Instant offense

[Lurker]

I want some hogs.  Big, fat, ugly, smelly, dirty, blocking mo-fo hogs.

625582[/snapback]

 

Describes Runyon to a T. As a two-year starter at RT, I'd be very happy to see him in a Bills uni.

[1gap2gap]

We have much more than ten million in dead money that comes off the books next year from Moulds if he is cut, Mike Williams, Adams, Milloy, etc. Those players we'd sign this year wouldnt come close to that. We won't have cap problems at all.

625347[/snapback]

 

Yea - and if you anticipate spending that dead cap money this year then you wont be under the cap enough next year to make your team better when some of your signings don't work out.

 

You can't just sign players just to sign players. There is a reason most F A' are out there. In most cases it's about over paying for production.

[Kelly the Dog]

Yea - and if you anticipate spending that dead cap money this year then you wont be under the cap enough next year to make your team better when some of your signings don't work out.

 

You can't just sign players just to sign players.  There is a reason most F A' are out there. In most cases it's about over paying for production. 

625652[/snapback]

That makes zero sense. The Bills have plenty of cap space to sign the players I suggested. None of them are high priced players. We will have no cap problems in the future whatsoever under this scenario.

[1gap2gap]

That makes zero sense. The Bills have plenty of cap space to sign the players I suggested. None of them are high priced players. We will have no cap problems in the future whatsoever under this scenario.

625669[/snapback]

 

So now you already know how much it will cost us to sign all the players you have suggested!

 

You have decided (just because you say so) that there will be no cap problems in the future?

 

If you are going to throw out statements like this pleases tell us all how much money YOU have decided that ALL of these players are going to sign for.

 

You seem yo know everything - let's come across with some hard fiqures to back up what you think all the agents of the players are going to agree too!

[Kelly the Dog]

So now you already know how much it will cost us to sign all the players you have suggested!

 

You have decided (just because you say so) that there will be no cap problems in the future?

 

If you are going to throw out statements like this pleases tell us all how much money YOU have decided that ALL of these players are going to sign for. 

 

You seem yo know everything  - let's come across with some hard fiqures to back up what you think all the agents of the players are going to agree too!

625683[/snapback]

We have ten million left. Add five more million from Moulds and that is 15 million left. Signing Bryant, Runyon, a Stephen Neal and a DT or safety, would not cost you 15 million in salary cap for this season. Next season, because we jettisoned Mike Williams, Adams, Milloy, Campbell and Moulds, we will have well over 12 plus EXTRA million that would have been on our books but isnt because we are paying for it right now. That will assure that any contracts to a decent player like Bryant, and mid range players like Runyan and Neal and, say, Ted Washngton or another DT, will not stretch the cap to its limits in the least. Again, none of the names I have suggested are expensive players that are going to get 15 million bonuses.

 

I don't have to know exact figures of what these guys will get, I just have to know how the cap works and what dead money means.

[Rico]

We have ten million left. Add five more million from Moulds and that is 15 million left. Signing Bryant, Runyon, a Stephen Neal and a DT or safety, would not cost you 15 million in salary cap for this season. Next season, because we jettisoned Mike Williams, Adams, Milloy, Campbell and Moulds, we will have well over 12 plus EXTRA million that would have been on our books but isnt because we are paying for it right now. That will assure that any contracts to a decent player like Bryant, and mid range players like Runyan and Neal and, say, Ted Washngton or another DT, will not stretch the cap to its limits in the least. Again, none of the names I have suggested are expensive players that are going to get 15 million bonuses.

 

I don't have to know exact figures of what these guys will get, I just have to know how the cap works and  what dead money means.

625699[/snapback]

Great point on the dead cap coming off, + the cap increases another $7M next year as well.

 

Your plan isn't bad at all, but I agree with GWB on OC. I think Preston is a potential disaster waiting to happen, & Mawae would be a nice stop-gap, Mangold even better.

