MDH Posted July 5, 2005 Share Posted July 5, 2005 Was my PM not enough? Maybe you are more sensitive than me. 375051[/snapback] Actually, I didn't realize you PMd me until you just mentioned it. My bad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MadBuffaloDisease Posted July 5, 2005 Share Posted July 5, 2005 The NFL "experts" are no more able to predict the future than any of us. And they never revisit their predictions and admit they were wrong on most of them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill from NYC Posted July 5, 2005 Share Posted July 5, 2005 Actually, I didn't realize you PMd me until you just mentioned it. My bad. 375054[/snapback] GO BILLS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillsGuyInMalta Posted July 5, 2005 Share Posted July 5, 2005 Hey - Where in Malta are you? Henry's fumbling in Mechanicville/Stillwater... 374967[/snapback] I'm right down the road in Ballston Lake. Spent a lot of time in Mechanicville though, I've still got lots of family there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ganesh Posted July 5, 2005 Share Posted July 5, 2005 what many experts seem to vastly overlook is our great D and ST...yes, Losman is essentially a rookie QB, and yes he will go thru his growing pains, and will most likely cost us a game or 2 all by himself with some rookie mistakes...but unlike most other rookies, hes had a year ot learn the system, and 2, hes got a great supporting cast... someone said it great in another thread...JP is in a similar situation to roethlisberger last year, as in we are not asking him to win and/or save the franchise...just to play halfway decent...JP isnt gonna win us 15 games this year, but he sure as hell wont lose us 12 either... 374990[/snapback] Ramius, it was me who made that comment... If Lossman doesn't go gung-ho and try to win games by himself then we should be alright...and if JP does go gung-ho, then Mularkey should be fired for not reining him in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AJ1 Posted July 5, 2005 Share Posted July 5, 2005 Ramius, it was me who made that comment... If Lossman doesn't go gung-ho and try to win games by himself then we should be alright...and if JP does go gung-ho, then Mularkey should be fired for not reining him in. 375097[/snapback] The way I see it is this worst case: one inefficient QB with no upside is replaced by another inefficient QB with a big upside. This the view that prevailed with the Bills brass. I doubt that it means that the Bills win total will be cut in half. Unstated assumption of the pundits: the Bills were getting good production from DB...Wrong!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ganesh Posted July 5, 2005 Share Posted July 5, 2005 The way I see it is this worst case: one inefficient QB with no upside is replaced by another inefficient QB with a big upside. This the view that prevailed with the Bills brass. I doubt that it means that the Bills win total will be cut in half. 375103[/snapback] To label JP as a "Inefficient" is harsh on him....I would rather mark him as "Unknown" or Incomplete. I hope JP can prove all his doubters wrong with his play. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Coli Posted July 5, 2005 Share Posted July 5, 2005 I'm right down the road in Ballston Lake. 375064[/snapback] Rusty Nail? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OGTEleven Posted July 5, 2005 Share Posted July 5, 2005 First of all, your screen name is simply great. Virtually every poster here thinks that JP will be a huge improvement to Drew the second he takes the field. I think that the kid is working hard and I am thrilled by this, BUT; I am thinking that the odds of him being a good NFL QB and sucking are about 50/50, and worse in his first year as a starter. Thus, I am not at all alarmed by the prediction. It was truly not so bold. As for Henry, I have watched him since his first game. Anybody can look at ONLY the rushing stats of 02 and 03 and predict how great TH will be. I have gone out on a limb many times and said that he is a bad football player. Here is a far more daring prediction than you cite: Travis Henry is a suckass football player and his days in the NFL are numbered. I truly hope that TD IS able to salvage a pick before he cuts this dumbass. Any way, good post, and again, GREAT screen name. 374985[/snapback] Bill, I respect your opinion on Travis and agree with it to an extent (but not the same degree). But I have to say you are losing some credibilty with me based on your negativism towards Losman. To be a QB in the NFL you need to have some combination of arm, brains, feet and will. It's true we won't know until he is on the field, but nobody has really ever questioned Losman's feet or will. His arm seems to be well regarded also. His head is tbd. I think the odds of him doing well (if you consider doing well as matching Bledsoe's '04) are very high. Bledsoe has an arm (great one). He has no feet or head and a questionable will. He did nothing to make the Bills of 04 better than they would have been without him. IMO, that sets a very low bar for Losman. I honestly don't see how he can fail when measured against Bledsoe. I'm not promising a SB run, but when we compare 04 to 05, I seriously doubt anyone says: "We would have done much better with Bledsoe" unless they are deluded. With regard to Henry: Let's say you're Jax and just for stojans and giggles let's also say Taylor is down. Henry may be a bad football player, but he would not be a bad football player in the small subset of available RBs. He'd be one of the better ones. He'd also come with a cheap salary cap #. If you're Jax, and you think you can make a real run, what would you give up for him? Put on the rose colored glasses of a team that thinks they have one hole for just a minute. Is it at least plausible that they overspend for him based on their opinion of the other players on their team and their chances? I think it is. It may not be likely, but it is plausible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
finknottle Posted July 5, 2005 Share Posted July 5, 2005 moreso, i take issue with the writer's assumption that the bills' OL will be "poor." there is ONE question mark on the OL -- the LT. the C, RG, and RT are returning starters who played pretty well. everyone agrees the new LG is an upgrade. this is the OL's 2nd year under mcnally's tutelage, and they won't be asked to do as much this year (no statue to protect). i think it's a stretch to predict that they will be "poor." 375023[/snapback] I think it is a reasonable assumption (but hopefully wrong) that the OL will be poor. It's been poor for awhile, and it was poor in the early part of last season. I think it's quite plausible for a national observer to conclude that they were a weak collection of players that played well down the stretch, and in 2005 will be the same collection minus a decent LT. If that's all it was - a bunch of guys playing above themselves - then from his perspective 2005 is more likely to look like the early part of 2004 than November and December. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MadBuffaloDisease Posted July 6, 2005 Share Posted July 6, 2005 I think it is a reasonable assumption (but hopefully wrong) that the OL will be poor. It's been poor for awhile, and it was poor in the early part of last season. I think it's quite plausible for a national observer to conclude that they were a weak collection of players that played well down the stretch, and in 2005 will be the same collection minus a decent LT. If that's all it was - a bunch of guys playing above themselves - then from his perspective 2005 is more likely to look like the early part of 2004 than November and December. Why, because the LT spot is "questionable?" Dumb logic, IMHO. The OC, RG, and RT spots return wholly intact, ready to build off-of last year. At LG is a player who is a dominant run-blocker and a definite upgrade over what the Bills had there last year. And McNally thinks enough of Gandy to believe he'll have success at LT. Moreover there are things the Bills can do, thanks to JP's mobility, to alleviate some of the problems they MAY have at LT. But let's wait until the pre-season starts, at the very least. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
finknottle Posted July 6, 2005 Share Posted July 6, 2005 Why, because the LT spot is "questionable?" Dumb logic, IMHO. The OC, RG, and RT spots return wholly intact, ready to build off-of last year. At LG is a player who is a dominant run-blocker and a definite upgrade over what the Bills had there last year. And McNally thinks enough of Gandy to believe he'll have success at LT. Moreover there are things the Bills can do, thanks to JP's mobility, to alleviate some of the problems they MAY have at LT. But let's wait until the pre-season starts, at the very least. 375210[/snapback] No, not just because of the uncertaintity at LT; I said that assuming you believe they were a subpar unit that played above their talents down the stretch, you have to conclude that they are most likely to return to form. Remember, I'm arguing the case of a national observer, who is not going to put as much stock in McNally thoughts as in the plusses and minuses he sees on the wire. Subpar unit, losing Jennings and picking up Gandy. If I thought their late-season 2004 performance was a bit of a fluke, I'd predict they'd regress in 2005 too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MadBuffaloDisease Posted July 6, 2005 Share Posted July 6, 2005 No, not just because of the uncertaintity at LT; I said that assuming you believe they were a subpar unit that played above their talents down the stretch, you have to conclude that they are most likely to return to form. That's quite an assumption. I'd submit however that having a new O-line coach, 2 new starters (Villy and the LG's), and Big Mike showing-up to camp fat and distracted were things that set the O-line back, and by the end of the season they were getting their stuff together. Remember, I'm arguing the case of a national observer, who is not going to put as much stock in McNally thoughts as in the plusses and minuses he sees on the wire. Subpar unit, losing Jennings and picking up Gandy. If I thought their late-season 2004 performance was a bit of a fluke, I'd predict they'd regress in 2005 too. I didn't mean to imply that me response above was directed at you, but at the "national observers" who don't know as much about the team as the Bills' coaches, namely McNally, do. Remember McNally didn't have as much to work with in NJ, but produced a good O-line. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts