Pbomb Posted March 21, 2017 Posted March 21, 2017 Doesn't exactly seem like we got real good bang for our buck with that extra 12 million so far. Management should have had the foresight to sign Gilmore to a more team friendly contract extension a season or two ago. Waiting till the player hits free agency never works out. i disagree. We got upgrades at fb & kicker, 2 younger safeties with potential to replace an aging one and one thats always hurt. Thats 4 holes we filled instead of one. I thought we did talk to gilmore last year about an extention but prices were way off. It was pretty obvious he wanted to test the market and get paid top dollar.
GunnerBill Posted March 21, 2017 Posted March 21, 2017 Yea. Should have just paid Gilmore. The consensus on this board about him is wrong. He is really, really good.
TPS Posted March 21, 2017 Posted March 21, 2017 Yea. Should have just paid Gilmore. The consensus on this board about him is wrong. He is really, really good. im sure he was going to test the market no matter what the offer was. Then, with a solid offer from the Pats, I doubt any offer from the Bills mattered. More $ or a ring?
GunnerBill Posted March 21, 2017 Posted March 21, 2017 im sure he was going to test the market no matter what the offer was. Then, with a solid offer from the Pats, I doubt any offer from the Bills mattered. More $ or a ring? I'd have tagged him.
PlayoffsPlease Posted March 21, 2017 Posted March 21, 2017 Gilmore played five seasons with the Bills. The Bills didn't make the playoffs once. Its not clear to me that keeping him is less "wheel spinning" than actually going in a different direction and allocating those dollars to other positions/players. I am a bit bi-polar on the Gilmore decision. Based on where the Bills are at as a franchise, I don't think signing him for that much money made sense. On the other hand, given where the Patriots are as a franchise, it seemed to make good sense for them to sign him.
bisonbrigade Posted March 21, 2017 Posted March 21, 2017 I like Gilmore but would you have been okay with paying him at least $14.5 million a year? The Bills could franchised him, the Bills could of traded him, the Bills could of done something to protect there investment. This is why the Bills have not made the playoffs since 1999 and will not this year either.
xsoldier54 Posted March 21, 2017 Posted March 21, 2017 Is losing Gilmore in his prime, then using a 1st rounder on a CB, the definition of spinning our wheels? Especially considering all of the other holes to fill on this roster (safety, DT, #2 WR, etc). This is frustration talking, but to be mired in mediocrity for 18 years, and be bleeding talent (Gilmore, Woods, Aaron Williams, Goodwin, maybe Zach Brown) really sucks. The Pats overpaid for Gilmore and they will live to regret it. It was a good decision to let him walk. Like you said there are many holes to fill and that money can and has been used to help plug some of those holes. How about we finish the offseason including the draft and then watch at least half of the season before we decide what kind of team this will be.
mjt328 Posted March 21, 2017 Posted March 21, 2017 (edited) The Pats overpaid for Gilmore and they will live to regret it. It was a good decision to let him walk. Like you said there are many holes to fill and that money can and has been used to help plug some of those holes. How about we finish the offseason including the draft and then watch at least half of the season before we decide what kind of team this will be. The Pats are making a final push, hoping to snatch as many Super Bowl victories as possible before Tom Brady retires. This offseason they have been making moves that are very uncharacteristic of their franchise. Trading away a 1st Round Pick for a guy with 2 years left on his rookie contract (Brandon Cooks). Trading away another 2nd Round Pick for guy who has 1 year left on his rookie contract (Kony Ealy). Making a big splash free agent signing (Stephon Gilmore). Their reluctance to part with their backup QB. They know the window is closing. They are not looking to the future. They are trying to win NOW. The Bills did not have the luxury to keep Gilmore. Yes, they are trying to win now. But their ceiling is probably 10-11 wins. Not the Super Bowl. They are also looking towards the future. And giving Gilmore a big contract would weigh this franchise down in 1-2 years. Edited March 21, 2017 by mjt328
hondo in seattle Posted March 21, 2017 Posted March 21, 2017 Your picks in rounds 1-3 are where you should find starters. And I chose 2009-13 because those players would now be on their second contract, and therefore re-signed. Darby is not a replacement for Gilmore. He was chosen because they needed another CB in 2015 and met RR's priority on the position. Seymour is almost a complete unknown and it seems the off-season revisionist history now pronounces him a starter. He hasn't proven after 1 season he's starting material. Listenbee is a complete unknown who's never run a full route tree and is coming off multiple injuries. If you bank on essentially a redshirt freshman basically being a reliable pass catcher, it's delusional. The Bills needed to sign so many players this off-season because the roster is without much depth. If Doug Whaley was this great architect of a roster, why would this be the case after 4 seasons he was in charge of personnel? I get what you're saying and agree with much of it. But I did hear a GM say that he wanted at least one Pro Bowler out of each draft. He didn't care if his Rounds 1 and 2 picks were busts if his Rounds 4 and 5 picks are both Pro Bowl caliber. You're not going to always hit on Rounds 1-3 - there's an element of chance with every choice - and don't need to. But you do need to get some impact players out of the draft and we haven't got enough.
