K-9 Posted July 13, 2011 Posted July 13, 2011 Thank you. No problem. The fact that I can think outside of Merriman's contract, or anyone else's for that matter Kelsay *cough* *cough*, is the definition of not looking at things in a vacuum. I can see the potential impact of the contract beyond the risk reward value that some people see myopically looking at Merriman's deal. You have issues. I didn't realize the extent of your neurosis. My apologies. GO BILLS!!!
Mini Max Anderson Fan Posted July 13, 2011 Posted July 13, 2011 Ralph is cheap...except when he isn't. People are just doing what they always do, freak out over nothing. If the Pats signed Merriman we'd be crying about why we didn't take a chance on a possible stud. But since we did, now we're stupid for taking a risk on a damaged player. We'll never do it right. PTR To me, Promo always gives a logical answer to a multi sided argument that really has no answer, given Bills fans are all over the place with their own ideas/thoughts.
PDaDdy Posted July 13, 2011 Posted July 13, 2011 (edited) With Merriman it might. How likely? What percentage? Who knows. But SM has shown that he can be one of the better players in the league. If his body holds together, he might be again. That's a good gamble for a mere 2.5 mil. Thank you for this statement as this is a key issue in my view point. This is really important. If you don't know the percentages or the risks how can you tell if it is a good gamble or not??? Seriously think about that. Would you walk into a strange casino, lay down a small amount of money you can comfortably afford losing at a game you don't understand, know the odds of or the payouts and say "it's a good gamble"?? I think the answer to that question is "HELL NO!!!" People that can't or aren't even willing to take a shot at guessing whether Merriman will play or not, what sort of qualitative and quantitative success he will have have very little backing to their point that it is a "good gamble". As I have already mentioned and thought was clear you can certainly argue the impact that having not paid his salary might have had on signing someone else. I will easily concede that. Please, just don't tell me it doesn't matter at all or that it's a good gamble when nobody can even take a wild guess at the chances or odds he will be successful. I love that what's really just an out-and-out gamble, becomes a desperation move just because it's the Bills that made it. If Belicheck signed Merriman, this would be called a great "low-risk, high reward" signing - which is exactly what it is. If Merriman signed in NE and put up even average production, we'd be reminded of their genius at finding great role players on a budget. Sports media coverage is so much noise meant to prop up the egos of the big markets and moneymakers. Edit: or, what Promo said. For the record I don't agree that it is a desperation move. It is a gamble of undefined risk with a few million dollars. Sometimes you win, most times you lose. But like they say...you can't win if you don't play. Edited July 13, 2011 by PDaDdy
Jauronimo Posted July 13, 2011 Posted July 13, 2011 What is surprising to me is that people have no concept of invested money, risk of investment, expected return and the salary cap. People look at the money we are giving Merriman in a vacuum and can't see that it could be spent elsewhere on lower risk player investments with much much much more reliable expected results. That money could be the little extra we have to pay to get a difference maker to come to Buffalo. I honestly have no clue as to why that concept is apparently beyond some people. If you like the gamble on Merriman and wanted to forgo a more sure return on our investment in another healthy young proven performer, just say that. Don't say it doesn't matter though. That is just wrong. So what impact FA or other steady contributor should have been signed 2 years ago with the cash that was used to sign Merriman? In your estimation, how much is it worth to see if Merriman can return to form? Which returns were more sure at the time and how did you quantify return? Does the money spent on Merriman preclude the Bills from signing Clabo, Miller, or Boss? I don't think those are mutually exclusive events. I think everyone on the board can see that the money could have been spent elsewhere, and many believe the initial outlay was worth the expected return. Just because you disagree and do not think the money is worth the risk, does not make everyone else an idiot. It simply means others are less risk averse than yourself.
Mr. WEO Posted July 13, 2011 Posted July 13, 2011 Anyone know why SD let him go? Why didn't they keep him--he comes cheap?
BEAST MODE BABY! Posted July 13, 2011 Posted July 13, 2011 Enough with all this Merriman talk. I think we're all forgetting about Aaron Maybin.
RuntheDamnBall Posted July 13, 2011 Posted July 13, 2011 Enough with all this Merriman talk. I think we're all forgetting about Aaron Maybin. Ready to move on, satisfied with the players in their system. The Bills are not in as good of a position as the Chargers are, so if taking their cast-offs and gambling on one of their past stars can make the Bills better, I'm for it.
PDaDdy Posted July 13, 2011 Posted July 13, 2011 (edited) So what impact FA or other steady contributor should have been signed 2 years ago with the cash that was used to sign Merriman? In your estimation, how much is it worth to see if Merriman can return to form? Which returns were more sure at the time and how did you quantify return? Does the money spent on Merriman preclude the Bills from signing Clabo, Miller, or Boss? I don't think those are mutually exclusive events. I think everyone on the board can see that the money could have been spent elsewhere, and many believe the initial outlay was worth the expected return. Just because you disagree and do not think the money is worth the risk, does not make everyone else an idiot. It simply means others are less risk averse than yourself. Correct. I'll give you this, unlike those who just love to hurl personal insults and have conversations with themselves about what an ahole somebody is all the while not being able to shoot down his arguments you appear to have actually read and understood what I wrote. The signings of those players and Merriman's contract ARE NOT mutually exclusive. All I have been stating is that that money could have been spent elsewhere and could impact potential new FA acquisitions. Some people can't understand concepts unless you make them concrete so I provided the names of a few good FAs that the Bills might go after this year. One thing though I haven't said anyone was an idiot for taking the risk. I have said that it is exasperating trying to explain to people the concept that you can't call it a good risk if you can't even make the lamest attempt at quantifying or qualifying that risk. Honestly I can understand why Buddy may have taken the risk but my gut tells me Merriman will not have much of an impact at all. My wild guess is that there is a 0% chance that he performs like he did 3+ years ago. I think there is a 50% chance at best that he can obtain 1/3 the numbers that he used to put up in his prime some years ago. I don't understand why these people that think it is so worth the risk didn't have the stones to do what I simply did right there. Be a man. Make a stand. Support your opinion. My opinion yes it that money could have been spent elsewhere. Specifically it could have been spent on people not trying to regain form 3 years after knee injuries and getting off the juice. That's all. People like to read into things, make incorrect assumptions or suppositions about what you say and then argue against them. Nothing worse than people that don't have any answers but tell everybody else they are wrong all day not really understanding what the other guy is saying. Anyone know why SD let him go? Why didn't they keep him--he comes cheap? Teams throw away players for nothing all the time that are "worth the risk"! Didn't you know that? Gotta hand it to you. In 2 simple questions you summed up a good portion of what I have been trying to get across in 7 pages of responses. Brilliant. Edited July 13, 2011 by PDaDdy
Doc Posted July 13, 2011 Posted July 13, 2011 Anyone know why SD let him go? Why didn't they keep him--he comes cheap? Anyone know why SD hired Norv Turner? As for whether the money given to SM will hinder signing FA's, that won't be known until we see the Bills salary cap for 2011. We also won't know if the Bills made a mistake giving him that extension until the 2011 season plays-out.
K-9 Posted July 13, 2011 Posted July 13, 2011 Anyone know why SD let him go? Why didn't they keep him--he comes cheap? Another WEO set-up but in spite of that I'll venture a guess his release from S.D. had more to do with the contentious relationship between A.J. Smith and Merriman and his agents than it did with anything else, including his spate of injuries and perceived decline in ability as a result of those injuries. GO BILLS!!!
The Senator Posted July 13, 2011 Posted July 13, 2011 (edited) Anyone know why SD hired Norv Turner? As for whether the money given to SM will hinder signing FA's, that won't be known until we see the Bills salary cap for 2011. We also won't know if the Bills made a mistake giving him that extension until the 2011 season plays-out. I thought we already played the 2011 season last year, in 2010, no? . Edited July 13, 2011 by The Senator
PDaDdy Posted July 13, 2011 Posted July 13, 2011 Anyone know why SD hired Norv Turner? As for whether the money given to SM will hinder signing FA's, that won't be known until we see the Bills salary cap for 2011. We also won't know if the Bills made a mistake giving him that extension until the 2011 season plays-out. Yes because he is a good coach and knew how to run the ball with some guy named LT I think.
Mr. WEO Posted July 13, 2011 Posted July 13, 2011 Another WEO set-up but in spite of that I'll venture a guess his release from S.D. had more to do with the contentious relationship between A.J. Smith and Merriman and his agents than it did with anything else, including his spate of injuries and perceived decline in ability as a result of those injuries. GO BILLS!!! So he was let go, despite his potential to return to Pro Bowl form and despite a willingness to work for peanuts--because AJ Smith no longer liked him? What's not to like? You don't think they might have thought he wasn't fully recovered? That he was likely to be reinjured--which he was as soon as he stepped on the field and the Bills staff asked him to run backwards? His release had little to do with this? Simple question, actually. Just wanted to see if anyone would attempt to contort themselves around the obvious--that Smith thought he was prone to injury and washed up.
