26CornerBlitz Posted August 12, 2017 Share Posted August 12, 2017 That is the point. What really matters in this league, and how do you get it? Are you going to argue that the Pats* don't constantly let there "star" athletes go for little compensation to avoid paying them? The key is having a top organization with a system in place. All on the same page. And having a QB. Not just blindly acquiring talented players and hoping for the best. Let's put a little trust in our new regime and let the process play out. They'll pay up for some players and let others go. Can't keep everyone in this era of the Salary Cap. Obviously they have the player personnel, QB, front office/coaching, and continuity of systems that give them an advantage in a division with teams in a constant state of flux. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bangarang Posted August 12, 2017 Share Posted August 12, 2017 (edited) mediocre in talent compared to Sammy? Yeah.If we consistently get 70 catches, 900 yards and 6 TDs from him then I'll be happy. We still have Zay who looks like a real player. Could be a solid combo for a while. Edited August 12, 2017 by Bangarang Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillsFan17 Posted August 12, 2017 Share Posted August 12, 2017 Andre Reed was a 7th rounder out of Kentucky? Look up the definition of poduction. Then look up the stats. Find out that andre Reed didn't produce the stats Johnson did. I'm not discussing talent. I'm not saying SJ was better than Reed, but he's the only WR in bills history with back to back 1,000 yard seasons. With effin Fitzpatrick Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ittakestime Posted August 12, 2017 Share Posted August 12, 2017 The value was horrible. Expected so much more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andrew Son Posted August 12, 2017 Share Posted August 12, 2017 The value was horrible. Expected so much more. For a guy with injury concerns that is a FA after this year? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bangarang Posted August 12, 2017 Share Posted August 12, 2017 The value was horrible. Expected so much more. We had garbage at QB when we drafted him so his production was never going to live up to his draft status. And with his injury history and contract status I'm not sure we could have gotten more of a return for him. We got what I imagine will be a high 2nd round pick Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
26CornerBlitz Posted August 12, 2017 Share Posted August 12, 2017 We had garbage at QB when we drafted him so his production was never going to live up to his draft status. And with his injury history and contract status I'm not sure we could have gotten more of a return for him. We got what I imagine will be a high 2nd round pick Shortsighted if the plan is to acquire a Franchise QB in 2018. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HappyDays Posted August 12, 2017 Share Posted August 12, 2017 What does that make trading a player taken with a top 50 pick for a mediocre WR in a contract year? We didn't trade Darby for Matthews, we traded him for a 3rd rounder. Matthews was thrown in. Funny how you left that out of your analysis, similar to the people trying to say we traded Sammy for EJ Gaines. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andrew Son Posted August 12, 2017 Share Posted August 12, 2017 Shortsighted if the plan is to acquire a Franchise QB in 2018. That might be true if they were confident that they could sign him, beyond just the tag Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
auburnbillsbacker Posted August 12, 2017 Share Posted August 12, 2017 I have a bad feeling that drafting Mahomes and keeping Sammy might have been the best move. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bangarang Posted August 12, 2017 Share Posted August 12, 2017 Shortsighted if the plan is to acquire a Franchise QB in 2018. Assuming he'd even want to sign a new deal here. It's also questionable if we even make the Darby deal if we didn't need Matthews. There goes our extra 2nd and 3rd and a good chunk of our ammo to move up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
26CornerBlitz Posted August 12, 2017 Share Posted August 12, 2017 That might be true if they were confident that they could sign him, beyond just the tag Assuming he'd even want to sign a new deal here. It's also questionable if we even make the Darby deal if we didn't need Matthews. There goes our extra 2nd and 3rd and a good chunk of our ammo to move up. There was no indication at all that he wouldn't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bangarang Posted August 12, 2017 Share Posted August 12, 2017 There was no indication at all that he wouldn't. To us there wasn't. We're not behind the scenes talking to the player and his reps. We know a fraction of what BB and McD know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoSaint Posted August 12, 2017 Share Posted August 12, 2017 There was no indication at all that he wouldn't. Beane using the word signability was a great way to spin the decision as the players fault and him just making the best of a bad situation -- true or not. Love or hate the move he nailed the marketing half of being GM Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
26CornerBlitz Posted August 12, 2017 Share Posted August 12, 2017 To us there wasn't. We're not behind the scenes talking to the player and his reps. We know a fraction of what BB and McD know. Beane said yesterday that the subject was never broached with his agents and that makes sense with no 5th year option exercised. Seemed like they were going to wait until the season was over to reassess. Moot point now. Beane using the word signability was a great way to spin the decision as the players fault and him just making the best of a bad situation -- true or not. Love or hate the move he nailed the marketing half of being GM Learned from Russ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrDawkinstein Posted August 12, 2017 Share Posted August 12, 2017 Bill, I don't understand your logic. On the one hand you rightly criticize Whaley and the organization for not having a coherent plan as to how to build a franchise. This franchise has failed because it took a patchwork approach instead of using its resources to build a foundation for sustainable success. That's what they are now doing! That's the course of action that you for years has strenuously called for. So what is your response when the organization does what you have been calling for? Lambaste them. The time to take this tough action is at the beginning of the tenure of this new regime. Wasting valuable time and resources to merely get by as a fringe wild-card team makes no sense to me. And it shouldn't to you as one of the most vociferous critics of how this wretched operation has historically been run. The Bills are accumulating assets (draft picks) to build a deeper roster and put themselves in a better position to acquire a franchise qb. Those ardent advocates who believed that TT was an adequate enough qb to build around have forcefully been responded to by the last regime and this new regime. He's simply not good now or ever will be. Those that believed this team as it was constructed was at the doorstep to being a serious team were out of touch with reality. The process is painful but the smart way to handle this grueling process is to do in quick bursts rather than continuing the incremental approach that has gotten this team nowhere for the past two consecutive generations. Bill, you have screamed for years that this franchise was riding the wrong bus and taking the wrong route. This new regime has gotten on a different bus and is going in a different but more rational direction. Instead of celebrating you are denigrating! I find that to be perplexing. You don get it. There is no right move. Either way they go, the Bills will screw it up, and end up feeling the negative parts more then the benefits of any move. And to be honest, with regime after regime, and coach after coach, (even owner after owner now), they've given us no reason to feel otherwise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoSaint Posted August 12, 2017 Share Posted August 12, 2017 To us there wasn't. We're not behind the scenes talking to the player and his reps. We know a fraction of what BB and McD know. To be fair though, the problem in signability could just as easily be the teams failing as the players outlandish demands. We have seen little in the way of willingness to pay market rate for players of any noteworthy impact. Not saying they should have spent more to get free agents or extend guys this year, simply that we haven't seen it yet. It was a well crafted press statement that's easy to eat up as a positive spin for the team. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrDawkinstein Posted August 12, 2017 Share Posted August 12, 2017 Beane using the word signability was a great way to spin the decision as the players fault and him just making the best of a bad situation -- true or not. Love or hate the move he nailed the marketing half of being GM I didnt take it as blaming the player. A lot goes into signability. Including the team's willingness to invest the resources that player will demand for the position he plays. "Lack of signability" could mean that the team didn't value him as high as his market price. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill from NYC Posted August 12, 2017 Share Posted August 12, 2017 (edited) Bill, you have screamed for years that this franchise was riding the wrong bus and taking the wrong route. This new regime has gotten on a different bus and is going in a different but more rational direction. Instead of celebrating you are denigrating! I find that to be perplexing. John, I understand that the above could confuse you. I will try to explain: In the 2017 draft, I failed to see much difference wrt the way the new coach went about things. They walked away from a QB and traded down. To draft who? That's right, another first round defensive back. They DID draft a blocker although they had to trade up to do so, but that can work. It did with Levitre. Why should I (or even you) believe that they will not waste most of these picks that they now possess? Six picks in the first 3 rounds? Great! Will they use 4 on running backs and defensive backs John? Is this what you want? Now, they traded away a decent corner and traded for a perhaps weak one. This leaves the door wide open for more wasted picks. I don't want to hear any more that players like Spiller, McKelvin, and Whitner were "good." We lost football games because we wasted our resources on these people. And if Gilmore was SO good, why didn't we keep him? In short, I don't trust the new administration yet. I believe they are better than Rex/Whaley but only because they couldn't possibly be worse. How about we make the playoffs before we throw roses at these guys? Edited August 12, 2017 by Bill from NYC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bangarang Posted August 12, 2017 Share Posted August 12, 2017 To be fair though, the problem in signability could just as easily be the teams failing as the players outlandish demands. We have seen little in the way of willingness to pay market rate for players of any noteworthy impact. Not saying they should have spent more to get free agents or extend guys this year, simply that we haven't seen it yet. It was a well crafted press statement that's easy to eat up as a positive spin for the team. Given our situation at QB I wouldn't have wanted to break the bank for Sammy anyways. He was never going to put up big numbers this year to justify what he likely would have been asking for. BB is trying to hit the reset button and do things his way. I was baffled when the trade happened but I'm beginning to try and understand why. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts