Dibs Posted August 9, 2006 Posted August 9, 2006 I think a more objective look would be to grade each team at it's specific positions: Team:------SF------Hou-----Ten-----Cle-----N.O.-----Oak-----Det-----Buf Position: QB:-----------D--------C-------B--------D-------A--------D-------B--------D RB:-----------C--------B-------B--------B-------A---------B-------B--------B WR:----------C---------A-------C--------C------B---------A-------B--------C OL:-----------D---------D-------C--------C------D---------C------C--------C DL:-----------D---------C-------C--------B------B---------D------B--------C LB:-----------B---------C--------B--------B------D--------C------C--------A CB:----------D---------C--------B--------C------B--------D-------C-------A S:------------D---------D--------D-------C------C---------D------C--------C Aggregate scores:-----(D+)----( C )------(C+)----(C+)---(B -)-----(C-)---(C+)----(C+) I'm certain I've left myself open to some criticism, but this was the best I could without spending all day researching. Speaking of research, I toggled depth charts on NFL.com to formulate my opinion. This is just my opinion and any input others would like to inject would be helpful. Somehow, the Saints came out way ahead of what I would thought. I guess their skill position guys really vaulted their score. In review, I think the Bills landed where I would have figured among these teams. Better than SF, Oak, and Hou. On a par with Det, Ten, and Cle. Surely not the worst talent in the league, but not too far away. 738891[/snapback] I'm sure you are in the right ball park on most of your rankings(though I haven't checked for myself) but.....what about Special Teams???? #1 for two years running & looking perhaps better this year. (A+) How does ST not be a factor in determining how good a team is? Also, for the hell of it, run through NYJ & GB.....we'd be close to StL, Ari, Min, Chi, Dal, KC, SD & even Mia as well.
inkman Posted August 9, 2006 Posted August 9, 2006 I'm sure you are in the right ball park on most of your rankings(though I haven't checked for myself) but.....what about Special Teams???? #1 for two years running & looking perhaps better this year. (A+) How does ST not be a factor in determining how good a team is?Also, for the hell of it, run through NYJ & GB.....we'd be close to StL, Ari, Min, Chi, Dal, KC, SD & even Mia as well. 738895[/snapback] You do know I'm at work right. Good point about ST. They certainly matter and can make or break a team, but I was trying to stay true to the original point of the thread. Considering I'll be here for 10 more hours, I'll probably have the time to come up with what you suggested.
Dibs Posted August 9, 2006 Posted August 9, 2006 Considering I'll be here for 10 more hours, I'll probably have the time to come up with what you suggested. 738897[/snapback]
kegtapr Posted August 9, 2006 Posted August 9, 2006 Why did I peek my head into the special education classroom. I'll get on with my day now.
inkman Posted August 9, 2006 Posted August 9, 2006 Why did I peek my head into the special education classroom. I'll get on with my day now. 738908[/snapback]
Bob in STL Posted August 9, 2006 Posted August 9, 2006 Last week, I posted that the Bills are void of talent. Guys/ ladies like 'Darin From Alaska' and other board luminaries, were enraged at the idea that I would put forth such a suggestion. But when you look at the teams in the league and compare ours with them, we look like the worst around IMHO. A reasonable person would say the the worst teams in the NFL are: San Fran; Buffalo; Houston; Titans; Cleveland; Raiders; New Orleans; & Detroit When we diagnose the above teams, we can see that they have loads more of talent than us, with the exception of San Fran. Talent is defined as pedigree, potential, ability, play, performance and pro bowl potential. We start with: San Fran: QB Smith; I see no other talent on this team that stands out. Buffalo: Clemens; Moorman; Whittner Houston: Carr; Dom Davis; Moulds; Andre Johnson; Donta Robinson Titans: 738660[/snapback] Thats's it? That is your analysis on talent? It looks pretty weak. I would take Lee Evans today, over Eric Moulds. I doubt there is a coach or GM in the NFL that would disagree with that. We have a few other "talented" players that are still on the upswing. Try McGahee, Peters, Everett, Crowell, and McGee. Lets give guys like Losman, McCargo, Anderson, and Preston a chance to play before we condem them. Finally, we have a few veterans that have some "talent". Spikes, Schoebel, Fletcher, Triplett and Royal are all very good players.
Fewell733 Posted August 9, 2006 Posted August 9, 2006 Last week, I posted that the Bills are void of talent. Guys/ ladies like 'Darin From Alaska' and other board luminaries, were enraged at the idea that I would put forth such a suggestion. But when you look at the teams in the league and compare ours with them, we look like the worst around IMHO. A reasonable person would say the the worst teams in the NFL are: San Fran; Buffalo; Houston; Titans; Cleveland; Raiders; New Orleans; & Detroit When we diagnose the above teams, we can see that they have loads more of talent than us, with the exception of San Fran. Talent is defined as pedigree, potential, ability, play, performance and pro bowl potential. We start with: San Fran: QB Smith; I see no other talent on this team that stands out. Buffalo: Clemens; Moorman; Whittner Houston: Carr; Dom Davis; Moulds; Andre Johnson; Donta Robinson Titans: 738660[/snapback] Worst Post Ever I don't even know where to begin to explain just how foolish this post is.
ROSCOE P. COE TRAIN Posted August 9, 2006 Author Posted August 9, 2006 My mom teaches 3rd and 4th grade special ed, and has a lot of kids with severe learning disabilities. I have seen her kids come up with mo -------------------------------------- Fascinating. Tell me more about your family life. How are the kids, wife and job? Vacation? What did you have for dinner last night? Enlighten me...
ROSCOE P. COE TRAIN Posted August 9, 2006 Author Posted August 9, 2006 That's exactly right.Just look at the 'talent' of the 2001 Patriots, rated at the start of that season. On paper, even our talentless team would have thrashed them. It's amazing how much talent is the result of being successful. 738856[/snapback] --------------------- ------------------ Disagree! Patriots had: Ty Law Bledsoe Vinateri McGinnis milloy Seymore Andruzzi These are pro bowl types with GREAT TALENT AND pedigree. That Patroit team had talent....
ROSCOE P. COE TRAIN Posted August 9, 2006 Author Posted August 9, 2006 I think a more objective look would be to grade each team at it's specific positions: Team:------SF------Hou-----Ten-----Cle-----N.O.-----Oak-----Det-----Buf Position: QB:-----------D--------C-------B--------D-------A--------D-------B--------D RB:-----------C--------B-------B--------B-------A---------B-------B--------B WR:----------C---------A-------C--------C------B---------A-------B--------C OL:-----------D---------D-------C--------C------D---------C------C--------C DL:-----------D---------C-------C--------B------B---------D------B--------C LB:-----------B---------C--------B--------B------D--------C------C--------A CB:----------D---------C--------B--------C------B--------D-------C-------A S:------------D---------D--------D-------C------C---------D------C--------C ----------------------- Agreed, this chart would be great to calculate the overall skill level of the club versus other team's. THe question is upon what criteria one ranks a player. NExt, one has to be unbias with these scores, which will be impossilbe with the xenophobic and home town cooking fans on the site here. But I would say that hte Bills would rank in the bottom 5 team in overall league talent -- assuming one had the criteria which reasonably addressed each position.
GG Posted August 9, 2006 Posted August 9, 2006 That's what I love about this board - judging a real football team on the merits of fantasy football rosters. And what basis are you using to compare talents among teams? Your superior wisdom and hours of film and personal study of each player in the league? Yes, there are teams that have more marquee players. But at this level of competition, the talent gaps among the teams is not as large as sherriff roscoe cries about. I'll take a no frills unit that doesn't commit mental errors over a star laden collection of stat whores on any Sunday.
Dibs Posted August 9, 2006 Posted August 9, 2006 --------------------------------------- Disagree! Patriots had: Ty Law Bledsoe Vinateri McGinnis milloy Seymore Andruzzi These are pro bowl types with GREAT TALENT AND pedigree. That Patroit team had talent.... 738925[/snapback] *BZZZZZT* Wrong. Try Again. I said "rated at the start of that season" For impartiality's sake I'll list PFWs annuals 'rated' players for the 2001 Patriots & the 2006 Bills. Not that I agree with the ratings but it is a decent unbiased comparison for you to see how biased perhaps you are. 3.0=solid starter 4.0=probowl level player Obviously rookies are not rated....note: punters are not rated. Patriots 2001 Woody 3.0 Bledsoe 3.0 McGinest 3.0 Law 3.0 Milloy 3.5 Bills 2006 McGahee 3.7++ Schobel 3.0 Fletcher 3.25- Spikes 3.95 McGee 2.9+ Clements 3.0 Gee, imagine what our players will rate like if win a few games.
