VJ91 Posted November 24, 2008 Author Share Posted November 24, 2008 Hindsight is 20/20 Thank you for those wise words. Hindsight is 20/20, and a bird in hand is better then two in the bush. It is better to have loved and lost, then never to have loved at all. It's not whether you win or lose, it's how you play the game. (That's Dick's favorite, by the way). Oh here's a more recent classic: You play to win the game. And my all time best quote ever: Playoffs, did you say playoffs?...Playoffs? That must be your favorite, because you can defend these coaches all you want, but the Bills chances are about as good as Jim Mora's Colts were the day he uttered those great words. Yes hindsight is 20/20, but Leodis McKelvin could have made a couple plays against the Dolphins to maybe steal a win down there, don't you think?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SageAgainstTheMachine Posted November 24, 2008 Share Posted November 24, 2008 Thank you for those wise words. Hindsight is 20/20, and a bird in hand is better then two in the bush. It is better to have loved and lost, then never to have loved at all. It's not whether you win or lose, it's how you play the game. (That's Dick's favorite, by the way). Oh here's a more recent classic: You play to win the game. And my all time best quote ever: Playoffs, did you say playoffs?...Playoffs? That must be your favorite, because you can defend these coaches all you want, but the Bills chances are about as good as Jim Mora's Colts were the day he uttered those great words. Yes hindsight is 20/20, but Leodis McKelvin could have made a couple plays against the Dolphins to maybe steal a win down there, don't you think?? Maybe, but we'll never know, so what's the point in dwelling on it? Maybe he would have been effective, maybe he would have even gotten a pick, or maybe he would have allowed Ginn to get 250 yards. We will never know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VJ91 Posted November 24, 2008 Author Share Posted November 24, 2008 Maybe, but we'll never know, so what's the point in dwelling on it? Maybe he would have been effective, maybe he would have even gotten a pick, or maybe he would have allowed Ginn to get 250 yards. We will never know. Great point. There is no point dwelling on it. I never thought I would have gotten such a rise out of calling Perry Fewell out for not playing his number one draft pick this year, while the starters in front of him have played so badly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SageAgainstTheMachine Posted November 24, 2008 Share Posted November 24, 2008 Great point. There is no point dwelling on it. I never thought I would have gotten such a rise out of calling Perry Fewell out for not playing his number one draft pick this year, while the starters in front of him have played so badly. They have not played badly. Neither is having a pro bowl type season, but they have been effective. If you want to point out our deficiencies against Favre, Pennington, Warner, etc...point a finger at our total lack of a pass rush. When the QB has all day in the pocket, there isn't much the DBs can do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paup 1995MVP Posted November 24, 2008 Share Posted November 24, 2008 Bill, you're right, there had been little to no pass rush during those 4 losses. But who cares about rookies learning the game when the team is playing so badly? How about him infusing some excitement into the defense by making great plays like his two interceptions yesterday, despite the fact he still hasn't learned the game? Come on, I know the Bills won big yesterday so we all like the coaches better today. But they drafted this kid with the intention of playing him right away, and Greer and Corner certainly have not proven to me that they should be playing in front of him, despite how much more experienced or smarter they might be. I never said he should start in front of McGee. But I think we would have seen a better result against Ginn Jr. if he would have started in place of the injured McGee a few weeks ago in Miami. Playing Terrence Mghee on one leg was a brutal mistake by our coaches. Keeping him in the game after he was burned early should have gotten someone fired. McKelvin is probably the best athlete on our team. Now if we can find some studs to play in the front seven, we may actually be able to contend someday for a Super Bowl. The win yesterday was great. But overall Jauron is still garbage. I say we give him the next five games. Lets see where we end up. I need to see us go at least 9-7 if not 10-6 with us being ultra competitive in every game, otherwise it is time for a new head coach. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuffaloBill Posted November 24, 2008 Share Posted November 24, 2008 He was lost several times in early games. He's shown steady improvement and hopefully that will continue. With Greer a FA we need him to step up and play opposite McGee. The Bills need to try to retain Greer. While Yoboughty flashed some good play earlier this year the poor guy just has a black cloud of doom haning over his head. Greer is a proven starter and at the right price is a good player to keep on the roster. Assuming Mckelvin continues to improve you need at least three quality corners on your roster. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thurman#1 Posted November 24, 2008 Share Posted November 24, 2008 Maybe McKelvin didn't start before because he wasn't ready before. We hear this argument every year -- this guy was on the bench (Freddy Jackson, et. al.) and now he's playing and he's fine, therefore he was fine all along. It's nonsense. Guys progress, hopefully steadily. McKelvin has progressed and he's finally reached the stage where he's ready. How is that a coaching mistake? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spiderweb Posted November 25, 2008 Share Posted November 25, 2008 Is there any better proof that the NFL has become a league of ego-maniac coaches then Leodis McKelvin's performance yesterday? All we heard up until the kid was forced to start due to injuries, was that he just wasn't ready to play in the complicated Perry Fewell schemes. He was not smart enough to know where to line up or read what was happening. He needed another 7 million hours of film study to be worthy to play in Fewell's defense. So all the kid does in the first game he starts is make two interceptions and run one of them back for a TD. Or how about this for proof: Edwards telling CBS after the game that the biggest reason he played so well was that Schonert went vanilla and dumbed-down his schemes and formations because of the short week! All Edwards does is throw for two TD's and run for two more. Let me understand this. Not only does Dick Jauron do nothing but screw up on gameday, he also allows his coordinators to wipe out his playmakers ability to make plays with their talent and instincts by over-complicating their formations and schemes. Yes sir, Dick Jauron really runs a great NFL team. Here's the ironic part. For him to keep his job, he obviously needs to tell his coordinators not to work so hard during the week, and just let his talented players play. I wonder if Dick can even manage to do that much right for the next 5 weeks? McKelvin has been getting playing time, and yes, it increased as the secondary injuries mounted, but KC still managed over 300 yards passing yesterday, and more than just a bit came over where McKelvin was defending. I loved the two picks for sure, but dag, in the other 59 minutes of the game......... Also, earlier in the year, he played a bit of nickel, and frankly, not very well. Let him earn his playing time for crying out loud. The two picks were great, but on balance he did give up a fair amount of yardage too. He may be a good one, so let's not go DB in round one again this year. We must get us some D Lineman, PLEASE..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SageAgainstTheMachine Posted November 25, 2008 Share Posted November 25, 2008 McKelvin has been getting playing time, and yes, it increased as the secondary injuries mounted, but KC still managed over 300 yards passing yesterday, and more than just a bit came over where McKelvin was defending. I loved the two picks for sure, but dag, in the other 59 minutes of the game......... Also, earlier in the year, he played a bit of nickel, and frankly, not very well. Let him earn his playing time for crying out loud. The two picks were great, but on balance he did give up a fair amount of yardage too. He may be a good one, so let's not go DB in round one again this year. We must get us some D Lineman, PLEASE..... Well he was primarily responsible for Dwayne Bowe who only had 3 receptions (though they did go for 58 yards and a TD). Gonzales got 113 yards so McLovin had nothing to do with that, as Gonzales was generally the responsibility of Simpson and Ellison. And on Mark Bradley's long TD, it was because George Wilson decided it was a good time to fall down. I was actually impressed by McLovin's coverage skills. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thurman#1 Posted November 25, 2008 Share Posted November 25, 2008 Yes the Chiefs are a terrible team overall. But Thigpen had been improving steadily the past few weeks and had like 8 TD's vs. 2 Ints, and had a completion pctg over 60%. Plus as you may have noticed yesterday, Johnson is back running hard again and Gonzalez had another Pro Bowl type game despite his team losing by 20 points. Hey, the Bills defense overall didn't really play that well, come to think of it. But Leodis McKelvin did not look lost to me, and that run back for the TD was classic speed kills type stuff. And nobody will convince me he could not have helped on defense these past 4 weeks before yesterday, if Fewell would have given him more reps during those games. Fair enough. Thanks for the warning. Nobody will convince you, hunh? Your mind is closed. Again, thanks for the warning. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim in Anchorage Posted November 25, 2008 Share Posted November 25, 2008 Our goal is to win the Super Bowl and win it again and again." Marv Levy.now that will make you miserable-I never liked him-anti-hunter- but those were the days-53-3 afc champonship anyone? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VJ91 Posted November 25, 2008 Author Share Posted November 25, 2008 Fair enough. Thanks for the warning. Nobody will convince you, hunh? Your mind is closed. Again, thanks for the warning. If my mind is closed, then I guess that means that your mind is closed to my argument too. And if I have an opinion that I believe in, yes I suppose nobody will convince me to change my mind. That is called debating your convictions. Watch either version - the old one from the 50's or the newer one from the 90's, of the movie "12 Angry Men". You'll find out the merits of sticking with your beliefs. And your welcome for my warning. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SageAgainstTheMachine Posted November 25, 2008 Share Posted November 25, 2008 Our goal is to win the Super Bowl and win it again and again." Marv Levy.now that will make you miserable-I never liked him-anti-hunter- but those were the days-53-3 afc champonship anyone? 51-3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
34-78-83 Posted November 25, 2008 Share Posted November 25, 2008 Maybe McKelvin didn't start before because he wasn't ready before. We hear this argument every year -- this guy was on the bench (Freddy Jackson, et. al.) and now he's playing and he's fine, therefore he was fine all along. It's nonsense. Guys progress, hopefully steadily. McKelvin has progressed and he's finally reached the stage where he's ready. How is that a coaching mistake? Bingo! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts