Reed83HOF Posted November 7, 2006 Posted November 7, 2006 We have a QB who hasnt seem to progressed since week 4. We have a horrible offensive line, a bad defensive line, a bad CB (mcgee), a good CB who were going to let go because we dont want to pay him, 2 WR's that do next to nothing (price and reed, a WR who cant run fast enough to catch a deep pass (andre davis), and the list goes on. 827711[/snapback] You're correct on all points.... I'll be wishing and praying for a miracle as I did for Chicgao...maybe I'll get it right this time.... Probably not
daquixers_is_back Posted November 7, 2006 Posted November 7, 2006 You're correct on all points.... I'll be wishing and praying for a miracle as I did for Chicgao...maybe I'll get it right this time.... Probably not 827719[/snapback] Hey, dont get me wrong. I will be on my couch with my bills angry face mask on and rooting for them along with Dad and the rest of the family. I am also willing to give up my $130 some dollar paycheck (im a college student . i dont make much) for the Bills to win. If not (and they probably wont) Im going to cash in on the bet.
ko12010 Posted November 7, 2006 Posted November 7, 2006 We have a QB who hasnt seem to progressed since week 4. We have a horrible offensive line, a bad defensive line, a bad CB (mcgee), a good CB who were going to let go because we dont want to pay him, 2 WR's that do next to nothing (price and reed, a WR who cant run fast enough to catch a deep pass (andre davis), and the list goes on. 827711[/snapback] It may seem like that, but in reality I believe that is not remotely true. Mcgee is not bad, first of all, Clements isn't all that great, and Price and Reed are good wide receivers. Mcgee is only "bad" as you say because the d-line is bad. When you are not a consistent threat to sack the QB and cannot stop the run, it is going to put tremendous pressure on the secondary. They are doing quite well with the D-line in front of them. Why was everyone touting Mcgee as the next best thing when we were ranked #2 as a Defense? Because the D-line was playing its role. It's all too easy to blame the Cornerback who is playing the hardest position in the game. Secondly, Reed has improved tremendously, having shown excellent hands this year and being a dependable blocker. Price is still good. He makes the plays when he's called upon. You and many others only think they are bad because the WR's have no time to run their routes and let them develop before JP is already been sacked, hurried, flushed out of the pocket, or has thrown to someone five yards from the line.
daquixers_is_back Posted November 7, 2006 Posted November 7, 2006 It may seem like that, but in reality I believe that is not remotely true. Mcgee is not bad, first of all, Clements isn't all that great, and Price and Reed are good wide receivers. Mcgee is only "bad" as you say because the d-line is bad. When you are not a consistent threat to sack the QB and cannot stop the run, it is going to put tremendous pressure on the secondary. They are doing quite well with the D-line in front of them. Why was everyone touting Mcgee as the next best thing when we were ranked #2 as a Defense? Because the D-line was playing its role. It's all too easy to blame the Cornerback who is playing the hardest position in the game. Secondly, Reed has improved tremendously, having shown excellent hands this year and being a dependable blocker. Price is still good. He makes the plays when he's called upon. You and many others only think they are bad because the WR's have no time to run their routes and let them develop before JP is already been sacked, hurried, flushed out of the pocket, or has thrown to someone five yards from the line. 827727[/snapback] McGee is NOT just bad because the D-line is. If that was the case then Clements would be bad too, and Clements has only been burned about once all year. McGee gets burned about 3 times a game. Clements' receiver only gets the ball about 4 times a game. McGees' receiver (whoever that may be) gets the ball about 10 times a game. JP has had plenty of time MANY times. People are not getting open. You would think with Evans being double covered Reed or Price would get open. But no. They dont. Take off the rose-colored glasses.
ko12010 Posted November 7, 2006 Posted November 7, 2006 McGee is NOT just bad because the D-line is. If that was the case then Clements would be bad too, and Clements has only been burned about once all year. McGee gets burned about 3 times a game. Clements' receiver only gets the ball about 4 times a game. McGees' receiver (whoever that may be) gets the ball about 10 times a game. JP has had plenty of time MANY times. People are not getting open. You would think with Evans being double covered Reed or Price would get open. But no. They dont. Take off the rose-colored glasses. 827735[/snapback] Believe me, I'm not wearing rose-colored glasses, they are normal ones with lenses for my 20/50 vision in each eye. I'm simply saying that McGee is not bad. But I still won't concede that Clements is good. I think McGee is better, in fact. And also, it is ALL about the O-line and D-line. The skilled players are only as good the hogs in the trenches, it is an absolute fact.
daquixers_is_back Posted November 7, 2006 Posted November 7, 2006 Believe me, I'm not wearing rose-colored glasses, they are normal ones with lenses for my 20/50 vision in each eye. I'm simply saying that McGee is not bad. But I still won't concede that Clements is good. I think McGee is better, in fact. And also, it is ALL about the O-line and D-line. The skilled players are only as good the hogs in the trenches, it is an absolute fact. 827741[/snapback] Ah well. Their goes any respect your posts would have received. Clements covering Steve Smith: 3 receptions for 55 yards, 0 TD's Clements covering Andre Johnson: 3 receptions for 18 yards, 0 TD's Clements covering Randy Moss: 3 receptions for 43 yards, 1 TD Clements covering Eddie Kennison: 4 receptions for 41 yards, 0 TD's Clements covering Ashley Lelie: 1 reception for 40 yards Its not all about INT's and flashy plays. Its about shutting people down. Do you really want me to go into talking about McGee's receivers stats? Ill start with his horrid showing against Roy Williams in Detroit and then go to him being benched against NE.
