Why I am not optimistic about this team

[Ozymandius]

Really? So what happened with Vince Young, JaMarcus Russell, Tim Tebow?

 

Of your three examples, two throw like a girl, i.e. physical ability. Only Russell really qualifies as having a million-dollar arm talent but a 10-cent head. But then again, I don't believe his point was that you can get away with zero mental ability. Just that it's easier mentally to play the position nowadays.

[Coach Tuesday]

I don't want to quibble or have a discussion that goes in circles. What is needed more than anything else from this historically malfunctioning franchise is not having the mind-set that it has to act out of desperation. That is a bad approach to take. The mind-set should focus simply on doing the right thing and functioning at a high competency level as a general practice. Acting out of desperation with a short term perspective is not the right approach to take. It's about time that this erratic franchise act in a more stable and purposeful manner.

 

If this franchise functions at a reasonably smart level over a two or three year time frame then it will get back into being relevant. You stated that the Bills are not the Steelers. You are certainly right about that. The reason that the Bills aren't like the Steelers is because the Bills under the auspices of a buffoon owner has created an environment of constant change. It seems that every three years or so there is a change of administrations. The characteristic that most epitomizes the Steelers and the Ravens is stability in the coaching staff and front office.

 

Excuse me for seeming to be judgmental but you and NYC Bill have allowed the Levitre transaction to cloud your perspective on everything. Let it go and look at the bigger picture. Don't get me wrong I'm not saying you are wrong on the Levitre issue---you make a good case for his retention. But in the NFL player movement is a common occurrence. Because of the cap all teams are required to make many judgments on players. Some work out and some don't.

 

I'm confident that if Manuel shows promise as a qb in his rookie year that your attention to the Levitre departure will mostly fade. I don't want to sound like a hypocrite but if the Bills don't come up with a deal on Byrd then I will be joining your camp with a lot more aggression and hostility.

 

I respect your argument JohnC, but here is my issue with it: it appears to hinge on the assumption that the Bills do not put a premium value on the LG and FS positions.

 

I am not sure your assumption is correct.

 

By all accounts, the Bills were very interested in retaining Levitre, and continue to be interested in retaining Byrd. For all we know, the Bills made a competitive offer to Levitre, and we *know* they've made offers to Byrd that are $1-$2 million per year less than what Byrd wants - but still a lot of money.

 

So it's not like the Bills simply made a decision that the LG and FS positions can capably be filled by replacement-level players, as one might do, say, with the backup RB position, the TE position, etc. To the contrary, it appears that the Bills were prepared to spend plenty of money to retain these players, but decided to move on over about $1-$2 million per year, for each of them (that's an assumption with Levitre - we don't know the details).

 

So I'd argue that what happened here isn't about the Bills' view on the value of LG and FS, but rather, came down to the price the Bills put on these two specific players, which they refused to stray from. It seems to me that the Bills simply decided that Levitre and Byrd, in particular, aren't worth the extra couple million that they'll get on the open market. We've seen this kind of scenario play out with the Bills throughout this offseason, and previous offseasons. For example, this offseason, the Bills wined and dined TE Fred Davis, but let him walk out the door and re-up with the Redskins over a million or so dollars. It seems to me that the Bills' negotiating style (which I trace to Overdorf) is to come up with a bottom-line number for particular players, and stick to it no matter what - ironically, very similar to what Parker does.

 

The problem is that the Bills aren't all that good at understanding the market values of players, both on their own roster and elsewhere. It's also a problem that the "market" is somewhat skewed in Buffalo - the Bills probably have to pay a bit more at this point to land/retain good players, because of the overall crappiness of the franchise (and location, but as we know, you fall in love with WNY once you spend time there). I'm not sure that OBD understands or acknowledges that it may have to add a premium to it's assigned price for a player because of this dynamic.

 

The result is that once the bidding (or perceived bidding) gets to be a dollar or more higher than OBD's bottom line, they simply walk away - and many good players walk out the door, or never walk in the door.

 

So in sum, I don't think I agree that the Levitre and Byrd situations are the product of calculated position-based resource-allocation decisions from a competent franchise. I think it's just as likely that Overdorf crunched some numbers, came up with a price for each player, and then stuck to his guns.

 

The problem with this strategy is that it's very dependent on the guy assigning the values, and it also makes it more difficult to proactively replace players.

[ganesh]

Don't be surprised if the Bills add a veteran guard off the street. Some times you can get good value from dumpster diving.

 

Some times is a very small chance to find good value. Often, we will continue to find the garbage like Green a few seasons ago.

[eball]

My issue with the Levitre situation is that, as Andy said, the Bills decided to not even put their hat in the ring. They (correctly) determined he was one of the more prized players going into the market, and didn't even make an effort. Now part of that might be that they valued Byrd more and decided the cash outlay for two upper tier players wouldn't look good for their bottom line. But, if you objectively consider that statement, it is an anti-motivation for the Bills to execute the "Buddy Plan" and draft well and keep their own. Their cash flow equations can never be optimized for the business if they have to try to sign players that are truly among the very best at their positions to second contracts; that is, pay the going freight league-wide. Instead, it smacks of business as usual. Team building amounts to hoping young guys come in guns blazing and outplay their rookie contracts (optimizing value to cost) and back fill the holes with budget contracts to journeyman that you hope can get coached up enough to not completely suck and maybe sprinkle in a marquee name once in a while to spark some fan interest.

 

I believe some are overcomplicating the Levitre situation. In my opinion, the way the Bills handled this is not indicative of a "plan" to let rookies who become top players walk after their first contract -- it's a case study in how they evaluate different positions on the roster, which anyone can and should debate. LG is not a position for which they are willing to pay top dollar. Obviously DE is. They re-signed and/or extended stars like Kyle Williams, Stevie Johnson, and Fred Jackson. I think the Byrd situation shows us they aren't willing to pay absolute top money for a FS.

 

If I had to identify a strategy in how the Bills are pursuing contracts, it would be that they don't want to be the "market leader" unless it's at an elite position.

 

Anyway, I don't want this post construed as me blindly supporting the organization -- although I do agree with letting Levitre walk without "putting a hat in the ring" if the Bills rightly knew what his price would be (and we have no reason to believe otherwise).

[Sisyphean Bills]

Of your three examples, two throw like a girl, i.e. physical ability. Only Russell really qualifies as having a million-dollar arm talent but a 10-cent head. But then again, I don't believe his point was that you can get away with zero mental ability. Just that it's easier mentally to play the position nowadays.

Eh, well, I never thought Young's problem was his arm. His problem seemed to be that he thought the world owed him boundless success. Tebow has awful mechanics, but he did take an NFL team to the playoffs. The spotlight that comes with that guy is blinding to the rest of the organization though...

[ganesh]

Eh, well, I never thought Young's problem was his arm. His problem seemed to be that he thought the world owed him boundless success. Tebow has awful mechanics, but he did take an NFL team to the playoffs. The spotlight that comes with that guy is blinding to the rest of the organization though...

 

Tim Tebow is another Flutie and both came from Florida!

[Sisyphean Bills]

I believe some are overcomplicating the Levitre situation. In my opinion, the way the Bills handled this is not indicative of a "plan" to let rookies who become top players walk after their first contract -- it's a case study in how they evaluate different positions on the roster, which anyone can and should debate. LG is not a position for which they are willing to pay top dollar. Obviously DE is. They re-signed and/or extended stars like Kyle Williams, Stevie Johnson, and Fred Jackson. I think the Byrd situation shows us they aren't willing to pay absolute top money for a FS.

 

If I had to identify a strategy in how the Bills are pursuing contracts, it would be that they don't want to be the "market leader" unless it's at an elite position.

 

Anyway, I don't want this post construed as me blindly supporting the organization -- although I do agree with letting Levitre walk without "putting a hat in the ring" if the Bills rightly knew what his price would be (and we have no reason to believe otherwise).

 

Levitre is not as isolated a case as some would wish. (On the other hand, the Bills have drafted poorly enough in recent years that the "bind" of having to re-sign the unmitigated busts that they've drafted does not occur too often.) Ask Bill in NYC about the CB ferris wheel or the RB merry-go-round. (There are several examples of OL players that have been traded, cut, or ignored in free agency to paint a picture there as well.)

 

I'm not saying they shouldn't try to be disciplined on their spending, etc. They're going to run the business as they see fit anyway; and, they have done exactly that.

