Jump to content

Seymour got a new contract


ch19079

Recommended Posts

Hey, thanks!

 

Apart from a few bad apples like this guy and MadBuffaloDisease, this board has been very accepting of me, despite being a Pats fan.  I certainly never "troll" and am just looking for good football conversation.  It's a great board full of really pasionate fans, so I like to hang around and chime in now and then.

396501[/snapback]

 

I like reading HD's posts. he's insightful, and normally doesn't start crap. He only says stuff when some idiots around here gang up on him and call him a troll.

 

Oh yeah, and for Joe, F#ck the Flyers!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 102
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

I like reading HD's posts. he's insightful, and normally doesn't start crap. He only says stuff when some idiots around here gang up on him and call him a troll.

 

Oh yeah, and for Joe, F#ck the Flyers!

397012[/snapback]

 

Me too...it would be nice if some intelligent life that supports the Jets started posting. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's not very nice.

 

I really like your PPP posts, anyway.  Sorry I've led you to believe I'm an idiot.

396971[/snapback]

No apologies needed, though in general I'm not very nice :blink: . If that's your take on the McGahee/TH situation, then you've either not watched as much BILLS football as you've alluded to or you're an idiot in that particular portion of your analysis.

 

FWIW, I don't think you're as much of a troll as you're acting like in this thread but you're "holier than thou" attitude is best left for, well, ME. :blink:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And you wonder why I call you a troll.

 

So Henry has the edge in YPC and McGahee has the edge in TDs.  The point is that their numbers are comparable, yet Donahoe gave up so much to go from one productive RB to one who is about as productive.

 

Henry's numbers came in 16 starts (or 15). McGahee's numbers in 11. Same numbers, 5 less starts. How is that comparible?

 

I've reiterated this several times, yet you continue to ignore it. I doubt that you are that dense. You're continue to push your disproven point, which makes you a troll.

 

And this edge in YPC you cling to is from 2002, 3 YEARS AGO! In, 2004 Henry average 4.1 YPC. In 2004, 3.5. McGahee averaged 4 yards. There is no comparison between Henry's and McGahee's current YPC.

 

Your skewing of these stats makes also makes you a troll.

 

 

 

As for winning %, I think that may have had more to do with the cupcake 2nd half schedule than McGahee.

Before the Bills reached the aforementioned cupcake portion of their schedule, the Bills' offense as a whole sucked, McGahee included.  Notice what happened when they ran into New England on Sunday night.

 

NE is a good team, I never said it wasn't. Aside from that game, the Bills did beat 3 playoff teams during that stretch, and McGahee posted 7 100 yard games and averaged a TD per game.

 

And even if these teams are "cupcakes," then so are Oakland and Jax, who the Bills lost to while Henry was the starter. Henry did not rush for 100 yards and didn't score a single TD in these games, or in any of the other ones he started.

 

And the Bills lost to several "cupcake" teams in 2003 with Henry at RB.

 

The facts simply don't bear this out.  8-8 with Henry in '02 and 9-7 with McGahee in '04 isn't turning the franchise around by any stretch of the imagination.

Clark/Steinbach + Henry > Mcgahee

 

Well, because in troll-like fasion, you again distort the facts. The Bills were 9-2 in McGahee's starts, not 9-7.

 

And after 2002, the Bills were 6-14 in Henry's starts.

 

Going from a 6-14 to 9-2 is a huge turnaround, am I right?

 

And the Bills were 9-2 with journeyman Tucker starting at guard. So the Steinbach argument is more troll fodder. Clark? Compare Clark's numbers to Campbell's and Euhus' before bringing that weak argument here.

 

At least in my opinion.  Especially in today's win-now NFL.

 

So, in your opinion, how does the Bills collective record of 17-35 with Henry starting over the last 4 years fit into the today's "win-now NFL?"

 

Just waste a 1st round pick on a guard or TE with him and everything will be fine, right? Do you really believe this?

 

 

They opened last year in a 2 TE base offense, but that was scrapped when Watson went down.  So you can stop doubting.

 

Hey, if it keeps Deion Branch or Bethel Johnson off the field, I'm all for it.

 

You must know that Watson was injured all last year, and that Graham caught 7 TDs in 2004.  Right?