ko12010 Posted November 7, 2006 Posted November 7, 2006 Ah well. Their goes any respect your posts would have received. Clements covering Steve Smith: 3 receptions for 55 yards, 0 TD's Clements covering Andre Johnson: 3 receptions for 18 yards, 0 TD's Clements covering Randy Moss: 3 receptions for 43 yards, 1 TD Clements covering Eddie Kennison: 4 receptions for 41 yards, 0 TD's Clements covering Ashley Lelie: 1 reception for 40 yards Its not all about INT's and flashy plays. Its about shutting people down. Do you really want me to go into talking about McGee's receivers stats? Ill start with his horrid showing against Roy Williams in Detroit and then go to him being benched against NE. 827749[/snapback] I was talking about this season, I also agree that its not all about INT's and flashy plays. I think that is ALL Clements wants to be about. Last week against the Packers was the first tackle I've seen him have in about a year(I know that's not accurate but Clements doesn't seem to give a SH*T anymore.) I know he's talented but speaking of last year wasn't he covering Chambers in the Miami game where he gave up, oh 200+ and the game winning TD?
daquixers_is_back Posted November 7, 2006 Posted November 7, 2006 I was talking about this season, I also agree that its not all about INT's and flashy plays. I think that is ALL Clements wants to be about. Last week against the Packers was the first tackle I've seen him have in about a year(I know that's not accurate but Clements doesn't seem to give a SH*T anymore.) I know he's talented but speaking of last year wasn't he covering Chambers in the Miami game where he gave up, oh 200+ and the game winning TD? 827754[/snapback] I just showed you stats showing that is NOT what Clements is all about. You dont hear Clements' name to often in a game this season because his receiver is not catching many balls. He misses a tackle now and then, but so does everyone. I remember the game your talking about, but im not sure who was covering him. It would usually be Clements. Didnt Brady just throw 4 INT's? Oh he sucks!
ko12010 Posted November 7, 2006 Posted November 7, 2006 I just showed you stats showing that is NOT what Clements is all about. You dont hear Clements' name to often in a game this season because his receiver is not catching many balls. He misses a tackle now and then, but so does everyone. I remember the game your talking about, but im not sure who was covering him. It would usually be Clements. Didnt Brady just throw 4 INT's? Oh he sucks! 827760[/snapback] You can honestly say, if you've watched all the Bills games since then, that Clements has put in an honest game's effort since our run at the end of the season two years ago. He knows he's not gonna be here. Honestly, I used to like Nate, but he's all about the money, and we're gonna see that this offseason. But there is no argument that he has underperformed the last two seasons. Nate is also consistently burned by Mr. Brady and company when we need him to step up
JoeF Posted November 7, 2006 Posted November 7, 2006 Heard we are going to sign Phil Ford and play a little Carolina 4 corners this Sunday....
daquixers_is_back Posted November 7, 2006 Posted November 7, 2006 You can honestly say, if you've watched all the Bills games since then, that Clements has put in an honest game's effort since our run at the end of the season two years ago. He knows he's not gonna be here. Honestly, I used to like Nate, but he's all about the money, and we're gonna see that this offseason. But there is no argument that he has underperformed the last two seasons. Nate is also consistently burned by Mr. Brady and company when we need him to step up 827765[/snapback] All of those stats were from last year ... AKA 8 games ago. Brady didnt burn Clements at all this year. In fact Brady torched McGee quite a bit though I believe. And NO ... Im not going to judge players intent. I dont know if you have some newly invented "heart-o-meter" that attaches to your TV and tells you if someone is really playing or not, but I see a player who has shut down CB's for the past couple of years (with a few exceptions of course) and took 14 points away from GB, by tipping a Favre pass into Simpsons hands for an INT and tipping a long would have been touchdown play to driver.
ko12010 Posted November 7, 2006 Posted November 7, 2006 All of those stats were from last year ... AKA 8 games ago. Brady didnt burn Clements at all this year. In fact Brady torched McGee quite a bit though I believe. And NO ... Im not going to judge players intent. I dont know if you have some newly invented "heart-o-meter" that attaches to your TV and tells you if someone is really playing or not, but I see a player who has shut down CB's for the past couple of years (with a few exceptions of course) and took 14 points away from GB, by tipping a Favre pass into Simpsons hands for an INT and tipping a long would have been touchdown play to driver. 827775[/snapback] You don't have a heart-o-meter? Their great.
