Bob in STL Posted March 15, 2006 Posted March 15, 2006 I have been reading this forum for years and I always get a kick out of it. I am a newbie and I don't know how to use most of the fancy features here. I just want to make a few points, many of you will not like it, but here goes. 1. Marv will mostly likely rebuild this team the old fashioned way (meaning slow and steady by adding talented character palyers). Let's face it, we have a weak team (especially the OL and DL) and some of the best players are either aging or getting expensive cap-wise. I expect that Marv will sign as many FA's as he can to fill the many holes, but no blockbuster signings on the order of Bledsoe, Spikes, or Milloy. He is going for younger, serviceable players. Remember what NE did when they built their team? They signed lots of FA character players that were considered mid-grade or bargain bin, and they drafted smarter than most teams. 2. Why does everybody think that Royal was a bad signing? I don't know if he will be productive or not but I do know we were very weak in short yardage situations and lousy in the Red Zone. Better perfromance in just these aspects of the game could have meant 2 or 3 wins last year. He could help immensely in those roles. 3. Just because we signed Royal does not mean we will pass on Davis. If he is the impact player that many think he is then why not take him? Who really knows about ANY of these rookies? 4. Marv does not like to count on rookies in their first year, no matter what he says about todays game. That is why he is looking at a guy like Reggie Wells. If he can play and he is an upgrade over Bennie Anderson (our current starter) then why not sign him and give up a 6th rounder? The people that are complaining about Wells are the same ones that want Bennie cut anyway! 5. What will Marv do with the 8th pick overall? A lot will depend on what other FAs he can sign. With NO and Miami signing QBs the mock drafts will be changing fast. It will be interesting to see. Trading down and stockpiling picks is usually a good technique for helping weak teams to rebuild. 6. I also think that Jauron may be a diamond in the rough. He is very respected around the league. I think we should give him a few years rather than call him a loser and bash him before he has a chance. It is absurd to consider him a failure after one tenure. There is this coach in New England that comes to mind ... Take care.
port allegany Posted March 15, 2006 Posted March 15, 2006 I agree totally. Why do we want to sign players to long term contracts just because they're available and others are signing them. Let's get value. And maybe splurge if Marv & company see someone special - maybe the Seattle tackle, I don't know. But Pickett is considered mediocre by his own team and a semi-bust for a 1st round pick. Why is it assumed he will be a star now? By the way, in the NFL can you trade some one (like Moulds) and kick in some money to defray his salary? If you could you might make him a valuable commodity for a trade since he wouldn't break the other team's bank. We are going to take a hit with him anyway.
Bob in STL Posted March 15, 2006 Author Posted March 15, 2006 I agree totally. Why do we want to sign players to long term contracts just because they're available and others are signing them. Let's get value. And maybe splurge if Marv & company see someone special - maybe the Seattle tackle, I don't know. But Pickett is considered mediocre by his own team and a semi-bust for a 1st round pick. Why is it assumed he will be a star now? By the way, in the NFL can you trade some one (like Moulds) and kick in some money to defray his salary? If you could you might make him a valuable commodity for a trade since he wouldn't break the other team's bank. We are going to take a hit with him anyway. 630097[/snapback] I live in St. Louis. The Rams have a new offer on the table which coulsd explain his hurry to get back. He developed slow and didn't do much for a few years, which happens to a lot of linemen. He salvaged himself last season. There were plenty of times last year when he showed he could be a dominant player. I don't see the Bills coughing up the dough for him. If the Bills trade Moulds the new team gets his salary but we get a big cap hit from his deferred bonus (dead money). Other on the board know this stuff better than I do.
