djp14150 Posted September 23, 2013 Posted September 23, 2013 Overpaying for Levitre would not have been a wise move because of you pay him then that sets the standards for the tackles who will want more money. Guards arent as important and you can replace them. Tackles are what you invest in.
GA BILLS FAN Posted September 23, 2013 Posted September 23, 2013 Overpaying for Levitre would not have been a wise move because of you pay him then that sets the standards for the tackles who will want more money. Guards arent as important and you can replace them. Tackles are what you invest in. The standard is set based on league wide averages, not the Bills ---- the tackles on Buffalo (Glenn in this case) will use Levitre's deal whether he signed with Buffalo or Tennessee
K-9 Posted September 23, 2013 Posted September 23, 2013 The standard is set based on league wide averages, not the Bills ---- the tackles on Buffalo (Glenn in this case) will use Levitre's deal whether he signed with Buffalo or Tennessee And if he keeps playing as he has, Glenn will be more than worth it and the Bills will have no problem signing him. But if he keeps playing as well as he has, I doubt he'll settle for Levitre money, anyway. GO BILLS!!!
papazoid Posted September 23, 2013 Posted September 23, 2013 Overpaying for Levitre would not have been a wise move because of you pay him then that sets the standards for the tackles who will want more money. Guards arent as important and you can replace them. Tackles are what you invest in. if Levitre played left guard for the bills yesterday, we would have beat the Jets. paying a stud like Levitre $7.8 million/year is money well spent. he makes your running AND passing game better. if only we had over $19 mil in available cap space.......oh wait......we do.
Meatloaf Sandwich Posted September 23, 2013 Posted September 23, 2013 if Levitre played left guard for the bills yesterday, we would have beat the Jets. paying a stud like Levitre $7.8 million/year is money well spent. he makes your running AND passing game better. if only we had over $19 mil in available cap space.......oh wait......we do. Lol b.c you said it makes it the truth?
Alaska Darin Posted September 23, 2013 Posted September 23, 2013 Guards arent as important IF you can replace them. Corrected.
peterpan Posted September 23, 2013 Posted September 23, 2013 Will we pay Glenn or trade him ala Peters bc we dont want to pay a LT 11 mill a year? (which Glenn is showing he will be worth)
K-9 Posted September 23, 2013 Posted September 23, 2013 Will we pay Glenn or trade him ala Peters bc we dont want to pay a LT 11 mill a year? (which Glenn is showing he will be worth) I say the will either pay him or tag him when the time comes. Hopefully, they'll extend him before it gets that far but he's earning every penny of that future deal as I type this. GO BILLS!!!
papazoid Posted September 23, 2013 Posted September 23, 2013 Will we pay Glenn or trade him ala Peters bc we dont want to pay a LT 11 mill a year? (which Glenn is showing he will be worth) Glenn will be the Left Guard starting next year.
peterpan Posted September 23, 2013 Posted September 23, 2013 Glenn will be the Left Guard starting next year. Who we will then promptly not pay and let leave via FA because LGs are worth it!?!?!
Billsguy Posted September 23, 2013 Posted September 23, 2013 How do we all feel about giving a guard big time money now? Just saying. When he was playing for the Bills, he was no doubt our best O Lineman. Looks like we will have to revisit the guard spot in April 2014. Big mistake. Unless you think Colin Brown is just as good. If you saw yesterday's game the answer is obvious.
Rinlo Posted September 23, 2013 Posted September 23, 2013 I dont recall ever reading that the Bills made a contract offer to Levitre and that bothers me to no end (refresh my memory with a link to an offer if you can). To think that our offseason plans were to let AL and CR walk without offering them contracts and then playing hardball with JB by offering him a contract and refusing to negotiate is astounding. That sounds like a plan for discarding your best players and fielding a losing football team to me.
habes1280 Posted September 23, 2013 Posted September 23, 2013 First off there is no question Levitre is a good player...every Bills fan knows it and every Bills fan would have like to have seen Levitre come back at a fair price... But the problem was not letting Levitre go for outrageous OG money...The problem is, and will continue to be, not finding a viable replacement for him in Free Agency or in the Draft... I agree. But I think what gets lost in the simplicity of these arguments is that the Bills didn't simply have two options: to (1) pay Levitre premium dollar in a talent-starved free agent market, or (2) to let him go. The Bills could have done with Levitre what they did with Eric Wood this year, or with Fitzpatrick two years ago, or with any number of previous veterans that they rightly or wrongly recognized as important fixtures of their roster: they could have negotiated a contract well IN ADVANCE of free agency (likely by a full season, as with Wood), and kept competitors from dictating (or driving up) his value. Granted, BOTH sides need to be interested in coming to these agreements early, but most players tend to be willing to trade the possibility of a premium contract for the security of long-term agreement one year before their current contract elapses. The Bills certainly understand this, but while there were some preliminary discussions (if memory serves) with Levitre early last year, they didn't last very long, and there wasn't a lot of interest on the part of the Bills in keeping discussions open-- with Levitre OR Byrd. The Bills instead took a chance, saved money last year, and ended up losing (arguably with both players). I know Whaley wanted to set a precedent-- he didn't want to get kicked around by aggressive negotiations, especially with Wood, Spiller, and others soon to enter contract years-- but the BILLS could have set a far more important one by locking up their core players BEFORE they hit the market. The front office's approach to Eric Wood-- showing loyalty and providing security by extending him early-- set a far more valuable precedent than letting Levitre walk (who did that benefit?) or playing hardball with Byrd.
GA BILLS FAN Posted September 23, 2013 Posted September 23, 2013 (edited) I agree. But I think what gets lost in the simplicity of these arguments is that the Bills didn't simply have two options: to (1) pay Levitre premium dollar in a talent-starved free agent market, or (2) to let him go. The Bills could have done with Levitre what they did with Eric Wood this year, or with Fitzpatrick two years ago, or with any number of previous veterans that they rightly or wrongly recognized as important fixtures of their roster: they could have negotiated a contract well IN ADVANCE of free agency (likely by a full season, as with Wood), and kept competitors from dictating (or driving up) his value. Granted, BOTH sides need to be interested in coming to these agreements early, but most players tend to be willing to trade the possibility of a premium contract for the security of long-term agreement one year before their current contract elapses. The Bills certainly understand this, but while there were some preliminary discussions (if memory serves) with Levitre early last year, they didn't last very long, and there wasn't a lot of interest on the part of the Bills in keeping discussions open-- with Levitre OR Byrd. The Bills instead took a chance, saved money last year, and ended up losing (arguably with both players). I know Whaley wanted to set a precedent-- he didn't want to get kicked around by aggressive negotiations, especially with Wood, Spiller, and others soon to enter contract years-- but the BILLS could have set a far more important one by locking up their core players BEFORE they hit the market. The front office's approach to Eric Wood-- showing loyalty and providing security by extending him early-- set a far more valuable precedent than letting Levitre walk (who did that benefit?) or playing hardball with Byrd. Correct --- if you are "forward thinking" FO, you identify talented players BEFORE they hit FA year and extend them --- what is astonishing about Brandon is that he stood up in front of all Bills fans and proclaimed the Bills were going in a new direction to rebuild the tarnished brand, blah, blah, blah . . . . or we should say BS, BS and more BS !! Edited September 23, 2013 by TXBILLSFAN
Bill from NYC Posted September 24, 2013 Posted September 24, 2013 A very good player can have a huge impact on a game.....especially when the other option is a very bad player. As you mentioned, some sustained offensive drives would have helped this defense. I expect the injuries to keep piling up. The Carrington injury looked like it was just fatigue getting the best of him and his plant leg giving out. Teams with good offensive lines will do that to you. So true. This is one of the toughest things to explain to people on a message board imo. The Bills defense with Bryce, Bruce, and Big Ted could have been one of the best ever imo. I am talking top 10, perhaps less. But the Bills had poor qb play and NO blocking. I mean zero, and this great defense was often gassed in the 4th quarter. Call me old school, whatever. But I cannot picture a place in this football league when it will make sense to let your best blocker walk.
vincec Posted September 24, 2013 Posted September 24, 2013 You don't give OT money to a guard. Then you will never have an elite guard. As long as everyone is good with that maybe they can find another Kraig Urbik or an old washed up tackle for LG and move on.
Pete Posted September 24, 2013 Posted September 24, 2013 (edited) !@#$ Andy Levitre. Any questions? I think Levitre is hetero, so you are out of luck Edited September 24, 2013 by Pete
Tcali Posted September 24, 2013 Posted September 24, 2013 There is a myth making the rounds that we couldn't afford both Levitre and Wood. I'm calling B.S. Letting Levitre walk was Overdorf drawing a line in the sand and deciding that Levitre is worth x, and Levitre's camp saying he's worth x plus $1M (or $2M), and Overdorf not budging. In the meantime, nothing - and I mean absolutely nothing - was done proactively before (or during) the offseason to address the issue of Levitre's potential departure. In short, it was a typical OBD clusterf--. TBD Myth Number Two: a young "rebuilding" team with a rookie QB doesn't need to pay for a quality LG. Honestly, I can't fathom how anyone could buy into this one. Doesn't your rookie QB need to be protected in the passing game, and with a quality running game? And when are the fans around here finally going to stop buying into the 3-year rebuilding cycle that keeps occurring? How about we actually load up and try to win this year? dont worry this 3 yr rebuild will work.....really...................................................................................................................just trust this Bills adm.
jumbalaya Posted September 24, 2013 Posted September 24, 2013 I wouldn't overpay for a LG especially since this team is in rebuild mode. You pay for good players no matter the position. We do not have agood player at that position. You can say that overpaying at a spot is not smart. Underpaying at that spot that costs you games is even dumber.
Recommended Posts