CommonCents Posted September 5, 2017 Share Posted September 5, 2017 I answered this with my previous post. The problem is that you are viewing this through the wrong lens, at least from the perspective of this regime. Also, I don't share your view that he was someone with any real differentiating "potential". I see him as a JAG. Which isn't a bad thing, every team needs quite a few of them, but that's how I saw him. Because the new regime can do wrong. Am I doing better? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted September 5, 2017 Share Posted September 5, 2017 Because the new regime can do wrong. Am I doing better? How about not going ape **** over cutting a JAG and seeing how the season plays out? Sound reasonable? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
26CornerBlitz Posted September 5, 2017 Share Posted September 5, 2017 How about not going ape **** over cutting a JAG and seeing how the season plays out? Sound reasonable? By the same token, how about seeing how he progresses before labeling him a JAG. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CommonCents Posted September 5, 2017 Share Posted September 5, 2017 How about not going ape **** over cutting a JAG and seeing how the season plays out? Sound reasonable? Funny I'm going ape ****!? When the day before this cut I was defending McBeane for making similiar choices at different positions. It makes zero sense to go into an NFL season without a younger RB, the resource had already been spent but they threw it away to keep a guy like Tolbert on. You say FB? Don't the Bills have one of the higher paid FB's in the league? Are they running the wishbone? It's bad team building. Tolbert will be toast by week 4 from carrying around that gut. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted September 5, 2017 Share Posted September 5, 2017 (edited) By the same token, how about seeing how he progresses before labeling him a JAG. There is nothing wrong with being a JAG. I like Jwill, I think he's a decent RB, who has a little bit of quickness, ok moves and can break tackles. But he has no breakaway speed, no break your ankle moves, not a bull dozer, doesn't excel in special teams, not a fantastic blocker or receiver. Just a decent skilled back who deserves to be on someone's NFL roster. That's my opinion of him. Edited September 5, 2017 by Magox Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NewMexBills Posted September 5, 2017 Share Posted September 5, 2017 I get this feeling that this team is really gonna miss him in 3-5wks, He will shine in Milehigh & good for him that there's a abundance of refer there! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vincec Posted September 5, 2017 Share Posted September 5, 2017 I get this feeling that this team is really gonna miss him in 3-5wks, He will shine in Milehigh & good for him that there's a abundance of refer there! Nah. He sucks. Everyone else sucks. So what's the difference? Just tank and be happy with it. At least that's what I've been reading. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted September 5, 2017 Share Posted September 5, 2017 (edited) Funny I'm going ape ****!? When the day before this cut I was defending McBeane for making similiar choices at different positions. It makes zero sense to go into an NFL season without a younger RB, the resource had already been spent but they threw it away to keep a guy like Tolbert on. You say FB? Don't the Bills have one of the higher paid FB's in the league? Are they running the wishbone? It's bad team building. Tolbert will be toast by week 4 from carrying around that gut. Not you per se, but the reaction we've seen, specially the day he was cut. You would have thought we got rid of the 2nd coming of Jim Brown. It's clear that McD/Beane and apparently the vast majority of the NFL didn't value him the same as some of our fans. Personally, I'm not that high on Tolbert, but I get what they are trying to do. If I was given a choice of who I would rather have as my primary back up, Jwill or Tolbert, I'd choose Jwill hands down. But that wasn't the calculation. My suspicions are that they are going to use Tolbert in different sorts of capacities then that if Jwill had been on the team. Special teams, short yardage situations, blocking, receiving what have you. And I'm guessing that they didn't believe that there wouldn't be that much of a drop off from the typical backing up Shady carrying the ball functions from Jwill and whoever else they have pegged for that role, which I'm guessing is Banyard. Which Banyard is thought of as a better blocker, receiver, special teamer with more speed. I don't think the decision really came down to Jwill and Tolbert, I think it boiled down to Jwill and Banyard. Edited September 5, 2017 by Magox Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NewMexBills Posted September 5, 2017 Share Posted September 5, 2017 Nah. He sucks. Everyone else sucks. So what's the difference? Just tank and be happy with it. At least that's what I've been reading. Yup thats the buffalo spirit i love! I woud love to see TYGOD play lights out this year Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Max Fischer Posted September 5, 2017 Share Posted September 5, 2017 (edited) Hyperbolic nonsense? We let go of: Gilmore Watkins Woods Ragland Darby J. Williams Argue the talent level if you want but we replaced them with very little. Why do so many fans rail against