is my #1 beef with Beane. Edited June 26, 2019 by reddogblitz
Recommended Posts