The Frankish Reich Posted September 7, 2015 Posted September 7, 2015 You keep talking about Murray. He has nothing to do with this conversation. Even if the Bills wanted him there's nothing saying he would come here. Whaley got the player he wanted and gave up a player they didn't need. Say what you want after this, I feel like I'm arguing about the color of ice, and I need to stop The going rate for a free agent player has everything to do with the assessment of a trade. Does this amount to a "no free agent in his right mind would ever sign with the Bills" argument? Because if it isn't, then why the defeatism?
DC Tom Posted September 7, 2015 Posted September 7, 2015 Why? If you start from the proposition that Kiko is a valuable player, why would you want to trade him for McCoy only to have the rights to pay McCoy what a comparable player -- Murray -- would get as a free agent? Let's make it simple, which is better for the same money, Murray + Kiko, or McCoy + nothing? Whaley got bamboozled on this one, no other fair way of looking at it. Did you read the article? I'm not sure how you could and still arrive at the conclusion that everyone would consider LeSean superior. At best you could say that reasonable football minds could differ, but there's no way you can say, objectively, that LeSean is clearly the better choice for the next few years. Presuming Murray would have signed with the Bills. Thus, the difference between "trade" and "free agency."
Deranged Rhino Posted September 7, 2015 Posted September 7, 2015 The going rate for a free agent player has everything to do with the assessment of a trade. Does this amount to a "no free agent in his right mind would ever sign with the Bills" argument? Because if it isn't, then why the defeatism? It doesn't though. It's apples and oranges because Free Agents control their own destinies -- traded players do not barring a no trade clause.
r00tabaga Posted September 7, 2015 Posted September 7, 2015 I like how "worst case scenario" we finish 4-12 just like the Rex led Jets last year...yet Jets "worst case scenario" is 5-11??? Does this guy even watch us play?
DC Tom Posted September 7, 2015 Posted September 7, 2015 The article is not convincing, not nearly as convincing as watching both guys play for most of their careers. The tape doesn't lie. How many times has Murray finished a full 16 game season? That's right... once. Murray is older, more injury prone, and more of a collision runner than McCoy. I'm not sure how any reasonable person could think objectively Murray is a better fit long term for Buffalo than McCoy when you factor in injuries and skill. McCoy is a different breed of runner. That too. That article's asinine. "Hey, let's compare the percentage of first downs the two players get in short-yardage situations...but ignore the different offensive schemes, offensive linemen, blocking schemes, play calling, and game situations." Sure...that's valid.
#34fan Posted September 7, 2015 Posted September 7, 2015 (edited) Yes, two new guards: a journeyman and a rookie. Hopefully the coaches can coax more out of this crew, and I am not saying they can't, but it is a fair criticism. The Bills OL was horrible last year, and the suddenly-shaky kicker was a huge reason we eked out 9 wins. if Carpenter goes back to being the guy Miami cut we have a big problem. There is just no margin for error without at least a top-10 (or so) passer. And until proven otherwise, we don't have one! This about covers it. Edited September 7, 2015 by #34fan
Deranged Rhino Posted September 7, 2015 Posted September 7, 2015 That article's asinine. "Hey, let's compare the percentage of first downs the two players get in short-yardage situations...but ignore the different offensive schemes, offensive linemen, blocking schemes, play calling, and game situations." Sure...that's valid. No kidding, it's a terrible article for anyone trying to prop Murray up -- which is why it was written by a Philly beat reporter. It gives the edge to Murray for "wear and tear" despite pointing out Murray is older, has a more extensive injury history, and also had four years of Oklahoma wear and tear on his body. It also gives Murray the edge on explosive running plays (which is a laugh) and culture -- a needless category unless you need one more to make your Murray case. Terrible article. Terrible way to build a case. There isn't a single national expert that would have put Murray over McCoy prior to McCoy becoming a Bill.
The Frankish Reich Posted September 7, 2015 Posted September 7, 2015 OK, so let's say you've convinced me that LeSean >> DeMarco. Why then extend LeSean? That's a separate question. The only objective reason I can find for that is "so that he'll be a happy camper." Maybe I'm out of touch here, but I actually prefer to have a guy who knows he needs to produce if he's going to get that next big contract...
r00tabaga Posted September 7, 2015 Posted September 7, 2015 It is a dunmb-arse article, no doubts....but he never said that. He said "Watkins cost the Bills 2 1st round picks"...which is true.It's all wording. Mariota cost the Titans 1 first round pick. Watkins yes, cost us 2 1st rd picks but we USED Cleveland's FIRST RD PICK!
DC Tom Posted September 7, 2015 Posted September 7, 2015 OK, so let's say you've convinced me that LeSean >> DeMarco. Why then extend LeSean? That's a separate question. The only objective reason I can find for that is "so that he'll be a happy camper." Maybe I'm out of touch here, but I actually prefer to have a guy who knows he needs to produce if he's going to get that next big contract... There's a reason you're unemployed, Mr. Millen.
Deranged Rhino Posted September 7, 2015 Posted September 7, 2015 OK, so let's say you've convinced me that LeSean >> DeMarco. Why then extend LeSean? That's a separate question. The only objective reason I can find for that is "so that he'll be a happy camper." Maybe I'm out of touch here, but I actually prefer to have a guy who knows he needs to produce if he's going to get that next big contract... You extend McCoy because you are not making the trade for just one year. You're making the trade for a superstar RB (which he is by all definitions) to be a part of your team's 3-4 year title window. If you don't resign him (to a cap friendly deal, which they did), you risk losing him or worse -- him causing a distraction for a team already undergoing a coaching change. Signing him shows commitment, it also allows him to feel wanted. Ego management is a part of professional sports, pretending that it's not is just not being realistic.
PromoTheRobot Posted September 7, 2015 Posted September 7, 2015 There's a reason you're unemployed, Mr. Millen.
The Frankish Reich Posted September 7, 2015 Posted September 7, 2015 Because Matt Millen was apparently known for refusing to sign aging/mediocre players to big contracts? I thought it was the opposite ...
Deranged Rhino Posted September 7, 2015 Posted September 7, 2015 Because Matt Millen was apparently known for refusing to sign aging/mediocre players to big contracts? I thought it was the opposite ... Even if you prefer Murray to McCoy, by NO definition is McCoy a "mediocre" player.
The Frankish Reich Posted September 7, 2015 Posted September 7, 2015 Even if you prefer Murray to McCoy, by NO definition is McCoy a "mediocre" player. Mediocre OR aging ... 1 out of 2!
Deranged Rhino Posted September 7, 2015 Posted September 7, 2015 Mediocre OR aging ... 1 out of 2! EVERY player in the history of the league is aging. McCoy is 27.
Coach Tuesday Posted September 7, 2015 Posted September 7, 2015 EVERY player in the history of the league is aging. McCoy is 27. It's true. We're all dying.
Deranged Rhino Posted September 7, 2015 Posted September 7, 2015 It's true. We're all dying. Not all of us. I believe Betty White is going to live forever.
Luxy312 Posted September 7, 2015 Posted September 7, 2015 NYG, Atlanta, Bears, and Rams all have QB's that have produced in one way or another in the league. The Bills do not. The O-line criticism is somewhat fair. Incognito was out of the league and Miller is a third round pick. To us that is a major upgrade over last year. To everyone else it may seem more of the same. Most people on this board are genuinely worried Wood might be the weak link. I agree Glenn in a contract year is going to be a star. Henderson should be better and there is some depth there if he is not. If Taylor/Manuel don't perform 5-11 or 6-10 is posisble. I just don't see it though. I see 10-6, maybe 11-5 if they beat Indianapolis. They should be able to ball control and hit deep strikes frequently. If I'm Rex I play more conservative on defense. They have the talent to stop them dropping 7 in coverage. They may or may not have the talent to get into a high scoring game. I wish this were going to be the case, but history is just against us on this. Even with the best defensive front fours that he's had, he's blitzed a lot. I'm not really optimistic that that won't continue.
Recommended Posts