the moves by distorting basic facts? Gilmore - We've seen the good SG and the terrible; but certainly you can make a logical argument he was not worth the contract he signed. (Would you have signed him? I know I wouldn't at that price)) At the very least, SG might not fit in the current defense and we have yet to see TW play a single regular season down. A strong case could be made for "Let's see how it goes," but TW is hardly "very little." Watkins - Same for Watkins, this board and other places has debated ad nauseam about the deal, but Jordan Mathews is no doubt as productive, if not more productive than SW. Perhaps not as dynamic, but over his career, no doubt a much better asset. At worse, this one is a wash. Woods - Oh, please. A good, average player. Did you really want to sign him for what he got? We'll see, but I feel pretty confident that Zay Jones will more than fill Woods shoes. Ragland- Really? The guy may not see the field this year. Darby - Again we'll see, but Darby does not fit this defense and time will tell if his replacement is a bit more than you think. J. Williams - He's an average RB. Tolbert et al have already demonstrated they are as good. JW may not even play this year. Edited September 5, 2017 by Max Fischer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
What a Tuel Posted September 5, 2017 Share Posted September 5, 2017 (edited) Why do so many fans rail against the moves by distorting basic facts? Gilmore - We've seen the good SG and the terrible; but certainly you can make a logical argument he was not worth the contract he signed. (Would you have signed him? I know I wouldn't at that price)) At the very least, SG might not fit in the current defense and we have yet to see TW play a single regular season down. A strong case could be made for "Let's see how it goes," but TW is hardly "very little." Watkins - Same for Watkins, this board and other places has debated ad nauseam about the deal, but Jordan Mathews is no doubt as productive, if not more productive than SW. Perhaps not as dynamic, but over his career, no doubt a much better asset. At worse, this one is a wash. Woods - Oh, please. A good, average player. Did you really want to sign him for what he got? We'll see, but I feel pretty confident that Zay Jones will more than fill Woods shoes. Ragland- Really? The guy may not see the field this year. Darby - Again we'll see, but Darby does not fit this defense and time will tell if his replacement is a bit more than you think. J. Williams - He's an average RB. Tolbert et al have already demonstrated they are as good. JW may not even play this year. Basic facts? You mean opinions. No I wouldn't pay ALL of those guys. The point was they let go of all of them. You might be right about Darby, and Gaines may be good but he was more injured than Watkins. Why that is a notch against Watkins but not for the Gaines acquisition is beyond me. Matthews is a good #2, but he has likely hit his ceiling, and now we may be asking him to do something that may not fit what gave him success in Philly. Watkins was a much better WR when he was on the field. Ragland was more of a waste a ton of picks on a guy and get rid of him for peanuts kind of irritating move. His highest cost of keeping him around was already paid in the draft. Woods was another WR that was solid in blocking and a decent all around WR. I probably wouldn't have paid him $8 million though. I like some of the moves, but we just continue to tread water. Not completely sinking, but not significantly improving our situation either. Edited September 5, 2017 by What a Tuel Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bills Pimpin' Posted September 5, 2017 Share Posted September 5, 2017 Funny I'm going ape ****!? When the day before this cut I was defending McBeane for making similiar choices at different positions. It makes zero sense to go into an NFL season without a younger RB, the resource had already been spent but they threw it away to keep a guy like Tolbert on. You say FB? Don't the Bills have one of the higher paid FB's in the league? Are they running the wishbone? It's bad team building. Tolbert will be toast by week 4 from carrying around that gut. Tolbert was signed for leadership and the locker room as much as his play on the field. McD said it when he signed him and he loves that buy in and team building ****. It's part of the culture change going on at OBD. I believe it was between Banyard and Jwill and Banyard won out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Max Fischer Posted September 5, 2017 Share Posted September 5, 2017 (edited) Basic facts? You mean opinions. No I wouldn't pay ALL of those guys. The point was they let go of all of them. You might be right about Darby, and Gaines may be good but he was more injured than Watkins. Why that is a notch against Watkins but not for the Gaines acquisition is beyond me. Matthews is a good #2, but he has likely hit his ceiling, and now we may be asking him to do something that may not fit what gave him success in Philly. Watkins was a much better WR when he was on the field. Ragland was more of a waste a ton of picks on a guy and get rid of him for peanuts kind of irritating move. His highest cost of keeping him around was already paid in the draft. Woods was another WR that was solid in blocking and a decent all around WR. I like some of the moves, but we just continue to tread water. Not completely sinking, but not significantly improving our situation either. A strong case has been made that each of these moves helps propel a larger/longer plan to win in the future. SG - Not worth the money and may have been replaced by a player who is cheaper and fits the defense. RW - A "fine" player but not worth the money; again, possibly replaced by player who is cheaper and fits the offense. Ragland - Sunk cost. Pre-injury he may have been worth holding but seems clear that he's not the player when drafted, no matter the cost at the time. Mathews - You may be write, but no different than the questions that surround Watkins and I believe they would not have signed him either way. Darby - He really is not all that good and did not fit new defense at all. If Gaines is healthy, he would be a very good replacement. That's a plan. We'll see if it works but there is logic behind each move. If they work out, Bills are on their way to a rebuild. On the other hand, the reverse decision on each sounds much more risky. Edited September 5, 2017 by Max Fischer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldTimeAFLGuy Posted September 5, 2017 Share Posted September 5, 2017 ...at least JW hooked up with the Broncos....good for him............. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
artmalibu Posted September 5, 2017 Share Posted September 5, 2017 I believe it was between Banyard and Jwill and Banyard won out. That is what I think. Banyard and Jwill were similar players, Mike is a different type of back all together. The only move where they may have gone backwards is with Sammy, but no one will argue that his health is a crapshoot. For the money the free agents got they needed to go. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
What a Tuel Posted September 5, 2017 Share Posted September 5, 2017 A strong case has been made that each of these moves helps propel a larger/longer plan to win in the future. SG - Not worth the money and may have been replaced by a player who is cheaper and fits the defense. RW - A "fine" player but not worth the money; again, possibly replaced by player who is cheaper and fits the offense. Ragland - Sunk cost. Pre-injury he may have been worth holding but seems clear that he's not the player when drafted, no matter the cost at the time. Mathews - You may be write, but no different than the questions that surround Watkins and I believe they would not have signed him either way. Darby - He really is not all that good and did not fit new defense at all. If Gaines is healthy, he would be a very good replacement. That's a plan. We'll see if it works but there is logic behind each move. If they work out, Bills are on their way to a rebuild. On the other hand, the reverse decision on each sounds much more risky. Not worth the money does not help the Bills in any way. It means they couldn't make it work with the players when they were cheap, so now they won't pay for them, back to the drawing board. It isn't a good thing for the team. Good decision financially for some yeah, but it doesn't make the team better. That's just my opinion though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldTimeAFLGuy Posted September 5, 2017 Share Posted September 5, 2017 (edited) ....sure it's hindsight, but was/is there any truth to this?.....not a fan of bad rap/unsubstantiated crap, but I have no idea how accurate this is.... Ex-Bills RB Jonathan Williams passed through waivers unclaimed. It's a bad sign for Williams, who shined in preseason with Buffalo but was passed on by 31 teams when he hit waivers with a minimum-salary deal. Williams does have some history of off-field and medical issues, so there may be something going on with him of which we're not entirely aware. Either way, his stock in Dynasty leagues has gone back in the basement as a street free agent. Sep 4 - 5:45 PM Source: Ian Rapoport on Twitter Edited September 5, 2017 by OldTimeAFLGuy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
26CornerBlitz Posted September 5, 2017 Share Posted September 5, 2017 (edited) ....sure it's hindsight, but was/is there any truth to this?.....not a fan of bad rap/unsubstantiated crap, but I have no idea how accurate this is.... Ex-Bills RB Jonathan Williams passed through waivers unclaimed. It's a bad sign for Williams, who shined in preseason with Buffalo but was passed on by 31 teams when he hit waivers with a minimum-salary deal. Williams does have some history of off-field and medical issues, so there may be something going on with him of which we're not entirely aware. Either way, his stock in Dynasty leagues has gone back in the basement as a street free agent. Sep 4 - 5:45 PM Source: Ian Rapoport on Twitter Not significant enough to deter Elway says Captain Obvious. It appears to be OBE based on today's signing. Edited September 5, 2017 by 26CornerBlitz Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldTimeAFLGuy Posted September 5, 2017 Share Posted September 5, 2017 Not significant enough to deter Elway says Captain Obvious. It appears to be OBE based on today's signing. ....CYA then.....if he was a bad apple, why keep 'em to the 11th hour?..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
26CornerBlitz Posted September 5, 2017 Share Posted September 5, 2017 ....CYA then.....if he was a bad apple, why keep 'em to the 11th hour?..... Seems like Rapsheet conjecture based on him going unclaimed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts