Kelly the Dog Posted July 11, 2005 Posted July 11, 2005 every year some teams get better and some teams get worse. all of these teams to my mind have improved their roster significantly. KC especially has gotten some defensive players who can actually run. as for oakland, believe it or not, kerry collins threw the ball pretty damn well last year. and now he has randy moss, the best receiver in the league, and a healthy ronald curry. plus gallery in all likelihood will be a monster this year. finally, lamont jordan ran the best he ever ran last year, and solves a lot of problems for that offense. dallas is markedly better across the board, and julius jones is one of the better backs i've seen come into the league in the past few years. as for seattle, they have a good qb, a great offensive line, a good back, good TEs, and a young, improving, and most of all talented secondary. i also happen to think the coach is pretty good still. in a nutshell, i have my reasons. all of these teams improved their rosters, while on the face of it the bills didn't, unless you believe in addition by subtraction. 378732[/snapback] I just want to make sure. You are saying, hypothetically, that if the owner of all 13 of those teams called up Ralph Wilson and we'll send you ALL of ours, everything (and this includes the cap whether you wish to acknowledge it or not) that you would send all of ours straight up in exchange? I am not denying you would. And you're entitled to that opinion. I just find it hard to believe you would want the Seattle, or Oakland, Dallas and all their players, coaches, potential, cap problems, etc. over the Bills. Especially considering Dallas, since you remarked about their RB (of which I would believe ours is better) and are worried about our quarterback situation, considering theirs.
dave mcbride Posted July 11, 2005 Posted July 11, 2005 I just want to make sure. You are saying, hypothetically, that if the owner of all 13 of those teams called up Ralph Wilson and we'll send you ALL of ours, everything (and this includes the cap whether you wish to acknowledge it or not) that you would send all of ours straight up in exchange? I am not denying you would. And you're entitled to that opinion. I just find it hard to believe you would want the Seattle, or Oakland, Dallas and all their players, coaches, potential, cap problems, etc. over the Bills. Especially considering Dallas, since you remarked about their RB (of which I would believe ours is better) and are worried about our quarterback situation, considering theirs. 378741[/snapback] dog - i guess i'm not really talking about trading teams. since i'm of a plan-for-this-year-because-it's-nearly-impossible-to-predict-life-in-the-nfl-two-years-down-the-road mindset, i'm really thinking about 2006. as for the teams i list, i think they're all more talented than the bills. some of the differences are slight, and i respect the opinion of other people who think that the bills are more talented than, say, seattle. that's a fair argument to make. however, in my estimation, as the 2006 season approaches, i think all of these teams have a better than even chance of winning more games than the bills. they might not -- losman may well surprise everyone. however, like i said in my previous post, the guy is a flat out question mark. hasselback, who is matured into a very good qb, is not. as for jones for mcgahee, i'm not saying jones is better. from what he showed last year, though, he's as good, although he has a different game. he's fast and straight ahead, but has absolutely incredible cutting ability. i figure bledsoe will be an ok qb for them. he's not going to shake the earth, of course, but he's in a good situation. for all of the bitching about him here (and i was part of that chorus), he's not THAT bad. he's got a solid group of receivers, a good offensive line, an excellent running back, and a defense that in 2003 was first in the league by a country mile.
dave mcbride Posted July 11, 2005 Posted July 11, 2005 Not to be too argumentative, but you also have to consider that Oakland's D is pretty awful. They could look a lot like the 2002 Bills. Dallas is relying heavily on rookies on the defensive side of the ball, and their best LB, Dat Nygun looks like a poor fit in the 3-4. They also need their aging line to protect Bledsoe, and have a less than steller corpse of receivers. Seattle's receivers have also taken a step back with Robinson's washout, and their TEs are unproven at best. Alexander is on the trading block, and their front seven on the defensive side is shakey to say the least. And KC has bought a lot of defensive talent, but so has Washington in the past. The middle of their D line is still soft and the DEs are nothing to write home about. I like Buffalo's chances better, because Losman or not, they have shown they can run and stop the run, and play excellent special teams. 378740[/snapback] 1. i don't think that oakland's d is that awful. charles woodson, who was banged up last year, is allegedly totally healthy. when he's healthy, he's one of the best CBs in the league. they've got the guys to stop the run. it's not a great d, of course, but their offense is just so good - much better than the bills' good offense of 2002. 2. re dallas, some of their more talented and important players are coming into their own -- roy williams and terrence newman. they also picked up both anthony henry and aaron glenn, both of whom are players. newman had a good rookie year but was poor last year. my guess is that a guy with that much physical talent will overcome the sophomore slump. as for the rookies -- the first rounders they took are real talents who may well be very good in 2005. plus chris canty, who would have been a high first round pick if not for a blown out knee, is apparently fully healthy and blowing people away in camp. 3. seattle - robinson didn't do much for them last year at all, yet they still had a very good passing game. and alexander in all likelihood will be starting for them this year. 4. kc - as for buying defensive help, well, you can say the same about the bills. it sure worked out for the bills, didn't it? the bills are arguably as good as these teams. the key word is arguably, however. i happen to think all of these teams are better in terms of talent than the bills, but it's a close call (except for the raiders, who i think will be really strong). to reiterate, though, i am not confident that losman will be good this year. in future years he could be, of course. instead, i'm hoping for average, which, depending on how the ball bounces, could help the bills squeak into the playoffs.
IDBillzFan Posted July 11, 2005 Posted July 11, 2005 i have to take issue with this reasoning. the notion that anything counts *for the fan* besides winning and losing is sheer sophistry. do i care that the bills financial house is in order? that they're under the cap? give me a break. who cares?????? and it's not as if the bills are threating to move. the big deal -- the stadium one -- was done before donohoe arrived, and all the other stuff (rochester, which would have happened under butler's watch too; season ticket sales) is just window dressing. moreover, there are many teams with a far greater likelihood to leave their cities than the bills. i'm not here to damn the sub-mediocre but not terrible record of donohoe. i'm here to simply state that the business stuff is all bs and irrelevant to why i follow the bills. with regard to the gm, in my view it's just win, baby. 378677[/snapback] I agree with everything you're saying. I guess I'm not making myself very clear. I respect the fact that you don't care about the business aspect of the team, but I think it's wrong...completely wrong...to judge TD based strictly on wins and losses, regardless of whether that's the most important thing to you. That's not his only job, and to judge him fairly is to judge him on all aspects of his game. (And I would caution you against being so confident that the Bills aren't going anywhere. You may rethink that when Wilson dies and someone buys the team; someone who may find a better market somewhere other than Buffalo.
Tony the Tiger Posted July 11, 2005 Posted July 11, 2005 Um...we were 9-7 last year. 378528[/snapback] With Bledsoe as QB, I doubt we will be 9-7 wil Losman...
dave mcbride Posted July 11, 2005 Posted July 11, 2005 I agree with everything you're saying. I guess I'm not making myself very clear. I respect the fact that you don't care about the business aspect of the team, but I think it's wrong...completely wrong...to judge TD based strictly on wins and losses, regardless of whether that's the most important thing to you. That's not his only job, and to judge him fairly is to judge him on all aspects of his game. (And I would caution you against being so confident that the Bills aren't going anywhere. You may rethink that when Wilson dies and someone buys the team; someone who may find a better market somewhere other than Buffalo. 378773[/snapback] i agree with you about one thing. there are people who should judge td on other issues besides wins and losses. wilson is one of them. however, *i'm* not one of them. those things aren't really my problems or why i care about the team. as for a possible move, i guess i'm an optimist. i just don't see it happening at all. there are too many other teams in worse shape, and the league isn't favoring team movement these days anyway.
scribo Posted July 11, 2005 Posted July 11, 2005 dog - at the present time, these are the teams that i think have more talent than the bills (there are others with about equal talent). i'm not factoring in the cap, which i continue to think is a plot foisted by the league on the public to make people who try to figure it out think they're smarter than they actually are. NOTE: in a lot of cases, the quality of the QB is an overarching factor minnesota philly NE pittsburgh seattle (i know i'll get heat for this one because the bills crushed them in seattle, but they really do have a lot of good players and a good coach) oakland san diego indy ny jets (they've gotten better since the end of the season) dallas (i expect them to do quite well this year, and not because of DB) KC (a tough one, but the coach and the QB weigh heavily) baltimore (again, they've improved since the end of last season) that puts the bills in a tie for 13th, hovering on the edge of the playoffs. a lot of this is based on my uninformed hunches about losman. put simply, he may end up being great, but i suspect he'll throw more ints than tds this year, which is typically how it plays out for first year starters. but who knows? maybe he'll be the next daunte culpepper. bottom line, though - he's too much an unknown, unlike players such as trent green and hasselback. 378697[/snapback] I'm interested that no one has argued against the Jets belonging on this list. I guess we're all just too distracted by the Raiders, Seahawks, Cowgirls and Chiefs being here. I don't agree that the Jets got better this offseason. I think Pennington's shoulder is just as big a question mark as JP. The Jets have a big hold out problem and overall their defense is questionable at best. If they are better than the Bills this season, I don't think it is by much -- and I very much believe the Bills are in better shape longterm. The Vikes don't belong here either.
