FluffHead Posted November 27, 2010 Posted November 27, 2010 per WGR twitter, Merriman and Ellison are on IR, ending their seasons.
AxelRipper Posted November 27, 2010 Posted November 27, 2010 So, why did we sign Merriman, again? So we can say that he's here to help Maybin get better, and then when he doesn't theres another reason to complain about that pick
The Big Cat Posted November 27, 2010 Posted November 27, 2010 So, why did we sign Merriman, again? No risk, extremely high reward.
Heitz Posted November 27, 2010 Posted November 27, 2010 You would think the fans paid for Merriman's contract - it didn't work out, Ralph lost some loot, such is life. The earth keeps spinning and Fitzmagic's beard keeps growing...
bowery4 Posted November 27, 2010 Posted November 27, 2010 I just wrote this in the other thread about him...... I think it applies here still. This still seems like a good move by the F.O. (to me) if he can play this year and he has anything left it may show or not. In some ways it doesn't really matter, if he ever plays this year. He may have made an agreement that he would sign with us next year even if he didn't see the field. Since Buddy has a pretty long history with him in SD and by the sounds of it knows him pretty well, I think they may have had an honest talk about his "future" before they signed him for the rest of this year. Personally I don't care either way (it is not like his roster spot is more valuable than Maybin's or McCargo's. I doubt he became a con artist just because he was bad for a while and bothered by injuries. Maybe he was just very unhappy with AJ Smith (like that never happens). Maybe him sitting is in the plan because they want to be able to have him practice if he can. Even if they passed him for his physical (and shouldn't have) and he doesn't come make it on the field this year for the Bills. It could just be that they gave him a 1.6 mil or what ever it is to secure his spot on the roster next year as a bonus (which would be skirting the rules a bit, I think but this is one way to do it). Lets face it, if he can still play and he plays anywhere like he did a few years ago, he is worth keeping around in what ever way they can. We could be the first in line in the FA market for him now because he just got a big bit of commitment from the Bills. If it doesn't work out that way, well it is still cheaper than the Green at LT experiment and he was never a former probowler. We don't lose from it RW does and he would be the pissed one I would think if it fails. Some players never make it back from a achilles injury and if they do it is a very long process, that is why London Flecter went if I remember correctly.
boyst Posted November 27, 2010 Posted November 27, 2010 So, it was nice having you Merriman, because I do not see him on the roster next year. He will be Eddie Robinson-ish at that point.
PromoTheRobot Posted November 27, 2010 Posted November 27, 2010 So, why did we sign Merriman, again? Ask the posters who demanded we sign him. PTR
RalphOP83 Posted November 27, 2010 Posted November 27, 2010 I was flamed 2 weeks ago when I posted that I had inside knowledge that he had a partially torn Achilles and that he would be done 6-8 weeks.
Mr_Blizzard Posted November 27, 2010 Posted November 27, 2010 per WGR twitter, Merriman and Ellison are on IR, ending their seasons. If they're not going to contribute this season, might as well put them on IR and open up roster spots for guys who can play. I think it's a good idea. Merriman was a calculated risk that was worth taking. If he can get healthy, he would look good on the roster next year. If he walks, it was worth taking a shot. When are we going to cut Maybin??
San-O Posted November 27, 2010 Posted November 27, 2010 No risk, extremely high reward. He's been injured since the 1st week of the season.
BillsVet Posted November 27, 2010 Posted November 27, 2010 So, why did we sign Merriman, again? It's hard to sell tickets in the NFL. And we needed a drawing card. Hope RW doesn't mind wasting money.
BarkLessWagMore Posted November 27, 2010 Posted November 27, 2010 Nice rationalization by some in this thread. The front office signs a guy who hasn't been productive for several years, picks up a $1.7mm salary obligation and then he gets hurt 15 minutes into his first practice. Risk worth taking? This is a flat out disaster from a front office perspective (after all, signing players who can help the team is their job). They would have been better off putting the $1.7mm into a second video board so the folks in the west endzone could watch all the nifty commercials and metro bus races without getting whiplash.
bowery4 Posted November 27, 2010 Posted November 27, 2010 lol cynical much (BTW the secret to a happy ending is a cute girl)
Kelly the Dog Posted November 27, 2010 Posted November 27, 2010 Everyone knew it was a big risk big reward proposition at the time. Right now, since he won't play, it appears IN RETROSPECT, to have been a bad decision. That is the nature of high risk high reward. It's no surprise. If he signs to play next year with the Bills AND plays well, it will be a great decision. If he plays for the Bills next year and plays mediocre or lousy, it will be a lousy decision. We still have to see how this plays out. If I had to bet, it's that he will sign a small incentive based package with another team and never play for the Bills. But I wouldn't at all be surprised to learn that Buddy Nix has some agreement with him that has yet to be reported.
Billsguy Posted November 27, 2010 Posted November 27, 2010 So, why did we sign Merriman, again? Buddy Nix wanted to prove again how "not smart" he is.
Mr. WEO Posted November 27, 2010 Posted November 27, 2010 What, exactly, was the "high reward"? This guy has been injured all year. He was dumped by his team because he was no longer productive. He arrived in obviously poor shape and got injured stepping onto the field. And this was a bad decision only "in retrospect"?? This represents extremely poor judgement---or at least no due diligence. Too many people repeat the same nonsense endlessly.
cantankerous Posted November 27, 2010 Posted November 27, 2010 Nice rationalization by some in this thread. The front office signs a guy who hasn't been productive for several years, picks up a $1.7mm salary obligation and then he gets hurt 15 minutes into his first practice. Risk worth taking? This is a flat out disaster from a front office perspective (after all, signing players who can help the team is their job). They would have been better off putting the $1.7mm into a second video board so the folks in the west endzone could watch all the nifty commercials and metro bus races without getting whiplash. LOL @ disaster. 1.7 million is peanuts in the NFL. Who cares.
Kelly the Dog Posted November 27, 2010 Posted November 27, 2010 (edited) What, exactly, was the "high reward"? This guy has been injured all year. He was dumped by his team because he was no longer productive. He arrived in obviously poor shape and got injured stepping onto the field. And this was a bad decision only "in retrospect"?? This represents extremely poor judgement---or at least no due diligence. Too many people repeat the same nonsense endlessly. For people who cannot understand how the real world works, they will invariably think that when a decision goes bad, it proves that it was a bad decision. But that's not always the case. When a team throws a bomb on third and short, or goes for it on fourth and short and misses in a high risk high reward call, most people will say, "See? I told you that was a bad decision." Or, as I said "In retrospect" one could say it was a bad decision. But it still could have been a good decision even if it failed. Even when things turn out to not work out, it doesn't automatically prove to be a bad decision. It just means it didn't work out this time, and the next one may. I'm not at all surprised you cannot seem to grasp the concept. Edited November 27, 2010 by Kelly the Fair and Balanced Dog
Recommended Posts