Dr. Trooth Posted September 12, 2008 Posted September 12, 2008 My impression of the Seattle game... sans the rose colored glasses. I'm in agreement with R. Rich and a lot of what he posted earlier this week. A win is a win is a win. 1) Special teams proved why they are top 3 in in the league, if not, outright the best. They are simply damn good and championship calibre. 2) What the hell is all the fuss about the Oline? They weren't perfect, but they were solid as hell against a decent defense. I have, no concerns with this unit... especially considering they will soon be enhanced with the return of Peters. 3) The defense appeared to be much improved... however, it is difficult to get a clear picture of where they really are.... and I state this, because... in the spirit of "keeping it real" we must acknowledge that Seattle came ino this game with... * A QB that only threw 8 passes in the first presason game and did not play a down in the preseason after that * No class A RB * injuries to 3 of their top 4 WRs, and then during the game they lost the last of their top 4 WRs and one of their top class B RB. * Seattle had 8 plays of 16 or more yards. Not good.. considering the Sehawk Offense was not running on all 8 cylinders. * Seattle was playing catch up much of the game... especially 2nd half. On the TD pass to Burleson, the only thing I can say is that Jabari had damn good coverage, Hasselbeck made a hell of a throw, and Burleson made a hell of a catch.... that's just one of those things that happen. So that one is a mulligan in my book. I ain't taking anthing away from the D... I'm just saying this game was not a real test of where they are and don't take too much from it. Offensively... I must say I was a bit disappointed. I saw none of this high octane offense that was presumed to happen with Turk. Look a lot like the same ole same ole to me. Granted, they played against a very good defense, even if they were minus their best DT (Bernard) and Tatupu not 100%. The offensive line played well, Marshawn and Jackson played well, the receivers played well. And, the special teams essentially gift wrapped 21 of the 34 points. That means, essentially, of drives they had, they managed 13 points. In my opinion, that aint gonna cut it. I'm going to put the onus squarley on The QB... and here's why... The bills had 8 3rd down situations of 5 or more yards in which they passed on. Of those 8 pass attempts, only twice did Edwards throw the ball beyond the first down marker. To me, you can look it a couple different ways... 1) Trent took care of the ball and didn't caus a turnover.... basically playing not to lose. 2) Trent is the same old dink and dunk Trent that ain't got the moxie to challenge the defense and huck the seed downfield. I kind of think it's somewhere in the middle of those 2. In any case... that ain't going to cut it long term. The Bills defense aint nearlly as good as the Baltimore defense when they won the super bowl... so transferring the Trent Dilfer offense to Trent Edwards offense will not yield the same results. Going into to Jax this week, the defense comes in with an advantage again, in that they are going up against a patwork Oline and an Jax offense in transition with their WRs. So... giving up a lot of yards and points in that situation would not be good. On the offensive side of the ball, the Bills are facing a better defense than Seattle... maybe... or is the Jax defense also in transition from a few new faces and a new coordinator (Greggo) and phylosophy? And, can dink and dunk Trent exploit Greggo's high risk high reward schemes and gouge that D? I don't know those answers. But, I do know that the Bills need to win this one if they expect to be considered seriously for playoff contention. Now that Brady's done, there truly is a 3 way race to win the AFC east. the Bills must win games like this one against Jax to stake their claim to the division crown. Winning this weeks game on Jax's turf would be a big step forward. Losing? Well... They'd be back at ground zero... having to prove they are competitive, improved, and can run with the big dogs. So... Here's to a well needed Bills victory this w/e.
Rubes Posted September 12, 2008 Posted September 12, 2008 I appreciate the perspective and I like when folks try to keep it real, but arguing that the Bills offense really only scored 13 points in that game just doesn't cut it for me. The offense scored 20 points, plain and simple. 20 isn't fantastic, but it's a good amount for a new offense and a young, still-learning QB when coupled with strong defense and special teams. Not acknowledging the TD following the kickoff return fumble, I think, misses one of the big things about the new offense -- it's aggressive, it's effective, and it's not content to settle for the easy figgie. Throughout this decade, we've had to put up with just the opposite.