Alaska Darin Posted July 11, 2005 Posted July 11, 2005 It's very obvious that alot of you don't watch many other games. Seattle? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
34-78-83 Posted July 11, 2005 Posted July 11, 2005 Why "shock value"??? Seems like an interesting topic to kick around... 378735[/snapback] You know , to kick up interest and response for a given topic... He has since explained his reasoning and though I disagree with it, I can respect it. I personally don't think there are more than 4 teams with better overall rosters than Buff, but obviously talent does not directly translate to wins in the NFL. There are other factors like Chemistry, Coaching, Cap, luck/injuries, what division you are in, schedule, etc.
stuckincincy Posted July 11, 2005 Posted July 11, 2005 You know , to kick up interest and response for a given topic... He has since explained his reasoning and though I disagree with it, I can respect it. I personally don't think there are more than 4 teams with better overall rosters than Buff, but obviously talent does not directly translate to wins in the NFL. There are other factors like Chemistry, Coaching, Cap, luck/injuries, what division you are in, schedule, etc. 378810[/snapback] Well, if there are no more than 4 teams that have a better roster, there is a substantial management problem...be it cap management, schedule and so forth. The Bill's organizagation has cha-chinged the cash register and hasn't produced the product...right?
Alaska Darin Posted July 11, 2005 Posted July 11, 2005 Well, if there are no more than 4 teams that have a better roster, there is a substantial management problem...be it cap management, schedule and so forth. The Bill's organizagation has cha-chinged the cash register and hasn't produced the product...right? 378834[/snapback] Winning is a process - that's why generally putting an all star team together doesn't necessarily equate success. It's also the reason the Patriots are successful when they aren't the most talented team on paper.
stuckincincy Posted July 11, 2005 Posted July 11, 2005 Winning is a process - that's why generally putting an all star team together doesn't necessarily equate success. It's also the reason the Patriots are successful when they aren't the most talented team on paper. 378839[/snapback] Indeed.
34-78-83 Posted July 11, 2005 Posted July 11, 2005 Well, if there are no more than 4 teams that have a better roster, there is a substantial management problem...be it cap management, schedule and so forth. The Bill's organizagation has cha-chinged the cash register and hasn't produced the product...right? 378834[/snapback] The roster I refer to is the one who won eight out of their last nine games last season when guys like Mcgee and Willis came to the forefront and displayed their talents. So no I don't see it as a problem as of yet , but it will be if JP ends up doing more harm than good.. There were some coaching , O-line chemistry ,RB, QB and discipline issues IMO that condemed last season during the first 4 games and those issues seemed to resolve as the season progressed..
Kelly the Dog Posted July 11, 2005 Posted July 11, 2005 You know , to kick up interest and response for a given topic... He has since explained his reasoning and though I disagree with it, I can respect it. I personally don't think there are more than 4 teams with better overall rosters than Buff, but obviously talent does not directly translate to wins in the NFL. There are other factors like Chemistry, Coaching, Cap, luck/injuries, what division you are in, schedule, etc. 378810[/snapback] The question and concept was brought up to show the kind of job that TD is doing and has done. If you're not willing to trade our entire roster and cap and coaches, you must therefore believe that TD is doing a better job of being GM than each of the other GM's teams you would not trade for. Because a GM's job entails all of those things.
jad1 Posted July 11, 2005 Posted July 11, 2005 1. i don't think that oakland's d is that awful. charles woodson, who was banged up last year, is allegedly totally healthy. when he's healthy, he's one of the best CBs in the league. they've got the guys to stop the run. it's not a great d, of course, but their offense is just so good - much better than the bills' good offense of 2002. 2. re dallas, some of their more talented and important players are coming into their own -- roy williams and terrence newman. they also picked up both anthony henry and aaron glenn, both of whom are players. newman had a good rookie year but was poor last year. my guess is that a guy with that much physical talent will overcome the sophomore slump. as for the rookies -- the first rounders they took are real talents who may well be very good in 2005. plus chris canty, who would have been a high first round pick if not for a blown out knee, is apparently fully healthy and blowing people away in camp. 3. seattle - robinson didn't do much for them last year at all, yet they still had a very good passing game. and alexander in all likelihood will be starting for them this year. 4. kc - as for buying defensive help, well, you can say the same about the bills. it sure worked out for the bills, didn't it? the bills are arguably as good as these teams. the key word is arguably, however. i happen to think all of these teams are better in terms of talent than the bills, but it's a close call (except for the raiders, who i think will be really strong). to reiterate, though, i am not confident that losman will be good this year. in future years he could be, of course. instead, i'm hoping for average, which, depending on how the ball bounces, could help the bills squeak into the playoffs. 