The Quebecer Posted March 15, 2006 Posted March 15, 2006 http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/sports/st...B1?OpenDocument "In Buffalo, defensive tackle Ryan Pickett will wrap up his visit today and will meet with Bills officials to try to agree on a contract."
bills_fan_in_raleigh Posted March 15, 2006 Posted March 15, 2006 I have been reading this forum for years and I always get a kick out of it. I am a newbie and I don't know how to use most of the fancy features here. I just want to make a few points, many of you will not like it, but here goes. 1. Marv will mostly likely rebuild this team the old fashioned way (meaning slow and steady by adding talented character palyers). Let's face it, we have a weak team (especially the OL and DL) and some of the best players are either aging or getting expensive cap-wise. I expect that Marv will sign as many FA's as he can to fill the many holes, but no blockbuster signings on the order of Bledsoe, Spikes, or Milloy. He is going for younger, serviceable players. Remember what NE did when they built their team? They signed lots of FA character players that were considered mid-grade or bargain bin, and they drafted smarter than most teams. 2. Why does everybody think that Royal was a bad signing? I don't know if he will be productive or not but I do know we were very weak in short yardage situations and lousy in the Red Zone. Better perfromance in just these aspects of the game could have meant 2 or 3 wins last year. He could help immensely in those roles. 3. Just because we signed Royal does not mean we will pass on Davis. If he is the impact player that many think he is then why not take him? Who really knows about ANY of these rookies? 4. Marv does not like to count on rookies in their first year, no matter what he says about todays game. That is why he is looking at a guy like Reggie Wells. If he can play and he is an upgrade over Bennie Anderson (our current starter) then why not sign him and give up a 6th rounder? The people that are complaining about Wells are the same ones that want Bennie cut anyway! 5. What will Marv do with the 8th pick overall? A lot will depend on what other FAs he can sign. With NO and Miami signing QBs the mock drafts will be changing fast. It will be interesting to see. Trading down and stockpiling picks is usually a good technique for helping weak teams to rebuild. 6. I also think that Jauron may be a diamond in the rough. He is very respected around the league. I think we should give him a few years rather than call him a loser and bash him before he has a chance. It is absurd to consider him a failure after one tenure. There is this coach in New England that comes to mind ... Take care. 630090[/snapback] Good Analysis. I was listening to NFL radio and a comment was made about denver having 2 number 1's 21 and 29 if I remember correctly. The comment was these two picks might equal an 8th overall. I am wondering if its worth the trade of the 8th to get these two other picks?
Lv-Bills Posted March 15, 2006 Posted March 15, 2006 I have been reading this forum for years and I always get a kick out of it. I am a newbie and I don't know how to use most of the fancy features here. I just want to make a few points, many of you will not like it, but here goes. 1. Marv will mostly likely rebuild this team the old fashioned way (meaning slow and steady by adding talented character palyers). Let's face it, we have a weak team (especially the OL and DL) and some of the best players are either aging or getting expensive cap-wise. I expect that Marv will sign as many FA's as he can to fill the many holes, but no blockbuster signings on the order of Bledsoe, Spikes, or Milloy. He is going for younger, serviceable players. Remember what NE did when they built their team? They signed lots of FA character players that were considered mid-grade or bargain bin, and they drafted smarter than most teams. 2. Why does everybody think that Royal was a bad signing? I don't know if he will be productive or not but I do know we were very weak in short yardage situations and lousy in the Red Zone. Better perfromance in just these aspects of the game could have meant 2 or 3 wins last year. He could help immensely in those roles. 3. Just because we signed Royal does not mean we will pass on Davis. If he is the impact player that many think he is then why not take him? Who really knows about ANY of these rookies? 4. Marv does not like to count on rookies in their first year, no matter what he says about todays game. That is why he is looking at a guy like Reggie Wells. If he can play and he is an upgrade over Bennie Anderson (our current starter) then why not sign him and give up a 6th rounder? The people that are complaining about Wells are the same ones that want Bennie cut anyway! 5. What will Marv do with the 8th pick overall? A lot will depend on what other FAs he can sign. With NO and Miami signing QBs the mock drafts will be changing fast. It will be interesting to see. Trading down and stockpiling picks is usually a good technique for helping weak teams to rebuild. 6. I also think that Jauron may be a diamond in the rough. He is very respected around the league. I think we should give him a few years rather than call him a loser and bash him before he has a chance. It is absurd to consider him a failure after one tenure. There is this coach in New England that comes to mind ... Take care. 630090[/snapback] This is all fine and dandy. But......what is wrong with the Robert Royal signing? He isn't an offensive lineman. What's wrong with the Andre Davis signing? He isn't an offensive lineman. What's wrong with the Larry Triplett signing? He isn't an offensive lineman. Although we need Tripp too, we also need a stud next to him for him to be effective. While we were doing this, any young, above average O-Lineman were signing elsewhere. Now we target Reggie Wells. Which most likely we won't get, because he's restricted AND Arizona has more cap room than us. I mean, come on. These players do basically nothing to help mature a young QB nor does it give him the weapons he needs to even have a chance at being successful at this point.
Bob in STL Posted March 15, 2006 Author Posted March 15, 2006 Good Analysis. I was listening to NFL radio and a comment was made about denver having 2 number 1's 21 and 29 if I remember correctly. The comment was these two picks might equal an 8th overall. I am wondering if its worth the trade of the 8th to get these two other picks? 630185[/snapback] The paper in St Louis implies that Pickett is still in Buffalo, but that may be incorrect. They also say that the Rams have a 5 year, $16M offer on the table. The Rams are running out of cap room and they still have more needs to fill. There is an opportunity for the Bills to beat his offer, the question is will they. If the Bills sign Picket then they open up their draft board to more possibilities, including trading down for more picks. Trading our 8 for Denvers 21 and 29 is possible, but then you have to pay salaries for 2 first rounders so you better not miss on either of them Players in this range, especially lineman, typically are not reliable starters as rookies. A trade for Minnesota's first and second picks could be possible if they covet a QB.
The Senator Posted March 15, 2006 Posted March 15, 2006 I have been reading this forum for years and I always get a kick out of it. I am a newbie and I don't know how to use most of the fancy features here. I just want to make a few points, many of you will not like it, but here goes. 1. Marv will mostly likely rebuild this team the old fashioned way (meaning slow and steady by adding talented character palyers). Let's face it, we have a weak team (especially the OL and DL) and some of the best players are either aging or getting expensive cap-wise. I expect that Marv will sign as many FA's as he can to fill the many holes, but no blockbuster signings on the order of Bledsoe, Spikes, or Milloy. He is going for younger, serviceable players. Remember what NE did when they built their team? They signed lots of FA character players that were considered mid-grade or bargain bin, and they drafted smarter than most teams. 2. Why does everybody think that Royal was a bad signing? I don't know if he will be productive or not but I do know we were very weak in short yardage situations and lousy in the Red Zone. Better perfromance in just these aspects of the game could have meant 2 or 3 wins last year. He could help immensely in those roles. 3. Just because we signed Royal does not mean we will pass on Davis. If he is the impact player that many think he is then why not take him? Who really knows about ANY of these rookies? 4. Marv does not like to count on rookies in their first year, no matter what he says about todays game. That is why he is looking at a guy like Reggie Wells. If he can play and he is an upgrade over Bennie Anderson (our current starter) then why not sign him and give up a 6th rounder? The people that are complaining about Wells are the same ones that want Bennie cut anyway! 5. What will Marv do with the 8th pick overall? A lot will depend on what other FAs he can sign. With NO and Miami signing QBs the mock drafts will be changing fast. It will be interesting to see. Trading down and stockpiling picks is usually a good technique for helping weak teams to rebuild. 6. I also think that Jauron may be a diamond in the rough. He is very respected around the league. I think we should give him a few years rather than call him a loser and bash him before he has a chance. It is absurd to consider him a failure after one tenure. There is this coach in New England that comes to mind ... Take care. 630090[/snapback] You, my friend, are makin' way too much sense.
2003Contenders Posted March 15, 2006 Posted March 15, 2006 This is all fine and dandy. But......what is wrong with the Robert Royal signing? He isn't an offensive lineman. What's wrong with the Andre Davis signing? He isn't an offensive lineman. What's wrong with the Larry Triplett signing? He isn't an offensive lineman. Although we need Tripp too, we also need a stud next to him for him to be effective. While we were doing this, any young, above average O-Lineman were signing elsewhere. Now we target Reggie Wells. Which most likely we won't get, because he's restricted AND Arizona has more cap room than us. I mean, come on. These players do basically nothing to help mature a young QB nor does it give him the weapons he needs to even have a chance at being successful at this point. 630284[/snapback] The problem is that there aren't a whole lot of differece-making OL on the market right now. Why? Because they are such a commodity that their original teams wrapped them up. Case in point: Look at the outrageous money thrown at the likes of Shaffer, Shelton, and -- yes -- Mike Williams. There are some older guys out there, like Runyan and Fabini -- but we have to wonder what they have left in the tank. Whether you like what the front office is doing or not, they have developed a pattern of brining in guys under the age of 30 for contract talks.
eball Posted March 15, 2006 Posted March 15, 2006 The paper in St Louis implies that Pickett is still in Buffalo, but that may be incorrect. They also say that the Rams have a 5 year, $16M offer on the table. The Rams are running out of cap room and they still have more needs to fill. There is an opportunity for the Bills to beat his offer, the question is will they. If the Bills sign Picket then they open up their draft board to more possibilities, including trading down for more picks. 630296[/snapback] 5 years at $16M is not an outrageous contract for a starting NT. The Bills certainly can afford to beat that offer, without overpaying -- if they want to.
Lv-Bills Posted March 15, 2006 Posted March 15, 2006 The problem is that there aren't a whole lot of differece-making OL on the market right now. Why? Because they are such a commodity that their original teams wrapped them up. Case in point: Look at the outrageous money thrown at the likes of Shaffer, Shelton, and -- yes -- Mike Williams. There are some older guys out there, like Runyan and Fabini -- but we have to wonder what they have left in the tank. Whether you like what the front office is doing or not, they have developed a pattern of brining in guys under the age of 30 for contract talks. 630317[/snapback] The problem is, if you want studs on the O-Line, you have to pay them. Everyone keeps thinking we are going to rebuild the fuggin line without paying anyone. Take the money given to Royal and Davis, and pony up and get a Shaffer, Shelton, or even overwhelm Bentley to the point where his decision would have been tough. There WERE some out there at the beginning. They were gone right away. My question is............why didn't we have them targeted? But hey, we wrapped up guys that, by all accounts, could have been had later in free agency. And yes, it isn't hard to see what the front office is doing. They are making the same mistakes that we've been making for the last 10 years. They are also going after restricted guys in a time period where almost EVERY team has cap room. So, any offer we make most likely will easily be matched, unless we blow a guy away with large sums of money. And if that becomes the case, I would have much rather overpaid early a little bit for a PROVEN young player. It's downright moronic so far.
Lv-Bills Posted March 15, 2006 Posted March 15, 2006 5 years at $16M is not an outrageous contract for a starting NT. The Bills certainly can afford to beat that offer, without overpaying -- if they want to. 630319[/snapback] Yeah, they could, and they should. But why? Our philosophy is to go out there and find the guy for 1 million per that is buried on someone's depth chart. For some reason, we can't get it through our thick front office skulls that we need some anchor lineman. And to this day, even with all the cap room we don't have ONE anchor on either side of the line. And no, I don't count Schobel as an anchor. He's a good player, but an anchor he isn't. PAY THE GUYS UP FRONT.