 

The point though is why throw top picks cyclically at a G, FS, CB, RB ... and just keep spinning the wheels in the mud? OK, they re-signed Leodis McKelvin (for a change) but that guy has zero ball skills and can't crack the starting lineup against guys with walkers and canes... How do you feel if Wood leaves and Spiller gets tagged and traded for example? Is it still, "gee, all teams lose players and besides saving money for more valuable positions is a better plan?" And what positions are we talking about anyway? QB? Manuel is on his rookie capped-by-rule contract. If he turns out to be the real deal, he's a bargain.

 

PS: The "money saving" of the Gailey-era went to Super Mario who was supposed to make the Wannstedt defense emerge. Calling that a train wreck is an understatement.

[JohnC]

I respect your argument JohnC, but here is my issue with it: it appears to hinge on the assumption that the Bills do not put a premium value on the LG and FS positions.

 

I am not sure your assumption is correct.

 

By all accounts, the Bills were very interested in retaining Levitre, and continue to be interested in retaining Byrd. For all we know, the Bills made a competitive offer to Levitre, and we *know* they've made offers to Byrd that are $1-$2 million per year less than what Byrd wants - but still a lot of money.

 

So it's not like the Bills simply made a decision that the LG and FS positions can capably be filled by replacement-level players, as one might do, say, with the backup RB position, the TE position, etc. To the contrary, it appears that the Bills were prepared to spend plenty of money to retain these players, but decided to move on over about $1-$2 million per year, for each of them (that's an assumption with Levitre - we don't know the details).

 

So I'd argue that what happened here isn't about the Bills' view on the value of LG and FS, but rather, came down to the price the Bills put on these two specific players, which they refused to stray from. It seems to me that the Bills simply decided that Levitre and Byrd, in particular, aren't worth the extra couple million that they'll get on the open market. We've seen this kind of scenario play out with the Bills throughout this offseason, and previous offseasons. For example, this offseason, the Bills wined and dined TE Fred Davis, but let him walk out the door and re-up with the Redskins over a million or so dollars. It seems to me that the Bills' negotiating style (which I trace to Overdorf) is to come up with a bottom-line number for particular players, and stick to it no matter what - ironically, very similar to what Parker does.

 

The problem is that the Bills aren't all that good at understanding the market values of players, both on their own roster and elsewhere. It's also a problem that the "market" is somewhat skewed in Buffalo - the Bills probably have to pay a bit more at this point to land/retain good players, because of the overall crappiness of the franchise (and location, but as we know, you fall in love with WNY once you spend time there). I'm not sure that OBD understands or acknowledges that it may have to add a premium to it's assigned price for a player because of this dynamic.

 

The result is that once the bidding (or perceived bidding) gets to be a dollar or more higher than OBD's bottom line, they simply walk away - and many good players walk out the door, or never walk in the door.

 

So in sum, I don't think I agree that the Levitre and Byrd situations are the product of calculated position-based resource-allocation decisions from a competent franchise. I think it's just as likely that Overdorf crunched some numbers, came up with a price for each player, and then stuck to his guns.

 

The problem with this strategy is that it's very dependent on the guy assigning the values, and it also makes it more difficult to proactively replace players.

 

Your response is very thoughtful but there are some points that I disagree with.

 

Your discription of the pursuit of TE Fred Davis is not accurate. The Bills offered this injured and rehabilitating TE a good contract. It was more luctrative than what the Redskins gave him. He decided that he preferred to stay with the Skins on a minimal one year deal and play for his next contract this upcoming season. That is his prerogtive. The Bills were more than fair and reasonable in their negotiations with him. Sometimes you make the sale and sometimes you don't. You then move on and go on to option B.

 

With respect to the Levitre ordeal I'm confident that they would have liked to have kept him. But they weren't going outside their financial boundary for the guard. It's not so much that they didn't value the position as much it became an issue of making a cost/benefit calculation on the player and the position. Levite got a generous contract from the Titans. More power to him----I'm happy for him. The market spoke. What was right for the Titans wasn't necessarily right for the Bills, at least that is how they judged the issue.

 

The mistake many people are making in interpreting the Levitre transaction (my opinion) is that they are using it as being emblematic as business as usual. My position is that it isn't necessarily so. Some people are conflating the Byrd and Levire contract issues. They shouldn't. For one the Bills tendered Byrd indicating that they have a willingness to keep him and even pay him at an elevated price range. The tender rate is not chump change. The Bryd contract scenario is not over-----at least that is how I currently see.

 

The Bills fans are understandably like beaten puppies. Like the abused puppy every time someone raises their hand there is an assumption that an ass-whopping is coming. Maybe it isn't so? Just maybe the perceived abuser is simply scratching an irritating itch behind his ear.

 

Anyone who has followed my many very often annoying posts know that I am not an apologist for this lumbering franchise. Just because the prior predictable cycle of regime changes have not brought anything really new to the table doesn't mean that everything this regime does should be tainted by the franchise's pathetic history.

 

The mistake many people are making (my opinion) is over-analyzing individual transactiions with a juandiced eye without considering the totality of the numerous transactions. Widen the context and the tentative early judgment would improve and be more encouraging. I'm far from being naive. There is still a long way to go. But moving in the right directiion is certainly better than moving in the wrong direction.

Edited July 22, 2013 by JohnC

[Coach Tuesday]

Your response is very thoughtful but there are some points that I disagree with.

 

Your discription of the pursuit of TE Fred Davis is not accurate. The Bills offered this injured and rehabilitating TE a good contract. It was more luctrative than what the Redskins gave him. He decided that he preferred to stay with the Skins on a minimal one year deal and play for his next contract this upcoming season. That is his prerogtive. The Bills were more than fair and reasonable in their negotiations with him. Sometimes you make the sale and sometimes you don't. You then move on and go on to option B.

 

With respect to the Levitre ordeal I'm confident that they would have liked to have kept him. But they weren't going outside their financial boundary for the guard. It's not so much that they didn't value the position as much it became an issue of making a cost/benefit calculation on the player and the position. Levite got a generous contract from the Titans. More power to him----I'm happy for him. The market spoke. What was right for the Titans wasn't necessarily right for the Bills, at least that is how they judged the issue.

 

The mistake many people are making in interpreting the Levitre transaction (my opinion) is that they are using it as being emblematic as business as usual. My position is that it isn't necessarily so. Some people are conflating the Byrd and Levire contract issues. They shouldn't. For one the Bills tendered Byrd indicating that they have a willingness to keep him and even pay him at an elevated price range. The tender rate is not chump change. The Bryd contract scenario is over-----at least that is how I currently see.

 

The Bills fans are understandably like beaten puppies. Like the abused puppy every time someone raises their hand there is an assumption that an ass-whopping is coming. Maybe it isn't so? Just maybe the perceived abuser is simply scratching an irritating itch behind his ear.

 

Anyone who has followed my many very often annoying posts know that I am not an apologist for this lumbering franchise. Just because the prior predictable cycle of regime changes have not brought anything really new to the table doesn't mean that everything this regime does should be tainted by the franchise's pathetic history.

 

The mistake many people are making (my opinion) is over-analyzing individual transactiions with a juandiced eye without considering the totality of the numerous transactions. Widen the context and the tentative early judgment would improve and be more encouraging. I'm far from being naive. There is still a long way to go. But moving in the right directiion is certainly better than moving in the wrong direction.

 

So can we agree that the proof will be in the way they handle Wood and Spiller? If you're right, the Bills will be aggressive in retaining them (assuming they value the center position and the Amazingly Dynamic Playmaking Scorer position). If I'm right, the Bills will allow themselves to be outbid and will move on from one or both of them.

Edited July 22, 2013 by Coach Tuesday

[chris heff]

 

Correct. Once Ralph passes on, all bets are off, it's all business at that point. If a buyer pays $800m for something, I believe he or she can do whatever they want with it. I personally believe the Bills are moving to L.A. to Farmers Field paid for by someone else. All they need now is a team and the stadium will be built by 2016. All other options either require a stadium to be built (expensive and slow) or are outside the U.S. (total wild card for an owner trying to attract players and coaches). The NFL very much wants a team in L.A. Then the Chiefs can finally move out of that division and into the North, with Ravens joining the AFC East. We need to hope Ralph lives to be 100.

The Rams, Raiders, and Chargers are all ahead of the Bills.

[RuntheDamnBall]

The Pats don't even pay their best player a market deal. Remember the hubbub Ton Brady caused when he signed an extension that was millions lower than deals by other lesser QBs? Supposedly it was to free up money to sign/keep talent. Jokes on you, Tom.

 

PTR

Brady makes more endorsement and appearance money than his contracts will ever pay him; you can bank on that.

 

I am sure he is crying tears in his castle with his supermodel wife and rings. I hate the Patriots but until they become less successful than the Bills, there is no denying that I want the Bills to be what they are.

[Best Player Available]

So can we agree that the proof will be in the way they handle Wood and Spiller? If you're right, the Bills will be aggressive in retaining them (assuming they value the center position and the Amazingly Dynamic Playmaking Scorer position). If I'm right, the Bills will allow themselves to be outbid and will move on from one or both of them.

Scary but not impossible scenario in regards to Spiller. That OBD will decide that running backs are no longer a premium position in today's NFL (see pats* among others) and a "waterbug is not what we want in our running game.

[ganesh]

The Rams, Raiders, and Chargers are all ahead of the Bills.

And the JAX too. Also, one must not forget the UK connections of current Tampa Bay Owner.

[CodeMonkey]

Scary but not impossible scenario in regards to Spiller. That OBD will decide that running backs are no longer a premium position in today's NFL (see pats* among others) and a "waterbug is not what we want in our running game.

New HC, new OC, should be able to get premium value for Spiller assuming he has a good season. Would seem to be a possible scenario. But would make the board blowups this off season look like popcorn farts by comparison

[PromoTheRobot]

Brady makes more endorsement and appearance money than his contracts will ever pay him; you can bank on that.

 

I am sure he is crying tears in his castle with his supermodel wife and rings. I hate the Patriots but until they become less successful than the Bills, there is no denying that I want the Bills to be what they are.

 

So maybe the Bills should take that approach with Byrd, no? "C'mon, Jairus. You'll make millions in appearance fees!"

 

PTR

[RuntheDamnBall]

So maybe the Bills should take that approach with Byrd, no? "C'mon, Jairus. You'll make millions in appearance fees!"

 

PTR

The only way Pro Bowl safeties make that kind of jack is if they have crazy-ass hair.

[PromoTheRobot]

I am sick of the Bills moving discussion. I have been hearing it since 1968. The only team that could move to LA is the Rams and even that is unlikely. LA and CA are a financial train wreck, which means no public money. A year ago there were two alleged stadium deals, one is all but dead and the other you never hear anything about.

 

No professional sports team is ever moving to Las Vegas, not after the NBA Allstar game debacle.

 

Next biggest market is San Antonio and no way Jerry Jones lets that happen.

 

http://mmqb.si.com/2013/07/20/the-boss/

 

Jerruh wants the NFL in L.A. NOW!! There are no expansion plans so it would have to be an existing franchise. Rams are most vulnerable right now, not to mention the most historically connected team to L.A. But don't sleep on the Bills just yet.

 

PTR

[thewildrabbit]

Of your three examples, two throw like a girl, i.e. physical ability. Only Russell really qualifies as having a million-dollar arm talent but a 10-cent head. But then again, I don't believe his point was that you can get away with zero mental ability. Just that it's easier mentally to play the position nowadays.

That statement I quoted from him was utterly absurd as the mental game is still a very large part of playing in the NFL. Kinda why every team out there graded Andrew Luck as the next Peyton Manning.

 

The league is always encountering QB's that lack the mental acuity to adapt to the QB position in the NFL, and always will be. Jeff George, JP Losman, Vince Young with a wonderlic of 6 http://www.theonion.com/articles/report-vince-young-may-not-be-smart-enough-to-play,1909/

 

Reading defenses, setting line protections, being able to audible and or call your own plays, knowing the rule book, and usually why it takes four years to develop a QB. Almost all of them enter the NFL with the physical ability to play the position, and some have much more physical ability then others as with the case of those three QB's I mentioned, and all three have strong arms. Its their inability to mentally adapt to the position in the NFL that caused their failure.

[reddogblitz]

Its their inability to mentally adapt to the position in the NFL that caused their failure.

In JP's case at least it was also because he was not a very accurate passer.

[JohnC]

Some times is a very small chance to find good value. Often, we will continue to find the garbage like Green a few seasons ago.

 

Urbik and Pears were good value pickups.