[1gap2gap]

We have ten million left. Add five more million from Moulds and that is 15 million left. Signing Bryant, Runyon, a Stephen Neal and a DT or safety, would not cost you 15 million in salary cap for this season. Next season, because we jettisoned Mike Williams, Adams, Milloy, Campbell and Moulds, we will have well over 12 plus EXTRA million that would have been on our books but isnt because we are paying for it right now. That will assure that any contracts to a decent player like Bryant, and mid range players like Runyan and Neal and, say, Ted Washngton or another DT, will not stretch the cap to its limits in the least. Again, none of the names I have suggested are expensive players that are going to get 15 million bonuses.

 

I don't have to know exact figures of what these guys will get, I just have to know how the cap works and  what dead money means.

625699[/snapback]

 

 

Well then I guess you just have it all fiqured out! Except your fiqures are wrong. You are wrong on the cap - on Moulds and you are wrong on the amount of dead money. You also have no idear with all the teams having more money to spend what players are going to get. You also do not even now if these players fit the system that we are going to use and you don't have a clue about the problems Bryant would bring with him. If you are going to suggest something at least understand that it's not as easy as you have made it out to be.

[Lurker]

Well then I guess you just have it all fiqured out! Except your fiqures are wrong.  You are wrong on the cap - on Moulds and you are wrong on the amount of dead money.

 

625718[/snapback]

 

And the correct figures would be??

[1gap2gap]

And the correct figures would be??

625726[/snapback]

[Kelly the Dog]

Well then I guess you just have it all fiqured out! Except your fiqures are wrong.  You are wrong on the cap - on Moulds and you are wrong on the amount of dead money. You also have no idear with all the teams having more money to spend what players are going to get.  You also do not even now if these players fit the system that we are going to use and you don't have a clue about the problems Bryant would bring with him.  If you are going to suggest something at least understand that it's not as easy as you have made it out to be.

625718[/snapback]

Wanna bet 10 million that we could easily do that? And granted, there is a chance that we would not get every player, but that doesn't matter because you could just sign another player that basically does the same thing. If you didnt get Antonio Bryant, you could get Brian Finneran or Givens or any solid #2 receiver because we would have all the speed we ever needed with Evans and Andre Davis and Vernon Davis and Parrish and Everett. If we didnt sign Runyan, we could get another aging but reasonable tackle for two years. You whined that we couldn't do this or that but gave zero specifics why not. I just gave numerous options to do the same thing.

 

The key to this, of course, is Vernon Davis. But he is likely to be available at #8, and I already stated in the thread that if he is not available, then this concept wouldn't work, and I don't advise trading up to get him.

 

And where did I say that everyone would be great? And where did I say that Bryant does not have some baggage? Or that it would even work? All I said was Instant Offense, and these players I think would give us instant offense, without neglecting the defense.

 

Furthermore, the defense has a system that certain players need to fit. They are designing the offense now, and you fit the play calls to your strengths. Fairchild already came out in public and said that. Running a two tight end offense is a running formation.

[The Dean]

625743[/snapback]

 

 

Well said.

 

Actually, from what I'm reading, D-Dog's #'s seem to be right, or pretty damn close.

[UConn James]

The FB is not irrelevant, especially given our weakness in the interior OL.

 

Antowain Smith griped about 'having to follow a FB' b/c it was the only excuse he had left while he was here, and the next season the times he was in a one-back set showed that, like all players who think they can be coaches, he was wrong.

 

You're right that Shelton should be gone. McGahee should have either a blocking or a multi-use FB, and there are a couple in the draft that could be had in the 3rd or 4th. I for one am not overly confident in having Willis as a single-back or Neufeld or someone as a lead blocker on 3rd and goal from the 1. We've dealt with the effects of not having a bruiser FB since Gash left. In my mind, this is as important as upgrading the OL.

 

Link.

