What should the Bills have done at QB

[The Senator]

Ditto...and I didn't even have to add this, subtract that, multiply by this, spin around three times while blindfolded, etc., etc.

[Kultarr]

I meant wait until he plays in camp and pre-season and games one and two or so and give him 25 million in late September.

 

An important point though is that Rob Johnson was the poster boy of great practice QBs. The Bills took the bait for this guy based on his practices and pre-season showings and extremely limited actual playing time. So, I don't think the Bills are any less in awe of his frozen ropes after watching him in shorts and a Bills helmet in 7 on 7's than they were when he was wearing the Jaguars helmet.

 

If he plays decent or well, he is going to sign the contract. If he doesn't, you always have the transition and franchise tags to work out a deal.

608546[/snapback]

 

The point is that the contract they offered him and that he signed was, in fact, really very reasonable. The fairy tale is that the contract offered was foolishly high for an up-and-coming star QB. That's just bunk.

 

Rob Johnson wanted to be a starter. He wanted a long-term deal. He wanted to play in Buffalo.

 

The Bills wanted him as their starter. They wanted to sign him and lock him up to a reasonable term. They wanted him to be happy about the trade, have the contract done, and focusing on football. They got the deal done and everyone was happy. For that fleeting moment...

 

Up until a few years later when it became apparent that the Bills did not trade for the next Brett Favre but instead had traded for the next Heath Shuler. Add the draft classes of 2000 and 2002, featuring the drafting of the next Dimitrius Underwood and the next Tony Mandarich, and it only starts to become obvious why the Bills of today are so pathetic.

[Orton's Arm]

understand that I have a degree from one of the finest academic institutions in the world

608712[/snapback]

Was it this academic institution that taught you to throw insults at people while refusing to address the points they've raised? I mean, your contribution to this discussion has been less than zero. Zero is not saying anything at all. Less than zero is contributing nothing--which you've done--while using up time that could better have been spent elsewhere.

 

As for my "condescending tone"--if you want my respect, maybe you should try earning it. Just a thought. You have literally contributed not a single intelligent idea to this thread. It's one thing to offer opinions--which you've certainly done. Offer enough opinions, and some of them are bound to be right. But it's something else again to support an opinion with intelligent reasoning or factual information. This, you have utterly failed to do. Maybe you did it in that fancy school you went to, and that's great for you. But I haven't seen whatever brilliant essays or great research papers that got you through that school. I've only seen a bunch of garbage posts, and an unwillingness or inability to argue with any tool other than the personal attack. Your performance on this thread has been a complete, total, and unmitigated disgrace.

[Orton's Arm]

I wasn't referring to Flutie getting rid of the ball quickly, it was more about his being able to get yardage/buy time with his feet, which Losman has shown (5.0 YPC). 

 

But, whatever, I say toe-may-toe, you say toh-mah-toh.  I think he hasn't been given enough opportunity to show what he can do, all things considered, you've determined that he's conclusively shown that he's useless. 

608670[/snapback]

Johnson also had mobility, albeit not as much as Losman. I'm not trying to say I'm 100% sure that Losman is a bust, but I just don't see as much reason to hope as some others do.

[The Dean]

Was it at this academic institution that you learned to throw insults at people while refusing to address the points they've raised? I mean, your contribution to this discussion has been less than zero. Zero is not saying anything at all. Less than zero is contributing nothing--which you've done--while using up time that could better have been spent elsewhere. That's what you've done.

 

As for my "condescending tone"--if you want my respect, maybe you should try earning it. Just a thought. You have literally contributed not a single intelligent idea to this thread. It's one thing to offer opinions--which you've certainly done. Offer enough opinions, and some of them are bound to be right. But it's something else again to support an opinion with intelligent reasoning or factual information. This, you have utterly failed to do. Maybe you did it in that fancy school you went to, and that's great for you. But I haven't seen whatever brilliant essays or great research papers that got you through that school. I've only seen a bunch of garbage posts, and an unwillingness or inability to argue with any tool other than the personal attack. Your performance on this thread has been a complete, total, and unmitigated disgrace.

608790[/snapback]

 

 

Damn you're stupid.

[Orton's Arm]

Damn you're stupid.

608797[/snapback]

Speaking of those unwilling or unable to argue with any tool other than the personal attack, look who just showed up!