2003Contenders Posted March 15, 2006 Posted March 15, 2006 The problem is, if you want studs on the O-Line, you have to pay them. Everyone keeps thinking we are going to rebuild the fuggin line without paying anyone. Take the money given to Royal and Davis, and pony up and get a Shaffer, Shelton, or even overwhelm Bentley to the point where his decision would have been tough. There WERE some out there at the beginning. They were gone right away. My question is............why didn't we have them targeted? But hey, we wrapped up guys that, by all accounts, could have been had later in free agency. And yes, it isn't hard to see what the front office is doing. They are making the same mistakes that we've been making for the last 10 years. They are also going after restricted guys in a time period where almost EVERY team has cap room. So, any offer we make most likely will easily be matched, unless we blow a guy away with large sums of money. And if that becomes the case, I would have much rather overpaid early a little bit for a PROVEN young player. It's downright moronic so far. 630337[/snapback] Just because Shelton and Shaffer received big money -- that doesn't mean that they were worth it. In fact, I would rank them as the 2nd-3rd tier guys everyone is worried about the Bills getting stuck with if they do not act soon enough. In all honesty, I am not sure that either guy would have provided us with any kind of upgrade. Bentley obviously would have been an upgrade, but he signed with his hometown team for a lot of cash. Thus, I don't think he was ever truly available to us. Look, we all know that the Bills have some major holes to fill on the OL. But we do not need to go off half-cocked and blow our limited cap dollars on more run-of-the-mill players. In fact, if we are able to address other needs via free agency, then we will not have to address those other needs in the draft, which means that we can stockpile OL via the draft. In fact, with the interior of the line being the biggest issue, you can often find very good OG and OC in the 2nd and 3rd round of the draft.
nick in* england Posted March 15, 2006 Posted March 15, 2006 This thread is a sense-talking haven for me... good stuff.
apuszczalowski Posted March 15, 2006 Posted March 15, 2006 Buffalo is trying to build its team by bringing in young hard working players that are cost efficient. They have way to many needs to be "Overpaying" one or 2 guys that may or may not improve our team. Is just adding Bentley going to be enough to make us a playoff caliber team? I like the moves marv is making so far. He's making small moves right now that are not going to break the bank so we can fill more holes rather than just one or two holes It looks like they are following the way NE has built their team. Bring in guys that are not superstars, but are good fits for their system and bring in quality through the draft. As for the recent FA Signings Triplett - was a starter for Indy before they signed Simon. Fills a hole at DT for a decent price and is young. Davis - Speedy young receiver who has alot of potential (drafted high a couple years ago) and will be a great replacement for Reed as a 3rd or 4th receiver (2nd if Moulds leaves) if he stays heathy. He is fast and a big play receiver that will be another deep threat fitting in with our other receivers. He came cheap and can be a great Bargain pickup if he plays to potential. Royal - Not the greatest receiving TE, but a great Blocking TE. He may not be a fix for the oline, but will help them out by being an extra blocker. He is young and was not that expensive and an improvement over our last couple TE's. I really think he will be able to help McGahee have a huge year by providing some great blocks. Gibbs was also said to have wanted to bring back Royal and was disapointed Buffalo grabbed him, that sounds pretty good if a coach like Gibbs found him useful. These aren't "I'm gonna run out and buy Season tickets" kind of moves, but they are moves that can help improve a struggling team. There are many more holes to fill and I can guarantee Marv is not done yet.
apuszczalowski Posted March 15, 2006 Posted March 15, 2006 Wasn't Shelton the guy that was rumored to be in a trade for Travis henry to the Cardinals? If so, I though he was unmotivated and was another Mike Williams?
