tennesseeboy Posted April 26, 2011 Posted April 26, 2011 We should have two all pro cornerbacks...Clements and Winfield. If we are going to talk "patience" while we rebuild, we should couple that with a commitment to keep our good players.
PDaDdy Posted April 26, 2011 Posted April 26, 2011 We should have two all pro cornerbacks...Clements and Winfield. If we are going to talk "patience" while we rebuild, we should couple that with a commitment to keep our good players. FREAKIN' A RIGHT!!!! It disgusts me when I think of all of the picks we have spent on DBs when we should have just kept the ones we had. Clements you can make a case for trading because his price tag was ridiculous but there have been others.
NickelCity Posted April 26, 2011 Posted April 26, 2011 Parcells' residue is always at the forefront of my thoughts. Awesome
Hplarrm Posted April 26, 2011 Posted April 26, 2011 Was almost going to freak out over this but I counted to 10. In many cases drafting the CB would be a pretty good idea. Unfortunately for the Bills specific situation it is a terrible idea. Problems with the Bills selecting a CB that early: 3) BUFFALO NEVER PAYS GOOD CBs AFTER THEIR ROOKIE CONTRACT IT UP! (If you are ok with Peterson leaving in 5 years or being traded because he wants a new contract after 2 years if he is awesome then go for it) Agreed we have certainly let a number of high quality CBs we has paid a pretty draft penny for move on when they hit FA. However, looking at the individual cases surrounding each case, I have little problem with how the FO decided to operate. For example, 1. Winfield- a quality player who despite his INT failings was such a great tackler he could sometimes determine the game outcome with his play (we beat KC once pretty much due to the Bills covering TE Gonzales with a CB and the little guy really neutralized this huge power forward size TE denying him the TDs and big yard plays which had become a staple of the TG game- in another outing versus Jacksonville, Winfield nailed their TB with losses greater than five yards when Jax tried to run a game where their TE lined up off the OL and stepped back to get a quick pass then get upfield with a running start. Winfield so effectively doped out this strategy that he not only got into the opposing backfield on a quick opener, but he was so sure in tacking he tacked on a loss of yardage tackle. Bevertheless he left for FA: But: A. The Bills and he were doing negotiations a full year before his contract ended and they had set aside $4 million or so to pay him an immediate bonus under the CBA. However, both of TDs plans for saftey, Chad Cota and Ainsley Battle signed with the Bills but retired in pre-season camp, However, Belicheat totally messed up his negotiations with Lawyer Milloy and he suddenly hit the FA market. The Bills let this FA go only because a a deal they needed to cut (otherwise we would have to start Coy Wire at safety). They even expressed interest in Winfield when he hit FA, but in the end, the Vikes used an adjustment made to their cap due to an injury judgment which allowed them to pay $12 million in one time deal blowing away both the Bills and a Jets offer. Did you really want them to sign Winfield at the cost of starting Wire? B. Nate Clements was another we let walk. However, again, the Bills had the choice of tagging him to keep him off the market (even though it was feared this move would really piss off Clements if it were done and impact his play for us. Further, once he hit the marketplace he ended up signing the richest contract ever for a defender. Nate can make the highlight reel from time to time, there was no way he worth that kindof scratch and I am glad the Bills let him walk rather than pay his market value. C. Greer- Another case where the CB we left I do not think the Bills should have paid what the market demanded for Greer. If you do not believe we did a reasonable thing in letting him go then simply note that of the many fan complaints about the D, note that the problems for a horrid D they actually look at the DL and LB as the problem areas and see the DBs as a strengths of this team.
