Mark Anderson released.

[3rdand12]

Maybe Anderson did something evil . And/Or will be linked up to AH scandal horrorshow.

Remember that there is often more then meets the eye to a mystery.

There are reasonable question marks as to the timing here. and i think he sucked anyways. maybe the coaches got drunk (not Denver drunk, mind you ) and watched some tape again and again over beers and just got pissed off enough at how much he really sucked and gave littdorf a conference call.

But the whole Bills conspiracy theorists and also defenders of the regimes is misplayed here.

Its not a trend ( even though it is ).

Glad he is gone and we will move on from him.

isnt that enough ?

 

carry on

Edited July 25, 2013 by 3rdand12

[Thurmal34]

 

You fools are so easy to sell a bill of goods too that it's ridiculous.

 

If you are looking for a fool, check the mirror.

 

Your inability to detect the sarcasm in my reply and instead label me an "apologist" for pointing out something that doesnt fit your arguement speaks volumes about your agenda.

 

The Evans trade, by any set of criteria and in any context, was a home run for the Bills.

 

There is no concievable argument otherwise. Saying the Evans trade was not a great move undermines your credibility and your position.

 

[hmsmystic]

I am at a loss continually on how any fan can defend the organization and it's hapless decision making in any meaningful (data or statistics) way. It's not the practice of simply cutting or not signing a veteran or two, it's the cumulative effect of not having these players on the roster, combined with sub-par drafting. A defense that kept and built around veterans such as say Pat Williams, London Fletcher and Antoine Winfield would have made a difference in the record.

 

Less holes to fill would allow the team to focus on key spots. For example, would we be bottom 3 defense agaisnt the run with Poz and Whitner still on the team? Could we have used that top 10 pick spent on Spiller elsewhere if we had Lynch?

 

I don't know if cutting Anderson was a good move or not, I do know we just signed him and there is no positive way to spin this move. None.

 

 

 

I assume you're alluding to Walker? I've already pointed to his performance that summer.

 

No doubt, keeping solid veteran players can help out in the locker room of young teams. There are reasons to get rid of them at times, too, though. Teams as bad as the Bills tend to focus on STARTERS vs. depth given their lack of talent. Quality, experienced depth is a challenge and problem for most teams in the cap era. There are also the issues inherent when backups are making more than starters, etc. You can pooh-pooh that if you must, but it's a relevant dynamic.

 

I'm pretty sure that NONE of the players they cut or traded and saved money on in the process was the difference in the team being successful or not.

 

Edited July 25, 2013 by hmsmystic

[Thurmal34]

He was not a good use of a first round pick.

 

Now this I agree with, but try to follow along.

 

My original point, which you disagreed with, was that the Evans trade to Bal was a great move. It wasn't that Evans was a poor pick on the first place. That is irrelevant to the point I made about the trade.

 

It's astounding to me that you are so desperate to paint the Evans trade as a poor move. Why is that?

 

 

 

 

[K-9]

You have a point. The veterans that were cut didn't appreciably upgrade the roster because it was already lacking in talent. So your position is when you lack talent cut the reserve talent and make your team very vulnerabl in a sport that has a high rate of injuries.

 

The Bills have not made the playoffs in 13 consecutive years. The Bills have had 8 or 9 losing records in the past decade. According to you It can't be due to a systemic organizational issue, it must be bad luck! While the theatre of the absurd is going on part of the loyal audience is clapping and yelling bravo, bravo. Not I.

 

No, that is not my position at all. My position is, on a team that is in a perpetual state of rebuilding, it makes more sense to devote resources to starters. It's a fact that most teams lack for quality VETERAN depth in the salary cap era. It makes little sense to pay your backups more than your starters. From both a business and team dynamic standard. Football is unique in that aspect.

 

And no, again. According to me it isn't 'bad luck' so much as it is a lack of sound decision making relative to the hiring of GMs, coaches, and player evaluation. Most of is it a lack of even adequate talent at the QB position.

 

You, too may have the last word.

 

GO BILLS

 

I am at a loss continually on how any fan can defend the organization and it's hapless decision making in any meaningful (data or statistics) way. It's not the practice of simply cutting or not signing a veteran or two, it's the cumulative effect of not having these players on the roster, combined with sub-par drafting. A defense that kept and built around veterans such as say Pat Williams, London Fletcher and Antoine Winfield would have made a difference in the record.

 

Less holes to fill would allow the team to focus on key spots. For example, would we be bottom 3 defense agaisnt the run with Poz and Whitner still on the team? Could we have used that top 10 pick spent on Spiller elsewhere if we had Lynch?

 

I don't know if cutting Anderson was a good move or not, I do know we just signed him and there is no positive way to spin this move. None.

 

Nobody is defending anybody here. I just don't agree with the idea that Littman dials up the GMs and coaches and says to cut this guy or that guy.

 

As to the positive spin about Anderson. Depends on your point of view. Some teams with less secure front offices may have hung on to a player simply to justify the signing. I think it's refreshing that the new staff recognized off the bat that Anderson wasn't a good fit for their new scheme and they cut him.

 

GO BILLS!!!

 

Maybe Anderson did something evil . And/Or will be linked up to AH scandal horrorshow.

Remember that there is often more then meets the eye to a mystery.

There are reasonable question marks as to the timing here. and i think he sucked anyways. maybe the coaches got drunk (not Denver drunk, mind you ) and watched some tape again and again over beers and just got pissed off enough at how much he really sucked and gave littdorf a conference call.

But the whole Bills conspiracy theorists and also defenders of the regimes is misplayed here.

Its not a trend ( even though it is ).

Glad he is gone and we will move on from him.

isnt that enough ?

 

carry on

 

Perhaps you need to differentiate between a "defense of the regimes" and not accepting every conspiracy theory in the absence of proof that it's true.

 

GO BILLS!!!

[NoSaint]

 

 

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.

 

As the season closes the risk of waiting goes down and the reward was going up for 2 guys playing well.

[K-9]

Can you at least keep a consistent timeline? There was concern, but not panic in April because people gave obd the benefit of the doubt. That all changed in August when it became apparent that the plan wasn't working. And only the delusional fans thought it was a good move to cut walker outright given the weakness at RT.

 

And if you want more data to chew on, compare which franchise has the highest number of veteran cuts in the last week of preseason, right before the salaries become guaranteed for the season?

 

I fail to see where my timeline has been inconsistent. I don't think I've characterized cutting Walker as a good move, just that his performance that summer did nothing to keep him on the team and that I don't think Littman got on the phone and ordered it. We disagree. Let's move on.

 

I'd be interested to see those comparative statistics regarding late summer cuts.

 

Again, really this time, you have the last word.

 

GO BILLS!!!

[JohnC]

No, that is not my position at all. My position is, on a team that is in a perpetual state of rebuilding, it makes more sense to devote resources to starters. It's a fact that most teams lack for quality VETERAN depth in the salary cap era. It makes little sense to pay your backups more than your starters. From both a business and team dynamic standard. Football is unique in that aspect.

 

And no, again. According to me it isn't 'bad luck' so much as it is a lack of sound decision making relative to the hiring of GMs, coaches, and player evaluation. Most of is it a lack of even adequate talent at the QB position.

 

You, too may have the last word.

 

GO BILLS

 

Are you trying to suggest that when the Bills cut the veteran reserves that the football staff wasn't aware that they would be vulnerable to injuries? Even if the starters were making less than the veteran reserves the team was still under the cap. As you well know injuries are part of the game, very often at a high rate. Letting go credible backup reserves with no good backup players was taking a major gamble in a crash sport involving big people.

 

We are not going to come to an accord on this issue of the franchise's money management policies and how it has affected the record. So we'll respectfully disagree. Where I do to a great extent agree with you is that this owner has selected mediocre staff to run the football operation. For the most part the onus is on the owner because he made the critical hires.. I'm sure that you can agree with that-----and we can leave this joust on a positive note.. .

[GG]

I fail to see where my timeline has been inconsistent. I don't think I've characterized cutting Walker as a good move, just that his performance that summer did nothing to keep him on the team and that I don't think Littman got on the phone and ordered it. We disagree. Let's move on.

 

I'd be interested to see those comparative statistics regarding late summer cuts.

 

Again, really this time, you have the last word.

 

GO BILLS!!!

 

His performance that summer did nothing to warrant cutting him outright, given the dearth of talent on the right side of the line, and three young starters going into a season with a helter skelter offensive plan and a Gato for a QB. If you think that cutting him was solely a football move, despite much contrary evidence from people who were around TBD at that time (who also posted in this thread), then Ralph Wilson thanks you for your support.

