Mark Anderson released.

[Fan in Chicago]

question is, what happens now with Eric Wood? ... Two years ago, Buddy Nix was looking forward to having his offensive line intact for the long run. This year, it's unclear.

 

this is but one symptom of the Bills never-ending carousel of change that's dominated the past 13 seasons. new GMs are so busy filling the needs of their new coach, that by the time things appear set, a new GM and coach have arrived. so, a case could be made that Mark Anderson and Fitzpatrick's contract ate up some of the room to re-sign players such as Levitre and Byrd a year ago. Barnett and Merriman, too.

 

jw

 

I dont want to hijack this thread any more than I already have but will make some points. First of all, I am fully on board with Anderson's release. What I am not okay with the disastrous efforts to sign the likes of Merriman and Anderson to fix the lack of pass rush. At the time they were signed, I gave the FO the benefit of doubt but in retrospect, it was misplaced confidence.

Secondly, I don't want the next two years to roll along with an inability to retain key guys like Wood and CJ. The problem I have regarding the money aspect is that some are not retained due to money presumably saving money for more important signings in the future years. But these 'key' signings requiring big money don't happen consistently enough to build a winner.

As always, I will hold out hope that this has changed with Whaley. As we stand right now, we are woefully thin at several positions and have unproven players at several also.

Edited July 25, 2013 by Fan in Chicago

[Delete This Account]

that said, i don't understand the point K-9 attempts to make in regards to criticizing Sullivan's point. Jerry suggests the Bills would rather waste money by over-paying and then cutting a free agent after one season, rather than over-paying on a player who has proven himself in Buffalo over four years.

 

am i missing something there, given that the money the Bills are in for tagging Byrd plus the money they lost on Anderson all could've been used toward retaining Byrd to a long-term deal, no?

 

jw

 

oh, for those keeping track, i can now be accused of "shilling" for Jerry.

Edited July 25, 2013 by john wawrow

[uncle flap]

question is, what happens now with Eric Wood? ... Two years ago, Buddy Nix was looking forward to having his offensive line intact for the long run. This year, it's unclear.

 

this is but one symptom of the Bills never-ending carousel of change that's dominated the past 13 seasons. new GMs are so busy filling the needs of their new coach, that by the time things appear set, a new GM and coach have arrived. so, a case could be made that Mark Anderson and Fitzpatrick's contract ate up some of the room to re-sign players such as Levitre and Byrd a year ago. Barnett and Merriman, too.

 

jw

 

Both Byrd and Levitre were on record as stating they wanted to test free agency. How early should the Bills be vying to extend them? Injuries, personnel, and coaching changes are a part of the game. Isn't it more prudent to see how things unfold with a player who is already under contract?

 

And what is Byrd or Levitre or any other player's incentive to re-sign early? Especially when one considers the team and coaching staff in many ways have in disarray. It's far better for both sides to keep their respective options open.

 

To some people, (not you, jw), it's a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" scenario. I imagine many of the people claiming Ralph & Co. are cheap would be the same people claiming that the Bills overspent on marginal talent.

[K-9]

but every team in the NFL has made the playoffs at least once since 2000. the one exception is the Buffalo Bills. not sure how you repeating this "every team" claim is justifiable in this instance.

 

jw

'

And yet the Bills were the second most winning team in the 1990s with the same miser and his minions counting the beans in his vault in Michigan.

 

With some of the highest paid players and coaches in the league to boot.

 

You tell me what the difference is between then and now. I've already stated my opinion.

 

GO BILLS!!!

[Delete This Account]

Both Byrd and Levitre were on record as stating they wanted to test free agency. How early should the Bills be vying to extend them? Injuries, personnel, and coaching changes are a part of the game. Isn't it more prudent to see how things unfold with a player who is already under contract?

 

And what is Byrd or Levitre or any other player's incentive to re-sign early? Especially when one considers the team and coaching staff in many ways have in disarray. It's far better for both sides to keep their respective options open.

 

To some people, (not you, jw), it's a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" scenario. I imagine many of the people claiming Ralph & Co. are cheap would be the same people claiming that the Bills overspent on marginal talent.

 

that's not what either Byrd or Levitre told me a year ago, or last October for that matter. they both became interested in testing free agency the closer the season came to a close.

 

jw

 

'

And yet the Bills were the second most winning team in the 1990s with the same miser and his minions counting the beans in his vault in Michigan.

 

With some of the highest paid players and coaches in the league to boot.

 

You tell me what the difference is between then and now. I've already stated my opinion.

 

GO BILLS!!!

 

c'mon. what's the difference? it's free-agency. since 1993, after Plan B free agency was struck down, the Buffalo Bills have won a grand total of 3 playoff games. and they've not appeared in one playoff game since the final core of the Super Bowl era teams was dismantled in February 2000.

 

it seems to me you're proving my point.

 

jw

Edited July 25, 2013 by john wawrow

[K-9]

that said, i don't understand the point K-9 attempts to make in regards to criticizing Sullivan's point. Jerry suggests the Bills would rather waste money by over-paying and then cutting a free agent after one season, rather than over-paying on a player who has proven himself in Buffalo over four years.

 

am i missing something there, given that the money the Bills are in for tagging Byrd plus the money they lost on Anderson all could've been used toward retaining Byrd to a long-term deal, no?

 

jw

 

oh, for those keeping track, i can now be accused of "shilling" for Jerry.

 

I'm sorry, did the Bills make Mark Anderson the 4th highest paid DE in the league last year? That would have been overpaying him. They didn't overpay him by a cent given the type of season he was coming off of and the type of player that Wanny was hoping to get. It didn't work out.

 

The Bills should be commended for realizing that Anderson isn't the player they want in their new scheme and showing their willingness cut ties even AFTER a sizable investment. Indeed, Sullivan has written columns in the past suggesting the Bills were incapable of this as well.

 

Sully comes across as football illiterate when he makes money comparisons between DEs and FSs in this league.

 

GO BILLS!!!

[JohnC]

Smart or not isn't the question. The Bills do plenty of stupid things. Your intractable point of view prevents you from remotely being able to consider the accompanying football-related issues that led up to the release of every player mentioned. When savings meets football reasons, that player is gone. Just like EVERY TEAM IN THE LEAGUE.

 

GO BILLS!!!

 

Of course every team in the league makes player judgments based on talent and salary. No one is disputing that. That is obvious to everyone. The point I and many others have made is that with respect to the Bills they have a history of skewing the balance to the financial side of the operation. If you disagree with that judgment then so be it. The Bills have been in business for more than half a century. Their record is historically bad. It is my view that a lot of that (not all) can be attributed to the business side of the operation.

 

Smart or not isn't the question. The Bills do plenty of stupid things.

 

Even someone who is accused of having an intractable view can recognize something that is so obvious.

[K-9]

that's not what either Byrd or Levitre told me a year ago, or last October for that matter. they both became interested in testing free agency the closer the season came to a close.

 

jw

 

 

 

c'mon. what's the difference? it's free-agency. since 1993, after Plan B free agency was struck down, the Buffalo Bills have won a grand total of 3 playoff games. and they've not appeared in one playoff game since the final core of the Super Bowl era teams was dismantled in February 2000.

 

it seems to me you're proving my point.

 

jw

 

Free agency is the difference? Not the lack of superior personnel they enjoyed, especially at the QB position? Really? So if the miser and his minions had only signed expensive free agents all this time, things would have been different? It has nothing to do with inferior GMs, coaches, and players? Nothing to do with the lack of franchise talent at the most important position in sports?

 

I doubt I'm making ANY point for you here. I'll be damned if I know what it is to begin with.

 

GO BILLS!!!

[uncle flap]

that's not what either Byrd or Levitre told me a year ago, or last October for that matter. they both became interested in testing free agency the closer the season came to a close.

 

jw

 

 

Very interesting. Thanks for the insight. I was basing that on statements made in December, so I wonder what changed. Was it that the Bills were unwilling to negotiate, or that their offers were far below market value?

 

Again, and I'm not expecting a definitive answer from anyone, when is the appropriate time to get these extensions done? When is too early? When is it too late?

 

Rhetorical ?s of course, but my point is that there seems to be a very small window when a player is going to be looking for that security and when a team is willing to make a substantial offer that doesn't handcuff their options for the future.

 

I would certainly agree that Levitre and Byrd both qualify as good enough players to plan your team's future around (to an extent), but I can only imagine the outrage here if Byrd and Levitre were signed to 6 or 7 Mil/yr contracts. Those figures would've seemed high without context, as now they would seem like a deal.

[Delete This Account]

I'm sorry, did the Bills make Mark Anderson the 4th highest paid DE in the league last year? That would have been overpaying him. They didn't overpay him by a cent given the type of season he was coming off of and the type of player that Wanny was hoping to get. It didn't work out.

 

The Bills should be commended for realizing that Anderson isn't the player they want in their new scheme and showing their willingness cut ties even AFTER a sizable investment. Indeed, Sullivan has written columns in the past suggesting the Bills were incapable of this as well.

 

Sully comes across as football illiterate when he makes money comparisons between DEs and FSs in this league.

 

GO BILLS!!!

 

they didn't make Mark Anderson the 4th highest paid DE, but they certainly threw money at him despite questions of his ability, and whether his production was a result of scheme and fit in the Patriots' defense. but i think you miss the point of the matter here. what the Bills are being accused of at this point is lacking the foresight to manage their self-imposed salary cap limitations. too often, over the past 6-7 seasons, the Bills have lacked experienced depth at several positions at which they could've used some of the players they cut.

 

Langston Walker and Geoff Hangartner were valuable assets to a team that elected to instead go thin with youth on the O-line by releasing both players.

the same could be said in regards to Spencer Johnson.

and then there was the absolutely wrong decision to not re-sign Pat Williams -- something that no one is using hindsight to argue. many cases were made at the time that Pat Williams was too valuable of an asset to lose.

 

and i think you'd agree that Byrd and Levitre were far more valuable assets than the decision to spend and waste money on Mark Anderson. heck, given how thin the Bills were at receiver last season, they could've used Anderson's contract to bolster that position.

 

jw

[K-9]

Of course every team in the league makes player judgments based on talent and salary. No one is disputing that. That is obvious to everyone. The point I and many others have made is that with respect to the Bills they have a history of skewing the balance to the financial side of the operation. If you disagree with that judgment then so be it. The Bills have been in business for more than half a century. Their record is historically bad. It is my view that a lot of that (not all) can be attributed to the business side of the operation.

 

This would hold more water is their history of paying players supported that idea. It simply doesn't.

 

The business side and football side go hand in hand. Mr. Wilson made poor decisions in GM and coaching hires over the years. He also skimped on player amenities. All that changed after Stew Barber.

 

Even someone who is accused of having an intractable view can recognize something that is so obvious.

 

Well, there may be hope for you yet, then.

 

GO BILLS!!!

[BillsVet]

And those results can all be more easily quantified by boneheaded mismanagement of GM hires, coaching hires, and player personnel deficiencies, particularly as they relate to the utter lack of a franchise QB for most of their history. THAT is what's blatantly obvious more than anything.

 

The history of Ralph Wilson's player salaries refutes the idea that money is the sole reason personnel decisions are made.

 

You act as if no other team looks at the dynamic of comparative performance and salary when making decisions to cut ties with them.

 

GO BILLS!!!

 

You're addressing symptoms of OBD's dysfunction, not the root cause. The organizational philosophy is what stands in the way of success, in that non-football people are making decisions which impact the football side of the house. Just because Russ is a different person than RW doesn't mean they don't share the same philosophy. After all, subordinates tend to follow the example of their supervisor.

 

Nowhere did I say anything about a lack of money being paid out. And let's be honest, this discussion is so nuanced that saying "RW is cheap" or "RW isn't cheap" doesn't even begin to address the root cause of why this team can't get out of their own way.

 

The main question remains why the team, across multiple GM's, HC's, QB's, coordinators, draft picks, etc. can't win enough to make the post-season? Why do they waste resources on players like Mark Anderson which preclude them from signing more valuable players?

[Delete This Account]

Free agency is the difference? Not the lack of superior personnel they enjoyed, especially at the QB position? Really? So if the miser and his minions had only signed expensive free agents all this time, things would have been different? It has nothing to do with inferior GMs, coaches, and players? Nothing to do with the lack of franchise talent at the most important position in sports?

 

I doubt I'm making ANY point for you here. I'll be damned if I know what it is to begin with.

 

GO BILLS!!!

 

hey, you asked what the difference was. i provided my opinion. you still seem to miss the point. before modern free agency was introduced to the NFL, it was much easier for teams to retain talent because of the heavy restrictions on free agency.

in the years since free agency was introduced to the NFL, it's much easier for players to switch teams.

 

you keep saying you don't seem to understand my point, so let me spell it out as easiliy as possible. since the inception of modern free agency, and especially over the past 13 years, which happens to coincide with the Bills playoff drought, the Bills have had more difficulty retaining talent. i can go down the list of good players the bills have lost to free agency, who proved capable elsewhere:

 

as a result, the Bills seem always to be placed in the familiar position of having to plug some of the same holes every three-four years.

 

jw

Edited July 25, 2013 by john wawrow

[K-9]

they didn't make Mark Anderson the 4th highest paid DE, but they certainly threw money at him despite questions of his ability, and whether his production was a result of scheme and fit in the Patriots' defense. but i think you miss the point of the matter here. what the Bills are being accused of at this point is lacking the foresight to manage their self-imposed salary cap limitations. too often, over the past 6-7 seasons, the Bills have lacked experienced depth at several positions at which they could've used some of the players they cut.

 

Langston Walker and Geoff Hangartner were valuable assets to a team that elected to instead go thin with youth on the O-line by releasing both players.

the same could be said in regards to Spencer Johnson.

and then there was the absolutely wrong decision to not re-sign Pat Williams -- something that no one is using hindsight to argue. many cases were made at the time that Pat Williams was too valuable of an asset to lose.

 

and i think you'd agree that Byrd and Levitre were far more valuable assets than the decision to spend and waste money on Mark Anderson. heck, given how thin the Bills were at receiver last season, they could've used Anderson's contract to bolster that position.

 

jw

 

On Pat Williams we can agree. And we need look no farther than Gregg "we are gonna stop the run with numbers" Williams and his fat ego for that decision.

 

GO BILLS!!!

[Delete This Account]

side question here: when K-9 writes "Bills," he/she is actually referring to the "Buffalo Bills" and not some other team that has actually made the playoffs, right?

 

jw

[Coach Tuesday]

On Pat Williams we can agree. And we need look no farther than Gregg "we are gonna stop the run with numbers" Williams and his fat ego for that decision.

 

GO BILLS!!!

 

Yes, that's it. It must be the multiple, coincidental failures of a slew of different people - Gregg, Mularkey, Jauron, Gailey, Nix, John Guy, Donaohoe, etc. Much more credible explanation than the simple and obvious one that points to the same Triumverate of Failure that has run this franchise throughout all of those tenures. Oh and all of the repeated stories and reports to the contrary must be false because those folks had axes to grind. Gotcha.

[Cash]

what's convenient to forget, too, is how the decision to switch Langston Walker to left tackle and then cut him 10 days before the start of the season created two holes on the offensive line. right and left tackle. The Bills could've have used him that season at his natural position, RT.

 

and yet, i'm not sure how anyone can explain why Spencer Johnson was cut, or Geoff Hangartner.

 

Hangartner's release was particularly curious after he was informed by Chan Gailey days earlier that his job on the team was safe. turns out, the Bills could have used depth on the O-line that season after the line was decimated by injuries.

 

i know Jerry Sullivan's not popular on this board, and yet he makes a perfectly valid point in today's column regarding Anderson's release. and i quote: "The Bills squander more than $18 million on Merriman and Anderson, but they play contract hardball with a home-grown star and Pro Bowler, safety Jairus Byrd."

 

jw

 

Thanks for bringing up Hangartner -- that one had slipped my mind. That's another guy who was snapped up by his former team (in that case, the Panthers) as soon as the Bills cut him, and wound up starting that year. Very similar to the L. Walker situation -- I find it very difficult to believe that the coaching staff really felt that a multi-year starter had no use to the team, not even as a depth player. Walker could have went back to RT where he'd started the previous 2 years, or been kept as the swing tackle. Hangartner could have been moved to RG (where he started for Carolina) or kept as the primary backup to all 3 interior line positions.

 

K-9, you and the Bills appear to agree that if a player was signed to be a starter, and no longer factors in as a Week 1 starter, he should be cut in favor of a cheaper player. I think that unless the team has budget or cap space problems, it would be vastly preferable to keep an experienced backup on the roster. And I also think that if there are Littman/Overdorf-driven cuts, this is where they happen: on the margins, with veteran players who aren't starting. The coaching staff can justify parting ways with a backup, and the fans (except us obsessives) don't care. I doubt cutting Walker or Hangartner ever cost the Bills a dime in revenue. Failing to give a huge contract to OJ or Jimbo or Bruce would have cost a huge amount in terms of ticket sales, merchandise, etc. So I don't think the fact that Ralph has given out big contracts tells us much about whether he and/or his finance guys have been meddling with the roster. I can't say I'm sure that Ralph/Littman/Overdorf have made those kind of moves, but I think the evidence points more towards yes than no.

[K-9]

 

You're addressing symptoms of OBD's dysfunction, not the root cause. The organizational philosophy is what stands in the way of success, in that non-football people are making decisions which impact the football side of the house. Just because Russ is a different person than RW doesn't mean they don't share the same philosophy. After all, subordinates tend to follow the example of their supervisor.

 

Nowhere did I say anything about a lack of money being paid out. And let's be honest, this discussion is so nuanced that saying "RW is cheap" or "RW isn't cheap" doesn't even begin to address the root cause of why this team can't get out of their own way.

 

The main question remains why the team, across multiple GM's, HC's, QB's, coordinators, draft picks, etc. can't win enough to make the post-season? Why do they waste resources on players like Mark Anderson which preclude them from signing more valuable players?

 

Then please explain the success of the 90s given that Mr. Wilson and Littman were running the same show.

 

Resources aren't wasted until they can be labeled as such. But you've answered your own question when you allude to multiple GMs, HCs, QBs (especially), and other personnel. THAT is the problem. Sometimes unprecedented resources with unprecedented autonomy was thrown at the problem, while nice, safe, comfortable solutions were sought at other times. Regardless, that nuanced winning combination hasn't been found. I submit it isn't for lack of trying, including by throwing money the problem.

 

GO BILLS!!!

 

Thanks for bringing up Hangartner -- that one had slipped my mind. That's another guy who was snapped up by his former team (in that case, the Panthers) as soon as the Bills cut him, and wound up starting that year. Very similar to the L. Walker situation -- I find it very difficult to believe that the coaching staff really felt that a multi-year starter had no use to the team, not even as a depth player. Walker could have went back to RT where he'd started the previous 2 years, or been kept as the swing tackle. Hangartner could have been moved to RG (where he started for Carolina) or kept as the primary backup to all 3 interior line positions.

 

K-9, you and the Bills appear to agree that if a player was signed to be a starter, and no longer factors in as a Week 1 starter, he should be cut in favor of a cheaper player. I think that unless the team has budget or cap space problems, it would be vastly preferable to keep an experienced backup on the roster. And I also think that if there are Littman/Overdorf-driven cuts, this is where they happen: on the margins, with veteran players who aren't starting. The coaching staff can justify parting ways with a backup, and the fans (except us obsessives) don't care. I doubt cutting Walker or Hangartner ever cost the Bills a dime in revenue. Failing to give a huge contract to OJ or Jimbo or Bruce would have cost a huge amount in terms of ticket sales, merchandise, etc. So I don't think the fact that Ralph has given out big contracts tells us much about whether he and/or his finance guys have been meddling with the roster. I can't say I'm sure that Ralph/Littman/Overdorf have made those kind of moves, but I think the evidence points more towards yes than no.

 

In theory that should work. Most of the time, given the dynamics of football teams and locker rooms, it simply doesn't. And if there is a corresponding savings of dollars it won't even be considered usually. As we've seen.

 

GO BILLS!!!

 

hey, you asked what the difference was. i provided my opinion. you still seem to miss the point. before modern free agency was introduced to the NFL, it was much easier for teams to retain talent because of the heavy restrictions on free agency.

in the years since free agency was introduced to the NFL, it's much easier for players to switch teams.

 

you keep saying you don't seem to understand my point, so let me spell it out as easiliy as possible. since the inception of modern free agency, and especially over the past 13 years, which happens to coincide with the Bills playoff drought, the Bills have had more difficulty retaining talent. i can go down the list of good players the bills have lost to free agency, who proved capable elsewhere:

 

as a result, the Bills seem always to be placed in the familiar position of having to plug some of the same holes every three-four years.

 

jw

 

Thanks for the clarification.

 

GO BILLS!!!

 

side question here: when K-9 writes "Bills," he/she is actually referring to the "Buffalo Bills" and not some other team that has actually made the playoffs, right?

 

jw

 

Thousand comedians out of work. You missed your calling.

 

GO

Edited July 25, 2013 by K-9

[John from Riverside]

hey, you asked what the difference was. i provided my opinion. you still seem to miss the point. before modern free agency was introduced to the NFL, it was much easier for teams to retain talent because of the heavy restrictions on free agency.

in the years since free agency was introduced to the NFL, it's much easier for players to switch teams.

 

you keep saying you don't seem to understand my point, so let me spell it out as easiliy as possible. since the inception of modern free agency, and especially over the past 13 years, which happens to coincide with the Bills playoff drought, the Bills have had more difficulty retaining talent. i can go down the list of good players the bills have lost to free agency, who proved capable elsewhere:

 

as a result, the Bills seem always to be placed in the familiar position of having to plug some of the same holes every three-four years.

 

jw

 

 

John much respect to you and thank you for providing your input.

 

I really think that people get too caught up in blaming current management decisions on who we have for present management.....some of the guys were here....we don't know the scope of their power at that time or even the schematics of how things went down....football people should be making player decisions.

 

I firmly stand by the fact that I believe change is in the air at one bills drive.......we went from having a bunch of old geezers running the show to the youngest management in the league. We start from fresh with a widely thought of college coach who has a track record of turning losing to winning.....and working with scraps.

 

Our GM comes from a winning organization.....and while he is young he has been here a while which I think helps. Our defensive coordinator has had top 10 defenses in near EVERY year and sometimes much better then that.

 

I look at the Mike Anderson situation as he just doesn't fit anymore.....if there has been any common theme presented so far is you better do a lot of things well instead of one thing great if you want to be on this team.....and I like that approach. They admit their mistake with Mike Anderson and don't wait taking valuable playing time away from younger guys.

 

They did in fact draft their quarterback

 

Regarding Eric Wood....IF he stays healthy I would be will to lay money that he signs here.......

 

And regarding Byrd....I want him back as well but what is the purpose of having a franchise tag if teams are not able to use the darn thing?

[Delete This Account]

 

 

Thousand comedians out of work. You missed your calling.

 

GO

 

what, being unemployed? ...

 

jw