Pyrite Gal Posted August 9, 2006 Posted August 9, 2006 --------------------------------------- Disagree! Patriots had: Ty Law Bledsoe Vinateri McGinnis milloy Seymore Andruzzi These are pro bowl types with GREAT TALENT AND pedigree. That Patroit team had talent.... 738925[/snapback] I think this listing proves the point about there being such a stark difference between the calculus of rating individual players or talent and the reality of team performance. Its true particularly if one tries to use either rating as a basis for making some prediction or having some clue about the future. Specifically, how much would a rating of pro bowl or whatever criterion level talent of the 2001 Pats (even if you agreed completely with the conclusions made by Mr or Ms Train in this post) have to do with the real world performance of the 2001 Pats? The answer is not really a whole bunch. The 2001 Pats team was defined by Dre Bledsoe not in terms of how one would rank him as a talent, but by how this team became a TEAM as all these players sucked it together to deal with being QB'ed by the talents of Tom Brady. Pro football teams are defined not by how the individual pieces add up, but by how the teams plays together. Add in a srong dose of dumb luck and how the refs call plays like the application of the tuck rule at a critical point of a must-win game that year in the midst of weather that no one controls and one gets a sense of why this car wreck called the NFL is so interesting! Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that one should not make predicitions because in the end these predictions are rendered meaningless by the events of life (they are actually as this situation shows that even if the void of talemt prediction is accompanied by a winless Bills season this result is probably mostly coincidence rather than incisive analysis). I'm simply saying that any prediction of performance in order to be more rather than less correct needs to be framed in the context of uncertainty rather than clarity because too many random and unpredictable things (like the weather, refs calls and team chemistryI at just the right time in retrospect end up determining outcomes. In addition, the NFL is a league which imitates success so much and where the confidence of the players impacts performance so much, if a team wins even due to dumb luck in the first circumstance, they play with a swagger and belief in themselves and each other in future games which produces more success. I think that it was the case of the Pats teams of the early 2000s and the Bills teams of the early 90s was not so much that they were so good they always won (well almost always in our case) but that actually they believed in themselves and each other so much that they could not lose. I like the Bills prospects in 2006 actually because I like our prospects for a quick start. I think the both O and D schemes are relatibvely simple approaches with a Rams East offense being more about ahort passes, simple reads, checkdowns, and RAC rather than complex plays. The Tampa 2 approach seems like it will be built on lining up and playing. Just like the K-Gun, it was not that the offense was so complex, it was that it was difficult for the D to figure out what the Bills were going to do on a given play among a limited number of choices and when one added in a tempo that did not allow opponents to substtitute we ran them over. I think we will go into our first game in NE likely to lose, but the Pats will not really be able to say what our tendencies are because this will be the first real game exposure of out new O and D. If through dumb luck we can eke this one out we are on our way. I also like the improvements made in our starters on OL over last year but do not expect this to last in terms of the performance of individual players as the season and injuries wear on. However, I think the important thing which will determine a lot about the performance of a player like Butler if for example he is thrown in as a sub for an injured player is whether he is filling in an OL which was productive and it is a question for Butler to fit and play well or if he joins and OL which is faltering and his job is to be a savior which reverses its course. The former can be done but the latter tends to be impossible for a rookie.
ricojes Posted August 9, 2006 Posted August 9, 2006 one has to be unbias with these scores, which will be impossilbe with the xenophobic and home town cooking fans on the site here. 738931[/snapback] This is a Bills fan website you moron!!! Of course there's going to be home cooking fans, go to any other teams forums and you'll find the same!!! If the outlook it that bleak for you, then don't go to any Bills games, and don't watch any Bills games. I seem to always get stuck next to idiots like you in bars, doom and gloom idiots. Yes it is true we do not have an all star caliber team, but it's not as bad as you make it out to be. And with a few off season moves, this team is not too far away from being contenders. I'll be at the Ralph on September 24th with my rose colored glasses, a bottle of beer, a ton of enthusiasm, and ready to yell my head off and support my team......Go back to Hazzard, you fool......
Swift Sylvan Posted August 9, 2006 Posted August 9, 2006 If this isn't the 'parrot' guy under an assumed name, it's his first cousin. Both make the same amount of sense,i.e., none. 738804[/snapback] Man, whatever happened to that guy? Did he die? As for talent....Did we really have that big of a talent drop off from the end of 04' to now?
Bob in STL Posted August 9, 2006 Posted August 9, 2006 --------------------------------------- Disagree! Patriots had: Ty Law Bledsoe Vinateri McGinnis milloy Seymore Andruzzi These are pro bowl types with GREAT TALENT AND pedigree. That Patroit team had talent.... 738925[/snapback] I agree that Milloy, McGinnis, and Law were legit Pro Bowlers. Bledsoe has not played at a pro-Bowl level since 2000. Not even close. From a talent perspective Andruzzi = Vilareal. Seymour was a rookie so who knew in 2001 how good he would be? Your losing the argument on the talent issue. As far as bringing "pedigree" into it, that is silly. Pedigree has nothing to do with it. Anthony Munoz's son went to Tennessee, great football school, Hall of Fame player, yet his son did not get drafted and never had an NFL career. Should we start drafting the sons of Pro-Bowlers because of pedigree?
drnykterstein Posted August 9, 2006 Posted August 9, 2006 i never realized how stupid this coe train guy really was. i might start blocking his posts.
buckshot Posted August 9, 2006 Posted August 9, 2006 Dude I hope you're either drunk or 12 years old. Who is Clemens? Who is "double t" Whittner? You don't think Fletcher, Spikes, McGahee, McGee, Evans etc are even remotely talented? Seriously, re-think a little bit and learn how to spell. 738698[/snapback] Must mean Charlie Clemons. He's a solid LB and cleary is top tier talent like McGinnis.
Billzfan23 Posted August 9, 2006 Posted August 9, 2006 Man these threads are getting bleaker and bleaker. I think we're gonna suck too, ok? Do we need to actually rank the suckitude, and debate those rankings? 738663[/snapback] C'mon Coach Tuesday... Now is sucktitude really a word? How about suckability, sucktential, or suckedness?
eball Posted August 9, 2006 Posted August 9, 2006 <sigh> Please, somebody, give me a reason to believe that this post is worthy of legitimate discussion on this board. We suck. No talent. Season over. Thank you and good night.
Recommended Posts