Cackling Hens

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

Oh, a snippy whiner.  I asked a simple question to determine what your opinions of players are based on--i.e., how can you judge the talents of linemen.  Basically your answer is the team does not win, so that whatever player they get is no good, both those from the past and those just acquired.

 

I would take your views more seriously, if you had sound information to back up your unhappiness.  It is self evident the Bills have been bad for quite a while, that's why RW cleaned house this off-season.  I also know that TD did not put together a winner, what I am trying to determine is if we are making progress going forward.  Your repetition of your answer-- NO NO NO NO, we suck suck suck-- is simply a conclusion, and not something that helps me judge where the team might be going.  But hey, the world needs whiners too.

626768[/snapback]

 

You need extra info to judge the talents of our OLmen? Did you SEE Jerman, Anderson, Gandy and Teague all play?

 

Jeez, man

[RkFast]

Whining? Nice. Maybe you enjoy a decade-plus without a playoff win. Maybe you enjoy a circuit of three horrible head coaches back-to-back-to-back. Maybe you enjoy a starting OL that features Gandy, Anderson and Jerman. Perhaps you like the fact that we've not even been to the playoffs in six seasons.

 

Maybe you do.

 

But I don't. And I don't think that makes me a whiner, either, so go stuff your holier-than-thou attitude.

626750[/snapback]

 

All true.

 

But NONE of the above weighs into the evaluation of whether or not the moves made so far in free agency are good or not.

 

Think about it. The team has sucked for ten years...so that makes a couple of signings in 2006 to add depth "bad"?

[Lv-Bills]

All true.

 

But NONE of the above weighs into the evaluation of whether or not the moves made so far in free agency are good or not.

 

Think about it. The team has sucked for ten years...so that makes a couple of signings in 2006 to add depth "bad"?

626795[/snapback]

Yes, because you don't add depth to a team that sucks. All that says to me is that you added three more sub-par to average guys to a team that already has trouble winning. You get a team at, or almost at a high level, then you add depth.

[stinky finger]

Yes, because you don't add depth to a team that sucks.  All that says to me is that you added three more sub-par to average guys to a team that already has trouble winning.  You get a team at, or almost at a high level, then you add depth.

626802[/snapback]

This, my friends, is the most poignant post of this thread.

[34-78-83]

We are what, 3 days into FA? and we have 2 depth/role guys and a starter or atleast good rotation guy at DT. This team has a plan and they are beginning (key word) to implement it. If Pickett can be signed we would have 2 legit DT's for the D that is trying to be put in place here. They will both be young and with upside to boot. This is somehow a negative ? Were we supposed to call Bentley's agent and say "wait, don't signb with your home town club for 7 mil per season, we'll offer you 8mil per!! " ? Do people really believe that the team will feel satisfied with the state of the OL as status quo? Remember, we are 3 days in, with the draft upcoming as well. The original post here is DEAD on accurate IMO.

[RkFast]

This, my friends, is the most poignant post of this thread.

626823[/snapback]

 

Agreed.

 

"You dont add depth to a team that sucks".

 

Yikes.

 

Im going back to work now.

[gobillsinytown]

You need extra info to judge the talents of our OLmen? Did you SEE Jerman, Anderson, Gandy and Teague all play?

 

Jeez, man

626771[/snapback]

 

I'm not questioning your motivation or passion for the team, any more than I would question your Linux programming skills (I'm guessing you're an IT professonal). However, I'm just using what I see as good logic: It is very difficult to succeed at the NFL level, both for players and for coaches. The level of play is much more complex than you think. There's a book by Peter King called "Inside the helmet" that really opened my eyes. If you get the chance, pick it up.

You will be suprised at how complicated an average NFL playbook really is.

These players are asked to process a great deal of information on every play in a very short period of time.

My father had a friend who was drafted by the Oilers in the mid 80's. He said that the team PRACTICES were tougher than most of his college games.

There's more to evaluating players than you think.

[Lv-Bills]

This, my friends, is the most poignant post of this thread.

626823[/snapback]

I'm under the assumption that "depth" is added to supplement the team in place now. So, our team is basically crap the way it is constructed now. I mean, judging by the simple fact that we haven't done squat in many years. So, we are to add depth (meaning players as good as what we have, or not as good as what we have and willing to play roles) to the scrap heap we have now?

 

How about this stupid football logic......let's get some NFL caliber, above average, starters, and then add depth around those guys to fill in and help out.

 

For instance, this novel concept. Let's get some proven NFL lineman. Let's build a NFL line the way it should be built. AND THEN ADD DEPTH to it.

 

How the hell are we gonna add below average guys to a bad football team and be happy about it? We are adding below average depth to the crap we already have.

 

How about adding NFL caliber starters, and worry about role players after we actually have a functioning NFL line.

 

LeCharles Bentley would have been way more important than all three of guys combined. Mainly because, there is only one LeCharles Bently type player out there.............these other guys are a dime a dozen. And if we can wait and be paitent for the Studs out there, we certainly can wait and be patient in order sign below average football players too.

