Coach Tuesday Posted August 22, 2011 Posted August 22, 2011 That said, Freddy is not at all happy with the front office of the Bills these days. And I don't blame him one bit. Because of his playing time? Or because they're not out to field a winning team?
Ramius Posted August 22, 2011 Posted August 22, 2011 Because of his playing time? Or because they're not out to field a winning team? Perhaps some of those, but i'd guess because of his contract. Instead of taking care of him a few years ago, the Bills stuck it to him because he was an ERFA and had no bargaining power. It would be decent of them to give him a nice little pay raise to keep him happy for all he's done here. But then again, Ralph is too short-sighted to fork over the dollars for that.
Kelly the Dog Posted August 22, 2011 Posted August 22, 2011 Because of his playing time? Or because they're not out to field a winning team? I think because they screwed him on his contract the last time, and now they are talking about re-signing Kyle, and Stevie and Fitz, but not him, when he has been a warrior for this team. And he's right. They really low-balled him when they had him in a corner a couple years ago. They should have just taken care of him, and they should do it now, too. It wouldn't take much, and it would send a great message through the locker room. Now it looks like he's done everything you would want out of a player over several years, without fail, and one of the very few who will never be paid what he is worth (or way more than he is worth like tons of players do).
NoSaint Posted August 22, 2011 Posted August 22, 2011 Perhaps some of those, but i'd guess because of his contract. Instead of taking care of him a few years ago, the Bills stuck it to him because he was an ERFA and had no bargaining power. It would be decent of them to give him a nice little pay raise to keep him happy for all he's done here. But then again, Ralph is too short-sighted to fork over the dollars for that. He could have played out that year, and seen what happened. I think that I compare him most closely to pierre thomas as far as backs around the league, who is paid very similarly. Good player, does everything well, not an elite explosive guy out of the backfield but very dependable in all aspects.
FLFan Posted August 22, 2011 Posted August 22, 2011 I think because they screwed him on his contract the last time, and now they are talking about re-signing Kyle, and Stevie and Fitz, but not him, when he has been a warrior for this team. And he's right. They really low-balled him when they had him in a corner a couple years ago. They should have just taken care of him, and they should do it now, too. It wouldn't take much, and it would send a great message through the locker room. Now it looks like he's done everything you would want out of a player over several years, without fail, and one of the very few who will never be paid what he is worth (or way more than he is worth like tons of players do). How is 4 years/7.5 million for Jackson a lowball? They renegotiated a contract with him despite the fact he was locked in, and was not even a starting running back on the team. He has been treated just fine. I am not sure this is an issue except in the minds of a few fans. I do not hear Jackson complaining. As for Spiller starting, Gailey said it was to get a sense of how far he has progressed. Myabe we should take him at his word until we see some evidence to the contrary?
KOKBILLS Posted August 22, 2011 Posted August 22, 2011 Shhhhhhhhh! You're not allowed to say that, even if he did play decent the other night. Since Whitner and Evans are gone, Spiller and McKelvin are the newest whipping boys. The official TBD party line is that neither player does anything correct and both are busts. Good old over-generalization at it's best...Another TBD tradition... As always it's the fringe who make extreme comments...But in every thread that the majority state the obvious (ie...Freddie is better than Spiller at this point), someone has got to go and make it out like the majority is saying something they clearly are not (ie...Spiller sucks)... CJ looks good at times and he looks bad at times...He did not look bad on Sat nor did he look great...Freddie is as steady as they come and, again at this point, the better NFL Running Back...That does not mean CJ sucks or any Bills Fan with a half a freaking brain wants to see CJ fail...So...Can we stop with "The Official TBD party line" garbage? Just saying...
BuffaloBob Posted August 22, 2011 Posted August 22, 2011 I like that they are giving Spiller more reps in preseason. It keeps Freddie fresh and motivated. It also gives the kid an opportunity to learn how to run at this level, which is primarily inside and with patience. Cj didn't have to do that in college. He just outran everyone to the corner. Not going to happen in this league. If he can get the feel for letting his blockers set up for him, get the timing he needs between him and the guys upfront, he could be special.
1billsfan Posted August 22, 2011 Posted August 22, 2011 Here's a crazy idea, play both CJ and Freddie. I know it sounds insane but bare with me. This isn't the 70's, 80' or 90's anymore, you really do need two RBs in todays NFL. So consider that we just may have the perfect setup of 1 and 1a starters. They are both complimentary to each other since they are two differing styles of RBs. There should be no reason to even have any drama over this. Tell them that they are both starters and whoever is in the first series will likely change from game to game, but by the end of the season their number of carries will closely match one another. I not only would take this 1 and 1a approach, I'd also bring back the two tailback backfield scheme to throw a curveball at the league. Both CJ and Freddie can catch and run the ball so it would set up great play fakes opportunities while giving extra pass protection when it's a play action fake. There should be no RB drama, so why cause it.
Kelly the Dog Posted August 22, 2011 Posted August 22, 2011 How is 4 years/7.5 million for Jackson a lowball? They renegotiated a contract with him despite the fact he was locked in, and was not even a starting running back on the team. He has been treated just fine. I am not sure this is an issue except in the minds of a few fans. I do not hear Jackson complaining. As for Spiller starting, Gailey said it was to get a sense of how far he has progressed. Myabe we should take him at his word until we see some evidence to the contrary? He was the starting RB and just came off the fourth most yards in NFL history in one season, and yes I know a sizable portion was kick returns but that doesn't matter. He was not only good, he played great. He played for minimum salary before that. Less than two million a year, and less than two million guaranteed is peanuts for a RB of his caliber and accomplishment. He had never made any money before, and he was restricted. They had him over a barrel, and gave him the very least they could get away with, instead of a salary commensurate with his ability and production. And he still was the good soldier, for awhile, although IMO you could always tell he was bitter about it reading between the lines. Now he has had enough. There are at least a few if not several Bills veterans not happy with the Bills right now, for various reasons. You can choose not to believe it if you wish.
Rob's House Posted August 22, 2011 Posted August 22, 2011 I don't think I've ever seen this much agreement here on anything.
GG Posted August 22, 2011 Posted August 22, 2011 He was the starting RB and just came off the fourth most yards in NFL history in one season, and yes I know a sizable portion was kick returns but that doesn't matter. He was not only good, he played great. He played for minimum salary before that. Less than two million a year, and less than two million guaranteed is peanuts for a RB of his caliber and accomplishment. He had never made any money before, and he was restricted. They had him over a barrel, and gave him the very least they could get away with, instead of a salary commensurate with his ability and production. And he still was the good soldier, for awhile, although IMO you could always tell he was bitter about it reading between the lines. Now he has had enough. There are at least a few if not several Bills veterans not happy with the Bills right now, for various reasons. You can choose not to believe it if you wish. And in an alternate universe, Buffalo Bills have no problem extending the contract of another good guy in the locker room, who puts up a fraction of Freddie's contribution on the field.
Bill from NYC Posted August 22, 2011 Posted August 22, 2011 This feels like a Rob Johnson/Flutie-esque meddling Ralph move: "Why am I paying this high-priced supposedly-prolific player if a cheap aquisition can outplay him. Let's see what this guy can do." All things being equal - Freddie deserves to start. Absolutely!
DDD Posted August 22, 2011 Posted August 22, 2011 Spiller has no chance behind this O-line. Lynch and Jackson were much better choices...at least they can drag defenders to pick up yardage. The undersized Spiller is going to get pounded.
CodeMonkey Posted August 22, 2011 Posted August 22, 2011 Spiller didn't look that bad to me the other night. Did you watch the game at all? Even the Bills homer announcers said something about it. He missed holes, could run over no one, outran his blocking, and missed blitz pickups. Basically the same as last season. Except for that I guess he was fine though
Coach Tuesday Posted August 22, 2011 Posted August 22, 2011 Did you watch the game at all? Even the Bills homer announcers said something about it. He missed holes, could run over no one, outran his blocking, and missed blitz pickups. Basically the same as last season. Except for that I guess he was fine though Didn't see it that way but glad it was so obvious to you. He looked explosive to me, and more decisive than last year. Didn't look amazing by any stretch but better than I expected. The Bills have two guys who can run the ball forward, each with a slightly different skill set. I don't really care who starts as long as they're able to move the chains.
Kelly the Dog Posted August 22, 2011 Posted August 22, 2011 Did you watch the game at all? Even the Bills homer announcers said something about it. I didn't hear the Bills announcers, but Steve Tasker is almost always wrong. Great guy, great player, great Buffalo Bill, all-time sucky analyst. So, even though I didn't hear a word he said, if he was saying that Spiller was missing holes, I am very confident that Spiller was not missing holes.
Coach Tuesday Posted August 22, 2011 Posted August 22, 2011 Now he has had enough. There are at least a few if not several Bills veterans not happy with the Bills right now, for various reasons. You can choose not to believe it if you wish. I believe it. We know Florence is pissed because he was led to believe that the Bills were trying to put a winning product on the field before he re-signed, and after Evans got dealt he realized he'd been had. Freddie is pissed because the team has screwed him over financially. Who else? I'd be interested to hear it.
CodeMonkey Posted August 22, 2011 Posted August 22, 2011 Didn't see it that way but glad it was so obvious to you. He looked explosive to me, and more decisive than last year. Didn't look amazing by any stretch but better than I expected. The Bills have two guys who can run the ball forward, each with a slightly different skill set. I don't really care who starts as long as they're able to move the chains. My feeling is that we have 1 RB that can move the chains by running the ball and it is not CJ. If Gailey can get Spiller the ball in some space then and only then will I agree with you. In my opinion that did not happen Saturday. I sincerely hope it does in the regular season.
Turbosrrgood Posted August 22, 2011 Posted August 22, 2011 (edited) I have really not been impressed with Gailey's player management in this preseason or last. He just seems determined to play guys based on their size or perceived athleticism rather than their playmaking ability. Trent Edwards as the starting QB. Moats to ILB. Spiller over Jackson. Lynch over Jackson. Urbik over Hangartner. Rinehart over Levitre. I don't know if buy these arguments. He picked Trent out of a bad group of QB's, and replaced/released him very early on. Moats to ILB is questionable, but gives Moats a chance to compete. Despite some hyped up love for Moats, he would have been burried on the OLB depth chart. He has a chance to be a top backup ILB if he performs. Lynch over Jackson was purely for trade value. Hangartner isn't good, why assume he'd be better than Urbik? Levitre hasn't looked good, but he still started as far as I am aware. Rheinhart replaced him for ONE practice. My take on this is that Spiller has looked good so far and deserves some playing time. This will be platoon either way. One place Jackson has a real advantage is pass protection, he can do it...Spiller cannot. I am not saying Gailey is a miracle coach, but I don't know if that was a fair assessment. Edited August 22, 2011 by Turbosrrgood
CodeMonkey Posted August 22, 2011 Posted August 22, 2011 but Steve Tasker is almost always wrong. Can't argue with that. But he is usually wrong by trying to blow smoke up Bills fans asses, not the opposite
Recommended Posts