View Full Version : Look at this QB stat line
Judge
07-19-2003, 10:00 PM
Here's a QB stat line:
288 completions
470 attempts
3382 yards
18 TD's
18 INT's
QB rating 79.9
Obviously according to any "objective" hard stats this QB must suck, right Wys?
Well, it's Jim Kelly's stat line from 1993, when the Bills won their 4th straight AFC title.
To be consistent in your argument, you should argue that Jim Kelly cost the Bills bigtime that year, huh?
See how silly it is to try to objectify football the way you are?
Schobel94
07-19-2003, 10:23 PM
The only way to measure a QB's worth (or any player for that matter) is to watch him play. As Mark Twain said, there are lies, damn lies, and statistics. The fact is that Bledsoe carried this team for the entire first half of the season, quick breakdown:
Week 1: Bledsoe lit it up, along with good work by Henry and a decent Defensive effort, though we couldnt keep them out of the endzone, Bledsoe was forced to carry the game and tied it up on fourth and 10 with a bullet to E Mo that split two defenders, not many QB's can do that.
Week 2: Just look at the score. Nuff said, Drew carried that game with crappy defense and even crappier ST
Week 3: Again, some leaky D coupled with an unfortunate fumble by Henry put the game in Bledsoe's hands. Even with no real hope of winning, he led the team down and scored. Didnt recover the onside kick, btu if we did we would have won.
Week 4: Good game by Henry, bad D. Perfect routes by Price and Moulds in the endzone, Bledsoe hit them perfectly, also threw OT TD.
Week 5: yeah, he threw a bunch of ints, but we wouldnt even have been close if it wasnt for Drew. he led the team down to the endzone several times trying to keep pace with a great Raiders O and awful Buf D.
Week 6: shaky start, D looked pretty bad. T Hen was great, but Bledsoe really came through with some clutch Td's to Moulds and Price
Week 7: Bledsoe didnt have a spectacular game except for a perfect 70 yard TD to E Mo, although he wasnt able to run out the clock very well. Good D ultimately wont hat game.
Week 8: Awsome preformance by Drew, defense played alright but not spectacular, they did hold them on 4th and 1
Week 9: Worst Defensive game ever. Eventhough people say Bellicheck had Bledsoes number, he threw for over 300 yards, one TD, and an int thatwas way after we had already lost.
Week 10: Unfortunate game for Drew, he didn't play very well. Henry was great, D was good until last drive. The int in the end was partly due to Price's lack luster attempt at the ball, E Mo would ahve caught that one.
Week 11: Bledsoe did awful, though one int was becuase of Price's terrible route running, still he had a particularly poor game
Week 12: Amazing game vs. Miami, 300 yards, 3tds plus one rushing TD, obviously a great game
Week 13: Poor game vs. NE, that int in the endzone was a very poor decision, one int was becuase of a tip. Did better towards the end when the D started to pick up, E Mo had an amazing TD catch. Could have comeback if Price wouldnt have fumbled.
Week 14: Not a great game by Drew, but lots of interference hindered the pass game and decreased his numbers, just look at how many penalty yards SD had. Henry was amazing
week 15: Bledose didnt fare well, partly becuase of bad wether, terrible play by the O-line, no runnig game, and shotty decision making. INT in endzone was bad, but Price dropped a longball that hit him in the Chest.
Week 16: Great game by Drew, 1 TD, one rushing TD, he did good.
All in all, any other QB would have folded under that kind of pressure. He was forced to carry the laod due to terrible D, and pass happy paly calling. Not to say he didnt have his fair share of mistakes, but, cmon, his first year in a new system. You cant criticze the guy after 1 year! Just look at trent green. This year well get a much better picture.
Judge
07-19-2003, 10:26 PM
Good post, Schoebel. Your synopsis of last season is sound.
MDFINFAN
07-19-2003, 11:26 PM
Originally posted by Judge
Good post, Schoebel. Your synopsis of last season is sound.
Just your unbias Humble opinion, huh..:bduff:
Judge
07-20-2003, 08:28 AM
I'm surprised Wys didn't have the guts to respond to the Jim Kelly stat line- I guess it's because it shows how silly his "objective analysis" is.
Originally posted by Wys Guy
And you guys think I appreciate getting hammered for simply pointing out facts.
Why even bother posting to these threads then?
I don't get it. I don't go into threads that I don't care about.
Rude American
07-20-2003, 10:53 PM
his silence speaks volumes
lordofgun
07-20-2003, 10:57 PM
If wys' spam is ruining this place, why try to entice him into posting more on this subject? It's not like it's going to change anything.
Rude American
07-20-2003, 10:59 PM
what's one more thread?
Dozerdog
07-20-2003, 11:58 PM
Check out Kemp's numbers- I boxed the 4 playoff seasons he had. Wys would have run him out of town. Even if they both were rebuplicans....
...come to think of it- in 1960 & 1961 he played in the Championship games as well for the chargers- 5 appearances in the AFL big game in 7 seasons. But his stats suck......:rolleyes:
Tatonka
07-21-2003, 02:19 AM
:lol:
Rude American
07-21-2003, 08:18 AM
the bottom line: Only one QB has ever been good enough to play in Buffalo, and only Rob Johnson himself and Rob's parents agree with him.
Yep, RJ was the second coming according to Wys.
