C.Biscuit97 Posted February 26, 2013 Posted February 26, 2013 For the life of me, I don't understand this move. Obviously, Nelson is hardly irreplacable. But the guy was a very solid target that you developed into a pretty consistent player. Why just give up on that for such little money? Add to the fact he is a great human being who has totally embraced Buffalo and I really don't like this move.
eball Posted February 26, 2013 Posted February 26, 2013 I've made my point known earlier in this thread. Here goes once again: This is a nuanced argument, not solely about the player being a "difference maker". Scheme, cap hit/contract, and ability to replace the player are part of the conversation as well. Either the Bills believed a 1 yr 1.3M contract was too expensive, he didn't fit their plans or a combination of both. We'll see. At the same time, you can make a rebuild worse by stripping away everything. Nix did it in 2010 when he arrogantly said they'd go from a C2 4-3 to a 3-4. It didn't work. Now, they're overhauling the offense, which means they'll need a QB, 2 WR's (Smith, Graham, and Easley aren't #2s) and perhaps at TE (all good teams have one), and a G (Levitre's gone). That's a lot of personnel moves in one year. Nelson wasn't the problem, nor is 1.3M that outrageous a contract for a possession receiver. Until they prove themselves with a rookie OC and a rookie HC, and a rookie GM, these moves will be questioned. And if David Nelson can't be counted on to recover from an ACL injury suffered in September, what then of Chandler who had one in December? Both aren't renowned for their speed. By ALL accounts, Nelson is a high character guy, great teammate, and gave 100% effort. He had some decent production in an otherwise limited passing offense. Tendering him would not have been expensive. The ONLY plausible explanation for not re-signing him, unless the Bills truly are being run by idiots, is that his production and upside are not seen as being significant in the type of offense Marrone and Hackett want to run. In other words -- if Marrone didn't plan on playing Nelson, even 1.3M is too much money for a benchwarmer coming off major knee surgery. I have no beef with those who disagree with that logic -- but making Nelson out to be a "huge" loss or debilitating to the Bills' rebuilding effort is a bit much.
C.Biscuit97 Posted February 26, 2013 Posted February 26, 2013 By ALL accounts, Nelson is a high character guy, great teammate, and gave 100% effort. He had some decent production in an otherwise limited passing offense. Tendering him would not have been expensive. The ONLY plausible explanation for not re-signing him, unless the Bills truly are being run by idiots, is that his production and upside are not seen as being significant in the type of offense Marrone and Hackett want to run. In other words -- if Marrone didn't plan on playing Nelson, even 1.3M is too much money for a benchwarmer coming off major knee surgery. I have no beef with those who disagree with that logic -- but making Nelson out to be a "huge" loss or debilitating to the Bills' rebuilding effort is a bit much. Well said and this draft is filled with Nelsons. But I just don't know why they let him walk for nothing. At the same time, if David Nelson is a huge loss, this is a terrible team to begin with. I really liked the guy and wish him all the best. Great, great guy.
CodeMonkey Posted February 26, 2013 Posted February 26, 2013 For the life of me, I don't understand this move. Obviously, Nelson is hardly irreplacable. But the guy was a very solid target that you developed into a pretty consistent player. Why just give up on that for such little money? Add to the fact he is a great human being who has totally embraced Buffalo and I really don't like this move. And lest we forget, imported a Dallas Cowboys Cheerleader to the Buffalo area!
Beerball Posted February 26, 2013 Posted February 26, 2013 By ALL accounts, Nelson is a high character guy, great teammate, and gave 100% effort. He had some decent production in an otherwise limited passing offense. Tendering him would not have been expensive. The ONLY plausible explanation for not re-signing him, unless the Bills truly are being run by idiots, is that his production and upside are not seen as being significant in the type of offense Marrone and Hackett want to run. In other words -- if Marrone didn't plan on playing Nelson, even 1.3M is too much money for a benchwarmer coming off major knee surgery. I have no beef with those who disagree with that logic -- but making Nelson out to be a "huge" loss or debilitating to the Bills' rebuilding effort is a bit much. I haven't seen the words huge or debilitatating but I may have missed them. Just a big head scratcher. So what if they tender him? If he really doesn't "fit the scheme" (I really hate that term but that's a discussion for another day) then cut him before the season starts.
eball Posted February 26, 2013 Posted February 26, 2013 I haven't seen the words huge or debilitatating but I may have missed them. Just a big head scratcher. So what if they tender him? If he really doesn't "fit the scheme" (I really hate that term but that's a discussion for another day) then cut him before the season starts. I think when folks start comparing Marrone to Greggo, or suggest he's creating "unnecessary" holes in the roster, they are implying he is significantly hampering the Bills' rebuilding efforts. I "get it" that lots of fans like Nelson and thought he was a solid contributor. I really hope, at the end of the day, that Marrone and Hackett looked at the film and thought "no big loss."
ganesh Posted February 27, 2013 Posted February 27, 2013 And if David Nelson can't be counted on to recover from an ACL injury suffered in September, what then of Chandler who had one in December? Both aren't renowned for their speed. And that may have played into the decision. Do you carry two potential starters into the season with serious questions marks about their ACLs?
Hapless Bills Fan Posted February 27, 2013 Posted February 27, 2013 And that may have played into the decision. Do you carry two potential starters into the season with serious questions marks about their ACLs? Good point. Chandler is signed through 2013 - salary $2 million. If we tendered Nelson, we would have 2 players with $2 million salaries and ACL injuries. It's also worth bearing in mind that Nelson came from Florida's spread offense to Gailey's version of Erhart-Perkins, which involves spreading the defense with 4-5 WR sets (sometimes also called spread offense, but means something different than what Tebow was running in FL). Marrone and Hackett are West Coast guys. The terminology is completely different; the WR expectations and roles are somewhat different. It seems entirely possible to me that they felt Nelson simply wouldn't contribute as well in the system they plan to implement -or, as eball says, that they looked at the film and thought they could find WR who can do as well in the $1million salary range. And lest we forget, imported a Dallas Cowboys Cheerleader to the Buffalo area! Yeah, but they broke up Well said and this draft is filled with Nelsons. But I just don't know why they let him walk for nothing. At the same time, if David Nelson is a huge loss, this is a terrible team to begin with. I really liked the guy and wish him all the best. Great, great guy. Perhaps because they thought other teams wouldn't be lining up to offer him $2Million, which is what they'd have to tender to get compensation?
CodeMonkey Posted February 27, 2013 Posted February 27, 2013 And lest we forget, imported a Dallas Cowboys Cheerleader to the Buffalo area! Yeah, but they broke up In that case dump him.
Beerball Posted February 27, 2013 Posted February 27, 2013 Perhaps because they thought other teams wouldn't be lining up to offer him $2Million, which is what they'd have to tender to get compensation? Tired of reading this. If you sign him to his tender and he doesn't live up to expectations during TC you CUT HIM.
4BillsintheBurgh Posted February 27, 2013 Posted February 27, 2013 Tired of reading this. If you sign him to his tender and he doesn't live up to expectations during TC you CUT HIM. But I think it's the point of player evaluations by the new staff to look at each player and decide what to do before training camp and really OTA's. That's the point of it, why bother if you're just going to keep everyone and see how it plays out. They chose not to work with the defensive players they cut also, and that doesn't mean they are bad players but the staff just doesn't see the same value in what they bring to the table, regardless of what the fans see. It's up to the coaches to get production out of who's here. I thought I remember Buddy/Chan not dumping a lot of players when he came in, at least compared to when Marv/DJ came in, even with the change to the 3-4.
JohnC Posted February 27, 2013 Posted February 27, 2013 By ALL accounts, Nelson is a high character guy, great teammate, and gave 100% effort. He had some decent production in an otherwise limited passing offense. Tendering him would not have been expensive. The ONLY plausible explanation for not re-signing him, unless the Bills truly are being run by idiots, is that his production and upside are not seen as being significant in the type of offense Marrone and Hackett want to run. In other words -- if Marrone didn't plan on playing Nelson, even 1.3M is too much money for a benchwarmer coming off major knee surgery. I have no beef with those who disagree with that logic -- but making Nelson out to be a "huge" loss or debilitating to the Bills' rebuilding effort is a bit much. Well stated and reasoned. As you clearly point out Nelson does have some assets but they don't fit in with the offense that Marrone plans to run. Nelson has great hands. He runs good routes but he is not very elusive and does not have enough speed to get downfield. He is the type of receiver who can very easily be replaced. I wouldn't be too surprised if we will get a more suitable receiver in free agency and also spend a quality draft pick (first three rounds) on a receiver. One gets the feeling that this coaching staff and front office are are aligned in the approach they are going to take and that the will pursue players that fit their scheme. So far this staff has not done anything dramatic. They have made moves that were to be expected and made a lot of sense. They are not willy nilly taking apart the roster that a lot of new regimes often do so much as they are reworking the roster. Ultimately what is going to make this new staff a success or a failure is the caliber of qb they bring on board and invest in. Are they going to draft a qb worthy enough to be a franchise qb this year or are they going to concentrate on building the roster first? I get the impression that Nix realizes that he was mistaken in not addressing the qb positon when he had opportunities to do so. My guess is that in either the first or second round he is going to finally pull the chord and get the qb prospect on board. Until there is a legitimate franchise qb taking the snaps this team will not be a serious team in the league.
ganesh Posted February 27, 2013 Posted February 27, 2013 Well stated and reasoned. One gets the feeling that this coaching staff and front office are are aligned in the approach they are going to take and that the will pursue players that fit their scheme. So far this staff has not done anything dramatic. They have made moves that were to be expected and made a lot of sense. They are not willy nilly taking apart the roster that a lot of new regimes often do so much as they are reworking the roster. Another thing I have liked about this staff is that they have not come out in the press and made any ra-ra statements about their moves. They are simply making their roster quietly to how they like it. The only surprising roster moves they have not made is on Kelsay and Spencer Johnson.
K-9 Posted February 27, 2013 Posted February 27, 2013 Marv Levy had a great saying: "You bring your team to camp." I think Marrone follows this line of thinking as well. It makes sense on a lot of levels but from a time management aspect, where every practice play is scripted and planned down to the minute, I can see a new staff especially not wanting to waste time and reps on a guy just to see how he's progressing after a major rehab. It's not like we're waiting to see what Calvin Johnson looks like coming back. Plus the new staff is privy to the current medical opinions on his condition. Perhaps that's played a roll in the decision. I also think they are looking hard at WR at 8 in the draft. Chandler may find himself in the same boat. GO BILLS!!!
JohnC Posted February 27, 2013 Posted February 27, 2013 Marv Levy had a great saying: "You bring your team to camp." I think Marrone follows this line of thinking as well. It makes sense on a lot of levels but from a time management aspect, where every practice play is scripted and planned down to the minute, I can see a new staff especially not wanting to waste time and reps on a guy just to see how he's progressing after a major rehab. It's not like we're waiting to see what Calvin Johnson looks like coming back. Plus the new staff is privy to the current medical opinions on his condition. Perhaps that's played a roll in the decision. I also think they are looking hard at WR at 8 in the draft. Chandler may find himself in the same boat. GO BILLS!!! I'm wondering what Troup's status is with the team. I know he is coming into camp but I'm not sure if he will continue to be plagued with back issues that will jeapordize his career.
BADOLBILZ Posted February 27, 2013 Posted February 27, 2013 Marv Levy had a great saying: "You bring your team to camp." I think Marrone follows this line of thinking as well. It makes sense on a lot of levels but from a time management aspect, where every practice play is scripted and planned down to the minute, I can see a new staff especially not wanting to waste time and reps on a guy just to see how he's progressing after a major rehab. It's not like we're waiting to see what Calvin Johnson looks like coming back. Plus the new staff is privy to the current medical opinions on his condition. Perhaps that's played a roll in the decision. I also think they are looking hard at WR at 8 in the draft. Chandler may find himself in the same boat. GO BILLS!!! "Everyone has a plan 'till they get punched in the mouth." That saying better sums up the Bills of the past 13 years. The Bills bring a team to camp, then they lead the entire league in injuries (according to a recent study). If Hackett is running a version of the gulf coast offense, then it would seem that Nelson would be worthwhile to have on the roster for cheap($1.3M minimum tender). Marques Colston is a big lumbering, sure handed receiver and he has been a star in that offense. Buddy Nix has indicated that he would like to see Stevie Johnson in the slot. This was Nelson's domain. That really is all the solid evidence we have to go on. The "$1.3M is more than the average WR gets paid" ,"ACL's are career ending injuries" and even the "he's a jesus worshipper which is annoying to the clubhouse" is mostly assinine speculation. If wanting to play Stevie in the slot is the answer, then the questions are: what about all of the nagging soft tissue injuries that Johnson fights thru? Will they be worsened by the more physical slot position AND will Stevie be ok with playing in the slot? If he is going to resist more contact after playing outside most of his career, then you still need a slot receiver, IMO.
Hapless Bills Fan Posted February 27, 2013 Posted February 27, 2013 (edited) Tired of reading this. If you sign him to his tender and he doesn't live up to expectations during TC you CUT HIM. So sorry you're tired. I hear Git 'n' Go and QuickTrip sell products for that, or there's always Four Loko The question to which I was responding was " But I just don't know why they let him walk for nothing." I don't think the overall concept is too abstruse: we have a certain pot of money we can use to bring in FA, resign our own players, and sign draftees. If we give $2 million here and $2 million there on spec, pretty soon we make "cap casualties" out of valued players who are key to resign (*cough* Byrd *cough* Levitre). We also box ourselves out of signing FA we might like to have. You can't keep everyone on the roster at $2 million a pop and cut them in camp. You have to make intelligent choices. Some here think that was not an intelligent choice, but we're not watching film and writing the playbook. Me, I don't feel I know enough about it - what system Marrone plans to run, how he thinks Nelson would do in that system, etcetera Edited February 27, 2013 by Hopeful
eball Posted February 27, 2013 Posted February 27, 2013 Marques Colston is a big lumbering, sure handed receiver and he has been a star in that offense. Please tell me you didn't just equate David Nelson with Marques Colston.
Hapless Bills Fan Posted February 27, 2013 Posted February 27, 2013 (edited) Please tell me you didn't just equate David Nelson with Marques Colston. I'm uncertain if that was the intent, or not. I mean, it's possible that if Nelson had been playing in NO with Drew Brees tossing to him, he'd have Colston-like numbers I think it's far more likely he'd be warming the bench in favor of a more physical, more elusive guy with better ability to beat the jam off the line and get open, but that's just me. Again, not trying to dis Nelson, he's a good young player but I'm not sure he's so exceptional that it's worth $2 million to keep him around. PS What's Colston's 2013 salary? Thought I heard $1.2 million. Edited February 27, 2013 by Hopeful
Dibs Posted February 27, 2013 Posted February 27, 2013 I'm uncertain if that was the intent, or not. I mean, it's possible that if Nelson had been playing in NO with Drew Brees tossing to him, he'd have Colston-like numbers I think it's far more likely he'd be warming the bench in favor of a more physical, more elusive guy with better ability to beat the jam off the line and get open, but that's just me. Again, not trying to dis Nelson, he's a good young player but I'm not sure he's so exceptional that it's worth $2 million to keep him around. PS What's Colston's 2013 salary? Thought I heard $1.2 million. Not too sure what your point with Colston is but... No, that was his 2012 salary. 1.2m salary....plus a 0.1m bonus....plus 2m of the 10m signing bonus money. 2013 he earns.....4.5m salary....plus a 0.1m bonus....plus 2m of the 10m signing bonus money. Overall his contract was 7.26m ave over 5 years.
Recommended Posts