IDBillzFan Posted September 12, 2008 Posted September 12, 2008 But, I do know that the Bills need to win this one if they expect to be considered seriously for playoff contention. Now that Brady's done, there truly is a 3 way race to win the AFC east. the Bills must win games like this one against Jax to stake their claim to the division crown. Winning this weeks game on Jax's turf would be a big step forward. Losing? Well... They'd be back at ground zero... having to prove they are competitive, improved, and can run with the big dogs. Good post, and I appreciate the breakdown. You kinda lose me in the end, though, as you really leave no wiggle room for the value of winning or losing. Obviously, winning early puts you in a much better position as you get near the end of the season (how valuable would a win vs. Denver been last year?). But losing doesn't suddenly bring them back to ground zero provided they played well in the loss. Say they keep it close, get some points, play tough all game, they're up by six and the Jags win the game on a Burleson like pitch-catch that is, quite simply, impossible to defend? To me, that doesn't send them back to square one. Dan Reeves made an obvious, but succinct comment yesterday that if you're willing to look, "losing shows you where you need to improve." Losing is one thing. How you lose is a completely different thing. Otherwise, good post.
julian Posted September 12, 2008 Posted September 12, 2008 My impression of the Seattle game... sans the rose colored glasses. I'm in agreement with R. Rich and a lot of what he posted earlier this week. A win is a win is a win. 1) Special teams proved why they are top 3 in in the league, if not, outright the best. They are simply damn good and championship calibre. 2) What the hell is all the fuss about the Oline? They weren't perfect, but they were solid as hell against a decent defense. I have, no concerns with this unit... especially considering they will soon be enhanced with the return of Peters. 3) The defense appeared to be much improved... however, it is difficult to get a clear picture of where they really are.... and I state this, because... in the spirit of "keeping it real" we must acknowledge that Seattle came ino this game with... * A QB that only threw 8 passes in the first presason game and did not play a down in the preseason after that * No class A RB * injuries to 3 of their top 4 WRs, and then during the game they lost the last of their top 4 WRs and one of their top class B RB. * Seattle had 8 plays of 16 or more yards. Not good.. considering the Sehawk Offense was not running on all 8 cylinders. * Seattle was playing catch up much of the game... especially 2nd half. On the TD pass to Burleson, the only thing I can say is that Jabari had damn good coverage, Hasselbeck made a hell of a throw, and Burleson made a hell of a catch.... that's just one of those things that happen. So that one is a mulligan in my book. I ain't taking anthing away from the D... I'm just saying this game was not a real test of where they are and don't take too much from it. Offensively... I must say I was a bit disappointed. I saw none of this high octane offense that was presumed to happen with Turk. Look a lot like the same ole same ole to me. Granted, they played against a very good defense, even if they were minus their best DT (Bernard) and Tatupu not 100%. The offensive line played well, Marshawn and Jackson played well, the receivers played well. And, the special teams essentially gift wrapped 21 of the 34 points. That means, essentially, of drives they had, they managed 13 points. In my opinion, that aint gonna cut it. I'm going to put the onus squarley on The QB... and here's why... The bills had 8 3rd down situations of 5 or more yards in which they passed on. Of those 8 pass attempts, only twice did Edwards throw the ball beyond the first down marker. To me, you can look it a couple different ways... 1) Trent took care of the ball and didn't caus a turnover.... basically playing not to lose. 2) Trent is the same old dink and dunk Trent that ain't got the moxie to challenge the defense and huck the seed downfield. I kind of think it's somewhere in the middle of those 2. In any case... that ain't going to cut it long term. The Bills defense aint nearlly as good as the Baltimore defense when they won the super bowl... so transferring the Trent Dilfer offense to Trent Edwards offense will not yield the same results. Going into to Jax this week, the defense comes in with an advantage again, in that they are going up against a patwork Oline and an Jax offense in transition with their WRs. So... giving up a lot of yards and points in that situation would not be good. On the offensive side of the ball, the Bills are facing a better defense than Seattle... maybe... or is the Jax defense also in transition from a few new faces and a new coordinator (Greggo) and phylosophy? And, can dink and dunk Trent exploit Greggo's high risk high reward schemes and gouge that D? I don't know those answers. But, I do know that the Bills need to win this one if they expect to be considered seriously for playoff contention. Now that Brady's done, there truly is a 3 way race to win the AFC