San Jose Bills Fan Posted April 26, 2011 Posted April 26, 2011 Agreed we have certainly let a number of high quality CBs we has paid a pretty draft penny for move on when they hit FA. However, looking at the individual cases surrounding each case, I have little problem with how the FO decided to operate. For example, 1. Winfield- a quality player who despite his INT failings was such a great tackler he could sometimes determine the game outcome with his play (we beat KC once pretty much due to the Bills covering TE Gonzales with a CB and the little guy really neutralized this huge power forward size TE denying him the TDs and big yard plays which had become a staple of the TG game- in another outing versus Jacksonville, Winfield nailed their TB with losses greater than five yards when Jax tried to run a game where their TE lined up off the OL and stepped back to get a quick pass then get upfield with a running start. Winfield so effectively doped out this strategy that he not only got into the opposing backfield on a quick opener, but he was so sure in tacking he tacked on a loss of yardage tackle. Bevertheless he left for FA: But: A. The Bills and he were doing negotiations a full year before his contract ended and they had set aside $4 million or so to pay him an immediate bonus under the CBA. However, both of TDs plans for saftey, Chad Cota and Ainsley Battle signed with the Bills but retired in pre-season camp, However, Belicheat totally messed up his negotiations with Lawyer Milloy and he suddenly hit the FA market. The Bills let this FA go only because a a deal they needed to cut (otherwise we would have to start Coy Wire at safety). They even expressed interest in Winfield when he hit FA, but in the end, the Vikes used an adjustment made to their cap due to an injury judgment which allowed them to pay $12 million in one time deal blowing away both the Bills and a Jets offer. Did you really want them to sign Winfield at the cost of starting Wire? B. Nate Clements was another we let walk. However, again, the Bills had the choice of tagging him to keep him off the market (even though it was feared this move would really piss off Clements if it were done and impact his play for us. Further, once he hit the marketplace he ended up signing the richest contract ever for a defender. Nate can make the highlight reel from time to time, there was no way he worth that kindof scratch and I am glad the Bills let him walk rather than pay his market value. C. Greer- Another case where the CB we left I do not think the Bills should have paid what the market demanded for Greer. If you do not believe we did a reasonable thing in letting him go then simply note that of the many fan complaints about the D, note that the problems for a horrid D they actually look at the DL and LB as the problem areas and see the DBs as a strengths of this team. Most of what you say seems right on…but Greer had a good year in 2007, starting 13 games with 2 ints and tons of passes defensed. Shouldn't the Bills have extended him after the 2007 season? He became the full time starter in 2008 starting all 10 games before getting injured. It seems like the Bills should have extended him before the 2008 season began. Ditto with Drayton Florence in 2009. He had a really solid year for us. Did the Bills make an earnest attempt at re-signing him before the 2010 season began? Perhaps Florence was holding out for free agency and wouldn't have signed anyways. But the cornerback carousel seems to keep spinning for this team. And some of what propels it looks like short-sightedness.
yungmack Posted April 26, 2011 Posted April 26, 2011 Completely unrelated to this topic, but look at the rankings and please explain why Newton over Gabbert? It's not only Scout's, but the majority of rankings are like this, but everyone says Newton to Carolina..I don't get it, I know there "may" be a greater upside with Newton, but that is a gamble at #1 or #3..don't these ramkings mean that Gabbert is less of a reach at he top of the draft? I mean at CB Peterson is clear #1, but there is less gap between him and Prince the #2 rated CB than at QB, but you don't hear Prince taken before Peterson.. Am I just trying to make sense of something that doesn't make sense? Any player picked in the top ten (and getting the kind of money that comes with that ranking) is expected to start in their first season, QBs included. In the case of Gabbert and Newton, every respectable critique I've heard says that neither one is ready to start, that they both need a year or twoto "train them up" to NFL standards. And even then there are no guarantees that they'll succeed. Considering the Bills situation, I don't think Nixley can wait a couple of years to see if maybe a Newton or a Gabbert pan out, especially if Dareus or Miller is there for the taking.
ieatcrayonz Posted April 26, 2011 Author Posted April 26, 2011 (edited) Considering the Bills situation, I don't think Nixley can wait a couple of years to see if maybe a Newton or a Gabbert pan out, especially if Dareus or Miller is there for the taking. Or better yet Peterson as Parcells points out. What I don't get from this thread: We have done well selecting CBs but have let them walk. I get that part. Most people's "solution" is to not pick them anymore. :wallbash: How about we do pick one but just don't let him walk? Peterson is the right pick. Just pick him. Edited April 26, 2011 by ieatcrayonz
Wagon Circler Posted April 26, 2011 Posted April 26, 2011 Was almost going to freak out over this but I counted to 10. In many cases drafting the CB would be a pretty good idea. Unfortunately for the Bills specific situation it is a terrible idea. Problems with the Bills selecting a CB that early: 1) 32nd rush defense in the league 2) 27th in sacks in the league 3) BUFFALO NEVER PAYS GOOD CBs AFTER THEIR ROOKIE CONTRACT IT UP! (If you are ok with Peterson leaving in 5 years or being traded because he wants a new contract after 2 years if he is awesome then go for it) Exactly right. Not so much #3 but the first two. Anybody who is OK with Peterson wasn't watching last year. I'd rather have Gabbert and I don't want a quarterback.
Thunderstealer Posted April 26, 2011 Posted April 26, 2011 Parcells' residue is always at the forefront of my thoughts. Bill's yellow pit stains should always be considered when making difficult decisions.
Thoner7 Posted April 26, 2011 Posted April 26, 2011 Parrcells is also having some kind of Draft preview at 930 on ESPN. He is going to go through what teams go through in the war room, setting up the board, and going over his board this year. Should be some pretty cool stuff. Most of you will prob be watching the Sabres but if you can DVR it I’m sure it’ll be worth it. PS in the preview on ESPN last night they asked him if Kipers board was in the draft room and he responded with “Not my draft room” to which Kiper said “Well Parcells never used my board but other teams do, I won’t name them obviously but I have a few teams that are subscribers”. Unless Kiper is totally full of it, which he could be, some NFL teams actually use his board as a reference! I find that extremely funny, but also sad at the same time, Kipers board is more accurate than the Bills |-(
PDaDdy Posted April 26, 2011 Posted April 26, 2011 I find that extremely funny, but also sad at the same time, Kipers board is more accurate than the Bills |-( In the words of Metallica - "Sad but truuuuuue"
PDaDdy Posted April 26, 2011 Posted April 26, 2011 (edited) Agreed we have certainly let a number of high quality CBs we has paid a pretty draft penny for move on when they hit FA. However, looking at the individual cases surrounding each case, I have little problem with how the FO decided to operate. For example, 1. Winfield- a quality player who despite his INT failings was such a great tackler he could sometimes determine the game outcome with his play (we beat KC once pretty much due to the Bills covering TE Gonzales with a CB and the little guy really neutralized this huge power forward size TE denying him the TDs and big yard plays which had become a staple of the TG game- in another outing versus Jacksonville, Winfield nailed their TB with losses greater than five yards when Jax tried to run a game where their TE lined up off the OL and stepped back to get a quick pass then get upfield with a running start. Winfield so effectively doped out this strategy that he not only got into the opposing backfield on a quick opener, but he was so sure in tacking he tacked on a loss of yardage tackle. Bevertheless he left for FA: But: A. The Bills and he were doing negotiations a full year before his contract ended and they had set aside $4 million or so to pay him an immediate bonus under the CBA. However, both of TDs plans for saftey, Chad Cota and Ainsley Battle signed with the Bills but retired in pre-season camp, However, Belicheat totally messed up his negotiations with Lawyer Milloy and he suddenly hit the FA market. The Bills let this FA go only because a a deal they needed to cut (otherwise we would have to start Coy Wire at safety). They even expressed interest in Winfield when he hit FA, but in the end, the Vikes used an adjustment made to their cap due to an injury judgment which allowed them to pay $12 million in one time deal blowing away both the Bills and a Jets offer. Did you really want them to sign Winfield at the cost of starting Wire? B. Nate Clements was another we let walk. However, again, the Bills had the choice of tagging him to keep him off the market (even though it was feared this move would really piss off Clements if it were done and impact his play for us. Further, once he hit the marketplace he ended up signing the richest contract ever for a defender. Nate can make the highlight reel from time to time, there was no way he worth that kindof scratch and I am glad the Bills let him walk rather than pay his market value. C. Greer- Another case where the CB we left I do not think the Bills should have paid what the market demanded for Greer. If you do not believe we did a reasonable thing in letting him go then simply note that of the many fan complaints about the D, note that the problems for a horrid D they actually look at the DL and LB as the problem areas and see the DBs as a strengths of this team. Good points. The one guy we let go which I agreed with was Clements. He would have blown our cap up. Wire would have been fine at safety. I think he went on to start for Atlanta or the Ravens. If we kept him we potentially wouldn't have taken Whitner at #8 5 or so years ago. Going farther back you have guys like Nate Odoms and others we let go. Long story short we have used ~40% of our first round picks on DBs in the last 10+ years. That is insane! Imagine if we spent those picks on lineman for both sides of the ball? Edited April 26, 2011 by PDaDdy
Bill from NYC Posted April 26, 2011 Posted April 26, 2011 Agreed we have certainly let a number of high quality CBs we has paid a pretty draft penny for move on when they hit FA. However, looking at the individual cases surrounding each case, I have little problem with how the FO decided to operate. I agree. The way to win in the NFL is to allocate your best resources to corners and safeties, neglect both lines, and let the dbs walk away in free agency whether they are good or not.