Sammy Watkins' Rib Posted March 21, 2017 Posted March 21, 2017 i disagree. We got upgrades at fb & kicker, 2 younger safeties with potential to replace an aging one and one thats always hurt. Thats 4 holes we filled instead of one. I thought we did talk to gilmore last year about an extention but prices were way off. It was pretty obvious he wanted to test the market and get paid top dollar. I'm with you on the Micah Hyde signing, but that's it. Upgrade at FB? It's FB. Same with Kicker. Kicker was going to be upgraded with or without Gilmore just based on how bad Carpenter was. And with kickers you never know when they will lose it anyway. Remember, Carp was great when he first arrived. And while it is nice we have Hyde, who filled an obvious hole at Safety, now we have an obvious hole at CB, so in the end, it's net neutral.
BuffaloBillsGospel Posted March 21, 2017 Posted March 21, 2017 I don't think it's "spinning our wheels", the Bills offered him what they felt he was worth and both sides moved on, my only gripe is that there never seemed to be a plan in place, we never signed a FT veteran free agent CB. To think a rookie will come in and play like Gilmore is foolish and Seymour did show flashes but no way is ready to be the #2 CB yet imo. Buffalo should have had a clear vision if Gilmore walked and I can't believe they think a rookie is the best option but maybe I'm wrong.... We'll see how it goes.
Dr. Who Posted March 21, 2017 Posted March 21, 2017 Yea. Should have just paid Gilmore. The consensus on this board about him is wrong. He is really, really good. I think he's quite good, too. At the price the Pats* paid, that's a lot of dough. Especially if McDermott's zone scheme doesn't require fellas on an island, so to speak. I just hope OBD doesn't feel compelled to take cb at #10 now.
1billsfan Posted March 21, 2017 Posted March 21, 2017 I think he's quite good, too. At the price the Pats* paid, that's a lot of dough. Especially if McDermott's zone scheme doesn't require fellas on an island, so to speak. I just hope OBD doesn't feel compelled to take cb at #10 now. Don't worry, Whaley knows how to find good CBs later on in the draft. He's not burning a 1st round pick on a CB for that reason alone.
TPS Posted March 21, 2017 Posted March 21, 2017 I'd have tagged him. if you expect Gilmore to be a shut down man corner, then I might agree. In SM's scheme I think they're better off drafting a replacement and getting their financial house in order going forward. The disruption of maroon-to-Rex really set this team back. The clay/McCoy contracts essentially put the bills out of any serious FA signings for the past 2 years. At the time, they were viewed as necessary. I think the pegulas are now committed to a long term vision under McDermott that includes Whaley. In addition to bringing in the right personnel to match scheme, it also means doing a better job managing the cap. From what I've read, run support by CBs is important in this scheme, and that's not one of Gilmore' strengths. I liked Gilmore a lot, but I'm okay with letting him go, rather than pay him $14+ Mil/year.
bisonbrigade Posted March 21, 2017 Posted March 21, 2017 Draft, release, draft, release, draft = 7-9, 8-8, 7-9, 8-8.
EasternOHBillsFan Posted March 21, 2017 Posted March 21, 2017 Is losing Gilmore in his prime, then using a 1st rounder on a CB, the definition of spinning our wheels? Especially considering all of the other holes to fill on this roster (safety, DT, #2 WR, etc). This is frustration talking, but to be mired in mediocrity for 18 years, and be bleeding talent (Gilmore, Woods, Aaron Williams, Goodwin, maybe Zach Brown) really sucks. Bleeding off Woods and Goodwin was a well needed bloodletting. AW was delivered a cheap shot that puts his health at risk so pass there. Gilmore was WAY too expensive for a team that needs a lot of help in certain areas. Zach Brown, who knows there...
bisonbrigade Posted March 21, 2017 Posted March 21, 2017 So instead of signing and trading Gilmore you just let him walk and get nothing and go 6-10 for another 5 years. Same strategy leads to same results
Recommended Posts