SABURZFAN
07-21-2003, 08:35 AM
Originally posted by Ð
Yep, RJ was the second coming according to Wys.
i remember when larry felser thought that collins was going to be the next big thing.
ryven
07-21-2003, 09:09 AM
I agree with you that wys went a little far, but everyone has an opinion so. I will say we are kind of beating a dead horse. :deadhorse
About a week ago I asked Wys to tell me if Kelly was responsible for all the SB losses, in particular the Redskins loss in which he tossed 4 INT's (or was it 5?). His reponse was that coaching lost the games. So I guess it depends on whether he likes a player or not as to whether that player gets excused for things.
Jan Reimers
07-21-2003, 09:22 AM
Does anyone, like me, feel optimistic about this season? If so, could we stop the endless bickering and move on to some positive topics?
We sure do, Jan. That's the point.
Tatonka
07-21-2003, 11:52 AM
i like big butts and i can not lie..
:cp:
Dozerdog
07-21-2003, 11:56 AM
:lol:
Originally posted by Judge
Here's a QB stat line:
288 completions
470 attempts
3382 yards
18 TD's
18 INT's
QB rating 79.9
Obviously according to any "objective" hard stats this QB must suck, right Wys?
Well, it's Jim Kelly's stat line from 1993, when the Bills won their 4th straight AFC title.
To be consistent in your argument, you should argue that Jim Kelly cost the Bills bigtime that year, huh?
See how silly it is to try to objectify football the way you are?
See y'all, this is a part of the problem here!
I think it stems from this thinking that your QB does it all.
If you take this post at face value and analyze it you come to all sorts of faulty conclusions.
First, b/c I'm not like 98% of the posters who I challenge, I'll answer the questions:
"Obviously according to any "objective" hard stats this QB must suck, right Wys?"
Yes, pretty much. It was a below average season for a QB in the NFL. Fair to average I would rate the season w/o further information.
Further information that I'd like to have is:
Who were the WRs?
What was the OL like?
What was the game-to-game numbers?
Did the QB have a RB?
Since it was Kelly, the answers are that he did have all those things. So I would rank that particular season as below average.
If you are drawing a career comparison to Drew however, several other insights can be made as to Kelly over his career.
"To be consistent in your argument, you should argue that Jim Kelly cost the Bills bigtime that year, huh?"
Again, w/o game-by-game stats, I don't know. My big contention is that we aren't going to win many games w/ your QB tossing multiple INTs/game, especially if he doesn't put up TDs to counter and many of those INTs are A. in the red zone, and B. set the opponent up for TDs w/ phenominal field position.
So in answer to your question, in how many of those games did Kelly put up INTs like that? B/c IDK.
I can tell you how many Drew did:
V. Oakland, he tossed only 2 TDS to 3 INTs w/ 1 INT going directly for a TD and the other setting Oakland up for one.
V. the Jets in game 2, he tossed 2 INTs and 0 TDs, both INTs setting up the Jets at midfield where they expediently converted those two INTs, on back-to-back drives BTW, into TDs for a 14-point lead.
V. N.E. in the 2nd game, he had only 2 TDs to 4 INTs, one of which set up the Pats at our own 9 Yard line on which they converted a TD. Another led to 3 more. And a third was on an "GTG" situation and cost us 7!
V. G.B. he had 2 INTs and 2 lost FUMs, one setting up G.B. at our own 39 Yard line for their sole TD. Two others cost us 14 points.
V. the Jets in game 1, he contributed only 1 TD to 2 INTs, w/ one INT setting up the Jets at our own 19 Yard line for a TD.
So to answer your question, I don't consider the answer to be based on such shallow analysis. If Kelly had 15 of his 18 INTs in only 5 key games that season, then yes, I'd say he did have a crappy year.
"See how silly it is to try to objectify football the way you are?"
On the contrary! I think yours is the silly way, here's why!
How many passes did Drew attempt last season not including plays that he was sacked on? Ignoring the sacks works for you in this analysis.
The answer is 610 attempts.
How many carries did the Bills RBs get?
The answer is 356.
How many times did Kelly throw that season?
The answer is 470. We can add in 26 times for Reich if you wish for total of 496.
How many times did the Bills RBs featuring Thurman and Davis run the ball?
The answer is 495.
Total plays last season was 966.
Total plays in '93 was 991.
In '93, the Bills O was perfectly balanced! 50/50.
Last year, we threw 610 of 966 times, or over 63% of the time.
See the difference?
Even with below average QB play, again, which I base on scoring production, not yards, we were 12-4, won the Conference and made it to the SB.
As I see it, if the balance had been the same last season, we would have made it at least, and quite easily, to a division title.
Don't you think that would have been nice? Or are you happier that Drew had tons of yards and attempts. Forget about scoring for the team. Just attempts and yardage!
B/c I'm not! I really am pissed that we could easily have had the division and a 10-6, 11-5, or even 12-4 record had we run the ball some more.
But hey, I'm just an idiot fan who doesn't like Drew!
Oh, BTW, if you wanna talk about accolades for a QB based entirely on yardage and attempts, look at it this way; it would be like basing the play of an NBA player on "trips down the court" and "number of shots taken" w/o regard to any other measure.
So nice try there Judge! But once again, give it a rest!
Originally posted by Doc
About a week ago I asked Wys to tell me if Kelly was responsible for all the SB losses, in particular the Redskins loss in which he tossed 4 INT's (or was it 5?). His reponse was that coaching lost the games. So I guess it depends on whether he likes a player or not as to whether that player gets excused for things.
If you want to compare Kelly, why don't we start here:
In his first ten seasons, Kelly had over 20 TDs in 7 of them, never w/ more INTs than TDs.
