BuffaloBillsForever Posted October 23, 2015 Share Posted October 23, 2015 Again, they're only "in cap hell" if you're looking at the numbers with an agenda. There's a lot of moves that can be made, not difficult ones either. And, you have to pay your star players. McCoy is a star player in the NFL. Kiko, if he had stayed healthy and played up to his capabilities, might have become a star as well and would eventually command a big deal. This is just reality. The bolded is just an odd statement. What does that even mean? The numbers are what they are. The cap hits are what they are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted October 23, 2015 Share Posted October 23, 2015 The bolded is just an odd statement. What does that even mean? The numbers are what they are. The cap hits are what they are. Again, the cap is fluid. Acting like it isn't -- which is what you're doing because you think the McCoy contract was excessive and a rigid cap makes your point -- is having an agenda. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuffaloBillsForever Posted October 23, 2015 Share Posted October 23, 2015 (edited) Again, the cap is fluid. Acting like it isn't -- which is what you're doing because you think the McCoy contract was excessive and a rigid cap makes your point -- is having an agenda. Having a different outlook, perhaps a more realistic outlook IMO that doesn't jive with your opinion doesn't make it an agenda. Edited October 23, 2015 by BuffaloBillsForever Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted October 23, 2015 Share Posted October 23, 2015 Having a different outlook, perhaps a more realistic outlook IMO that doesn't jive with your opinion doesn't make it an agenda. Do you deny the cap is fluid? Mario has said on record he'll restructure to free up space. Leodis won't be a Bill (most likely) come the off season. Ditto with Percy. That's another 10 million right there. Again, pretending like the cap is rigid isn't "a different outlook", it's just not accurate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuffaloBillsForever Posted October 23, 2015 Share Posted October 23, 2015 (edited) Do you deny the cap is fluid? Mario has said on record he'll restructure to free up space. Leodis won't be a Bill (most likely) come the off season. Ditto with Percy. That's another 10 million right there. Again, pretending like the cap is rigid isn't "a different outlook", it's just not accurate. Again you are arguing about stuff I never stated. I never mentioned restructuring. Right now the cap is really bad for 2016. I can't comment on stuff like Mario restructuring because we have no idea if he will. My point is that Whaley has us in cap hell entering 2016. It's not going to be as easy as you make. There are A LOT of hurdles. To say they can "do this", "do that" is pretty naive IMO. Edited October 23, 2015 by BuffaloBillsForever Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted October 23, 2015 Share Posted October 23, 2015 Again you are arguing about stuff I never stated. I never mentioned restrucuring etc however right now the cap is really bad for 2016. I can't comment on stuff like Mario restructuring because we have no idea if he will. My point is that Whaley has us in pretty bad shape going into 2016. Now you're trying to have it both ways. You're admitting you can't make predictions about the state of the cap because there are too many unknowns while simultaneously decrying McCoy's contract as "an albatross". That's a bit disingenuous, don't you think? I'm arguing your description of McCoy's contract as an albatross. It's rich, but it's not a hindrance to the Bills cap -- unless you think the cap is rigid. But it's not, it's fluid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuffaloBillsForever Posted October 23, 2015 Share Posted October 23, 2015 (edited) Now you're trying to have it both ways. You're admitting you can't make predictions about the state of the cap because there are too many unknowns while simultaneously decrying McCoy's contract as "an albatross". That's a bit disingenuous, don't you think? I'm arguing your description of McCoy's contract as an albatross. It's rich, but it's not a hindrance to the Bills cap -- unless you think the cap is rigid. But it's not, it's fluid. I'm calling McCoy's contract an albatross because of: The relative cost of that position vs. productivity Mileage and age at the RB position vs. productivity Injury concerns (see 2) Edited October 23, 2015 by BuffaloBillsForever Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted October 23, 2015 Share Posted October 23, 2015 I'm calling McCoy's contract an albatross because of: The relative cost of that position vs. productivity Mileage and age at the RB position vs. productivity Injury concerns (see 2) So, you're calling it an albatross entirely on speculation. Got it. Time will tell. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillsVet Posted October 23, 2015 Share Posted October 23, 2015 More value? He's played in two games since 2013... Kiko is a legend, but LBs are not as valuable as top shelf RBs. A 3 down LB who has some coverage skills is more valuable than a RB...even if they're earning the same pay. There's a lot more involved in a comparison, but positional value being what it is, there are plenty of above average replacement level RBs. There just aren't as many 3 down LBs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted October 23, 2015 Share Posted October 23, 2015 A 3 down LB who has some coverage skills is more valuable than a RB...even if they're earning the same pay. There's a lot more involved in a comparison, but positional value being what it is, there are plenty of above average replacement level RBs. There just aren't as many 3 down LBs. I disagree. We're talking about star level RBs, that's different than any old RB of which (I agree) there are many. The argument I'm making is star players are required to win in the NFL. Kiko, while promising, wasn't a star yet (still isn't -- but he might become one if he can get healthy). Shady was/is an established star player with a resume to match. When presented with the chance to get a star player at RB, in exchange for a guy who's maybe got the potential to be a star player, even if he's a 3 down LB (which I don't think he is based on his size), you take it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillsVet Posted October 23, 2015 Share Posted October 23, 2015 I disagree. We're talking about star level RBs, that's different than any old RB of which (I agree) there are many. The argument I'm making is star players are required to win in the NFL. Kiko, while promising, wasn't a star yet (still isn't -- but he might become one if he can get healthy). Shady was/is an established star player with a resume to match. When presented with the chance to get a star player at RB, in exchange for a guy who's maybe got the potential to be a star player, even if he's a 3 down LB (which I don't think he is based on his size), you take it. Star RBs aren't necessary though. The year Chris Johnson ran for 2k yards and 2500 total the Titans failed to make the playoffs. The year Adrian Peterson ran for 2k Minnesota was a 6 seed. No one in the NFL is emphasizing the running game to the point it demands "star level RBs." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted October 23, 2015 Share Posted October 23, 2015 Star RBs aren't necessary though. The year Chris Johnson ran for 2k yards and 2500 total the Titans failed to make the playoffs. The year Adrian Peterson ran for 2k Minnesota was a 6 seed. No one in the NFL is emphasizing the running game to the point it demands "star level RBs." Alone, they can't win. I completely agree star RBs aren't cure-alls. But the Bills did a lot to bring in guys with difference making talent across the offense: Watkins (I know), Clay, Harvin (I know), hopefully Tyrod (jury's still out) and McCoy. Adding star players, especially at skill positions on offense, can and does win in the league. And when you get a chance to add that kind of elite talent to your roster in exchange for a promising (but not yet a star) LB straight up, you do it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillsVet Posted October 23, 2015 Share Posted October 23, 2015 Alone, they can't win. I completely agree star RBs aren't cure-alls. But the Bills did a lot to bring in guys with difference making talent across the offense: Watkins (I know), Clay, Harvin (I know), hopefully Tyrod (jury's still out) and McCoy. Adding star players, especially at skill positions on offense, can and does win in the league. And when you get a chance to add that kind of elite talent to your roster in exchange for a promising (but not yet a star) LB straight up, you do it. No one alone can win a football game. But what's interesting about all of these players you mention is they either were acquired in free agency or they had to trade up in the draft. And it's why I continue to believe Whaley and his predecessor aren't/weren't adept at drafting offensive players. If they were, Buffalo wouldn't have had to go on the spending spree they did this past off-season. The best teams in the NFL are winning with predominantly home-grown rosters. New England, Green Bay, Cincinnati, Pittsburgh all draft well consistently. In Buffalo they're buying RBs, WRs, TEs (haven't drafted one in rounds 1-3 since Kevin Everett 10 years ago), and refuse to draft a QB unless their collective back is against the wall. Doug Whaley and Bumbling Buddy added a lot of defenders since they arrived in 2010. It's still not the way to build a team suited for winning in the modern NFL. Nor is buying your talent when the drafts don't yield talent, especially on offense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coach Tuesday Posted October 23, 2015 Share Posted October 23, 2015 I was wrong about Spiller though, and I'm man enough to admit it. If Sean Payton can't get production out of him, maybe no one can... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dollars 2 donuts Posted October 23, 2015 Share Posted October 23, 2015 In a passing league in a division with the best passing QB in a generation possibly ever, and who looks like he is going to play until he's 43 - yes, we should've kept Kiko. Revised your post, CT, with my thoughts. If I have over stepped my bounds I apologize, but it keeps the sentiment of what you were saying...unfortunately. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
klos63 Posted October 23, 2015 Share Posted October 23, 2015 A 3 down LB who has some coverage skills is more valuable than a RB...even if they're earning the same pay. There's a lot more involved in a comparison, but positional value being what it is, there are plenty of above average replacement level RBs. There just aren't as many 3 down LBs. Even if the 3 down LB is terrible against the run? Which Kiko is(was, he doesn't play much anymore) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buffalo Barbarian Posted October 24, 2015 Share Posted October 24, 2015 Let me preface this topic with saying that I do, and did, agree with the Alonso trade. We have all seen what Shady can do when healthy, and even hobbled on this team, he showed a lot this past game against the Bengals, without much threat from the passing game. But. Did we devalue him a little too much? Remembering the way he was used in Pettine's system, when he had a DROY runner-up season, he seemed to be something this team could really use. A LB that was used to great effect against the pass, who was one of the chief players when disguising blitzes, or showing blitzes and dropping off in coverage. I watched this (I know it's a highlight video, but it's the best I can do.) I noted Kiko's position in a lot of his highlights. Dropping into the middle of the field to protect against quick-ins and slants, he produced. Obviously the TO well dried up early as it is wont to do, but still. His effectiveness on short to intermediate routes across the middle was apparent. He wasn't a player without his negatives, namely getting swallowed up on run blocks. But would he have fit this system perhaps better than Bradham or Brown, two LB's who haven't had a great year in pass coverage, a similar system that he excelled in back in 2013 (even if he wasn't perfect)? Again, reiterating that I still agree with the trade. And even if he is a better fit, I still would've pulled the trigger on the trade. But I thought I wouldn't notice much of a drop off. And let's ignore injuries for a second, because this topic will quickly die if the only dialogue is "injury-prone, couldn't help in street clothes." I did not and do not agree with the trade, so yes. as far as injuries goes Shady is injured and that Hammy will bug him all year, you don't trade for old RBs (or any RB, we could have gotten a scat back anywhere) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
atlbillsfan1975 Posted October 24, 2015 Share Posted October 24, 2015 If we are talking hypothetical scenarios can we borrow the Delorian and go back and get Urlacher in his prime? I hear what you are saying about Rex's D. I think everyone needs to be a little patient. 6 games does not make a season. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts