ChanOverChin Posted May 10, 2013 Posted May 10, 2013 How dare the OP start a new thread on Dansby. How dare he. Thread Police, wheeeeerrrrrreee aaaaaaarrrrrrrreeeee you??
boyst Posted May 10, 2013 Posted May 10, 2013 Alright, I was not swayed much either way on getting him here to Buffalo. On one side I knew we needed a vet who could last 16 games if needed. On the other, I just was never a big fan of him and his play. In the end, if we got him ok, if not ok. However...I heard him being interviewed on Sirius. The guy comes off as all about the business, not very bright, and just a douche. He was asked about helping younger players and said that he would do it if they asked, etc. Said it was not worth selling his house in Arizona to go somewhere like Chicago, or changing his life for the half a mil he could have got elsewhere. When asked about other vets having a hard time signing he said it was a "travesty" guys like Urlacher, Woodson and others have not been signed. They had given their bodies up to the shield and worked hard and deserve to be paid. He just came off as non inspiring, non competitive and a player without drive interested in money. He at one point said that he thought the fair value of many vets was skewed and not fair... welcome to reality. Fair market value is not determined by the product. In this case, the product is the player. So, yeah, glad this guy is not on this roster. I am sure the coaches got the same feeling, though there are probably others not much different then him.
purple haze Posted May 10, 2013 Posted May 10, 2013 That's precisely the message. It's the reason why we won't make a play for a guy like Charles Woodson too, who, IMO, would be a steal on a one-year deal and give us a terrific secondary (and some insurance if Byrd holds out). This would also be a perfectly acceptable approach, if this were only the first rebuild. But we are on rebuild no. 5. The reason they won't make a play for a guy like Woodson is that HE IS OLD. He didn't pefrorm, last season, as he had in previous seasons. And he wants the same money he's used to making. The approach is young, fast, aggressive. If you're an older vet, you come for a price and not more than that. And I don't think they are rebuilding. Transistioning, yeah. They do have enough talent to win. The question is do we have a QB. As bad as the D was last season, if we had a QB there is three games they lost that could have easily been W's: NE on the road, Rams and Titans. That would have made them, what, 9-7? Not as far off as folks believe. IF they get good QB play.
Rubes Posted May 10, 2013 Author Posted May 10, 2013 How dare the OP start a new thread on Dansby. How dare he. Thread Police, wheeeeerrrrrreee aaaaaaarrrrrrrreeeee you?? Some folks might still be sore about my juvenile thread on the ugly jersey collars, so I can understand.
Miyagi-Do Karate Posted May 10, 2013 Posted May 10, 2013 There's also no reason that programs need rely upon free agent veterans in order to have success. We'll be starting last year's 4th rounder and this year's 2nd rounder at ILB. I don't disagree with that. If the reason we passed on Dansby is because we can get equal or better production out of these guys, then I am all for it. But if the reason is that we want to get young guys some experience so that they will be good in 3 years, then I think it's not a good move.
Perk71 Posted May 10, 2013 Posted May 10, 2013 Haven't you heard?? We're gonna go 11-3!! That was too funny! That thread had me cracking up
atlbillsfan1975 Posted May 10, 2013 Posted May 10, 2013 I don't disagree with that. If the reason we passed on Dansby is because we can get equal or better production out of these guys, then I am all for it. But if the reason is that we want to get young guys some experience so that they will be good in 3 years, then I think it's not a good move. Look at it this way, the Bills are not going to the Super Bowl this year. They will maybe have a shot in 2-3 years if the young guys pan out and the ones they sign over the next draft or two. The only way you find that out is by playing them.
billsfan89 Posted May 10, 2013 Posted May 10, 2013 we have 13 million in cap space not counting rookies and byrd. assuming the rookies cost us about 4-5, we can give byrd the contract that he deserves and be basically at cap. The 13 million includes Byrd's franchise tag number.
truth on hold Posted May 10, 2013 Posted May 10, 2013 we have 13 million in cap space not counting rookies and byrd. assuming the rookies cost us about 4-5, we can give byrd the contract that he deserves and be basically at cap. If those #'s are accurate that's the only good reason I can think of not to sign him. But I thought given our decision not to resign levite we had more than ample space to sign dansby, the rooks, and byrd to long term deal
Mark Vader Posted May 10, 2013 Posted May 10, 2013 and next to Da'Rick, the next best UDFA this year for Bills is probably ILB Keith Pough... seems to have some promise. two of the best ILBs of recent Ravens/Jets defenses were UD as well, so not like there isn't a track record (Ellerbe, Bart Scott). Oh well, the Bills tried and it did not work out, move on. I like Keith Pough as well. My concern is, even if we go with Alonso & Pough, they are still rookies and will have some growing pains. This is an area where we need depth, and would be good to have a veteran presence around.
billsfan89 Posted May 11, 2013 Posted May 11, 2013 Oh well, the Bills tried and it did not work out, move on. I like Keith Pough as well. My concern is, even if we go with Alonso & Pough, they are still rookies and will have some growing pains. This is an area where we need depth, and would be good to have a veteran presence around. Bart Scott is still a free agent, wouldn't be a bad guy to bring in as a backup. We are really devoid of depth at MLB, and it helps that he knows the new defensive system.
JPS Posted May 11, 2013 Posted May 11, 2013 Seems like the perfect thing to post in the existing Dansby thread on page 37.
Green Lightning Posted May 11, 2013 Posted May 11, 2013 (edited) Seems like the perfect thing to post in the existing Dansby thread Yeah 40 pages in where it's virtually inaccessible on a mobile device. Hurray for the new thread. Edited May 11, 2013 by Green Lightning
Captain Hindsight Posted May 11, 2013 Posted May 11, 2013 Absolutely puzzling to me why we didn't sign him. A one-year deal.... Shocking the Bills didnt hold him down til he signed it. Buddy must be losing his touch
bowery4 Posted May 11, 2013 Posted May 11, 2013 Alright, I was not swayed much either way on getting him here to Buffalo. On one side I knew we needed a vet who could last 16 games if needed. On the other, I just was never a big fan of him and his play. In the end, if we got him ok, if not ok. However...I heard him being interviewed on Sirius. The guy comes off as all about the business, not very bright, and just a douche. He was asked about helping younger players and said that he would do it if they asked, etc. Said it was not worth selling his house in Arizona to go somewhere like Chicago, or changing his life for the half a mil he could have got elsewhere. When asked about other vets having a hard time signing he said it was a "travesty" guys like Urlacher, Woodson and others have not been signed. They had given their bodies up to the shield and worked hard and deserve to be paid. He just came off as non inspiring, non competitive and a player without drive interested in money. He at one point said that he thought the fair value of many vets was skewed and not fair... welcome to reality. Fair market value is not determined by the product. In this case, the product is the player. So, yeah, glad this guy is not on this roster. I am sure the coaches got the same feeling, though there are probably others not much different then him. It is interesting that really the new labor agreement brought this about. I wonder how the over 30s, who are good players but not exactly elite and finding it hard to renegotiate or even find teams when in the past they would have, are feeling about the votes they cast in favor of it now. It seems like they kind of got screwed by it. The average age of the league seems to be dropping (that is just an opinion and if someone knows how to look it up I would be interested to see it).
The Poojer Posted May 11, 2013 Posted May 11, 2013 what are we going to do in the other 3 games??? Haven't you heard?? We're gonna go 11-3!!
bowery4 Posted May 11, 2013 Posted May 11, 2013 I don't disagree with that. If the reason we passed on Dansby is because we can get equal or better production out of these guys, then I am all for it. But if the reason is that we want to get young guys some experience so that they will be good in 3 years, then I think it's not a good move. Throw them into the fire, see how they do. I think learning during the games is much better than just practicing. JMO, I think you play the best guys you have on your roster. If Manual wins the competition, go for it. This sitting behind the older more experienced but less talented player, I don't see how that really helps (I know some will say but look at Kap last year and how sitting behind Smith helped him but the truth is they had 2 good QBs). I think Stevie would have blossomed earlier had Jaroun had faith in him, Fred too. I am kind of glad they sat because we get more time out of them because less wear and tear but really, they both looked great in preseason and sat. I just still don't get that. what are we going to do in the other 3 games??? There's 3 more games? When did they add those?
Mr. WEO Posted May 11, 2013 Posted May 11, 2013 (edited) Alright, I was not swayed much either way on getting him here to Buffalo. On one side I knew we needed a vet who could last 16 games if needed. On the other, I just was never a big fan of him and his play. In the end, if we got him ok, if not ok. However...I heard him being interviewed on Sirius. The guy comes off as all about the business, not very bright, and just a douche. He was asked about helping younger players and said that he would do it if they asked, etc. Said it was not worth selling his house in Arizona to go somewhere like Chicago, or changing his life for the half a mil he could have got elsewhere. When asked about other vets having a hard time signing he said it was a "travesty" guys like Urlacher, Woodson and others have not been signed. They had given their bodies up to the shield and worked hard and deserve to be paid. He just came off as non inspiring, non competitive and a player without drive interested in money. He at one point said that he thought the fair value of many vets was skewed and not fair... welcome to reality. Fair market value is not determined by the product. In this case, the product is the player. So, yeah, glad this guy is not on this roster. I am sure the coaches got the same feeling, though there are probably others not much different then him. Well, it is all about the business. Why shouldn't he acknowledge that? Wasn't he just dumped by the Dolphins? And by voicing his opinion that (and sticking up for) veterans like himself, Urlacher and others are worth more than they are paid, he's all about money? And by turning down an extra half a mil to go to a place he doesn;t want to be--that's all about the money too? And since his home has been in AZ for many years, why would he sell it? He kept it when he was with the Fins. By reports, he had over half a dozen teams after him. He took the one that was the best fit for him. (from ESPN): "It made a lot of sense," the linebacker said Friday after signing a one-year deal to return to the desert. "My whole team is here, Team Dansby. Everything I need is right here, so it was a no-brainer." Arizona was where he started his career, where his home and cars are, base camp for his support group, from his nutritionist to personal trainer and the person who helps him stretch. "It was frustrating with the release and a humbling situation, but I knew God had a plan for me," Dansby said. "To be able to come back this way is unbelievable. When the opportunity presented itself, it was one I had to take." This makes him a "douche"? It is interesting that really the new labor agreement brought this about. I wonder how the over 30s, who are good players but not exactly elite and finding it hard to renegotiate or even find teams when in the past they would have, are feeling about the votes they cast in favor of it now. It seems like they kind of got screwed by it. The average age of the league seems to be dropping (that is just an opinion and if someone knows how to look it up I would be interested to see it). http://bloggingthebeast.com/2013/04/08/how-many-players-over-the-age-of-30-are-on-your-team-the-giants-lead-the-nfl-with-16/ According to this, there are, on average, only about 8 players on each roster over 30 years of age. Therefore the overwhelming majority of players are under 30 and the majority of them are not in their rookie contracts any longer (not at the old salaries anyway). These vets voted for the CBA because it opened up a ton of money on every teams cap for vets; money that used to be wasted on rookies in the first 2 rounds or so. GMs deciding not to overpay aging vets is not a new phenomenon or directly related to the new CBA. Edited May 11, 2013 by Mr. WEO
San Jose Bills Fan Posted May 11, 2013 Posted May 11, 2013 Regardless the root or secondary causes, veteran players in the 7+ years experience range do seem to be viewed more unfavorably than ever before by NFL teams. Sometimes the sequence of events is almost unbelievable. Last June John Abraham signed a 3-year, $17 million contract with the Falcons and less than a year later he was released, after leading the team in sacks with 10. I'm not quite sure what's going on here but there's definitely something affecting the market. I think part of it is the flatness of the cap due to the new CBA.
Recommended Posts