In Drew's first ten seasons, he had over 20 TDs in 4 of them, one in which he pitched more INTs.
In Kelly's first 10 seasons, he pitched for a total of 32,657 yards and put up 237 TDs over that stretch.
In Drew's first 10 seasons, he pitched for a total of 34,016 yards and put up 190 TDs over that stretch.
Correspondingly, Kelly pitched a TD every 138 yards.
Drew pitched a TD every 179 yards.
Kelly threw more INTs than TDs only once in those 10 seasons.
Drew has pitched more INTs than TDs 3 times in those 10 seasons.
So try starting w/ those Doc and then let me know what you come up with...
;)
I sure hope that Drew can lead the offense to the more than 17.8 PPG this season in ten of our games...
:rolleyes:
Judge
07-21-2003, 01:00 PM
Originally posted by Wys Guy
So nice try there Judge! But once again, give it a rest!
ME give it a rest? You don't have a clue about how you spam, do you? What a laugh.
You cite the Bills being a 50-50 balanced team in 1993- true enough. Why do you blame Drew for the Bills' being skewed toward the passing game last year. He didn't call the plays, did he?
Jim Kelly had a significantly better OL and RB to work with in 1993 than Drew in 2002. I don't think anyone can debate that. Arguably better WR's, too, but Moulds and Price are pretty darn good. And yet his stats by your admission were less than good- mediocre maybe.
You're proving my point- that your objective analysis is hardly objective. It's based on your own subjective view of a player. Thanks for admitting it.
Oh yeah, something else to chew on...
Do you think Kelly was 35-63 career vs. teams that finished the season at .500 or better?
JFKs, Drew's 17-35 since '97 v. teams .500 or better.
3-8 last season.
I sure hope that doesn't repeat itself, that's all.
I don't want to drive 7 hours to watch Drew toss 3 or 4 picks in a loss!
lordofgun
07-21-2003, 01:02 PM
Originally posted by Wys Guy
If you want to compare Kelly, why don't we start here:
In his first ten seasons, Kelly had over 20 TDs in 7 of them, never w/ more INTs than TDs.
In Drew's first ten seasons, he had over 20 TDs in 4 of them, one in which he pitched more INTs.
In Kelly's first 10 seasons, he pitched for a total of 32,657 yards and put up 237 TDs over that stretch.
In Drew's first 10 seasons, he pitched for a total of 34,016 yards and put up 190 TDs over that stretch.
Correspondingly, Kelly pitched a TD every 138 yards.
Drew pitched a TD every 179 yards.
Kelly threw more INTs than TDs only once in those 10 seasons.
Drew has pitched more INTs than TDs 3 times in those 10 seasons.
So try starting w/ those Doc and then let me know what you come up with...
;)
I sure hope that Drew can lead the offense to the more than 17.8 PPG this season in ten of our games...
:rolleyes:
Who was Kelly throwing to in most of those years?
Who was Drew throwing to?
Kelly had a hall-of-fame cast around him.
Drew - not even close most of the time when he was in NE.
You're the one who said you have to look at WRs and RBs around the QB to make a judgment. Now you're ignoring your own advice.
This discussion is so old.
lordofgun
07-21-2003, 01:04 PM
In some of your stats, it's all the QB's fault. In others, it's not.
Originally posted by Wys Guy
Oh yeah, something else to chew on...
Do you think Kelly was 35-63 career vs. teams that finished the season at .500 or better?
JFKs, Drew's 17-35 since '97 v. teams .500 or better.
3-8 last season.
I sure hope that doesn't repeat itself, that's all.
I don't want to drive 7 hours to watch Drew toss 3 or 4 picks in a loss!
So now it IS all the QB's fault??? :huh:
Judge
07-21-2003, 01:04 PM
Originally posted by Wys Guy
If you want to compare Kelly, why don't we start here:
In his first ten seasons, Kelly had over 20 TDs in 7 of them, never w/ more INTs than TDs.
In Drew's first ten seasons, he had over 20 TDs in 4 of them, one in which he pitched more INTs.
In Kelly's first 10 seasons, he pitched for a total of 32,657 yards and put up 237 TDs over that stretch.
In Drew's first 10 seasons, he pitched for a total of 34,016 yards and put up 190 TDs over that stretch.
Correspondingly, Kelly pitched a TD every 138 yards.
Drew pitched a TD every 179 yards.
Kelly threw more INTs than TDs only once in those 10 seasons.
Drew has pitched more INTs than TDs 3 times in those 10 seasons.
So try starting w/ those Doc and then let me know what you come up with...
;)
I sure hope that Drew can lead the offense to the more than 17.8 PPG this season in ten of our games...
:rolleyes:
It's impossible to compare QB's like that because they played for different teams. The only true comparison is if both QB's played for the same team. Thus, comparing Flutie with RJ or Kemp and Lamonica makes more sense. To compare Jim Kelly's career with a perennial Super Bowl team and Drew's career with a roller coaster team is plain silly. Even you should know or understand that.
You could make a good case for Drew's numbers being more impressive in light of the fact that he played with lesser talent.
THATHURMANATOR
07-21-2003, 01:05 PM
Originally posted by Wys Guy
Oh yeah, something else to chew on...
Do you think Kelly was 35-63 career vs. teams that finished the season at .500 or better?
JFKs, Drew's 17-35 since '97 v. teams .500 or better.
3-8 last season.
I sure hope that doesn't repeat itself, that's all.
I don't want to drive 7 hours to watch Drew toss 3 or 4 picks in a loss!
First you say a qb doesn't win or lose a game on his own then you ask if Kelly had a 35-63 record vs 500 or better teams. Which is it man?
Judge
07-21-2003, 01:06 PM
Originally posted by lordofgun
Who was Kelly throwing to in most of those years?
Who was Drew throwing to?
Kelly had a hall-of-fame cast around him.
Drew - not even close most of the time when he was in NE.
You're the one who said you have to look at WRs and RBs around the QB to make a judgment. Now you're ignoring your own advice.
This discussion is so old.
Wys is twisting his words around to bolster his argument. That's called "subjectivity". His "objective analysis" has never worked- that's what's so old about this.
Judge
07-21-2003, 01:18 PM
Originally posted by Wys Guy
See y'all, this is a part of the problem here!
I think it stems from this thinking that your QB does it all.
By the way, I had to quote this too- Wys, don't you blame Drew for all 8 losses? I'm calling you out on that, buddy- I never saw one person other than you ever put all credit or all blame on Drew.
That does it. I'm out of the Wys argument derby. You can't argue with someone who argues from both sides of the fence.
Judge
07-21-2003, 01:21 PM
Originally posted by Doc
That does it. I'm out of the Wys argument derby. You can't argue with someone who argues from both sides of the fence.
BINGO! Can I have an "amen" please?! Wys's "objectivity analysis" has been exposed!
lordofgun
07-21-2003, 01:23 PM
AMEN
Michael82
07-21-2003, 01:24 PM
Originally posted by Doc
That does it. I'm out of the Wys argument derby. You can't argue with someone who argues from both sides of the fence.
QUOTE OF THE DAY!!!
Originally posted by Judge
BINGO! Can I have an "amen" please?! Wys's "objectivity analysis" has been exposed!
AMEN! :up:
Originally posted by lordofgun
In some of your stats, it's all the QB's fault. In others, it's not.
So now it IS all the QB's fault??? :huh:
Well, IDK, but isn't it all Drew's doing that we won 8 games?
I mean that's all we've heard is how we only won 8, vice 3, games b/c of Drew!
Right? Or am I hallucinating...?
If so, I suppose if it's fair to award wins that were achieved on:
the merits of 16 and 20 offensive points, then surely it's fair to blame losses on the QB as well. Right?
Furthermore, if it's fair to blame losses where the team, regardless of which aspect of it, allowed only:
10, 10, 17, and 17 points w/o the O practically handing TDs to the opponent, then again, surely the same logic applies. No?
How about that Detroit game? I guess we wouldn't have won that w/o Drew here. Why not? Am I really supposed to believe that Drivel?
Chicago beat Detroit 20-17, similar to our 24-17. Shouldn't the Bills, w/ Moulds, Price, Henry, Reed, JR, and Drew have put up a few more than 4 more points than Chicago w/ Chandler/Miller, Thomas, Booker, and White? Or not?
How about that win over Houston?
We only could have beaten them too w/ Drew here, right? Not AVP or any other QB, right?
Well, let's see, Golly Gee! How on earth did the Ravens do it?
Must be that Redmon, LMAO, Redmon, had more talent to work with. I see...
Or how 'bout Chicago? Only w/ Drew here, right?
Funny, b/c Carolina, w/ Peete, Lamar Smith, Muhammed and Smith did it.
Or Minnesota?
Tampa and Detroit put up 38 and 36 v. them in regulation!
We put up 39. Gosh! Yeah, it's all becoming so much clearer now...
:rolleyes:
Must have been that Miami game where Drew tossed for 182 yards and led the O to a whopping 16. No other Qb could lead their O to 16 v. the Fins!
Oh, wait a minute, hooooold on here....
Looks like Detroit did it, ...7 other teams too. Most w/o QBs regarded as highly as Drew is.
Weird!
Gosh, this is indicative that this may in fact be a team game!
Huh? I'm really perplexed now.
How 'bout that San Diego game! That's where Drew really shone to prove how good he is and how we simply couldn't win games w/o him.
I don't know how too many teams, 7 others apparently, actually beat S.D. w/o an 11 for 33 for 107 yard effort! I'm just stumped on that one!
Actually, it could be argued that that was one of Drew's better games against teams .500+ since he didn't toss any INTs.
Yeah, it's all becoming really clear now how he helped us win all 8 games and how we only could have done that w/ him and no other QB here...
:rolleyes:
Originally posted by lordofgun
In some of your stats, it's all the QB's fault. In others, it's not.
So now it IS all the QB's fault??? :huh:
In multiple TO games by the QB, 7 of them, all resulting in losses, I give the lion's share of the blame, especially when they cause us to lose out on 35 points and give 52 to our opponents for ~ a 12 point swing in those games.
As well, especially when the D holds opponents to under 20 points: K.C., G.B.
I know, I know, the weather made Drew turn the ball over 4 times, once for a score and twice to erradicate 14 of our own points. No need to beat that dead horse again. But since "the weather made Buffalo lose", I'm curious as to why the Pack didn't lose too? Were they playing the game in Sunny LA?
In games where the D holds opponents under 20 points, I also give them credit, especially when the O doesn't score more than 20. I.e., S.D., G.B.
How about wins where the D held opponents to under 20?
There weren't any, were there?
Miami, Detroit, S.D., Cincy
Don't they get share of the kudos?
Not in Buffalo these days they don't!
What about the K.C. game?
We blame Henry entirely for his single TO in the Denver game to cost us a win!
But when the exact same situation arises in K.C., everyone's trying to mitigate Drew's single team TO that did the exact same thing?
How come? Seems to me that what's fair for the goose is fair for the gander, eh?
Ahhh, but Judge is correct. That's logic, and it's something that simply isn't applied in analyzing sports these days in Buffalo!
Kind of like takeaways and sacks for the D meaning more than how many points a D held opponents to.
Now, on the flip side, those same giveaways and sacks yielded, well, when we look at it that way, it all takes on a completely different meaning. In Buffalo that is. ;)
As well, since the D was battered for "allowing so many points" this past season, you would think that when the O doesn't put up many points, that they take the same level of heat.
Wrong again. At least not in Buffalo.
The mighty, mighty, (and we're not talkin' tacos here) Buffalo O put up more than 17 points in only 4 of the teams last 10 games!
But somehow that makes no difference. We have to analyze further until we can find an angle that vindicates our leading ticket seller!
Back to the water cooler for yet another cup of koolaid!
:D
lordofgun
07-21-2003, 01:48 PM
WHERE???? WHERE ARE YOU SEEING EVERYONE SAY THAT DREW IS A GOD AND GIVING HIM SOLE CREDIT FOR EVERY BILLS WIN???
WHERE?!?!?!?
You must be reading a different message board.
And to answer your question...Yes, you're hallucinating. :D
It's the kool-aid. I tell you, it's the kool-aid.
Originally posted by lordofgun
In some of your stats, it's all the QB's fault. In others, it's not.
So now it IS all the QB's fault??? :huh:
:huh:
I never said that.
But there's a world of difference between what you're saying here and a notion that the only reason why we won 8 games is simply and wholly b/c of Drew.
That's where I have some difficulties.
If that's what you think I think, then there's a huge gap between it and what I really do think.
I think that Drew played a handful of great games, but by no means was it the norm. I think there was quite a bit of improvement from '01 to '02 having nothing to do w/ Drew.
TypicalBill
07-21-2003, 03:27 PM
Originally posted by lordofgun
WHERE???? WHERE ARE YOU SEEING EVERYONE SAY THAT DREW IS A GOD AND GIVING HIM SOLE CREDIT FOR EVERY BILLS WIN???
WHERE?!?!?!?
:rofl: :calm: :chuckle:
Judge
07-21-2003, 04:49 PM
This argument is OVER. Game set match. Wys has lost. He's spinning so fast he can't see straight. As shown on this thread, he'll say anything, regardless of whether it's consistent with a prior statement or not, to keep arguing.
The only way for him to try to to validate his argument is to say something that I never said, and nobody ever said, the fallacy that we all think Drew alone won those games for the Bills.
Wys is hallucinating if he thinks anyone on here said that. In short, he's been arguing against himself this whole time!
Originally posted by Judge
ME give it a rest? You don't have a clue about how you spam, do you? What a laugh.
You cite the Bills being a 50-50 balanced team in 1993- true enough. Why do you blame Drew for the Bills' being skewed toward the passing game last year. He didn't call the plays, did he?
Jim Kelly had a significantly better OL and RB to work with in 1993 than Drew in 2002. I don't think anyone can debate that. Arguably better WR's, too, but Moulds and Price are pretty darn good. And yet his stats by your admission were less than good- mediocre maybe.
You're proving my point- that your objective analysis is hardly objective. It's based on your own subjective view of a player. Thanks for admitting it.
Kelly had a better RB? WRs? What are you on crack!
Henry's already just about matched TT's best year rushing! What's arguable is that Thurman may have been a better all-purpose back, but as a pure rusher, I think Henry's better based on what little we've seen of him.
In his first two seasons, one w/ a CRAP OL and the other that you say wasn't as good as Kelly's, Henry has rushed for 2,167 yards and 17 TDs. In his first two seasons, TT rushed for 2,125 and 8 TDs.
As to Reed and Brooks over Moulds and Price, you're high! In 16 seasons, Andre had 4 seasons over 1,000 yards w/ Kelly throwing to him. Moulds has had RJ, Flutie, Van Pelt, Collins, and lately Drew throwing to him, at least 5 different QBs, and even though he really wasn't used in his first two seasons, he's still posted 3 seasons over 1,000 and his best two are already better than Andre's best. Price doesn't even compare to Brooks as much as I think Price is overrated.
"You cite the Bills being a 50-50 balanced team in 1993- true enough. Why do you blame Drew for the Bills' being skewed toward the passing game last year. He didn't call the plays, did he?"
No, he didn't call the plays! But he did audible often, and he did throw the INTs! I think. Or was it someone else Judge?
"ME give it a rest?"
Yes, I think it's time!
That's the problems w/ you libs, you live and die by the one-liners! :D
Originally posted by lordofgun
WHERE???? WHERE ARE YOU SEEING EVERYONE SAY THAT DREW IS A GOD AND GIVING HIM SOLE CREDIT FOR EVERY BILLS WIN???
WHERE?!?!?!?
You must be reading a different message board.
And to answer your question...Yes, you're hallucinating. :D
What? Are you joking?
Have we or have we not been treated to a perpetual reminder that the only reason why we won 5 more games than we did last year is b/c of Drew?
If you deny that, then you just ain't lookin'! It's all I've heard for 6 straight months!
And heck, when I say it isn't so, I get lambasted. What do you think that means? It means those doing the lambasting believe it is.
Wasn't the WHOLE thing that has caused this "stir" over the past few days my article defending the D in light of the article on CNN stating THIS:
"For the better part of 17 weeks last season, betting the "over" on Buffalo games was the closest thing to a sure bet as you can find in the topsy-turvy NFL. The Bills' combination of potent offense and porous defense routinely turned games into track meets. While Drew Bledsoe, Eric Moulds and Peerless Price were piling up points, the defense was giving it all back and then some. Only Cincinnati (456) and Kansas City (399) allowed more points in the AFC than Buffalo (397)."[i]
While that doesn't say that we only won 8 games b/c of Drew, it certainly makes it seem like the the points just fell and fell and fell, doesn't it?
"While Drew Bledsoe, Eric Moulds, and Peerless Price were [i]piling up points, the defense was giving it all back and then some."
Is that true? B/c he says it is.
Did the offense "pile up points while the defense "gave it all back" in:
A 17-16 loss to K.C.?
How about the 10-0 loss to G.B.?
How about in the 23-10 game v. Miami in which the O scored 16? Does 16 now constitute "lighting it up" in Buffalo?
If so, I'm deeply concerned heading into this season.
How about in the 24-17 win v. Detroit? Did that make the Over? Was it "lighting things up?"
How about the Jets game where we only scored 13?
Was that "lighting it up?"
What about the 7 points we put up v. N.E. in game 1, 17 in game 2? Lighting it up?
20 v. S.D.? Lighting it up?
23 v. Denver? Lighting it up?
Because, and unless my math is off, that's an average of 15 offensive points a game!
So argue this if you will, but is the author correct? Or has he taken some serious liberties here?
As I see it, that's 9 of our 16 games where we didn't "light it up." And in all but one or two of those games the D played just fine! Unless you expect them to hold teams to single digits that is.
But to your original point, yes, I've heard that in numerous placess, that we only won 8 games b/c of Drew. Certainly that's what the media thinks.
Why? Do you think that's not true? Clearly I don't, but I can hardly find that most people although there are some, who think Drew did much wrong. Sure, they acknowledge his 54 sacks, his turnovers in general, but they completely ignore the impact they had on games. I've been told in arguing that we were 8-8 b/c of Drew. When I argue that we lost games, at least 4, 5 total I think, b/c Drew had turnovers that cost us points and/or gave them to the opponents or set them up for some, I'm treated as an idiot. But as I see it, when every facet of the team plays well, and your QB has 2, 3, or 4 turnovers often being the only ones in the game let alone the team, then it's those TOs that cost the team games. No?
If that's the case, as I have said it is in the K.C. game, the Jets games, both N.E.games, the G.B. game, and the Oakland games, then shouldn't those be not only factors, but quite large factors?
But is that what you've heard? B/c as I see it, if Drew doesn't toss an INT on the edge of the EZ in the G.B. game, and then fumblesetting up the Pack for 7, and then toss another INT to stop a score, wouldn't you say that play was likely the biggest factor in the loss? Maybe not, but I don't see how you can ignore 3 TOs in one game, two costing the team 14 and a third setting up the opponent for 7 in a 10-0 point game.
As the second game, take the K.C. game. One TO the whole game. D played great, Henry ran like a champ!
Check me if I'm wrong, but if we win those two games, forget about the rest, we're 10-6, right? Guess what happens if we're ten and six last year? You guessed it!
Also, what I don't understand is these challenges, but then when I answer them, the person asking starts a riot b/c in the answer I must by necessity criitcize Drew's play. Hey, all I can say to that is that I didn't make the turnovers. I'm only bringing them up in the course of debate.
Originally posted by lordofgun
WHERE???? WHERE ARE YOU SEEING EVERYONE SAY THAT DREW IS A GOD AND GIVING HIM SOLE CREDIT FOR EVERY BILLS WIN???
WHERE?!?!?!?
You must be reading a different message board.
And to answer your question...Yes, you're hallucinating. :D
TOUCHE!!!
Here it is, RIGHT OFF TOS!!!
http://www.buffalobills.com/news/index.cfm?cont_id=183398
"Williams is confident that Bledsoe will not have to carry the load for the team. By bringing in talented players to surround the veteran quarterback, Williams believes that the offense will be more balanced and less predictable.
"We're starting to surround him (Bledsoe) with a supporting cast," Williams said. "I think when his teammates produce more and give him the production, he gets confidence in them."
The Bills know that their defense is going to have to as good as advertised to be successful in their division, which is one of the strongest in all of football. Having established players will take some of the pressure off the offense, which carried the team to an 8-8 record in 2002."
Question for you!
Do you agree w/ this piece?
Did "Bledsoe carry the load for the team?"
Did he carry it in all those games mentioned above?
Did he "not have a supporting cast" as the piece states and implies?
B/c as I see it he had a heck of a supporting cast on Offense and the D played VERY well down the stretch over the last 10 games.
So does this piece make full sense? Or is it propaganda?
Did the "offense carry the team to an 8-8 record as the Bills official site says?
How about in that 10-0 loss? Was it the D that carried the day in spite of a poor defensive effort??
How about that K.C. game where the D, the no-name crap D, held the league's highest scoring team to only 17 points on their home turf?
Was it the offense carrying the team then in a loss?
How about that Miami game? 23-10 where the D put up as many TDs as the O did? Was it the O that "carried the team?"
What about the 13 offensive point Jet game? Did the O carry the team then too? B/c I can tell you that of the 31 points the Jets scored, 14 of them were handed to them to start at midfield by "the O."
So you requested the propaganda, there it is!
Enjoy it, peruse it, say what you will about it, but I'm here to tell you it's a bunch of partyline drivel!
7 passing TDs in 9 of the last ten games isn't generating enough of anything to even light up someone's face!
Of course, since the standards in Buffalo are so vastly different from everywhere else when we can put up an average of less than 18 PPG and consider it the O carrying the team, eh.
;)
TacklingDummy
07-21-2003, 08:49 PM
Someone needs a new hobby.
And if in fact the "Bills want a more balanced team" as the title of the article suggests and is supported in it, then all I can say is that the only reason that it wasn't more balanced this past season had absolutely nothing to do w/ the offense! It had to do w/ Kevin Gilbride, our marvelous OC.
The bottom line is that generally speaking, and for 8 or 9 of the team's last 10 games, the defense did all it was supposed to do, namely held teams to few points!
As I've said before, if you're expecting more this season than we got over the last 10 last season, then good luck. They may look a little better doin' it and be able to amass more takeaways and sacks, but insofar as points go, it probably won't improve by much if at all.
Originally posted by Judge
This argument is OVER. Game set match. Wys has lost. He's spinning so fast he can't see straight. As shown on this thread, he'll say anything, regardless of whether it's consistent with a prior statement or not, to keep arguing.
The only way for him to try to to validate his argument is to say something that I never said, and nobody ever said, the fallacy that we all think Drew alone won those games for the Bills.
Wys is hallucinating if he thinks anyone on here said that. In short, he's been arguing against himself this whole time!
Per that article...
Who's hallucinating there Judge...?
Now you guys can figure out how to spin it so that "it doesn't say quite that" or some other nonsense...
Good luck!
;)
And BTW, that was off the official site! I have no doubt that I can find tons more on the bigger independent sites.
Sorry, where are my manners...?
CHECK MATE!
Nighthawk
07-21-2003, 09:00 PM
Wys, you want to know why people dislike your stances so much? Well, it's because you think you know everything and talk down to people! You say that you want good argument, but how can I argue with somebody who is NEVER wrong? Hmmm, argue that point...
Michael82
07-21-2003, 09:14 PM
Maybe those other news sites and stuff are saying that....but you seem to think that we are all Bledsoe lovers like you were a RJ lover. :rolleyes:
Well, we aren't. We are all Bills fans first and prefer not to get in the negative crap all day long. We like to think positive about the whole DAMN team! We have about 45 days left until the season opener and we are pumped up. Why cant we be? :rolleyes: I'm sorry, but as far as the defense, stats lie!!! I did NOT see a top d against the Jets when Pennington juked the hell out of Eddie Robinson. This team also did NOT get many sacks at all or many fumble recoveries or hell, the only one who really got the INTs was Nate Clements and he was handed them. You seem to change your tune fast with this D. You were one of the ones who beat the hell out of them for not doing their job. You ever think that the reason why those last teams did not get many points was because they were running all over us for 100s of yards and using good clock management? No, of course not...because like you are saying....we only blame the defense for the problems, yet no matter what....Drew is the only one playing on the field in your opinion!!! Well guess what...that's not true!!! He was the leader presence on the field, however...he was not the STs, he was not the defense, he was not the fumbling RB, he was not the WR who dropped passes. There is a team and you gotta include all of them in your damn analysis.
Actually Nighthawk, perhaps some construe it that way, but I dislike the premise to the question that I so belaboredly answered above!
It strongly implies that I'm lying or that I haven't enough intelligence to interpret what many simple-minded sports writers put in print and that I'm too stupid to really understand what they are saying in their pieces. And moreover, that I'm too much of an idiot to process what my own eyes see, such as a 10, 9, 13, 16, or 17 point defensive performance while simultaneously listening to someone tell me how the D failed all season long!
I also object to people challenging me on things that are widely held opinions.
I was treated like some sort of moron in this latest line of questioning, even though it was entirely based, as supported w/ the facts above, on not only those few pieces, but on numerous others as well.
I also object being forced to believe that many, many games of offensive performances under 20 PPG are somehow anything short of below average by a long shot and that I should ignore points or lack thereof, and TOs that take points away from us and give them to opponents, I suppose, and somehow agree w/ the partyline that none of that is true, or that it doesn't matter when it matters for every other team in the league and when it mattered even for us as late as last season.
Did you ever ask yourself why all of a sudden 54 sacks don't seem to mean much when last year they were the "end-all-to-be-all" in QB stats?
Just curious, b/c that's the current mentality in Buffalo.
So while "others may object to my 'stating of the facts' ", all I can suggest is for "those others" to properly arm themselves w/ some facts prior to engaging in debates for which they are ill-prepared.
I don't dislike anyone, but come on, how much are we gonna ignore and how badly are we gonna slap a Defense that played extremely well over 2/3 of the season all for what?
What about Henry? Saying there's no balance when it wasn't his choice that he got the ball 15 or fewer times in half our games, and 22 or fewer carries in 11 of 16 games. I fully agree that this was a lack of balance, but I cannot disagree more, as even some on these boards do, that it had anything to do w/ the level of talent on the team.
If the team wants to blame the STs, then fine. But blaming a D that really played halfway decently for 3/4 of our games is flat out wrong. Meanwhile, Gray's job is at stake, and like him or not, it just isn't fair.
lordofgun
07-21-2003, 09:26 PM
So since there's a few "national sites" out there saying that Bledsoe is our all-powerful savior, you feel you have to prove posters on this board wrong??? That logic makes no sense to me.
Instead, why don't you write the author of those articles several long emails and spare us the agony. :D
Originally posted by lordofgun
So since there's a few "national sites" out there saying that Bledsoe is our all-powerful savior, you feel you have to prove posters on this board wrong??? That logic makes no sense to me.
Instead, why don't you write the author of those articles several long emails and spare us the agony. :D
I wrote an article doing just that!
I got berated by many who frequent this board openly and directly, THEN, I get to take the heat for starting it.
Perhaps that suggestion deserves some sort of an award.
I can only refute faulty arguments w/ the facts proving them wrong. I'm not gonna do it w/ facts that support that persons argument!
If others take offense, unless I'm somehow lying, I don't know what else to say.
But I also don't think it's fair to say that I start all of this "stuff" when all you have to do is look at some of the threads to see it ain't so. Who started this one for instance???
Doesn't appear to have been me. When I do start one, I always point out facts. If others/some don't agree w/ them, then fine. But to outright dismiss them purely on the basis of opinions stating they aren't true is silly.
All I know is that it seems we are free to criticize the D openly and w/o any abandon, or Henry even for his "fumbling woes", or the DL, or Gray. But don't we dare attack Drew's play! Even Gilbride is fair game!
But to suggest that I do what I essentially did, except openly, namely defending our D, and then taking heat for it, from our own fans, I'm highly disappointed.
BTW, it's more than "a few national sites" out there. It's a pervasive mentality that Drew carried this team last year. Everyone, and I mean everyone, who isn't a Bills fan, when I discuss football and tell them I'm a Bills fan, they all invariably make the comment that "maybe this year Drew won't have to do it all!" Either they came to their own views after watching games, which isn't the case, or they're getting their info from somewhere else.
Originally posted by Mike32282
Maybe those other news sites and stuff are saying that....but you seem to think that we are all Bledsoe lovers like you were a RJ lover. :rolleyes:
Well, we aren't. We are all Bills fans first and prefer not to get in the negative crap all day long. We like to think positive about the whole DAMN team! We have about 45 days left until the season opener and we are pumped up. Why cant we be? :rolleyes: I'm sorry, but as far as the defense, stats lie!!! I did NOT see a top d against the Jets when Pennington juked the hell out of Eddie Robinson. This team also did NOT get many sacks at all or many fumble recoveries or hell, the only one who really got the INTs was Nate Clements and he was handed them. You seem to change your tune fast with this D. You were one of the ones who beat the hell out of them for not doing their job. You ever think that the reason why those last teams did not get many points was because they were running all over us for 100s of yards and using good clock management? No, of course not...because like you are saying....we only blame the defense for the problems, yet no matter what....Drew is the only one playing on the field in your opinion!!! Well guess what...that's not true!!! He was the leader presence on the field, however...he was not the STs, he was not the defense, he was not the fumbling RB, he was not the WR who dropped passes. There is a team and you gotta include all of them in your damn analysis.
I'm not saying that "everyone" is a Bledsoe lover, but you gotta admit, that the way they react when a reasonable degree of criticism is levied on him, you'd sure think that is the case.
As to thinking positively about the team, who's about the only one thinking positively about the D last year? Who's one of the most positive people about Henry? Who's one of the most positive about Thomas, our OL, our WRs, our secondary?
As to your argument on sacks and takeaways, the conversation we had on the phone earlier said it all. You even admitted that you ignore much in order to be "rah-rah", so "WTH are you talking about. If anyone should be the Ostrich Club president, it should be you.
Besides, are you telling me that takeaways and sacks are key?
If so, then how come 18 of them in 7 losses on offense seem to be less important? Seems to me that for every "oh-so-important" takeaway and sack, there has to be a "giveaway" and "sack given up." No? Wouldn't then those count just as much but negatively? You sure wouldn't think so in Buffalo this past season. In '01 they sure were, even though our OL was less than half of what it was last year.
As for me, I could give a rip about takeaways and sacks if the D holds opponents to as few points as it did in 8 or 9 of the last 10 games!
I'd rather have a QB put up 4 TDs and take 6 sacks and toss 2 INTs than have him toss 0 INTs and take 0 sacks but only put up 0 or 1 TDs!
Same on D! I'd much rather have the D hold the opponents to 13 points with 0 sacks and 0 takeaways than have them log 6 sacks and 3 INTs and allow 38 points.
I also think that's part of the problem these days in Buffalo. Tons of yards and loads of attempts and resulting records seem to mean far more than do points on the boards. Call me crazy, but I'd rather have the points!
Judge
07-22-2003, 11:17 AM
Wys has not changed. He repeatedly changes the terms of the argument and the rules of the game to try to avoid "losing an argument".
Now that it's been shown that he changes his argument to either blame the QB hen it suits him or blame everyone but the QB when it suits him, and that stats either mean everything when they're in his favor or nothing when they're not in his favor, he states this:
that he is arguing with everyone BUT the people on this board, because it's everyone ELSE that worships Drew.
Laugh out loud funny.
I think the bottom line for most if not everyone except Wys on this board is that they're happy with Drew as our QB. Nobody claimed he alone resurrected this team. Nobody claimed he can walk on water. But everyone except Wys feels better about having Drew as our QB than a washed-up vet, or an untested QB w/ little or no experience.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.0 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.