Dorkington Posted February 18, 2014 Posted February 18, 2014 ...why? I don't understand our fanbase. We seem to want to get rid of Stevie, CJ, Chandler, Hughes, Dareus and Byrd. These guys are all quality NFL starters. We don't have the talent on the roster to replace them. And replacing them via FA/the draft would be near impossible. Why are we so quick to start rebuilding while rebuilding? Why not keep talented players and add more talented players? Why not add depth and quality rotation? Am I missing something here?
GunnerBill Posted February 18, 2014 Posted February 18, 2014 I think the situation on Byrd and Chandler is different. Their contracts are up and it's the question of their value in terms of what it would take to retain them. You don't build successful teams in this era of the NFL just saying "he's a quality player, pay him whatever" you just dig yourself a salary cap hole. You have to take a view on what value the guy has to your organisation and whether he is a priority player in a priority position. The others I totally agree with you on. I'm not sure why when there is the possibility of losing good quality players through so many means in the modern NFL our fan base is keen to given away others that we have under contract.
mrags Posted February 18, 2014 Posted February 18, 2014 I generally agree but it also depends on the value each of these guys has and if you can resign them to huge contracts or decent ones. Personally on Byrd, pay the man to be the highest paid safety in the league. He's worth it. He's still getting better. Chandler, it all depends on what he's asking for. With the available TEs in FA this year, he's likely looking to be the most sought after target at his position and will be asking for top 15 money or better. Hughes, sure, he played great but he was limited. I'd rather take a 3rd with conditional picks for him and draft someone that's a 3 down LB. Spiller, sure, he's good. Could be better but for some reason he's not. In another year he will be demanding top 5 money for a RB. Do you want to pay a RB that kind of cash or would you rather trade him for what should/could be a 1st or 2nd and get an every down back? That's what I'd do. Another Fred Jackson type of back or maybe bigger and more physical. Like a Lagarret Blount. I don't get the hate for Dareus. He's up and coming and still under contract. Is he great as a DT? No. The run defense sucks and he's definitely a part of that, but yes good and young and going to get better.
Kirby Jackson Posted February 18, 2014 Posted February 18, 2014 I think the situation on Byrd and Chandler is different. Their contracts are up and it's the question of their value in terms of what it would take to retain them. You don't build successful teams in this era of the NFL just saying "he's a quality player, pay him whatever" you just dig yourself a salary cap hole. You have to take a view on what value the guy has to your organisation and whether he is a priority player in a priority position. The others I totally agree with you on. I'm not sure why when there is the possibility of losing good quality players through so many means in the modern NFL our fan base is keen to given away others that we have under contract. I agree with this even though I am not sure of Hughes. He is heading into a free agent year where he will be too expensive if he is as productive as last year. No, not because Ralph/Russ is cheap but because they will not pay the % of the salary cap on Mario & Hughes that it takes to keep him. If he doesn't have a year this year like last year you may have missed you chance to maximize his value. I do like Hughes and think that he can play though. It's about value. IMO you need to have a team and a QB that emerge at the same time to win. The goal is not to be the Bengals where you have tons of talent but no QB. It is also not to be the Pats where you have an elite QB but lack talent elsewhere. Those teams don't win. The point being if those guys are not going to be really good players when you are ready to win what good are they to you? If the Bills think that EJ is the guy and ready to take the next step than they should take their shot. The problem is that if you miss your shot its back to square one. You end up with cap problems, declining vets and a window that has closed.
GunnerBill Posted February 18, 2014 Posted February 18, 2014 I agree with this even though I am not sure of Hughes. He is heading into a free agent year where he will be too expensive if he is as productive as last year. No, not because Ralph/Russ is cheap but because they will not pay the % of the salary cap on Mario & Hughes that it takes to keep him. If he doesn't have a year this year like last year you may have missed you chance to maximize his value. I do like Hughes and think that he can play though. It's about value. IMO you need to have a team and a QB that emerge at the same time to win. The goal is not to be the Bengals where you have tons of talent but no QB. It is also not to be the Pats where you have an elite QB but lack talent elsewhere. Those teams don't win. The point being if those guys are not going to be really good players when you are ready to win what good are they to you? If the Bills think that EJ is the guy and ready to take the next step than they should take their shot. The problem is that if you miss your shot its back to square one. You end up with cap problems, declining vets and a window that has closed. Agreed. But I think the Bills want to win this year and that's why I don't see them trading Hughes unless the new DC really doesn't think he can use him.
Kirby Jackson Posted February 18, 2014 Posted February 18, 2014 (edited) Agreed. But I think the Bills want to win this year and that's why I don't see them trading Hughes unless the new DC really doesn't think he can use him. I don't think that he will be traded (I could go either way for the reasons above). I was just responding to why some peiple may want to trade him. I like Hughes and think that he is a player. I think that you are right though in that the Bills are ready to win. If they get pretty good QB play they should be in the playoffs IMO. How many AFC teams have more talent top to bottom than the Bills? Not a lot Edited February 18, 2014 by Kirby Jackson
RealityCheck Posted February 18, 2014 Posted February 18, 2014 ...why? I don't understand our fanbase. We seem to want to get rid of Stevie, CJ, Chandler, Hughes, Dareus and Byrd. These guys are all quality NFL starters. We don't have the talent on the roster to replace them. And replacing them via FA/the draft would be near impossible. Why are we so quick to start rebuilding while rebuilding? Why not keep talented players and add more talented players? Why not add depth and quality rotation? Am I missing something here? TBD is way to small of a sample size to make generalizations from as a fan base. That being said, the majority of TBD posters aren't in favor of what you are suggesting either. It is important to keep in mind that the majority of us on this forum grasp very little of what even happens on the field, much less the business side of things. Based on how much time some people post here while working at their job, their focus should probably be elsewhere to begin with. Until this team has an obvious stud at QB, they had better be cautious about getting to tight against the cap. It does not appear that the salary cap is due to rise substantially any time soon.
BigBuff423 Posted February 18, 2014 Posted February 18, 2014 As whole I think I understand what you're getting at...and one point I agree with is that you can't keep letting talented players go without using them to "rebuild"...however, it's in the details of "who" those players are, what position they play in, and to what extent do you pay them...SJ should be traded in my mind b/c he's not the #1 WR as in a tall, fast outside WR and to me, Goodwin can play the slot or even one of the other young guys...Chandler has done all right for this team, but tying up CAP money in him is a waste in my mind when there is Moekai and Gragg that can probably do the same job Chandler has done, if not better...As for Byrd, I've been on the train that says if you can pay him a resonable salary and keep him, then do so...but if he wants elite tier type money, the Safety position - not Byrd as a player - does not demand that type of salary and you Tag him and trade him....you get value for him while giving him what he wants, a long-term contract to a team willing to pay for it. But teams like the Patsies and others, maximize their dollars by investing in *POSITIONS* of value and not just players, i.e. QB, Corners, D and O linemen...WRs, RBs, and Safeties are a dime a dozen, you let them walk of their demands are unreasonable....as for Dareus and CJ, Dareus deserves to be paid, so when the time comes, I certainly hope they do..as for CJ, as another poster pointed out in a different thread (something I was unaware of until he / she said it), his Rookie contract takes him until he turns 29, two more years...so let him play this year at the current rate, and then due to the aforementioned interchangeable RB position, you trade him with one year on his contract left to a contender that needs a RB, ala Saints....just my .02...but good debatable thread....
thewildrabbit Posted February 18, 2014 Posted February 18, 2014 ...why? I don't understand our fanbase. We seem to want to get rid of Stevie, CJ, Chandler, Hughes, Dareus and Byrd. These guys are all quality NFL starters. We don't have the talent on the roster to replace them. And replacing them via FA/the draft would be near impossible. Why are we so quick to start rebuilding while rebuilding? Why not keep talented players and add more talented players? Why not add depth and quality rotation? Am I missing something here? Half the fan base wanted to see poz gone...how long did it take to finally replace him? most of the fan base wanted Whitner gone...now the team has someone better and can't come to terms with him. almost everyone thought Lynch was done....and he now has a SB ring. Buddy Nix had this vision that if you build a great pass rush it will win games, so he bought himself a 100 million dollar DE.... it didn't win games. This team created its own turmoil with all pro LT Jason Peters by bringing in high priced free agents that weren't even close to his talent, and paying them significantly more then he was making. Traded him away and took three years to finally replace him. The problem is that this owner has been out of touch with the reality of whats going on with his team, and in the NFL the past 14 years. That he has left the team in the hands of football incompetents, but in the hands of premier marketers to keep the money flowing it. These people now in power needed to learn on the job in how to build a winning team. This year the team really is "not that far away" from being a playoff contender if the team makes the proper moves in free agency, and in the draft. The team needs to sign Byrd, Keep Stevie, and keep its other current free agents unless they can effectively replace them. (Not like the way they replaced Levitre last off season) The Bills need to build that O line properly a top RT-LG, and a top TE. I'd rather see those players drafted with the first three picks. This also depends on who the Bills can sign in free agency. Although TE Scott Chandler was the Bills leading receiver last season, and he has sure hands most of the time. He certainly isn't a big play, play maker at TE the Bills desperately need so badly. He is like a possession type TE, and not a very good blocker. The Bills can, and should do better in free agency or the draft. JMO
Buftex Posted February 18, 2014 Posted February 18, 2014 The point being if those guys are not going to be really good players when you are ready to win what good are they to you? If the Bills think that EJ is the guy and ready to take the next step than they should take their shot. The problem is that if you miss your shot its back to square one. You end up with cap problems, declining vets and a window that has closed. It's kind of a vicious circle, isn't it? If you start getting into that sort of thinking, a team might never turn the corner. We have seen flawed teams win Super Bowls in recent years...teams that seem to have a perceived weakness, but are able to overcome them becasue they are overall strong. Does EJ get better over the next two years or so, because he has guys like Fred or CJ in the backfield with him? Or, do you trade them (or whatever you want to do with them) becasue CJ will want more than some think he is worth in another year, and Fred is sure to be over the hill in another year or two? Get rid of them (or one of them) and then you are saying "EJ could have been better if he had a running game...." I personally think that young guys benefit from having talent around them, so they can learn, and feel comfortable. Trying to build a championship caliber team by having guys who are all 2nd or 3rd year players, expecting them all to improve and excell at the same rate is a pretty far-fetched idea, IMO. The example was mentioned of the Bengals, a very talented young-ish team that seems to be hamstrung by an inadequate QB. So, what do the Bengals do now? Look for another vetran QB? Draft another QB and start over? Start shipping out 3rd and 4th year guys, with talent, simply because the QB isn't good enough. I say you try to find an adequate QB before your window closes.
The Big Cat Posted February 18, 2014 Posted February 18, 2014 Uuuuh, just because one guy thinks CJ is a bust, some guy thinks Byrd's a diva, another guy thinks Chandler is a ****ty TE and somebody says Stevie chokes doesn't mean WE ALL think we should get rid of ALL those players. More so, our opinions have zero impact on personnel decisions, I can guarantee you that. You could go through the entire roster and find a player someone here has bashed, doesn't mean they're on the cutting block.
Kirby Jackson Posted February 18, 2014 Posted February 18, 2014 It's kind of a vicious circle, isn't it? If you start getting into that sort of thinking, a team might never turn the corner. We have seen flawed teams win Super Bowls in recent years...teams that seem to have a perceived weakness, but are able to overcome them becasue they are overall strong. Does EJ get better over the next two years or so, because he has guys like Fred or CJ in the backfield with him? Or, do you trade them (or whatever you want to do with them) becasue CJ will want more than some think he is worth in another year, and Fred is sure to be over the hill in another year or two? Get rid of them (or one of them) and then you are saying "EJ could have been better if he had a running game...." I personally think that young guys benefit from having talent around them, so they can learn, and feel comfortable. Trying to build a championship caliber team by having guys who are all 2nd or 3rd year players, expecting them all to improve and excell at the same rate is a pretty far-fetched idea, IMO. The example was mentioned of the Bengals, a very talented young-ish team that seems to be hamstrung by an inadequate QB. So, what do the Bengals do now? Look for another vetran QB? Draft another QB and start over? Start shipping out 3rd and 4th year guys, with talent, simply because the QB isn't good enough. I say you try to find an adequate QB before your window closes. Yeah, it is a cruel world. Look how talented the 49ers are (more talented than anyone imo) and they have not managed to win one. The Bengals should try to get a QB or miss their window.
Dorkington Posted February 18, 2014 Author Posted February 18, 2014 (edited) Using SJ and Chandler as examples, as both have been mentioned. Why can't both* be our #2s at their respective positions? Why not have them, AND get a true #1 at both positions? We have decent cap space, don't we? Especially if we're drafting those #1s... (Understanding, of course, that Chandler might get a big offer to be a #1 elsewhere) Edited February 18, 2014 by Dorkington
Beerball Posted February 18, 2014 Posted February 18, 2014 I think the situation on Byrd and Chandler is different. Their contracts are up and it's the question of their value in terms of what it would take to retain them. You don't build successful teams in this era of the NFL just saying "he's a quality player, pay him whatever" you just dig yourself a salary cap hole. You have to take a view on what value the guy has to your organisation and whether he is a priority player in a priority position. The others I totally agree with you on. I'm not sure why when there is the possibility of losing good quality players through so many means in the modern NFL our fan base is keen to given away others that we have under contract. The Bills are far from a salary cap hole. Until the position that can eat up a huge portion of the cap is up for renegotiation the Bills will be fine. They can afford to overpay Byrd a bit, especially if the contract is front loaded. If the Bills are ever in the position where they are negotiating with a top flight QB it's likely that Byrd and Mario will be long gone, hence no cap issues.
Kirby Jackson Posted February 18, 2014 Posted February 18, 2014 Using SJ and Chandler as examples, as both have been mentioned. Why can't both* be our #2s at their respective positions? Why not have them, AND get a true #1 at both positions? We have decent cap space, don't we? Especially if we're drafting those #1s... (Understanding, of course, that Chandler might get a big offer to be a #1 elsewhere) That is kind of the dilemma. How much can you allocate to someone like Chandler to be a number 2 and still pay a number 1 (or even other positions)? It is tricky. Are you better off drafting a TE like ASJ in the 2nd and pairing him with Moeaki and Gragg then spending the $2M on Chandler? Would that same $2M be better spent on a starting LG? Each decision has to be made independently (ie "is Chandler worth X") but with the grand scheme in mind (ie "if we do not spend X on Chandler that would allow us to spend Y on whoever). This is all done without even factoring in which decisions will be coming up the following year and so on. That is the JerrY Hughes discussion. If Hughes has 10+ sacks again next year the Bills will not be able to pay both Hughes and Mario the market rate for 10+ sack guys. So what do you do? There are always tough decisions to make. The point is that no one ever wants to run good players out of town but you have to make decisions sometimes that you think are necessary for long term success.
GunnerBill Posted February 18, 2014 Posted February 18, 2014 (edited) I know that and I'm in favour of overpaying a little on Byrd.... the problem is I think he wants us to overpay more than a little. I'm in favour of keeping him though make no mistake about that. Chandler's numbers will get him a better deal elsewhere than he is worth in my opinion. I don't think he will be back. Edited February 18, 2014 by GunnerBill
BillsVet Posted February 18, 2014 Posted February 18, 2014 Using SJ and Chandler as examples, as both have been mentioned. Why can't both* be our #2s at their respective positions? Why not have them, AND get a true #1 at both positions? We have decent cap space, don't we? Especially if we're drafting those #1s... (Understanding, of course, that Chandler might get a big offer to be a #1 elsewhere) Team depth has been a perpetual issue for this team going back to the Donahoe era, if not before. I don't expect in the salary cap era to have depth at every position, but whenever the Bills lose a starter they scramble to find an option. There wasn't much OL depth last year, their 3rd CB was a rookie UDFA, there wasn't much at LB beyond rookie Alonso and Lawson, the backup QB's were a journeyman and rookie UDFA, and the WR's were a mix of rookie and unproven types. Only the DL qualifies as having decent proven depth, the result of signing Branch. And now they may leave the UFA period with Aaron Williams, Duke Williams, Da'Norris Searcy, and Jonathan Meeks as their safeties. There needs to be a culture change and that means drafting better and keeping your essential talent locked up.
Dorkington Posted February 18, 2014 Author Posted February 18, 2014 That is kind of the dilemma. How much can you allocate to someone like Chandler to be a number 2 and still pay a number 1 (or even other positions)? It is tricky. Are you better off drafting a TE like ASJ in the 2nd and pairing him with Moeaki and Gragg then spending the $2M on Chandler? Would that same $2M be better spent on a starting LG? Each decision has to be made independently (ie "is Chandler worth X") but with the grand scheme in mind (ie "if we do not spend X on Chandler that would allow us to spend Y on whoever). This is all done without even factoring in which decisions will be coming up the following year and so on. That is the JerrY Hughes discussion. If Hughes has 10+ sacks again next year the Bills will not be able to pay both Hughes and Mario the market rate for 10+ sack guys. So what do you do? There are always tough decisions to make. The point is that no one ever wants to run good players out of town but you have to make decisions sometimes that you think are necessary for long term success. THAT is all logical. But that has not been the discussion around here. It's generally been "(Player X) sucks! Cut his ass!" I'm not suggesting that we overpay mediocre players. But rather work from an interest of building a good team with good depth as a starting point. You allocate what you are willing to pay certain players to stay, and if they demand more, you look into other options. But the general discussion around here is generally from the starting point of removing said player, period. To me, that is counterproductive and creates more holes than anything. Regarding Hughes, I'm not comfortable shipping him off for a draft pick, not when he provides a service we need (pass rush on the opposite side of Mario). If we happen to sign someone who can do that during FA, then sure, ship him off. But just saying "oh, he might leave next year, so we should get a draft pick for him now" is essentially throwing away productivity this season.
Section242 Posted February 18, 2014 Posted February 18, 2014 The unknown is more exciting. Some want the team to get rid of Stevie, Spiller, or Byrd because of money or they had a down year. It's just money and it's not mine. .
Recommended Posts