PDaDdy Posted July 13, 2011 Posted July 13, 2011 (edited) Another WEO set-up but in spite of that I'll venture a guess his release from S.D. had more to do with the contentious relationship between A.J. Smith and Merriman and his agents than it did with anything else, including his spate of injuries and perceived decline in ability as a result of those injuries. GO BILLS!!! Fixed...well...that and the fact that he is off the juice and is "perceived decline in abilities" is actually statistically quantifiable. Edited July 13, 2011 by PDaDdy
1B4IDie Posted July 13, 2011 Posted July 13, 2011 So the random $8.25 million number the other poster put up and the $8.25 million number that you calculated in the scenario where he stays on the roster being the same is random? Sounds like I ran with an accurate number...that is unless your calculations are wrong. No. You ran with 8.25M for 1 year. It's 8.25M over 2 years if he meets the "2010 injury clause" in 2011.
PDaDdy Posted July 13, 2011 Posted July 13, 2011 (edited) No. You ran with 8.25M for 1 year. It's 8.25M over 2 years if he meets the "2010 injury clause" in 2011. Ah honestly I didn't even see that the original poster said in one year. I didn't reference one year in my post just the amount. I did assume though that if he played 2 games he got the whole $8.25. Good catch. Edited July 13, 2011 by PDaDdy
K-9 Posted July 13, 2011 Posted July 13, 2011 (edited) Fixed...well...that and the fact that he is off the juice and is "perceived decline in abilities" is actually statistically quantifiable. Except that in his first season off the juice he had 12.5 sacks, was named 2nd team All Pro, and made the Pro Bowl and had to pass random drug tests from the time he tested positive over a YEAR EARLIER. Injuries may have well taken their toll just like they've done to many players. We'll soon find out. Please quantify statistically his "perceived decline in abilities." GO BILLS!!! Edited July 13, 2011 by K-9
K-9 Posted July 13, 2011 Posted July 13, 2011 So he was let go, despite his potential to return to Pro Bowl form and despite a willingness to work for peanuts--because AJ Smith no longer liked him? What's not to like? You don't think they might have thought he wasn't fully recovered? That he was likely to be reinjured--which he was as soon as he stepped on the field and the Bills staff asked him to run backwards? His release had little to do with this? Simple question, actually. Just wanted to see if anyone would attempt to contort themselves around the obvious--that Smith thought he was prone to injury and washed up. Like I said, a WEO set-up. You asked for an opinion and one was offered. Glad I could tee one up for you. Are you done giggling like a little girl yet? I didn't say his injuries had little to do with his release. Just less than other factors. So you dismiss entirely that Smith's contentious relationship with Merriman and his agents wasn't a contributing factor? That perhaps this fact made the decision to release him a little easier? Who the f*ck cares why SD released Merriman? What has that got to do with anything at the moment? Other than your need to point out that the Bills are so stupid compared to everyone else? GO BILLS!!!
PDaDdy Posted July 13, 2011 Posted July 13, 2011 Except that in his first season off the juice he had 12.5 sacks, was named 2nd team All Pro, and made the Pro Bowl and had to pass random drug tests from the time he tested positive over a YEAR EARLIER. Injuries may have well taken their toll just like they've done to many players. We'll soon find out. Please quantify statistically his "perceived decline in abilities." GO BILLS!!! Here ya go. http://www.nfl.com/player/shawnemerriman/2506350/careerstats Like I said, a WEO set-up. You asked for an opinion and one was offered. Glad I could tee one up for you. Are you done giggling like a little girl yet? I didn't say his injuries had little to do with his release. Just less than other factors. So you dismiss entirely that Smith's contentious relationship with Merriman and his agents wasn't a contributing factor? That perhaps this fact made the decision to release him a little easier? Who the f*ck cares why SD released Merriman? What has that got to do with anything at the moment? Other than your need to point out that the Bills are so stupid compared to everyone else? GO BILLS!!! If contentious relationships with GMs and cast offs mean more than performance we should immediately go find Ryan Leaf!!!!
Doc Posted July 13, 2011 Posted July 13, 2011 So he was let go, despite his potential to return to Pro Bowl form and despite a willingness to work for peanuts--because AJ Smith no longer liked him? What's not to like? You don't think they might have thought he wasn't fully recovered? That he was likely to be reinjured--which he was as soon as he stepped on the field and the Bills staff asked him to run backwards? His release had little to do with this? Simple question, actually. Just wanted to see if anyone would attempt to contort themselves around the obvious--that Smith thought he was prone to injury and washed up. It's rarely just 1 thing. I'm sure AJ Smith thinks Merriman is washed-up. He probably also views him as a headache. So it's better to part ways. Whether Smith or the Bills will be proven right remains to be seen.
Recommended Posts