[R. Rich]

I'm under the assumption that "depth" is added to supplement the team in place now.  So, our team is basically crap the way it is constructed now.  I mean, judging by the simple fact that we haven't done squat in many years.  So, we are to add depth (meaning players as good as what we have, or not as good as what we have and willing to play roles) to the scrap heap we have now?

 

How about this stupid football logic......let's get some NFL caliber, above average, starters, and then add depth around those guys to fill in and help out.

 

For instance, this novel concept.  Let's get some proven NFL lineman.  Let's build a NFL line the way it should be built.  AND THEN ADD DEPTH to it. 

 

How the hell are we gonna add below average guys to a bad football team and be happy about it?  We are adding below average depth to the crap we already have.

 

How about adding NFL caliber starters, and worry about role players after we actually have a functioning NFL line.

 

LeCharles Bentley would have been way more important than all three of guys combined.  Mainly because, there is only one LeCharles Bently type player out there.............these other guys are a dime a dozen.  And if we can wait and be paitent for the Studs out there, we certainly can wait and be patient in order sign below average football players too.

626874[/snapback]

 

Considering how badly Bentley wanted to go back home, what do you think would've been a good offer that he'd consider that would also leave enough room under the cap for other possible stud players to be signed?

[Lv-Bills]

I'm not questioning your motivation or passion for the team, any more than I would question your Linux programming skills (I'm guessing you're an IT professonal).  However, I'm just using what I see as good logic:  It is very difficult to succeed at the NFL level, both for players and for coaches.  The level of play is much more complex than you think.  There's a book by Peter King called "Inside the helmet" that really opened my eyes.  If you get the chance, pick it up.

You will be suprised at how complicated an average NFL playbook really is.

These players are asked to process a great deal of information on every play in a very short period of time. 

My father had a friend who was drafted by the Oilers in the mid 80's.  He said that the team PRACTICES were tougher than most of his college games.

There's more to evaluating players than you think.

626848[/snapback]

It's also just football. It's also just as easy as having a good QB (let's say Kelly), knowing that he needs a 3 step drop with enough time (behind a good offensive line - Hull) to throw to a good receiver (let's say Andre Reed) no matter what defense is being played, and knowing that the WR will shield his body and get postion to make the play no matter what.

 

We don't have Kelly, Reed or Hull on this team, but yet, everyone is happy that we are adding "depth" players at this point.

 

That's my whole point. Reed will make 10 plays a game. "Depth" will make 1 or 2 plays during the game. "Depth" is OK, only if you have Kelly, Reed and Hull to make sure that the depth aren't the players who are the foundation of the team.

 

Who are our Kelly, Reed and Hull on that play?

 

Ummm ok.

[R. Rich]

We don't have Kelly, Reed or Hull on this team, but yet, everyone is happy that we are adding "depth" players at this point.

 

626896[/snapback]

 

 

Not everyone is happy. Then again, it's not possible here. There's always going to be some reason for someone to complain. I'd be willing to bet someone here would do some whining even if the Bills won the Super Bowl.

 

The first step is to accept the fact that you cannot change this.

[2003Contenders]

I'm under the assumption that "depth" is added to supplement the team in place now.  So, our team is basically crap the way it is constructed now.  I mean, judging by the simple fact that we haven't done squat in many years.  So, we are to add depth (meaning players as good as what we have, or not as good as what we have and willing to play roles) to the scrap heap we have now?

 

How about this stupid football logic......let's get some NFL caliber, above average, starters, and then add depth around those guys to fill in and help out.

 

For instance, this novel concept.  Let's get some proven NFL lineman.  Let's build a NFL line the way it should be built.  AND THEN ADD DEPTH to it. 

 

How the hell are we gonna add below average guys to a bad football team and be happy about it?  We are adding below average depth to the crap we already have.

 

How about adding NFL caliber starters, and worry about role players after we actually have a functioning NFL line.

 

LeCharles Bentley would have been way more important than all three of guys combined.  Mainly because, there is only one LeCharles Bently type player out there.............these other guys are a dime a dozen.  And if we can wait and be paitent for the Studs out there, we certainly can wait and be patient in order sign below average football players too.

626874[/snapback]

 

 

???

 

As the poster above said, Bentley was never truly available to us. Recall, that the hot rumor was that he was originally headed to Philly. He wanted to play for his hometown Cleveland Browns, so it doesn't sound like he was ever going to go anywhere else, once they presented him with a strong offer.

 

I don't see Larry T as a "below average" player at all. Indeed, he appears to be an excellent fit, a quality individual, and a player who already knows the new defense.

 

The other two guys are definitely role players -- but both are young and come with some upside. Maybe the team did overpay a bit for Royal, but we knew going into the off-season that this 5-11 team without a playoff appearance in this millenium would HAVE to overpay to get guys to come here. Recall that the Patriots thought so much of Davis last year that they gave up a draft pick to get him. Att he very least, if fully healthy, he should be an upgrade over Josh Reed.

 

At this juncture, the best thing to do is NOT to take each FA acquisition on it own merit, but wait until the preseason is over and judge the entire collection. For example, if Pickett does come in today -- and winds up signing with us, then we can look back and say (on paper at least) that the front office did a nice job handling one of the real need positions (DT) of this team. That also frees us up to do more things in the draft. We all know that the OL is in major need of repair -- but let's wait until after free agency and the draft conclude before we start accusing Marv and co. of not having done enough.

[Lv-Bills]

Considering how badly Bentley wanted to go back home, what do you think would've been a good offer that he'd consider that would also leave enough room under the cap for other possible stud players to be signed?

626885[/snapback]

Seriously, I'm not sure. I mean, that's a valid point. But.....did we try? We could have asked for a figure to be thrown out there and then went from there.

 

You know, this is along the lines of a lot of things around here. Coach A or Coach B won't come to Buffalo because it's cold, and we have no money, and it's not attractive. But, for some reason, the team gets a pass for not even trying.

 

I want the front office that tries. I want Mark Cuban. I want those types of owners who demand their GM's are creative and good recruiters. The jury is out on Marv, so I don't necessarily mean him at this point.

 

Spikes came here because of the fans in that last home game. He also came for some money. If we can lure Spikes, we certainly can lure others.

 

Hutch for instance. If we sign him, and overpay him a little, even at guard.....does it really matter? If he is really as good as everyone says he is, would he not deserve to make much more money than the rest of our O-line?

 

Can't we run behind his fat ass (Hutchinson's) on 3rd and 1 and get the first down? But instead, we'll be in a tight game against Miami or someone. It'll be third and one from the Dolphins 27. We'll run behind a line with makeshift players and former TE's that didn't even start in college, and we won't convert. Rian Lindell will then come on, and miss a pressure packed 44 yd field goal and we'll lose 17-16.

 

And the cycle goes on and on and on and on. We need some studs on the line. Period. We don't YET need Royal, Davis and Triplett. What good is adding depth to a team that sucks? Depth infers that these guys aren't starting caliber players. We need some studs on that line. But yet, here we go again, not addressing the glaring weakness.

[Lv-Bills]

???

 

As the poster above said, Bentley was never truly available to us. Recall, that the hot rumor was that he was originally headed to Philly. He wanted to play for his hometown Cleveland Browns, so it doesn't sound like he was ever going to go anywhere else, once they presented him with a strong offer.

 

I don't see Larry T as a "below average" player at all. Indeed, he appears to be an excellent fit, a quality individual, and a player who already knows the new defense.

 

The other two guys are definitely role players -- but both are young and come with some upside. Maybe the team did overpay a bit for Royal, but we knew going into the off-season that this 5-11 team without a playoff appearance in this millenium would HAVE to overpay to get guys to come here. Recall that the Patriots thought so much of Davis last year that they gave up a draft pick to get him.  Att he very least, if fully healthy, he should be an upgrade over Josh Reed.

 

At this juncture, the best thing to do is NOT to take each FA acquisition on it own merit, but wait until the preseason is over and judge the entire collection. For example, if Pickett does come in today -- and winds up signing with us, then we can look back and say (on paper at least) that the front office did a nice job handling one of the real need positions (DT) of this team. That also frees us up to do more things in the draft. We all know that the OL is in major need of repair -- but let's wait until after free agency and the draft conclude before we start accusing Marv and co. of not having done enough.

626923[/snapback]

See, this is fine, and makes sense to a point. But Triplett was a guy that Indy had to replace, so they went out and got Corey Simon. Triplett is a guy with a lot of flaws. We couldn't stop the run last season. Triplett is not a run stopper. Period. But yet, we cut what little talent we did have and signed Triplett. I mean, come on. Triplett will look better if we can sign a stud next to him. I'm so sick of the he fits the system thing too. Unless the system says that Triplett never has to make a tackle when the other team runs, then (chances are) he really wasn't the player we needed at this time. Maybe AFTER we get Pickett, or Bernard or whoever it may be.

 

The Pats needed Davis badly, because they had injuries. And they got burned. Now, we are the third team, in what, 4 years to give Davis a chance? Although, weirdly, I like signing Davis. But still.

 

And Royal is just absurd. Period.

 

I would have made a run at Bentley. Period. ALMOST whatever it would have taken. Almost. Do I think we would have gotten him? No. I would have had a QUICK plan B and moved on to ANY spot on our offensive line most likely when Bentley fell through. Any. I don't care if the guy was a C, G or T. Any.

 

The problem, according to some of us, is that we are AGAIN doing stupid crap and avoiding what we really need. If we were the Pats and I was bitching, OK. But, we are a team that has been in a playoff void for many years. These three "character-depth" players are not going to get us there. And by signing these three, to guys like me, means that we didn't pursue some proven lineman or there aren't nearly as many proven players left out there. We are getting to the point where we are looking at mid 30's vets who are just as risky as their younger, bust-type counterparts, IMO.