378771[/snapback] Thanks for the reply. I think it shows that, like the Bills, these other teams have to have some guys step up to be competitive. I enjoy discussing other teams in the league, so I'd like to comment on your points, not be be argumentative, but only to carry on the discussion. 1. I'm not as high on the Raiders as you. No doubt their offense will be a monster, but they dumped Buchannon last year, and Woodson is really the only guy worth mentioning on the D. Sapp hasn't done anything of note in years, and Washington is on the wrong side of 35. They traded their best LB for Moss. They'll be tough to stop, but I don't see them stopping many teams next year either. Their division games will be shoot outs, but there's going to be a lot of pressure on Collins to score 35 points a game to win. I'm not sure Collins has shown the wherewithal to carry a team like that. 2. Roy Williams is overrated. His tackle, sack, and int stats just don't back up his status as one of the best safeties in the league. Henry is a cast off from the Browns who had his best year two seasons ago as a nickle back. Age should begin to affect Glenn's performance. The rookies might pull through, but then again, they might not. In the end, Bledsoe has to face the Philly, Washington, and even the Giants defense 6 times next season. The defense might have to keep their division opposition under 17 points a game, and that will be hard for this young unit to do. 3. Robinson was a non-factor last year, and Jackson dropped too many balls. The problem is that the team did not really improve the WRs this offseason. So Jackson will have to elevate his play, they'll have to find a new #2 WR, and it's unclear how far the team is willing to go to retain Alexander. Holmgrem is high on Maurice Morris, so they just might be breaking in a new RB to start the season. And the defense, while it does have a player or two, is still NFC West quality, which is to say, not very good. 4. If KC brought in players as good as Spikes, Adams, and Milloy, yes, they would be certain to improve their D. But their signings aren't of that quality, and they still have problems with their defensive line. I think I like the Bills roster better than these teams because of the Bills defense. It has more playmakers (Clements, Milloy, Fletcher, Spikes, Shoebel, Adams), and will do a better job stopping the run than the teams we've discussed.
34-78-83 Posted July 11, 2005 Posted July 11, 2005 The question and concept was brought up to show the kind of job that TD is doing and has done. If you're not willing to trade our entire roster and cap and coaches, you must therefore believe that TD is doing a better job of being GM than each of the other GM's teams you would not trade for. Because a GM's job entails all of those things. 378924[/snapback] I understood and very much enjoyed the concept when you originally posted it in a different thread some months ago Kelly.
dave mcbride Posted July 11, 2005 Posted July 11, 2005 The question and concept was brought up to show the kind of job that TD is doing and has done. If you're not willing to trade our entire roster and cap and coaches, you must therefore believe that TD is doing a better job of being GM than each of the other GM's teams you would not trade for. Because a GM's job entails all of those things. 378924[/snapback] i didn't say i wouldn't make a trade; i said i wouldn't contemplate it based upon the factors you're including -- possible success down the road, cap stuff, etc. i just don't think it's relevant.
jarthur31 Posted July 11, 2005 Posted July 11, 2005 I really don't know how the Vikes will win the whole thing with Tice and w/o Moss. Pat is making himself more stupider everyday.
Kelly the Dog Posted July 11, 2005 Posted July 11, 2005 i didn't say i wouldn't make a trade; i said i wouldn't contemplate it based upon the factors you're including -- possible success down the road, cap stuff, etc. i just don't think it's relevant. 379031[/snapback] How can you then complain about the job that TD is doing if you just discount 50% or more of what his job is because you don't think it's relevant. It IS relevant, it is irrefutably relevant, because that is what the job is. That is like saying a maid is great because she does dishes well but you're not going to count vacuuming and laundry and washing floors because you don't think they're relevant, you like clean dishes. A GM's job is to field a winner, acquire talent, deal with the cap, have a balance of veterans and youngsters for the immediate present and near future, etc, and not just try to win as many games as he can for one season. Unless you're favoring and arguing for the Dan Snyder model of fielding a team, you cannot just discount the relevant factors just because it hurts your argument. Either you would trade the WHOLE TEAM AND ALL ITS FACTORS including age and salary cap or you wouldn't. Again, perhaps you still would make those 13 trades, and that's cool. But please don't just discount extremely important elements of a GM's job, and then say that TD is not doing well as a GM because all that matters is wins and losses.
IDBillzFan Posted July 11, 2005 Posted July 11, 2005 A GM's job is to field a winner, acquire talent, deal with the cap, have a balance of veterans and youngsters for the immediate present and near future, etc, and not just try to win as many games as he can for one season.379073[/snapback] This is where your argument gets beat up, because none of that matters to many of these guys. They simply and only care about W/L because that's the only thing that matters to them. I get it, kinda. But I don't.
Recommended Posts