[mead107]

now now , name calling gets us a time out .

[Ramius]

And you're a broken record.

608800[/snapback]

 

hahaha now thats sig-worthy. Oh the irony.

[mead107]

hay arm , should we bring in fiedler to replace KH ?

[Orton's Arm]

hay arm , should we bring in fiedler to replace KH ?

608822[/snapback]

Only if the goal is to improve our draft position.

[Like A Mofo]

Only if the goal is to improve our draft position.

608844[/snapback]

 

 

Fiedler has had more success in the NFL then KH...why is KH considered so much better then Fiedler?

[Risin]

Fiedler has had more success in the NFL then KH...why is KH considered so much better then Fiedler?

608852[/snapback]

 

 

He isn't.

 

They both are good backups.

[BoondckCL]

I vote none of the above.

 

 

We should've pursued a trade with Jacksonville for their back-up at the time.

[BoondckCL]

Fiedler has had more success in the NFL then KH...why is KH considered so much better then Fiedler?

608852[/snapback]

 

 

KH is considered better because as of right now he is the people's champ in Buffalo for some reason.

 

Jay Fiedler in his final year in Miami had a 7-8, td-int ratio, giving him a quarterback rating of 67.1.

 

Let me put that in perspective. JP Losman in 2005 had a quarterback rating of 64.9 with a td to int ratio of 8-9. He wouldn't be that big of an improvement over Losman to begin with and certainly doesn't have the upside potential.

 

Finally Michael Vick, who is possibly the most overrated player in the game to date, in 2005 had a quarterback rating of 73.1 with a td to int ratio of 15-13. Jay Fiedler doesn't even add the running capabilities that Michael Vick makes up for where his arm lacks.

 

Do you still think Jay Fiedler is a good choice?

[Orton's Arm]

Do you still think Jay Fiedler is a good choice?

609035[/snapback]

Welcome to the boards, and thanks for the good post.

[sfladave]

KH is considered better because as of right now he is the people's champ in Buffalo for some reason.

 

609035[/snapback]

I'm not sure where you got that idea. With the exception of Holcombs Arm, you would be hard pressed to find many Buffalo fans who think that KH is the people's champ.

[Kelly the Dog]

I'm not sure where you got that idea. With the exception of Holcombs Arm, you would be hard pressed to find many Buffalo fans who think that KH is the people's champ.

609068[/snapback]

True, but everyone here has expressed their opinion about it, and Lackthereof has expressed his 7109 times. So I could see where it seems about 50-50.

[Orton's Arm]

True, but everyone here has expressed their opinion about it, and Lackthereof has expressed his 7109 times.

609085[/snapback]

Well, maybe my opinion is 7109 times as important as everyone else's! Did you ever think of that?

 

(Just kidding, by the way.)

[The Senator]

Was it this academic institution that taught you to throw insults at people while refusing to address the points they've raised? I mean, your contribution to this discussion has been less than zero. Zero is not saying anything at all. Less than zero is contributing nothing--which you've done--while using up time that could better have been spent elsewhere.

 

As for my "condescending tone"--if you want my respect, maybe you should try earning it. Just a thought. You have literally contributed not a single intelligent idea to this thread. It's one thing to offer opinions--which you've certainly done. Offer enough opinions, and some of them are bound to be right. But it's something else again to support an opinion with intelligent reasoning or factual information. This, you have utterly failed to do. Maybe you did it in that fancy school you went to, and that's great for you. But I haven't seen whatever brilliant essays or great research papers that got you through that school. I've only seen a bunch of garbage posts, and an unwillingness or inability to argue with any tool other than the personal attack. Your performance on this thread has been a complete, total, and unmitigated disgrace.

608790[/snapback]

Right...like I want your respect...

 

First, let's get this straight - I am perhaps one of the most civil posters on the board - except when it comes to idiots like you, well then I tend to lose my sense of decorum. You, after all, are the one who began hurling homophobic insults - the trail is quite clear. Perhaps you were sexually abused by Kelly, and still crave his tender caresses.

 

And I have addressed your points, which you acknowledge in the fourth sentence of paragraph two, right after your senseless rant in paragraph one.

 

OK, that's done.

 

You exude much passion and are, at times, somewhat articulate though, quite obviously, extremely stupid...

 

...your contribution to this discussion has been less than zero. Zero is not saying anything at all. Less than zero is contributing nothing

608790[/snapback]

 

Well thanks for that brilliant explanation of zero and negative zero - and good luck on your GED!

 

You are somewhat funny - albeit very annoying - and whether your intent is to be hysterical, while failing miserably, or you are actually serious - I feel your pain and, as a sympathetic person, would like to help you.

 

Seriously, H.A . - you are clearly delusional, and in need of intervention. Please, I beg of you as a concerned and compassionate human being...please, seek help...

 

seriously...getmentalhelp.com

 

Holcomb = DOOMED!!!

[Pyrite Gal]

I disagree with this completely.  The original contracts were not foolish. 

 

Butler/Smith gave Flutie, who was a complete long shot to even make the team, a vet. min. contract with various bonmus clauses.  Few thought Flutie would make the team, let alone make every single one of his bonus clauses.  The odds were something along the lines of winning Powerball with 1 ticket.

 

Since Flutie was light-years away from a "sure thing", they went out and traded for the hottest prospect available in Rob Johnson.  They signed him to a very reasonable, young starting NFL QB contract at the time.  Matt Hasselbeck, the guy that just QB'd his team to the Super Bowl, was traded the next year in the same manner and signed for almost exactly the same amount of money.  The Bills simply did not overpay for Rob Johnson based on the expectations of the time.  Switch the players and the circumstances, and you'd be crowing about how Butler was a "damn genius" and screwed the Packers in pulling a future All-Pro QB that led the Bills to the Super Bowl for a rather modest ~$5 million a year in Hasselbeck.

 

The brain trust overpaid for RJ only in 20/20 hindsight, because Rob Johnson turned out to be supremely brittle and a slow-minded, hesitant decision-maker on the field.  But this is surely not at all what they thought they were trading so much for.  In retrospect, Butler/Smith's mistake was in thinking that Rob Johnson could be a starter in the NFL.  And that miscalculation has had enormous consequences rippling forward through time for the franchise.  Flutie coming out of absolutely nowhere and getting on the field and having success was a total shocker and unanticipated by everyone save the rabid Flutie worshippers.  If Rob Johnson was 1/10-th the QB they thought they were getting, Flutie never would've even seen the field and never makes those bonuses.

 

It's fun to speculate that the Bills held all the cards and could've served up some "tough management" sorts of contract offers, in retrospect, but this is too fantastic.  Was Rob Johnson's agent a moron?  Was he going to let his client sign a low-ball offer simply because it was "the Bills"?  Nope.  Not a chance.  The market is what it is, and the Bills (and any other team for that matter) had to pony up something in the right ballpark and zip code.  Then there is the Flutie contract and his bonuses: the reason these did not count against the cap initially was that nobody, not even in the NFL office, considered these bonuses to be attainable.  Again, Flutie's agent could not have gotten him a mega-deal as an NFL starter because absolutely no one in the NFL thought Flutie was a starter.  Due to Johnson's amazing brittleness, Flutie fluked into making every single one of these "hard to reach" bonus clauses in his contract.  It was truly incredible. 

 

All of which then, of course, broke the camel's back, divided Bills Nation, and cap-strung the team.

 

And, in to that toxic spill, rode one Tom Donahoe on his white stallion...

608283[/snapback]

 

Kul- Thanks to you and Kelly F & B for sorting through the contract and CBA issues, its become such a long piece and subject to so many changes as the growing partnership between the NFL and NFLPA fine tunes it, its hard even for the professionals and experts like Clumpy to keep up with it.

 

I disagree almost completely with your complete disagreement with me and for a couple of specific reasons.

 

1. There is the 20/20 hindsight which KB&F references that Butler should not have given such a huge deal to RJ before he proved himself. To some extent you are right that the only "proof" this would have been the right thing to do is the hindsight of his actual injury proneness and failure on the field.

 

However, I would not say this was all hindsight because I remember (only vaguely since this was way back in 1998 but I am oretty sure this is the line I took and if someone wants to check the archives for what DikSmub said I will be impressed and grateful) making the point that even before RJ took the field that I was disappointed that Butler had not waited until at least after the 1998 pre-seaspn and actually I GUESSED that he really had up until about 8 games of watching RJ before signing him to the huge contract.

 

The question is not whether the size of the RJ contract was huge or met the market standard at the time, the question was when Butler/RJ agreed to it.

 

Players (and their agents) often take the stand that they are not going to even invest in the distraction of negotiating a contract once the season starts not only to elminate the distraction, but actually because they are trying to avoid the situation of having owership get the leverage of seeing how they play before they risk a big bonus. Players are generally interested in forcing owners to take a leap of faith and owners tend to fight against this (though they also play the leverage game in some cases of refusing to negotiate until after the season is over if they retain the leverage that the tag gives them).

 

The key to this is that there is no rule against a team and a player agreeing to a deal whenever both parties choose to.

 

My sense is that if the Bills had simply waited at least until RJ and DF took each other on in a "fair" fight in pre-season it would have had the effects of:

 

A. Giving them a chance to see how RJ played before signing him to a large deal (even if $25 mill is what the market dictated to resign a starter QB this was a large deal). Though RJ's play in pre-season and even through his performance against SF early that season provided some reasonable hope he was going to be our QB of the future, his play was not that great that it seemed to merit the large deal he got. He began to suffer nicks early in his play for the Bills (he was not able to finish his first game even though he came back and played well in the second game) and making the leap of faith of signing him to an extension was wrong in hindsight but at least quite questionable at the time and I and others did so even without hindsight. Exending RJ was a move which seemed to be more prompted by the QB fear of life without Jim Kelly which prompted these professionals to make a series of miscalcuilations about when Kelly would be done, ove-reaching and over relying on TC, and over-reaching on Hobert.

 

The mistake was forseeable and forseen by outside observers on TSW (even us stupid amateyurs).

 

B. A lot of the bad blood with Flutie and the Bills stemmed from the fact they lied to him. When DF signed to an incentive laden deal, the public pronouncements were he would get a fair shot at winning or losing the jpb in pre-season. Most except for AJ Smith (and actually even myself as I was a consistent advocate even way back then that the best course for the Bills was to spend low on a QB as we sought a pedestrian QB talent capable of winning the SB (a new version of Jim MacMahon or Doug Williams) rather than a football god like an Elway or a Favre.

 

I felt that it while it might be easier to identify a great player than the next pedestrian talent capable of winning, the emerging salary cap made it a better strategy for us to get a number of low budget talents and allow them to compete rather than risking it all on a high-paid QB. While I suggested a cheap player of this type beforehand of being a Steve DeBerg (who ironically did play in the SB that year for AT) I did not suggest DF beforehand.

 

At any rate (he said resumimg the post to go away for a meeting) I think it was forseen and forseeable and not second guessing that Butler should not have signed a market rate contract for RJ so quickly.

 

The second point worth considering was that there was at lwast one well placed person who really felt DF could do a lot as a pro. This was AJ Smith and that is why we signed him. The stories are legend of how he had to fight many non-believers to get DF even offered a contract. Obviously to convince folks to even offer him anything he had to make some fairly substantial claims about his abilities which some did not buy but finally conceded to at least give him a shot.

 

It is wrong to claim nobody on the Bills foresaw what he might and did do for us. AJ Smith did and Butler and the folks who gave him an "unattainable" deal were foolishly wrong.

 

One can forgive the NFL Black Box committee which judges incentives, but Butler and the pros are paid to make good assessments and they knew more than anyone about his skills and cannot be let off the hook with a Dick Cheney like argument that all the intelligence said their was quail in the bush and given the decision to make today I would still shoot my 78 year old friend in the face.

 

Finally, Flutie is on record saying that he was quite surprised when the Bills agreed to roll his made incentives into his next year's contract because he would have signed anyway.

 

Someone has maintained that according to the CBA this is true of all made incentives. I could not find it, but I (and many others have been wrong about the CBA before). Perhaps he is confusing it with the fact that made incentives are counted against the following year's cap, but I had not heard anywhere that DF's base salary for 1999 automagically included the incentives made in 1998 IN ADDITION to the the achieved incentives for 1998 couting against the cap.

 

It was this 6+ million cap number that forced the extension and proration of the DF deal though his 1999 cap hit was still over $3 million.

 

At any rate I do not see why you completely disbelieve these those and try to pass them off as mere hindsight when much of this was forseeable and forseen and alot of it appears unnecesary to have been done.