Edited July 25, 2013 by GG

[CSBill]

Seemed like a good signing at the time given Wanny's scheme.

 

What? Wanny had a scheme?

[BillsWatch]

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

 

You are a veteran. You can change your title to that if you want.

[K-9]

His performance that summer did nothing to warrant cutting him outright, given the dearth of talent on the right side of the line, and three young starters going into a season with a helter skelter offensive plan and a Gato for a QB. If you think that cutting him was solely a football move, despite much contrary evidence from people who were around TBD at that time (who also posted in this thread), then Ralph Wilson thanks you for your support.

 

We must have been watching two different Walkers that summer.

 

I'd be interested in that "contrary evidence from people who were around TBD at the time" but it would be more credible if they were around ONE Bills Drive at the time or could at least post this "evidence" with attribution.

 

GO BILLS!!!

Are you trying to suggest that when the Bills cut the veteran reserves that the football staff wasn't aware that they would be vulnerable to injuries? Even if the starters were making less than the veteran reserves the team was still under the cap. As you well know injuries are part of the game, very often at a high rate. Letting go credible backup reserves with no good backup players was taking a major gamble in a crash sport involving big people.

 

We are not going to come to an accord on this issue of the franchise's money management policies and how it has affected the record. So we'll respectfully disagree. Where I do to a great extent agree with you is that this owner has selected mediocre staff to run the football operation. For the most part the onus is on the owner because he made the critical hires.. I'm sure that you can agree with that-----and we can leave this joust on a positive note.. .

 

I'm pretty sure every coach at every level of football is aware that injury is always one play away from seriously hurting your depth. Are you suggesting that most teams have starter quality backups making starter quality salaries? Letting go of "credible backup reserves" (love that term, btw) who make more money than "credible starters" is standard business practice. I've already explained why a couple times now. If you have backups that represent little drop off, if ANY, in terms of ability, it's a no brainer to save the money.

 

I really think you're reaching with this line of argument. Starters are penciled in to carry the bulk of the load. EVERY coach hopes their backups are ready to answer the bell when called. It's a roll of the dice to be sure. But you just can't have a savvy veteran backing up every position.

 

GO BILLS!!!

[NoSaint]

Their are financial cuts, and cap cuts. Every team has cap cuts. The bills I think have a slightly higher rate of strictly dollars and cents ones though, as opposed to opening up opportunities to spend elsewhere.

 

This does get murkier with the constant turnover though- some cuts that look like being cheap could simply be not liking someone else's guy.

[K-9]

Their are financial cuts, and cap cuts. Every team has cap cuts. The bills I think have a slightly higher rate of strictly dollars and cents ones though, as opposed to opening up opportunities to spend elsewhere.

 

This does get murkier with the constant turnover though- some cuts that look like being cheap could simply be not liking someone else's guy.

 

This is a fair distinction I think.

 

Are financial cuts EVER justifiable?

 

GO BILLS!!!

[NoSaint]

 

 

This is a fair distinction I think.

 

Are financial cuts EVER justifiable?

 

GO BILLS!!!

 

 

Am I answering as a fan(atic), or as a reasonable impartial and rational person?

 

 

[GG]

We must have been watching two different Walkers that summer.

 

I'd be interested in that "contrary evidence from people who were around TBD at the time" but it would be more credible if they were around ONE Bills Drive at the time or could at least post this "evidence" with attribution.

 

Are you saying that Walker's play was especially horrendous relative to the whole first string offense that barely got a first down during the entire preseason?

[K-9]

Are you saying that Walker's play was especially horrendous relative to the whole first string offense that barely got a first down during the entire preseason?

 

Yes. On the worst offense imaginable, he stuck out like a sore thumb.

 

GO BILLS!!!

[GG]

Yes. On the worst offense imaginable, he stuck out like a sore thumb.

 

GO BILLS!!!

 

My guess is that he was the tallest guy, so he easily caught your attention.

[K-9]

My guess is that he was the tallest guy, so he easily caught your attention.

 

Make that a BIG sore thumb, then. The worst players on the field are easy to spot regardless of how big they are.

 

GO BILLS!!!