Lv-Bills Posted March 15, 2006 Posted March 15, 2006 Just because Shelton and Shaffer received big money -- that doesn't mean that they were worth it. In fact, I would rank them as the 2nd-3rd tier guys everyone is worried about the Bills getting stuck with if they do not act soon enough. In all honesty, I am not sure that either guy would have provided us with any kind of upgrade. Bentley obviously would have been an upgrade, but he signed with his hometown team for a lot of cash. Thus, I don't think he was ever truly available to us. Look, we all know that the Bills have some major holes to fill on the OL. But we do not need to go off half-cocked and blow our limited cap dollars on more run-of-the-mill players. In fact, if we are able to address other needs via free agency, then we will not have to address those other needs in the draft, which means that we can stockpile OL via the draft. In fact, with the interior of the line being the biggest issue, you can often find very good OG and OC in the 2nd and 3rd round of the draft. 630345[/snapback] No, by all accounts, Shaffer and Shelton are second tier guys. We have 3rd and 4th tier guys. Are you kidding me with Shelton or Shaffer not being an upgrade? I understand we have Peters, and everyone has man-love for him, so we'll leave him alone. Shaffer OR Shelton would be an upgrade over Gandy easily. When can we actually get some lineman that aren't considered good, only because they came cheap like Gandy? I want 1 or 2 studs, paid, that serve as anchors for guys like Peters, and others. Until we actually target players that way, we have no chance of even building a line. Bentley, most likely we would not have gotten. However, we didn't try. We also didn't even try to make him a priority. And our cap dollars aren't limited. They are plentiful. Especially to start building an offensive line. The same mistakes are repeated here over, and over, and over, and over......it's old.
apuszczalowski Posted March 15, 2006 Posted March 15, 2006 15 mil is plenty of cap room? Compared to NE's 21mil, Clevlands 40mil? How does anyone know Bentley was not a priority for the Bills. Clevland had the cap room, and was a team he publically expressed wanting to play for. He may have been called in for a meeting with them with the intentions of signing whatever they gave him. But I guess cause ESPN didn't say Buffalo was trying to get him, he wasn't in their plans
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted March 15, 2006 Posted March 15, 2006 It looks like they are following the way NE has built their team. Bring in guys that are not superstars, but are good fits for their system and bring in quality through the draft. 630368[/snapback] Please, please, PLEASE, I wish people would stop comparing Marv and Ralph to Pioli, Belichick and Kraft. They simply are *not* in the same league.
Bob in STL Posted March 15, 2006 Author Posted March 15, 2006 The problem is, if you want studs on the O-Line, you have to pay them. Everyone keeps thinking we are going to rebuild the fuggin line without paying anyone. Take the money given to Royal and Davis, and pony up and get a Shaffer, Shelton, or even overwhelm Bentley to the point where his decision would have been tough. There WERE some out there at the beginning. They were gone right away. My question is............why didn't we have them targeted? But hey, we wrapped up guys that, by all accounts, could have been had later in free agency. And yes, it isn't hard to see what the front office is doing. They are making the same mistakes that we've been making for the last 10 years. They are also going after restricted guys in a time period where almost EVERY team has cap room. So, any offer we make most likely will easily be matched, unless we blow a guy away with large sums of money. And if that becomes the case, I would have much rather overpaid early a little bit for a PROVEN young player. It's downright moronic so far. 630337[/snapback] LV-Bills, I will agree that Shaffer would have been an upgrade and he fit the profile that the front office appears to be following. I don't know why they didn't go after him. None of us know, maybe McNally said that Gandy is better? Bentley was way to pricey. Signing him takes dollars away from 2 or 3 other needs, and we have many needs. Shelton is talented and lazy and unreliable ... we had that, it was called Mike Williams. I'll pass on him, just like Dennis Green and Crennel did. Your right, Royal and Davis are not impact players but they could and should improve the team in their roles. We need a TE that is a proven blocker, we don't have one and our short yardage offense sucks because of it. That missing role cost us games last year. We need depth at WR. Josh Reed is gone and Parrish showed very little. Davis has more upside than either of them. Triplett is a good signing. Add Pickett and we are better at DT than last season. I do not want to pay big dollars for old offensive lineman like Fabini and Runyon. There is little in the tank here but maybe we sign one of them if the price is right? I understand that signing Wells is unlikely, but that doesn't make the interview a bad idea. He is another player with upsied, that has starting experience ... he is worth 6th rounder with ease. The front office is NOT making the same mistakes as 10 years ago. They are not making the same mistakes as 5 years ago. The approach is dfferent. The Donahoe "big show" is gone. Levy will be methodical, deliberate, and will work to a plan. The Bills will probably not improve enough to make the playoffs, it will take two years to turn this roster into a playoff contender.
Recommended Posts