Mikie2times Posted November 7, 2006 Author Posted November 7, 2006 How did the Titans match up a few weeks ago against Indianapolis, or Miami against Chicago. Look at the performance we put on late last year against a solid passing Bengals team. You have to understand when a team is given no chance in a game that's when they often play the hardest. Obviously everything points toward a Colts romp. I just think most would agree that back to back road wins against playoff teams is exhausting. That’s what the Colts did. Buffalo just came off the bye, and won. They should be more rested, and have some confidence. Most teams can run on Indianapolis but often get over aggressive when they start scoring. It play's exactly into what they want you to do. NE could have won by running; instead they tried out dueling the Colts, and lost to the turnovers they create in the passing game. We can run on the Colts, and I also believe we can stop their run. No matter who's throwing the football if you can do that you have a chance to win.
daquixers_is_back Posted November 7, 2006 Posted November 7, 2006 How did the Titans match up a few weeks ago against Indianapolis, or Miami against Chicago. Look at the performance we put on late last year against a solid passing Bengals team. You have to understand when a team is given no chance in a game that's when they often play the hardest. Obviously everything points toward a Colts romp. I just think most would agree that back to back road wins against playoff teams is exhausting. That’s what the Colts did. Buffalo just came off the bye, and won. They should be more rested, and have some confidence. Most teams can run on Indianapolis but often get over aggressive when they start scoring. It play's exactly into what they want you to do. NE could have won by running; instead they tried out dueling the Colts, and lost to the turnovers they create in the passing game. We can run on the Colts, and I also believe we can stop their run. No matter who's throwing the football if you can do that you have a chance to win. 827788[/snapback] Well the Bears gave the Dolphins how many turnovers? 6 I think? (i cant remember the exact ammount)
PhilsBills Posted November 7, 2006 Posted November 7, 2006 Well the Bears gave the Dolphins how many turnovers? 6 I think? (i cant remember the exact ammount) 827819[/snapback] Aren't you supposed to tell us how much you love and admire Peyton at this point? Bills win in a major upset. GO BILLS!!!!!
krazykat Posted November 7, 2006 Posted November 7, 2006 It all boils down to us staying close early, allowing us to establish the run. I don't think we will pull the upset, but I see Buffalo being more competitive then people think. The Colts can be run on, and A-Train is good straight ahead with some power. I see his style being effective against the Colts undersized and undermanned interior. When teams control the ball by running the Colts have been human. Look at the 14-13 comeback win at home they had over Tennessee. They can't score if they don't have the ball. More along these lines is the potential for a Colts letdown. After a huge win at Denver, and then a very physical win last night, I have a hard time believing they will be fully up for our lowly Bills. On the flip side Buffalo should have a little confidence boost from the win verse GB. Crazy? 827237[/snapback] In how many games have we established the run this year? The Colts are gonna put up 30 or more on us. We struggle to score 20 and break 200 net yards.
plenzmd1 Posted November 7, 2006 Posted November 7, 2006 More along these lines is the potential for a Colts letdown. After a huge win at Denver, and then a very physical win last night, I have a hard time believing they will be fully up for our lowly Bills. Crazy? 827237[/snapback] Cowboys the next week on the road, while not a classic sandwich game, it works for me Gotta have some reason to watch. I also predict that with Indys speed and pursuit to the ball, and after our game plan last week(running exclusively to the left side) we see a lot of "counter tre' (or however you spell it) types plays this week. The ran a counter once last week, and Thomas got like 8 yds on first down when we were on like our own 15. Bills build a 17 point lead in first half as Indy is emotionally flat, Manning comes out firing in 2nd half brings em all the way back, Terrance returns a kickoff with 40 seconds left to the colts 21, JP takes a sck to the colts 30, Lindell kicks game winning 47 yarder. Bills win 27-24!!!!! Yee HAA
daquixers_is_back Posted November 7, 2006 Posted November 7, 2006 Aren't you supposed to tell us how much you love and admire Peyton at this point? Bills win in a major upset. GO BILLS!!!!! 828039[/snapback] HAHA OK .. if they do I would one of the happiest people on earth that day. Out of $130 .. but still happy.
shagmago Posted November 7, 2006 Posted November 7, 2006 It all boils down to us staying close early, allowing us to establish the run. I don't think we will pull the upset, but I see Buffalo being more competitive then people think. The Colts can be run on, and A-Train is good straight ahead with some power. I see his style being effective against the Colts undersized and undermanned interior. When teams control the ball by running the Colts have been human. Look at the 14-13 comeback win at home they had over Tennessee. They can't score if they don't have the ball. More along these lines is the potential for a Colts letdown. After a huge win at Denver, and then a very physical win last night, I have a hard time believing they will be fully up for our lowly Bills. On the flip side Buffalo should have a little confidence boost from the win verse GB. Crazy? 827237[/snapback] Sorry to poop in your applejacks but.........COLTS-65 BILLS-9
SlamnSam Posted November 7, 2006 Posted November 7, 2006 Sorry to poop in your applejacks but.........COLTS-65 BILLS-9 828532[/snapback] On any given Sunday. I say the Colts luck is up its time to pay thier Bills!
.thumb.png.1b7fb4086290c3afc001a7900b31fab0.png)
Recommended Posts