ajzepp Posted April 23, 2006 Posted April 23, 2006 A little off topic: How is ajzepp still alive with a Flyers avatar? 668212[/snapback] Wow, it took like 14 hours before anyone even said anything....I guess the passion for the Sabres isn't quite what I though it was! I can't really help it, though....hockey was the last frontier with regard to sports for me, and when I went to college in Philly I started watching the Flyers and Sixers. They have a channel called Comcast Sports Net that is 24/7 Philly sports. Every morning when I'd get home for work I'd hear more about the Flyers. This was when they had Lindros and LeClair, were excited about what Vinny Prospal was doing as a young guy, and trying to decide if Bouchet was going to take the torch from Ronnie Hextall. You have to understand that if you're into sports and you live in Philly, there's just nothing you can do about it.....if you don't already love a team in a particular sport, you fall in love with theirs - plain and simple. I became a Braves fan when I was 7 y.o.....a Bills fan when I was 12.....and a Flyers and Sixers fan when I was 24 But honestly, I think the reason why more people haven't said anything is because the Sabres won last night....lol
/dev/null Posted April 23, 2006 Posted April 23, 2006 I tend to be more pessimistic about Losman than most. 668228[/snapback] i dunno about that. i'm pretty pessimistic about JPL. didn't like the pick when it was made and he hasn't done anything to make me think he was worth a 1st rounder or even the 2nd rounder we sacrifced to Dallas. He is worth the 5th rounder we sent to Dallas as part of the trade however
ajzepp Posted April 23, 2006 Posted April 23, 2006 i dunno about that. i'm pretty pessimistic about JPL. didn't like the pick when it was made and he hasn't done anything to make me think he was worth a 1st rounder or even the 2nd rounder we sacrifced to Dallas. He is worth the 5th rounder we sent to Dallas as part of the trade however 668242[/snapback]
Orton's Arm Posted April 23, 2006 Posted April 23, 2006 i dunno about that. When I wrote that I'm more pessimistic about Losman than most, I was expecting to hear "that's the understatement of the year." This board is full of surprises.
Pyrite Gal Posted April 24, 2006 Posted April 24, 2006 Fair enough. We've been over the Nate Clements ground already, and it's obvious to both of us Mike Williams was a bust. So I'll address the other players on the list: Drew Bledsoe: You contend that Bledsoe was a wash, because of his stellar performance in 2002, and because there were no other options available. You go on to say that the Bills would have been justified by cutting him after his poor performance in 2003. But bear in mind the Bills had gone 3-13 the year before they acquired Bledsoe. Does it make sense for a 3-13 team to trade away a first round pick to obtain a single year of spectacular play from someone? If the Bills were a QB away from the Super Bowl, you could make a case for this kind of decision. Willis McGahee: Do I feel McGahee is a better back than Henry? Yes. But I feel the McGahee pick should have been used on a good offensive lineman instead. I feel Henry + the offensive lineman > McGahee. One of the reasons for the offense's collapse in 2003 was that it was too easy for teams to send pressure up the middle. Also, a decent back behind a good line will produce more than a good back behind a putrid line. Lee Evans and J.P. Losman: both guys are relatively new, and we don't know what their futures hold. I tend to be more pessimistic about Losman than most. 668228[/snapback] Many thanks for the succinct cliff noting of one of my too lengthy screeds in a post above BTW! Particular thoughts re this post are: 1. I think it is a legit question as to whether the Bledsoe trade should be judged a wash if he had in fact had been cut after one outstanding season and one horrible one. Obviously, the cadillac of achievement is you draft a QB or player who stays with you for 10+ years, you win several SBs, he always in the Pro Bowl, he bakes Brownies for the community, blah, blah, blah, etc. However, though this is the best and one should always aspire for the best it does not mean that any other accomplishment is horrible and the worst. Facy is that there are horrendous bust outcomes where you draft a Ryan Leaf in the 1st and he never even has near one very good year, or you trade a 3rd for Billy Joe Hobert and he is so bad and makes a stupid non professional action you need to cut him immediately. I think that a cut of Bledsoe after 2003 would not have been a good thing at all but would have been a wash for us for several reasons. A. On one hand you had to cut him cause he was so bad and in acquiring him he failed to produce like you fully wanted him to. B. On the other hand, while we were not one player away from an SB, this was a team after a 3-13 season was not far away from the opposite worse end of the scale. We had just come off of the Business Backs the Bills triumph and secured a new stadium deal which guaranteed the Bills being here for 5 years at least. However, this moment was quickly followed up with the Homerun Throw-Up, Butler leaving shennanigans, Wade getting canned, and TD coming in to preside over a cap hell which provided a good chance of us being losers for a long time. Flutie fans were pissed when we cut him, RJ fans hung their heads in shame after he proved his lack of value in 2001. While we did not have the one player away from an SB situation which might make a Bledsoe acquisition make sense, we actually did benefit hugely from Bledoe's presence as seen by the virtually unprecedented turnout for his welcome to Buffalo and from his Pro Bowl deserving play in 2002. C. Due to NE taking his accelerated cap hit, these would have been no cap harm from simply walking away. D. In a post above you seemed to aggree with the point which I think is true upon thought that actually Bledsoe's work in 2002 was a significant part in raising PP's value and thus allowing TD to exploit AT for a 1st rounder that in essense replaced the one we gave up for Bledsoe, I think this view is probably true just because I think the simple absence of a 1st lit a special fire under TD and got him to think outside of the box and take some risks to transition tag PP to get a first, when one adds Bledsoe's role in helping run a passing game that set PP's value I do not think it is unreasonable at all to link the trade and then the gain of a first round pick for 2003. One can certainly claim that if only we had not traded for Bledsoe we wiould have had two first rounders when we rape AT with Price. However, it simply is hard for me to see Jeff Blake running the 02 Bills offense with the same production as Golden Arm/No Brain Bledsoe did or Chris Chandler surviving a full season and he and AVP producing 100 passes to Moulds, 94 passes to PP, earn a reserve spot at the Pro Bowl as Bledsoe did. Yes, I think cutting Bledsoe instead of resigning him for 2004 would have been a wash. 2. Taking an OL player in the 1st rather than WM is theoretical enough that if you pick the right guy it would have been a great move and if you pick the wrong guy it would have been a bust. However, again there are several reasons why the OL pick theory likely would not have worked and why it did not happen. Obvously we need help on this OL and if we had gotten a good player that would have been good. However the real analysis here since we are dealing in theory is to try to look at reality as much as we can. A. TD clearly saw the handwriting on the wall that Travis with the fiscal management brainpower he showed and what later turned out to be behavior that resulted him getting suspended was looking to replace TH. Further, he was far smarter than those who summed up picking WM with TH under contract as a wasted move because it actually was the fact TH was under contract which made it possible to risk taking WM who needed to sit an rehab all of 2003 to have a productive career. B. The problem with out OL was not simply the lack of player talent, but in 2003 we were firmly in the Vinky/Ruel running a Keviin Killdrive refuse to change system. In retrospect an OL 1st round choice (again making the big assumption that the Vinky/Ruel/Killdrive/GW/TD system picks a good OL player rather than Mike Williams) would have provided the prime benefit of eventually giving JMac more to work with and actually likely would have made zero difference as this first round choice warmed the bench behind MW, JJ, and Ruben Brown certainly and probably behind Teague as well whom i think had just be resigned. if you want to espouse the take an OL player with pick #23 in 2003 you should probably be able to identify the RG or maybe the C you argue we should have picked. My guess without looking is that actually you may not find one who at the time would have merited this pick and likely will go even further into the theory world of arguing trade down. C. Certainly one of the reasons for our 03 problems was that teams killed us with the blitz. However, rather than banking on the crapshoot of the draft for one player that can solve this problem (it ain't likely one player solves this problem) we actually saw under TC/MM in 2004 that this blitz problem was actually better dealt with by: 1. Bledsoe will never be mistaken for a runner, but it is because of the blitz problem you must run him. One of the great pieces of work with this O by Clements was that he was not afraid to occaisionally run the QB draw with Bledsoe, This move forced the OLBs to look inside before they adoned middle responsibility to take an outside angle on the blitz because Bledsoe might do the draw up the middle. He likely was not going to gain much or more than 5-7 yards if the Bills executed well if the OLB was guarding the middle. However , if the OLB took himself out of the play this might turn into a first down. Big body Bledsoe was going to take a hit anyway if he simply sat back and waited for Moulds to break free anyway, and a great thing TC did to combat LBs selling out to blitz was he made good use of Bledsoe as a runner. 2. If we had stuck with Henry by not drafting WM, this team may have had better interior blocking, but we actually used the outside speed threat and a vicious stiff arm which WM presented and Henry did not to stifle the blitz. Again blitzers did not sell out to do the blitz for fear that they would be moving inside while WM was heading outside and he either might flat out beat them around the corner or they would be in a horrible position allowing WM to embarass or hurt them with a fist to the face. If we went with a drafted OL player and Henry we would not have had this weapon and threat that pushed back the blitz. 3. TC and MM utilized the fact that Bledsoe had played a lot of football in his career to regularly use trick plays. They also made great use of Bledsoe's ability to handle the ball well to run plays like the fake Bkedsoe QB sneak and then the pitch to WM for the TD. The use of trick plays which was not part of the Killdrive bag of options again set blitzers on their heels. This scheme stuff is not the total answer (as seen in the loss to Pitts) but it was a critical part of the win streak that fail just short of a playoff berth. Getting a well regarded rookie OL player in 03 woul have been great, but it neither would have solved this teams problems and in fact I think Henry plus this theoretical OL player would likely been worse than WM running a better scheme than Killdrives. However, if you want to defend Travis and Gilbride feel free.
Dibs Posted April 24, 2006 Posted April 24, 2006 Mr. ARM... I am glad we don't have TD any longer due to the simple fact that he failed. If however I were to assess ANY GM like you assess TD I would conclude they are all crap. You seem to think that whenever a move TD made came out for the better, it was luck.... & when it came out bad(or simply neutral) it showed he was rubbish. Below, you describe McGahees problems to be the O-line yet you sign off as.... 2003b: Willis McGahee. Result: McGahee failed to provide enough of an upgrade over Henry to be worth a first round pick. Implying McGahee won't pan out as pro bowl back. Willis McGahee: Do I feel McGahee is a better back than Henry? Yes. But I feel the McGahee pick should have been used on a good offensive lineman instead. I feel Henry + the offensive lineman > McGahee. One of the reasons for the offense's collapse in 2003 was that it was too easy for teams to send pressure up the middle. Also, a decent back behind a good line will produce more than a good back behind a putrid line. 668228[/snapback] You also cast judgement on Evens.... 2004a: Lee Evans. Result: chosen 13th overall, there is considerable doubt whether Evans can ever be the go-to guy. Who knows if he will be able to be a top #1WR but the outlook for most is hopeful. His first 2 years stats are comparable(or well above) most top WRs. If I've misinterpreted what you generally mean.... perhaps you should summarize your points rather than listing your reasons & examples.....is your point basically that TD failed? If so, I don't think many would disagree with you.
Orton's Arm Posted April 24, 2006 Posted April 24, 2006 The Bledsoe trade was a wash because:1. While Bledsoe only had one good year, 1st round QBs like Ryan Leaf wouldn't have even given you that. 2. After 2001, the team was down in the dumps and needed a shot in the arm. 3. The Bills could have gotten rid of him at any point prior to the restructure with no dead cap space. 4. Without Bledsoe, you're not getting a 1st rounder for Peerless. It's not necessarily the case that an OL + Henry > McGahee because: 1. The offensive lineman chosen might have been a bust. 2. Many of the Bills' offensive problems in 2003 could have been (and later were) corrected by better coaching. 3. Henry got suspended in 2005, so there really was an impending need for RB back when McGahee was drafted. TD may have seen this coming. 4. McGahee helped solve the blitz problem by providing much more of a threat to the outside than Henry did. In addition to these points, you asked which RG the Bills could have taken at #23. Eric Steinbach was chosen by the Bengals with pick #33. The Bills could have taken him at #23, or they could have traded down a few slots and have drafted him plus someone else. You do make a strong case for McGahee. I'll agree his threat to the outside makes the Bills' offense harder to defend, and that Henry did little this past year. If McGahee has a good year this coming year, and if Henry continues to disappoint, I'll change that part of my sig. As for Bledsoe, I just don't see how increasing Peerless' trade value could possibly have been part of the plan in bringing Bledsoe here. As for the other part of the Bledsoe argument, the core of any successful team is a group of high level players who spend their entire careers with your organization. Indy's core is Peyton Manning, Marvin Harrison, etc. The '90s Bills' core was Kelly, Thomas, Reed, Smith, etc. Good teams like those would go through ups and downs over the years, but they knew those core guys would always give them a foundation upon which to build. Then if you sign free agents, and have a few draft choices work out, maybe you can have a special year. At the end of the 2001 season, the Bills didn't have a very strong core. There were a few guys--Winfield, Price, Clements, Moulds, Williams, etc.--but not as many as you'd like. There was no way TD was going to get anywhere near the Super Bowl unless he rectified this situation. Squandering a 1st round pick on a guy who could only give you one good year isn't the way to fix this problem. Due to his age, there was no possible way Bledsoe could have made the kind of lasting contribution that a successful first round pick could have made. The goal--at least for me--is for the Bills to win the Super Bowl. Assume you start with an expansion roster, which is how TD seemed to regard the Bills team he took over. You know that even if your moves work, a Super Bowl ring is years away. So you begin by acquiring players that have the best chance of helping your team over the long-term. Some of these players will work out, others won't. Assuming your successes outweigh your failures, then in a few years you'll have a group of talented, up-and-coming players. Once you have this in place, you can then invest more of your resources in moves with a shorter-term time horizon. Bearing in mind your team will live and die by the core of players you assembled in the beginning of your tenure, your time horizon should largely be dictated by how far along those guys are in their careers. So if Jim Kelly's going to be retiring in two years, it might not make sense to use your first round pick on a guy who needs two years to develop. But if Jim Kelly is in his second year, you don't want to trade away your first round pick for a guy who's on the tail end of his career. Eventually, the core players will retire, and the whole thing will come crashing down. At that point, your record will be lousy, so you can use the early-round draft choices to start the cycle over again. The decision to trade away a 1st for Bledsoe represents a departure from this line of thinking. After the 3-13 season, TD had to know the Bills were a long way from having the kind of talented core I've written about. By giving up that 1st round pick, he deprived himself of the type of resource most needed to acquire that core. Look at how first round picks helped build the Cowboys' roster of the mid-'90s. Below is a list of the Cowboys' first round picks: 1988: Michael Irvin 1989: Troy Aikman 1990: Emmitt Smith 1991: Russell Maryland, Alvin Harper, Kelvin Pritchett 1992: Kevin Smith, Robert Jones Yes, there's an element of chance to the draft, and some picks will work out better than others. Nonetheless, the Cowboys' disciplined approach to building a team over the long-term resulted in three Super Bowl rings in the '90s. Or take the 1st round draft picks leading up to the Ravens' Super Bowl win: 1996: Jonathan Ogden, Ray Lewis 1997: Peter Boulware 1998: Duane Starks 1999: Chris McAllister 2000: Jamal Lewis, Travis Taylor Or the Bills' 1st round picks leading up to the Super Bowls: 1983: Tony Hunter, Jim Kelly 1984: Greg Bell 1985: Bruce Smith, Derrick Burroughs 1986: Ronnie Harmon, Wil Wolford 1987: Shane Conlan 1988 - 1989: none 1990: James Williams 1991: Henry Jones A few more failures than some other lists, which is part of the reason why the Bills didn't actually win any Super Bowls. But you can see how the successes on the list helped get them there.
Orton's Arm Posted April 24, 2006 Posted April 24, 2006 If I've misinterpreted what you generally mean.... My point about Evans was that it's too soon to decide whether the pick was successful. He's shown himself a very good #2 WR. But you don't take a guy 13th overall and hope for just a good #2. If he does well in the go-to role, then he's a successful pick. But not until then.
ajzepp Posted April 24, 2006 Posted April 24, 2006 HOlcomb's Arm, just out of curiosity, are you between the ages of 18-24?
Dibs Posted April 24, 2006 Posted April 24, 2006 My point about Evans was that it's too soon to decide whether the pick was successful. He's shown himself a very good #2 WR. But you don't take a guy 13th overall and hope for just a good #2. If he does well in the go-to role, then he's a successful pick. But not until then. 668565[/snapback] If your real thoughts are "it is too soon to decide"...(which by the way are my thoughts), why write... 2004a: Lee Evans. Result: chosen 13th overall, there is considerable doubt whether Evans can ever be the go-to guy. Considerable = Large in amount, extent, or degree. Why not write...."overall, there is concern" or..."overall, there is hope" or better yet,..."overall, it is too soon to decide" If you must have a signature stating your views, surely they should actually state what your views are so as to not cause needless discussions.
Dibs Posted April 24, 2006 Posted April 24, 2006 Or take the 1st round draft picks leading up to the Ravens' Super Bowl win: 1996: Jonathan Ogden, Ray Lewis 1997: Peter Boulware 1998: Duane Starks 1999: Chris McAllister 2000: Jamal Lewis, Travis Taylor 668539[/snapback] Or take the 1st round draft picks leading up to the Packers' Super Bowl win: 1992: Terrell Buckley 1993: Wayne Simmons, George Teague 1994: Aaron Taylor 1995: Craig Newsome 1996: John Michels Or take the 1st round draft picks leading up to the Patriots' Super Bowl win: 1997: Chris Canty 1998: Tebucky Jones, Robert Edwards 1999: Andy Katzenmoyer, Damien Woody 2000: none 2001: Richard Seymour Or take the 1st round draft picks leading up to the Bucs' Super Bowl win: 1998: none 1999: Anthony McFarland 2000: none 2001: Kenyatta Walker 2002: none Or take the 1st round draft picks leading up to the Bills' Super Bowl win: 2003: Willis McGahee 2004: Lee Evans, J.P. Losman 2005: none 2006: ????? 2007: ????? What was your point on 1st round picks & superbowl winners again?
Orton's Arm Posted April 24, 2006 Posted April 24, 2006 Or take the 1st round draft picks leading up to the Packers' Super Bowl win: 1992: Terrell Buckley 1993: Wayne Simmons, George Teague 1994: Aaron Taylor 1995: Craig Newsome 1996: John Michels That Packers list isn't that bad. The Patriots are something of an anomaly, due to the absolutely outstanding quality of their coaching, and due to Belichick's and Pioli's exceptional ability to find good players later in the draft. In any case, they got Damien Woody and Richard Seymour in the first round. As for the Bucs, below are some other first round picks leading up to their Super Bowl win: 1995: Warren Sapp 1996: Regan Upshaw, Marcus Jones 1997: Warrick Dunn, Reidel Anthony 1998: (none) 1999: Anthony McFarland Look at the Steeler's picks leading up to their recent Super Bowl win: 2000: Plaxico Burress 2001: Casey Hampton 2002: Kendall Simmons 2003: Troy Polamalu 2004: Ben Roethlisberger 2005: Heath Miller Kendall Simmons may not be a household name, but he's a starting guard on that Pittsburgh line.
Recommended Posts