[Pyrite Gal]

You're nuts. First, I doubt we will have to trade up for Davis, and I wouldnt advocate that. Second, 3rd and 4th round contracts are pennies compared to regular contracts for any veteran. Counting what they gave Royal, which isnt much, we are still paying our TEs in the lower third of the league. A TE like Davis immediately lessens the need for Moulds and opens up the field for every single player on our offense, something which none of our TEs do right now. Counting on Everett is a pipe dream regardless of what he turns out to be. And as far as Ngata goes, 9 out of 10 draftniks and scouts seem to be saying that Davis is a better TE than Ngata is a DT and a surer bet.

625265[/snapback]

 

It's not that I am nuts for saying that pundits on NFL Network are talking about Vernon going in the top 5 (that's simply what they are saying and I reported that) I am nuts for other reasons.

 

I commend you for coming up with an interesting read and for advocating an approach rather than just a simple silver bullet theory vested in one player's talents. The over-focus on one single performer is great for watching soap operas but simply isn't how winning TEAMs are built in this game. I commend you (not that my assent or permission is worth anything or needed at all) for having the football intellect and taking the time to lay out a multi-player theory.

 

However, this focus on solely the offense as though it did not have huge impacts on our absolute need to also retool our D if we hope to win, is a fatal flaw of this plan for instant offense. With Evans and Parrish in place and under contract as our #1 and $3 WRs and with Moulds either kept or cut to give us lots of cap room we can use on a #2 WR the outside receiver question is unsettled but we are in goof shape.

 

Likewise at TE, While it is quite unlikely that either Royal, or Everett, or Euhus is going to step up and be a great TE, it is likely that the new Bills will be able to find one adequate player among these three young highly regarded players (based on their recent draft positions and the FA deal) who will be adequate for us to produce the instant offense you and we all want at no additional expenditure of our small limited resources.

 

In my mind, I like the focus you are taking on how having Davis mutant talents may well help other players perform better, my sense is it makes a lot more sense as we push for offensive production that instead of building strategy around exploitations of the very impressive combine test results of a pre-rookie, that instead we build our O strategy around getting the blocking talent we need from the TE to help spring WM.

 

Rather than building the O strategy around an impressive rookie's test results running and jumping in shorts, it seems IMHO to make far more sense to instead build around getting TE talent to help the fastest Bill RB ever to reach 2000 yards rushing in the actual pro game.

 

I too was surprised to hear the NFL pundits talk about giving a Mike Williams size contract to a TE. However, stranger things have happened in the NFL and if you really are going to base a theory around getting Davis at #8, then such a theory is not credible unless you also talk about what we do if he is gone or what your plan is to trade up so he won't be gone.

 

Regarding the rest:

 

I like Bryant and cutting Moulds and getting Bryant as our #2 seems like a good trading of talent with us getting a younger guy.

 

As far as Runyan he is a bit long in the tooth in years, but this OL needs leadership and if he an JMac can work well together to provide it that is good enough for me. A basic level of talent is essential and Runyan and a number of other folks have it, but the critical thing to me in making this work is not the level of talent beyond some basic level that must be there, but how does it feel talking to this man and can he lead others for several years.

 

Getting an upgrade over Shelton strikes me as a good idea. i was very disappointed with is inconsistent performance last years and in particular his failure to catch a couple of passes Holcomb threw to him and them taking bad bounces which became INTs. Our safety valve FB needs to be more sure handed.

 

The other comment I would make is to point our the seeming contradiction in your lead post and your reponse to me. In one post you describe counting on Everett as useless but in the other post sing his praises in a two TE set with Davis.

 

If you are going to be extreme then pick one assessment. Either Everett;s talents can be worked with or they can't. At best you seem to feel he is not to be counted upon unless Davis is there to unleash his talents. It already is a leap of faith to assume his great combine workout numbers are going to translate into an equally potent pro performance by Davis. To purport that his combine workout numbers are also going to result in far better performance from a teammate that you say cannot be counted upon seems contradictory to say the least.

[Kelly the Dog]

It's not that I am nuts for saying that pundits on NFL Network are talking about Vernon going in the top 5 (that's simply what they are saying and I reported that) I am nuts for other reasons.

 

I commend you for coming up with an interesting read and for advocating an approach rather than just a simple silver bullet theory vested in one player's talents.  The over-focus on one single performer is great for watching soap operas but simply isn't how winning TEAMs are built in this game.  I commend you (not that my assent or permission is worth anything or needed at all) for having the football intellect and taking the time to lay out a multi-player theory.

 

However, this focus on solely the offense as though it did not have huge impacts on our absolute need to also retool our D if we hope to win, is a fatal flaw of this plan for instant offense.  With Evans and Parrish in place and under contract as our #1 and $3 WRs and with Moulds either kept or cut to give us lots of cap room we can use on a #2 WR the outside receiver question is unsettled but we are in goof shape.

 

Likewise at TE, While it is quite unlikely that either Royal, or Everett, or Euhus is going to step up and be a great TE, it is likely that the new Bills will be able to find one adequate player among these three young highly regarded players (based on their recent draft positions and the FA deal) who will be adequate for us to produce the instant offense you and we all want at no additional expenditure of our small limited resources.

 

In my mind, I like the focus you are taking on how having Davis mutant talents may well help other players perform better, my sense is it makes a lot more sense as we push for offensive production that instead of building strategy around exploitations of the very impressive combine test results of a pre-rookie, that instead we build our O strategy around getting the blocking talent we need from the TE to help spring WM.

 

Rather than building the O strategy around an impressive rookie's test results running and jumping in shorts, it seems IMHO to make far more sense to instead build around getting TE talent to help the fastest Bill RB ever to reach 2000 yards rushing in the actual pro game.

 

I too was surprised to hear the NFL pundits talk about giving a Mike Williams size contract to a TE.  However, stranger things have happened in the NFL and if you really are going to base a theory around getting Davis at #8, then such a theory is not credible unless you also talk about what we do if he is gone or what your plan is to trade up so he won't be gone.

 

Regarding the rest:

 

I like Bryant and cutting Moulds and getting Bryant as our #2 seems like a good trading of talent with us getting a younger guy.

 

As far as Runyan he is a bit long in the tooth in years, but this OL needs leadership and if he an JMac can work well together to provide it that is good enough for me.  A basic level of talent is essential and Runyan and a number of other folks have it, but the critical thing to me in making this work is not the level of talent beyond some basic level that must be there, but how does it feel talking to this man and can he lead others for several years.

 

Getting an upgrade over Shelton strikes me as a good idea. i was very disappointed with is inconsistent performance last years and in particular his failure to catch a couple of passes Holcomb threw to him and them taking bad bounces which became INTs. Our safety valve FB needs to be more sure handed.

 

The other comment I would make is to point our the seeming contradiction in your lead post and your reponse to me. In one post you describe counting on Everett as useless but in the other post sing his praises in a two TE set with Davis.

 

If you are going to be extreme then pick one assessment.  Either Everett;s talents can be worked with or they can't.  At best you seem to feel he is not to be counted upon unless Davis is there to unleash his talents.  It already is a leap of faith to assume his great combine workout numbers are going to translate into an equally potent pro performance by Davis.  To purport that his combine workout numbers are also going to result in far better performance from a teammate that you say cannot be counted upon seems contradictory to say the least.

626016[/snapback]

The plan addresses it all. The plan takes signing two FA linemen as starters, in Runyan and Neal, or similar players. One tackle and one guard. I sincerely doubt we are going to sign three starters in free agency for our OL under any scenario. Furthermore, it allows for signing of another DT besides Triplette perhaps a Grady Jackson, and a safety, like, say, Tank Williams. Again, these players are not break the bank players. And by cutting Moulds and Shelton, you\'re dropping six million from your cap/payroll, in addition to the approximately 10 million we have to play with now. That's enough to sign 4-5 players in the Runyan, Neal, Jackson, Bryant, TankWilliams class. Their first year cap figures at say, three million each, allows for that. Next year, with Moulds' 8-9 mil off the books, along with Mike Williams already off the books, those players can get decent salaries built into their deals and we wouldn't be in any kind of salary cap trouble from this scenario.

 

We would have been able to sign 2-3 decent players in free agency this season before we started cutting guys. If we suddenly release (in addition to Mike Williams) Adams, Milloy, Campbell, Moulds and Shelton, we are creating enough room to sign 7-8 players total. Which is what I am suggesting. And none of them are uber expensive.

[1gap2gap]

Wanna bet 10 million that we could easily do that? And granted, there is a chance that we would not get every player, but that doesn't matter because you could just sign another player that basically does the same thing. If you didnt get Antonio Bryant, you could get Brian Finneran or Givens or any solid #2 receiver because we would have all the speed we ever needed with Evans and Andre Davis and Vernon Davis and Parrish and Everett. If we didnt sign Runyan, we could get another aging but reasonable tackle for two years. You whined that we couldn't do this or that but gave zero specifics why not. I just gave numerous options to do the same thing.

 

The key to this, of course, is Vernon Davis. But he is likely to be available at #8, and I already stated in the thread that if he is not available, then this concept wouldn't work, and I don't advise trading up to get him.

 

And where did I say that everyone would be great? And where did I say that Bryant does not have some baggage? Or that it would even work? All I said was Instant Offense, and these players I think would give us instant offense, without neglecting the defense.

 

Furthermore, the defense has a system that certain players need to fit. They are designing the offense now, and you fit the play calls to your strengths. Fairchild already came out in public and said that. Running a two tight end offense is a running formation.

625904[/snapback]

 

I'm not even going to bother. You act like--- I don't know what you act like!

 

"If we don't get this guy then we can just get that guy and so on and so on and so on" I have never heard such garbage. You are a person who is not held responsible for what he says and does. Your just throwing names out just for the sake of a name.

 

This is a waste. I should have never started an answer to this post. You sound like a woman in a supermarket.

[Stl Bills]

Well at least he provides information to back up his argument 1gap...something you have never been able to do (the miami argument). If his cap figures are wrong (which from all accounts that I've researched they are not) please enlighten us to the correct cap figures and the results of the dead cap for next year.

[Lurker]

I'm not even going to bother.  You act like--- I don't know what you act like!

 

"If we don't get this guy then we can just get that guy and so on and so on and so on"  I have never heard such garbage. You are a person who is not held responsible for what he says and does.  Your just throwing names out just for the sake of a name. 

 

This is a waste. I should have never started an answer to this post.  You sound like a woman in a supermarket.

626050[/snapback]

 

Where are those correct figures, again?

[1gap2gap]

Where are those correct figures, again?   

626061[/snapback]

 

If you have anything at all to offer feel free to jump in. Stop pulling these drive bye's and chicken shot post all the time.

 

Speak your piece.

[The Dean]

If you have anything at all to offer feel free to jump in.  Stop pulling these drive bye's and chicken shot post all the time.

 

Speak your piece.

626068[/snapback]

 

 

WTF? You've brought nothing to the conversation. You accused K-Dog of not having correct cap figures, yet offered no rebuttal or evidence they were, indeed, false.

 

Calling the Lurker's post "drive by" and "chicken shot" (WTD is "chicken shot"? a "pot shot" made from chicken pot pie?) is a little bit of the whole pot/kettle thing...no?

[Lurker]

If you have anything at all to offer feel free to jump in.  Stop pulling these drive bye's and chicken shot post all the time.

 

Speak your piece.

626068[/snapback]

 

If you want to slam K-Dog's proposal by saying his numbers are wrong, you have to deliver the facts to get any credibility around here. So far, your're chances of doing that aren't looking too good.