RealityCheck Posted April 26, 2011 Posted April 26, 2011 (edited) I agree. The way to win in the NFL is to allocate your best resources to corners and safeties, neglect both lines, and let the dbs walk away in free agency whether they are good or not. "Young fool. Only now....at the end do you understand." Darth Sidious. Edited April 26, 2011 by RealityCheck
Nanker Posted April 27, 2011 Posted April 27, 2011 I didn't get inferred. I'm not even mad at all. I was just saying that I disagree and that when a player like Peterson is available at a position like CB you have to take him. But with a name like Peterson, you have to ask really, how great is he? Obviously not as great as his father if he's still being known as his son. Think of it this way. At this summer's Band Camp at St. John Fissure you'll be able to get way more pictures of a big slow fat first round draft pick than you would of a quick, fast DB that's running all over the place letting WRs catch footballs thrown over his head and running them in for 6. Think of your photo album. I rest my case.
DreReed83 Posted April 27, 2011 Posted April 27, 2011 Exactly... It's not about Peterson, who is a good Player and worthy of the #1 overall Pick to the right Team...But The Bills have been doing this dance for too long...They have serviceable CB's...But what they need more than anything is 1st a Franchise QB...If they can't get one of those they need someone who can stop the Run and Rush the Passer...After that they need another OT...If they filled all those holes maybe we could talk CB... Really? Who. The oh so reliable Youboty? McKelvin? McGee? One interception Reggie Corner? Serviceable CB's? Interesting.
scribo Posted April 27, 2011 Posted April 27, 2011 I watched Parcells' 90-minute Draft Confidential last night. Not a bad show. My big take aways: He like Cam Newton a lot. He thinks the defensive linemen crop is this draft's real value. The more plays a certain player can play per season, the more valuable he is. OLBers who have to come off the field in passing situations are not worth much. A team cannot have enough good corners. The safest pick is an offensive tackle. There is no prototypical running back. He said this draft has zero ubber elite prospects, but he sees this draft as one of the most important in the league's history.
Bill from NYC Posted April 27, 2011 Posted April 27, 2011 Really? Who. The oh so reliable Youboty? McKelvin? McGee? One interception Reggie Corner? Serviceable CB's? Interesting. The corners would be way more serviceable if there was any pass rush.
MyHorseAteTheKid Posted April 27, 2011 Posted April 27, 2011 Was almost going to freak out over this but I counted to 10. In many cases drafting the CB would be a pretty good idea. Unfortunately for the Bills specific situation it is a terrible idea. Problems with the Bills selecting a CB that early: 1) 32nd rush defense in the league 2) 27th in sacks in the league 3) BUFFALO NEVER PAYS GOOD CBs AFTER THEIR ROOKIE CONTRACT IT UP! (If you are ok with Peterson leaving in 5 years or being traded because he wants a new contract after 2 years if he is awesome then go for it) 100% totally agree.. Great Post!!!
ieatcrayonz Posted April 27, 2011 Author Posted April 27, 2011 I agree. The way to win in the NFL is to allocate your best resources to corners and safeties, neglect both lines, and let the dbs walk away in free agency whether they are good or not. I have bolded the part where you, me and Parcells all agree. I'm glad to see you've come around. In about 36 hours it sure would be nice to consider Patrick Peterson or Prince Ahkomoniwannalaya a part of our solution. I respectfully disagree about neglecting both lines and am wondering if you're being sarcastic. In the past you have advocated the Bills drafting 903 O lineman per draft. We can only use 5 at a time. I think a judicious use of picks for the lines is appropriate. Maybe one OL this year in the 3rd and a DL in the 5th. I would have said the 4th for DL but I think we should use both 4ths on Casey Matthews just so we can be sure we'll get him. I think with the 3rd rounder our OL will be good unless we are dumb and draft a QB that runs like Frankenstein and expect him to play. That would be dumb. There has not been a successful clod QB in the NFL since Johnny Unitas. Our DL will benefit from the guys we picked last year. Here is our draft strictly by position, not player, if I had my way: 1 - CB 2 - WR/TE 3 - OL 4 - Casey Matthews 4 - Casey Matthews again just in case. What I mean by this is use both 4ths to trade up for Casey Matthews 5- DL 6 - DB; could be either CB or S, best value here 7 - Long snapper 7 - Punter as insurance in case Moorman is hurt. I doubt this is what we do, but we should.
Recommended Posts