 

Yes, and I also know that Brady is at his best in the spread offense, and that Belichick likes to use it early to score first. I also know that Deion Branch was the SB MVP last year, and that Mike Vrabal plays TE in the goal line offense.

 

I hope that the Pats do try to play a double-TE offense next year. Gray has a horrible time stopping their spread formations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey, if it keeps Deion Branch or Bethel Johnson off the field, I'm all for it.

Are you serious? the only person a 2 TE base set keeps off the field is Patrick Pass. Branch and Givens will start as they did in the more conventional FB set.

 

And Bethel Johnson typically keeps himself off the field.

 

I hope that the Pats do try to play a double-TE offense next year.  Gray has a horrible time stopping their spread formations.

It's a base formation, not the only formation they'll use.

 

Enough with the hyperbole.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are you serious?  the only person a 2 TE base set keeps off the field is Patrick Pass.  Branch and Givens will start as they did in the more conventional FB set.

 

And Bethel Johnson typically keeps himself off the field.

It's a base formation, not the only formation they'll use.

 

Yes, I'm serious. I'd rather the Bills defense face a 2 TE set than NE's spread offense.

 

Enough with the hyperbole.

 

Whatever you say Hollywood Donahoe.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do teams generally use only one offensive formation per game?

397504[/snapback]

 

Of course not. I originally stated that I doubt that they will use this formation much, and said that Brady is better in the spread offense many times.

 

You're the one pointing out Grahm's TD totals, Watson's injury, and that this will be their "base offense."

 

Again, I don't believe they'll use this formation much at all, but I wouldn't mind if they did.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, I've lost track of what you were arguing. You insinuated that Belichick wasn't making use of the 2 TEs he drafted in the 1st round, and I pointed out that both were starters in the base set last year before Watson got hurt, and that both will be starters in the base set this year. You then transformed that into the idea that the Pats will exclusively run a 2 TE set next year, when they, in your opinion, should never leave the spread offense.

 

Did I miss anything? :blink:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, I've lost track of what you were arguing.  You insinuated that Belichick wasn't making use of the 2 TEs he drafted in the 1st round, and I pointed out that both were starters in the base set last year before Watson got hurt, and that both will be starters in the base set this year.  You then transformed that into the idea that the Pats will exclusively run a 2 TE set next year, when they, in your opinion, should never leave the spread offense.

 

Did I miss anything? :blink:

397531[/snapback]

 

You're close (closer than you were on the whole McGahee thing).

 

I never said that the Pats would run the 2 TE set exclusively, because I don't think that's their best set. I believe the spread offense is harder for teams, especially the Bills to stop.

 

But if it's going to be their base set, so be it. Whether they run 10%, 20%, 30%, or 100% of their plays from that set, I'd prefer the Bills face that, on one occassion or many, than the spread offense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But if it's going to be their base set, so be it.  Whether they run 10%, 20%, 30%, or 100% of their plays from that set, I'd prefer the Bills face that, on one occassion or many, than the spread offense.

Here's one thing I can pretty confidently state - the formation the Bills would like to see the Patriots run LEAST is the one that the Patriots are going to run MOST.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's one thing I can pretty confidently state - the formation the Bills would like to see the Patriots run LEAST is the one that the Patriots are going to run MOST.

397543[/snapback]

 

I agree 100% with you. That's why I question the Pats drafting of 2 TEs in the first round.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is that you, Coach Mularkey? :blink:

397549[/snapback]

 

Hey, Hollywood, just wondering how you think NE will fare against the Bills now that 10 free points/gm have been shipped off to Dallas? I mean, how do you guys make up that deficit?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree 100% with you.  That's why I question the Pats drafting of 2 TEs in the first round.

The Patriots play 14 games each year against teams that aren't the Bills. Just because you think the Bills' defense can better handle a 2 TE set than a spread formation doesn't mean that the Pats' 2 TE base won't better match up against the other 14 teams' defenses.

 

You've incredibly over-simplified this issue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey, Hollywood, just wondering how you think NE will fare against the Bills now that  10 free points/gm have been shipped off to Dallas? I mean, how do you guys make up that deficit?

Tough to say, since I've hardly seen his replacement play at all. I certainly will miss facing Bledsoe twice a year, though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...