east. the Bills must win games like this one against Jax to stake their claim to the division crown. Winning this weeks game on Jax's turf would be a big step forward. Losing? Well... They'd be back at ground zero... having to prove they are competitive, improved, and can run with the big dogs. So... Here's to a well needed Bills victory this w/e. They did not play lights out on offense, thats for sure. But this offense looked totally different then last year other then the 3rd down conversion rate, which i agree needs to improve. Turks play calling is agressive and he had Lee moving all over the field causing matchup problems, infact if Trent had not under thrown Lee on another attempted go route, Lee's stats woulda been somewhere in the 150 yrds, TD. The special Teams set up the offense nicely on the 2 FG drives as you mentioned, but the offense still had to move the ball into FG range so i gotta give the offense credit for those points. So as i see it 20 pts on opening day against a really good defense without our LT is a hell of a start. But your right, they need to get better, starting this week. Oh and if your talking about the field postion on the ST turnover on Royals TD, last year that woulda been a FG....that in itself should give everyone hope that this offense will be much improved, great throw by Trent.
Captain Hindsight Posted September 12, 2008 Posted September 12, 2008 My impression of the Seattle game... sans the rose colored glasses. I'm in agreement with R. Rich and a lot of what he posted earlier this week. A win is a win is a win. 1) Special teams proved why they are top 3 in in the league, if not, outright the best. They are simply damn good and championship calibre. 2) What the hell is all the fuss about the Oline? They weren't perfect, but they were solid as hell against a decent defense. I have, no concerns with this unit... especially considering they will soon be enhanced with the return of Peters. 3) The defense appeared to be much improved... however, it is difficult to get a clear picture of where they really are.... and I state this, because... in the spirit of "keeping it real" we must acknowledge that Seattle came ino this game with... * A QB that only threw 8 passes in the first presason game and did not play a down in the preseason after that * No class A RB * injuries to 3 of their top 4 WRs, and then during the game they lost the last of their top 4 WRs and one of their top class B RB. * Seattle had 8 plays of 16 or more yards. Not good.. considering the Sehawk Offense was not running on all 8 cylinders. * Seattle was playing catch up much of the game... especially 2nd half. On the TD pass to Burleson, the only thing I can say is that Jabari had damn good coverage, Hasselbeck made a hell of a throw, and Burleson made a hell of a catch.... that's just one of those things that happen. So that one is a mulligan in my book. I ain't taking anthing away from the D... I'm just saying this game was not a real test of where they are and don't take too much from it. Offensively... I must say I was a bit disappointed. I saw none of this high octane offense that was presumed to happen with Turk. Look a lot like the same ole same ole to me. Granted, they played against a very good defense, even if they were minus their best DT (Bernard) and Tatupu not 100%. The offensive line played well, Marshawn and Jackson played well, the receivers played well. And, the special teams essentially gift wrapped 21 of the 34 points. That means, essentially, of drives they had, they managed 13 points. In my opinion, that aint gonna cut it. I'm going to put the onus squarley on The QB... and here's why... The bills had 8 3rd down situations of 5 or more yards in which they passed on. Of those 8 pass attempts, only twice did Edwards throw the ball beyond the first down marker. To me, you can look it a couple different ways... 1) Trent took care of the ball and didn't caus a turnover.... basically playing not to lose. 2) Trent is the same old dink and dunk Trent that ain't got the moxie to challenge the defense and huck the seed downfield. I kind of think it's somewhere in the middle of those 2. In any case... that ain't going to cut it long term. The Bills defense aint nearlly as good as the Baltimore defense when they won the super bowl... so transferring the Trent Dilfer offense to Trent Edwards offense will not yield the same results. Going into to Jax this week, the defense comes in with an advantage again, in that they are going up against a patwork Oline and an Jax offense in transition with their WRs. So... giving up a lot of yards and points in that situation would not be good. On the offensive side of the ball, the Bills are facing a better defense than Seattle... maybe... or is the Jax defense also in transition from a few new faces and a new coordinator (Greggo) and phylosophy? And, can dink and dunk Trent exploit Greggo's high risk high reward schemes and gouge that D? I don't know those answers. But, I do know that the Bills need to win this one if they expect to be considered seriously for playoff contention. Now that Brady's done, there truly is a 3 way race to win the AFC east. the Bills must win games like this one against Jax to stake their claim to the division crown. Winning this weeks game on Jax's turf would be a big step forward. Losing? Well... They'd be back at ground zero... having to prove they are competitive, improved, and can run with the big dogs. So... Here's to a well needed Bills victory this w/e. That was my only concern watching the game, I like what Trent Brings to the table but we have alot of playmakers and speed at reciver we should be takin gmore chances downfield IMO
bbills17 Posted September 12, 2008 Posted September 12, 2008 My impression of the Seattle game... sans the rose colored glasses. I'm in agreement with R. Rich and a lot of what he posted earlier this week. A win is a win is a win. 1) Special teams proved why they are top 3 in in the league, if not, outright the best. They are simply damn good and championship calibre. 2) What the hell is all the fuss about the Oline? They weren't perfect, but they were solid as hell against a decent defense. I have, no concerns with this unit... especially considering they will soon be enhanced with the return of Peters. 3) The defense appeared to be much improved... however, it is difficult to get a clear picture of where they really are.... and I state this, because... in the spirit of "keeping it real" we must acknowledge that Seattle came ino this game with... * A QB that only threw 8 passes in the first presason game and did not play a down in the preseason after that * No class A RB * injuries to 3 of their top 4 WRs, and then during the game they lost the last of their top 4 WRs and one of their top class B RB. * Seattle had 8 plays of 16 or more yards. Not good.. considering the Sehawk Offense was not running on all 8 cylinders. * Seattle was playing catch up much of the game... especially 2nd half. On the TD pass to Burleson, the only thing I can say is that Jabari had damn good coverage, Hasselbeck made a hell of a throw, and Burleson made a hell of a catch.... that's just one of those things that happen. So that one is a mulligan in my book. I ain't taking anthing away from the D... I'm just saying this game was not a real test of where they are and don't take too much from it. Offensively... I must say I was a bit disappointed. I saw none of this high octane offense that was presumed to happen with Turk. Look a lot like the same ole same ole to me. Granted, they played against a very good defense, even if they were minus their best DT (Bernard) and Tatupu not 100%. The offensive line played well, Marshawn and Jackson played well, the receivers played well. And, the special teams essentially gift wrapped 21 of the 34 points. That means, essentially, of drives they had, they managed 13 points. In my opinion, that aint gonna cut it. I'm going to put the onus squarley on The QB... and here's why... The bills had 8 3rd down situations of 5 or more yards in which they passed on. Of those 8 pass attempts, only twice did Edwards throw the ball beyond the first down marker. To me, you can look it a couple different ways... 1) Trent took care of the ball and didn't caus a turnover.... basically playing not to lose. 2) Trent is the same old dink and dunk Trent that ain't got the moxie to challenge the defense and huck the seed downfield. I kind of think it's somewhere in the middle of those 2. In any case... that ain't going to cut it long term. The Bills defense aint nearlly as good as the Baltimore defense when they won the super bowl... so transferring the Trent Dilfer offense to Trent Edwards offense will not yield the same results. Going into to Jax this week, the defense comes in with an advantage again, in that they are going up against a patwork Oline and an Jax offense in transition with their WRs. So... giving up a lot of yards and points in that situation would not be good. On the offensive side of the ball, the Bills are facing a better defense than Seattle... maybe... or is the Jax defense also in transition from a few new faces and a new coordinator (Greggo) and phylosophy? And, can dink and dunk Trent exploit Greggo's high risk high reward schemes and gouge that D? I don't know those answers. But, I do know that the Bills need to win this one if they expect to be considered seriously for playoff contention. Now that Brady's done, there truly is a 3 way race to win the AFC east. the Bills must win games like this one against Jax to stake their claim to the division crown. Winning this weeks game on Jax's turf would be a big step forward. Losing? Well... They'd be back at ground zero... having to prove they are competitive, improved, and can run with the big dogs. So... Here's to a well needed Bills victory this w/e. If you think they looked like last season on offence you need to sit down and actually watch the game again, they were totally different in every way primarily playcalling. What game were you watching?? This team was aggressive. The offence was very good for a first game. Part of that is the fact that Trent rarely causes turnovers, he takes what's available, and showed he can go deep if it's there. A very good game and he'll only get better. Do you watch other NFL teams? If you did, you'd realize how great our offence looked in comparison to the majority of teams in this league.
krazykat Posted September 12, 2008 Posted September 12, 2008 My impression of the Seattle game... sans the rose colored glasses. I'm in agreement with R. Rich and a lot of what he posted earlier this week. A win is a win is a win. 1) Special teams proved why they are top 3 in in the league, if not, outright the best. They are simply damn good and championship calibre. 2) What the hell is all the fuss about the Oline? They weren't perfect, but they were solid as hell against a decent defense. I have, no concerns with this unit... especially considering they will soon be enhanced with the return of Peters. 3) The defense appeared to be much improved... however, it is difficult to get a clear picture of where they really are.... and I state this, because... in the spirit of "keeping it real" we must acknowledge that Seattle came ino this game with... * A QB that only threw 8 passes in the first presason game and did not play a down in the preseason after that * No class A RB * injuries to 3 of their top 4 WRs, and then during the game they lost the last of their top 4 WRs and one of their top class B RB. * Seattle had 8 plays of 16 or more yards. Not good.. considering the Sehawk Offense was not running on all 8 cylinders. * Seattle was playing catch up much of the game... especially 2nd half. On the TD pass to Burleson, the only thing I can say is that Jabari had damn good coverage, Hasselbeck made a hell of a throw, and Burleson made a hell of a catch.... that's just one of those things that happen. So that one is a mulligan in my book. I ain't taking anthing away from the D... I'm just saying this game was not a real test of where they are and don't take too much from it. Offensively... I must say I was a bit disappointed. I saw none of this high octane offense that was presumed to happen with Turk. Look a lot like the same ole same ole to me. Granted, they played against a very good defense, even if they were minus their best DT (Bernard) and Tatupu not 100%. The offensive line played well, Marshawn and Jackson played well, the receivers played well. And, the special teams essentially gift wrapped 21 of the 34 points. That means, essentially, of drives they had, they managed 13 points. In my opinion, that aint gonna cut it. I'm going to put the onus squarley on The QB... and here's why... The bills had 8 3rd down situations of 5 or more yards in which they passed on. Of those 8 pass attempts, only twice did Edwards throw the ball beyond the first down marker. To me, you can look it a couple different ways... 1) Trent took care of the ball and didn't caus a turnover.... basically playing not to lose. 2) Trent is the same old dink and dunk Trent that ain't got the moxie to challenge the defense and huck the seed downfield. I kind of think it's somewhere in the middle of those 2. In any case... that ain't going to cut it long term. The Bills defense aint nearlly as good as the Baltimore defense when they won the super bowl... so transferring the Trent Dilfer offense to Trent Edwards offense will not yield the same results. Going into to Jax this week, the defense comes in with an advantage again, in that they are going up against a patwork Oline and an Jax offense in transition with their WRs. So... giving up a lot of yards and points in that situation would not be good. On the offensive side of the ball, the Bills are facing a better defense than Seattle... maybe... or is the Jax defense also in transition from a few new faces and a new coordinator (Greggo) and phylosophy? And, can dink and dunk Trent exploit Greggo's high risk high reward schemes and gouge that D? I don't know those answers. But, I do know that the Bills need to win this one if they expect to be considered seriously for playoff contention. Now that Brady's done, there truly is a 3 way race to win the AFC east. the Bills must win games like this one against Jax to stake their claim to the division crown. Winning this weeks game on Jax's turf would be a big step forward. Losing? Well... They'd be back at ground zero... having to prove they are competitive, improved, and can run with the big dogs. So... Here's to a well needed Bills victory this w/e. What an outstanding review!
Captain Hindsight Posted September 12, 2008 Posted September 12, 2008 If you think they looked like last season on offence you need to sit down and actually watch the game again, they were totally different in every way primarily playcalling. What game were you watching?? This team was aggressive. The offence was very good for a first game. Part of that is the fact that Trent rarely causes turnovers, he takes what's available, and showed he can go deep if it's there. A very good game and he'll only get better. Do you watch other NFL teams? If you did, you'd realize how great our offence looked in comparison to the majority of teams in this league. Our offense looked better but we still had some bad tendences the famous Josh reed in motion and the run play to other side showed up a few times. My gf who only watches football when im there picked that one up. It was definitly better but it still needs work IMO
John from Riverside Posted September 12, 2008 Posted September 12, 2008 Sorry if I missed it from someone above....but nobody is going to talk about the fact that Edwards was rusty and played pretty well once he got going? Not to mention that he have a few dropped balls from receivers?
Guest dog14787 Posted September 12, 2008 Posted September 12, 2008 My impression of the Seattle game... sans the rose colored glasses. I'm in agreement with R. Rich and a lot of what he posted earlier this week. A win is a win is a win. 1) Special teams proved why they are top 3 in in the league, if not, outright the best. They are simply damn good and championship calibre. 2) What the hell is all the fuss about the Oline? They weren't perfect, but they were solid as hell against a decent defense. I have, no concerns with this unit... especially considering they will soon be enhanced with the return of Peters. 3) The defense appeared to be much improved... however, it is difficult to get a clear picture of where they really are.... and I state this, because... in the spirit of "keeping it real" we must acknowledge that Seattle came ino this game with... * A QB that only threw 8 passes in the first presason game and did not play a down in the preseason after that * No class A RB * injuries to 3 of their top 4 WRs, and then during the game they lost the last of their top 4 WRs and one of their top class B RB. * Seattle had 8 plays of 16 or more yards. Not good.. considering the Sehawk Offense was not running on all 8 cylinders. * Seattle was playing catch up much of the game... especially 2nd half. On the TD pass to Burleson, the only thing I can say is that Jabari had damn good coverage, Hasselbeck made a hell of a throw, and Burleson made a hell of a catch.... that's just one of those things that happen. So that one is a mulligan in my book. I ain't taking anthing away from the D... I'm just saying this game was not a real test of where they are and don't take too much from it. Offensively... I must say I was a bit disappointed. I saw none of this high octane offense that was presumed to happen with Turk. Look a lot like the same ole same ole to me. Granted, they played against a very good defense, even if they were minus their best DT (Bernard) and Tatupu not 100%. The offensive line played well, Marshawn and Jackson played well, the receivers played well. And, the special teams essentially gift wrapped 21 of the 34 points. That means, essentially, of drives they had, they managed 13 points. In my opinion, that aint gonna cut it. I'm going to put the onus squarley on The QB... and here's why... The bills had 8 3rd down situations of 5 or more yards in which they passed on. Of those 8 pass attempts, only twice did Edwards throw the ball beyond the first down marker. To me, you can look it a couple different ways... 1) Trent took care of the ball and didn't caus a turnover.... basically playing not to lose. 2) Trent is the same old dink and dunk Trent that ain't got the moxie to challenge the defense and huck the seed downfield. I kind of think it's somewhere in the middle of those 2. In any case... that ain't going to cut it long term. The Bills defense aint nearlly as good as the Baltimore defense when they won the super bowl... so transferring the Trent Dilfer offense to Trent Edwards offense will not yield the same results. Going into to Jax this week, the defense comes in with an advantage again, in that they are going up against a patwork Oline and an Jax offense in transition with their WRs. So... giving up a lot of yards and points in that situation would not be good. On the offensive side of the ball, the Bills are facing a better defense than Seattle... maybe... or is the Jax defense also in transition from a few new faces and a new coordinator (Greggo) and phylosophy? And, can dink and dunk Trent exploit Greggo's high risk high reward schemes and gouge that D? I don't know those answers. But, I do know that the Bills need to win this one if they expect to be considered seriously for playoff contention. Now that Brady's done, there truly is a 3 way race to win the AFC east. the Bills must win games like this one against Jax to stake their claim to the division crown. Winning this weeks game on Jax's turf would be a big step forward. Losing? Well... They'd be back at ground zero... having to prove they are competitive, improved, and can run with the big dogs. So... Here's to a well needed Bills victory this w/e. Dr Trooth, Dr Trooth, we want the Trooth and apparently you can't handle the Trooth. By far one of the biggest improvments I seen from last year to this, was the offensive play calling. Did you even listen to TE's post game comments? The praise TE gave Turk for calling the right plays at the right time or the adjustments Turk made at half time. Big difference between TE's rust and bad play calling, if all of TE's passes would have been more accurate, we would have slaughtered the Seahawks 56 - 10 I suggest maybe you watch the game again and see how much TE's rustiness and the slippery weather contributed to the slow start on offense. High octane? maybe not, but the play calling was right on the money, TE wasn't
colin Posted September 12, 2008 Posted September 12, 2008 fair points. i think with peters we should have a bit more in the runnning game and be able to mash out some screens. i also think our d is great. either way, we'll find out sunda in jax, although we might need till week 5 or 6 to really be in our groove and using our young rooks to our full advantage.
Guest dog14787 Posted September 12, 2008 Posted September 12, 2008 fair points. i think with peters we should have a bit more in the runnning game and be able to mash out some screens. i also think our d is great. either way, we'll find out sunda in jax, although we might need till week 5 or 6 to really be in our groove and using our young rooks to our full advantage. Speaking of James Hardy, anyone hear anything more about beefing Hardy up and getting him some play time at the TE position? anything to the rumor? Sounds like someone's brainstorming again, it might be more of the Turks crafty mind at work because James Hardy would make one nasty, hard to cover TE, with just a little weight put on him. Our offense needs the height to work the middle and in the red zone, it doesn't necessarily have to come from the WR position.
RJ (not THAT RJ) Posted September 12, 2008 Posted September 12, 2008 Speaking of James Hardy, anyone hear anything more about beefing Hardy up and getting him some play time at the TE position? anything to the rumor? Sounds like someone's brainstorming again, it might be more of the Turks crafty mind at work because James Hardy would make one nasty, hard to cover TE, with just a little weight put on him. Our offense needs the height to work the middle and in the red zone, it doesn't necessarily have to come from the WR position. Never heard that rumor, though it sounds both premature and unwise...
Guest dog14787 Posted September 12, 2008 Posted September 12, 2008 Never heard that rumor, though it sounds both premature and unwise... Someone on the board here at TBD, and they said it was a good source, maybe I can find it. Beefing Hardy up a little wouldn't hurt anything and I really don't see playing the TE position as a huge leap from WR. Why do you think its unwise? It could be next year before Hardy knows the offense well enough to play a bigger role at the WR position, why not get him onto the field now if we can and leave a good WR core intact with Evans, Reed and Parish who are all playing well.
RJ (not THAT RJ) Posted September 12, 2008 Posted September 12, 2008 Someone on the board here at TBD, and they said it was a good source, maybe I can find it. Beefing Hardy up a little wouldn't hurt anything and I really don't see playing the TE position as a huge leap from WR. Why do you think its unwise? It could be next year before Hardy knows the offense well enough to play a bigger role at the WR position, why not get him onto the field now if we can and leave a good WR core intact with Evans, Reed and Parish who are all playing well. It is unwise because human beings are not balloons that you can "bulk up" then "slim down." Furthermore, Hardy needs to show whether he can play his present position before learning a new one. TE and WR are not the same, and it would mess with his development to force him to learn too much at once.
Guest dog14787 Posted September 12, 2008 Posted September 12, 2008 It is unwise because human beings are not balloons that you can "bulk up" then "slim down." Furthermore, Hardy needs to show whether he can play his present position before learning a new one. TE and WR are not the same, and it would mess with his development to force him to learn too much at once. They wouldn't have him in there to block so I don't think he would have to put on to much weight. Some athletes can adjust rather easily, if theres any proof to the rumor, I would imagine this is well thought out and Hardy is one of those types of players that can add weight without to much of a problem. TE beefed up well didn't he?
Dr. Trooth Posted September 12, 2008 Author Posted September 12, 2008 Dr Trooth, Dr Trooth, we want the Trooth and apparently you can't handle the Trooth. By far one of the biggest improvments I seen from last year to this, was the offensive play calling. Did you even listen to TE's post game comments? The praise TE gave Turk for calling the right plays at the right time or the adjustments Turk made at half time. Big difference between TE's rust and bad play calling, if all of TE's passes would have been more accurate, we would have slaughtered the Seahawks 56 - 10 I suggest maybe you watch the game again and see how much TE's rustiness and the slippery weather contributed to the slow start on offense. High octane? maybe not, but the play calling was right on the money, TE wasn't Dude... you need to stop by Empire vision and have your eyes checked or maybe even take a course in reading comprehension. The "trooth" is... nowhere in my post do I comment on the "play calling". So... you must have been responding to a different post... cuz you sure pulled that one from beyond your sphinctor. Oh... and a brilliant statement you make... "if all of TE's passes would have been more accurate, we would have slaughtered the Seahawks 56 - 10" Brilliant... now that's "keepin it real". So, if Scott Norwood would have been accurate on his kick in SB 25.... go ahead, fill in the rest. So... who can't handle the "trooth"?
Guest dog14787 Posted September 12, 2008 Posted September 12, 2008 Dude... you need to stop by Empire vision and have your eyes checked or maybe even take a course in reading comprehension. The "trooth" is... nowhere in my post do I comment on the "play calling". So... you must have been responding to a different post... cuz you sure pulled that one from beyond your sphinctor. Oh... and a brilliant statement you make... "if all of TE's passes would have been more accurate, we would have slaughtered the Seahawks 56 - 10" Brilliant... now that's "keepin it real". So, if Scott Norwood would have been accurate on his kick in SB 25.... go ahead, fill in the rest. So... who can't handle the "trooth"? You mention high octane, who ever said Turks offense was going to be high octane? So I have to connect offense with play calling for you? Offensively... I must say I was a bit disappointed. I saw none of this high octane offense that was presumed to happen with Turk. Look a lot like the same ole same ole to me With all due respect, we see things differently.
RJ (not THAT RJ) Posted September 12, 2008 Posted September 12, 2008 They wouldn't have him in there to block so I don't think he would have to put on to much weight. Some athletes can adjust rather easily, if theres any proof to the rumor, I would imagine this is well thought out and Hardy is one of those types of players that can add weight without to much of a problem. TE beefed up well didn't he? I do not want to beat any dead horses, but there are several questionable statements in such a small space. If he is not going to block, then why line him up at TE? Why not split him wide? Also, this rumor, if it is based on someone making a suggestion on a message board, is probably about as far from well thought out as I can imagine. Third, TE put on a few pounds of muscle but did not change his basic body type. Hardy would have to do much more to be a TE, so much that the very idea is silly. Besides, to go back to my original point, why not let him play a few seasons at his actual position before dreaming up new positions? Go Bills!
Guest dog14787 Posted September 12, 2008 Posted September 12, 2008 I do not want to beat any dead horses, but there are several questionable statements in such a small space. If he is not going to block, then why line him up at TE? Why not split him wide? Also, this rumor, if it is based on someone making a suggestion on a message board, is probably about as far from well thought out as I can imagine. Third, TE put on a few pounds of muscle but did not change his basic body type. Hardy would have to do much more to be a TE, so much that the very idea is silly. Besides, to go back to my original point, why not let him play a few seasons at his actual position before dreaming up new positions? Go Bills! Don't know how to bring up the actual post but I copied it, QUOTE (RalphOP83 @ Sep 10 2008, 12:35 PM) 2 things: Robert spent the off season working hard. He cut down his body fat, and worked on his agility. Flame away, but I have heard whispers that hardy will end up being an antonio gates type tight end. This is not my opinion, it is just what i have heard. It was just my sources' opinion, but they are a good source. (He will obviously have to pack on some pounds)
Recommended Posts