The Bills must sign some inadequate players soon

[Pyrite Gal]

Cliff notes begin: Ralph knows he ain't gonna last forever and after 5 non-playoff years under TD the future is now regarding the Bills. A 2 two year rebuilding plan may be the best we can do and a 3 year plan more realistic but thhis team is going to roll the dice and go for it choosing best chance to win now vets over developing younger players even if the long-term is the more priudent choice. In particular this means that being a slave to assessing the absolute value of a player is not the way to go and instead one should ask whether a potential player is better than what we got on our roster even if the potential player is inadquate. The future is now. Cliff notes end.

 

I know this will make some folks brain hurt so I apologize in advance for this line of thinking if it does trouble some folks,

 

However this is a really good time for folks to understand why the idea of assessing player value (which is central to assessing the draft) and building a winning team though intensely related are really two different things.

 

ESPN doing a great job marketing the draft so they cann attract eyeballs and thus make money selling commercials and the advent of fantasy leagues have really helped create a never before seen interest in assessing and arguing about the absolute quality of players.

 

However, this is a different exercise than the reality of building a winning teams which the Bills braintrust is paid big bucks for doing. This debate is seen in arguments over the approach of going after the Best Player Available (BAP. or drafting for Need. In a perfect world, there is no question you would simply go for BAP and develop him into all he can be over time to reload your team (even this simple task ain't easy as the BAP based on collegiate performance is not always going to produce a good player in the pros.

 

From workout warriors like Mike Mamula, to head cases like Ryan Leaf to folks who suffer bad breaks (literally) with injuries the history of the NFL is littered with players selected by folks who chose a BAP (and also who stretched to fill a need) because draft value and team building are different things.

 

As I judge it, the Bills did have a bad draft in terms of selecting for value as the consensus was that both Whitner and McCargo were taken above where most folks assessed their value. However, I think it is also true that all signs point to this having been a very good draft for the Bills getting the players that they wanted (It appears they had Whitner rated above Huff and McCargo easily as the 3rd best DT both well above the 4th rated DT amd potentially ahead of Ngota OR Bunkley OR both. When n throws in them going BAP getting a perceived by many 1st round talent with 3rd round experience in Yobouty in the 3rd, it was a very good Bills draft.

 

This issue of absolute value versus relative worth really can be seen now that pre-season is drawing ever closer.

 

There are tons of comments from folks looking at the available FAs and correctly assessing them or labeling them as bad or inadequate players. Fine and I agree generally.

 

However, we are moving into the final stages of team building and I really advocate the Bills signing bad or inadequate players IF THE PLAYERS WE HAVE ON OUR CURRENT ROSTER ARE WORSE. This is a sport but the Bills are a business so one also strongly has to factor costs and contracts into this equation.

 

However, I couldn't care less if a player is reasonably judged to be bad or inadequate if he is a cost-effective upgrade over what we have on the roster.

 

A past real world example of this happened when the Bills acquired Sam Adams. Some wailed about this move and argued quite correctly that he had shown real condidtioning issues in the past and was well into the backside of his career. They cirrectly judged him to be a player in decline (this point was made clear from a decline in his output as a player) and legitimately voiced complaints of many observers that he seemed to go on vacation and take about 1/3 of plays off. They did not want such a player to be a Bill.

 

I however, argued that his absolute quality as a player did not matter so much to me as that relatively he was even playing badly a clear upgrde over our current starter at DT Ron Edwards. Folks get focused on their absolute assessment of the value of a player and lose sight that it is his relative comparison to what we got which is the key to building a winning team.

 

There is a time element of import here and there is a legitimate argument that our team will be better off next season or in 2008 if we play a young inadequate player now to train him rather than getting a better but still inadequate vet to play. Howeve, I think this argument is actually settled by the general trend in the NFL that the future is now because the business is selling tickets this year bnot for a team a year or two from now. Even moreso, after 5 years of no playoffs under TD, and given that Ralph ain't getting any younger, I think it ignores reality to think that Marv and the Bills are not trying hard to win now and though they have to think about the future rationally, they put more focus on winning now even if this is unlikely to happen.

 

If folks want to be accurate, then they need to stop worrying totally about the legitimate failings of a player on an absolute basis and instead focus on comparing his failings to those of the players we have.

 

In this light, I think the Bills actually should not be making many roster moves now and actually, the good news is that there was little need to rely on the draft to get players who could help now after the first day and as it turned out after the first round in what was a deeper draft than usual. I am not saying that the current players are good (or even adequate) in all cases, just that even this deep draft offered more than a couple of opportunities to get players who could help this team immediately or even this year.

 

The Bills showed good command and control by focusing their areas of need in two areas by cutting high contract declining guys Adams and Milloy and doing what was necessary to acquire two players they felt could contribute immediately or certainly this year on the first day.

 

Likewise today, there pickings are limited, but I feel we can be at least adequate in most areas of the roster. I even feel that our likely starting OL in 06 is a big improvement over what we had in 05 (the key queston is whether you feel better about MW, Teague and Anderson than you do about Peters, Fowler and Reyes- I suspect their are few folks regardless of their concerns about these three who want to argue for MW, Teague and Anderson as better choices).

 

Though I feel better about out OL starters, i have huge questions about our OL back-ups. I think Jeff Michell has seen his better days and i think Cory Rayner is not a great C, but i feel alot better about them than I do about Geisinger and we have the cap room to sign them.

 

At T I am hopeful that fat tub of goo Aaron Gibson will prove to be better than Greg Jerman, but I expect nothing from Matt Morgan behind Gandy and do not think that Butler is ready for primetime yet as I have heard he needs footwork improvement. Thus even though Orlando Brown and Victor Reiley are not good enough players to start and even though Brad Hopkins may well retire, I like them better than what we got so I say sign 'em.

 

The one big element and all the other TSW posters who state things with dead lock certainty are missing actually is that we neither get a chance for our docs to poke, prod and MRI these players and we never get a chance to really look them in the eye and see where their head and heart may be.

 

We saw this shown very well in the Sam Adams case where even though I advocated signing him because a fat tub of goo in decline was better than what we had, I did not realize what TD has seen that Fat Sam had really matured somewhat as a person and realized he could not rely on the speed which gave him one o the quickest first steps of all DTs forever.

 

Adams qualified for the Pro Bowl and played well for the Bills because even announcers noticed that rather than taking 1/3 to 1/2 the game off that he reduced himself to going on vacation a 1/4 of the game or less (he even got into a "put-me-in coach argument with the Billa when they rotated him out on 3rd downs in favor of Edwards who is an inadequate starter but an effective part-timer at DT likely because it reduces tiredness and any need to pace himself).

 

Folks make lofty pronouncements based on what we actually can see in the past, but let me clue you in, none of us knows what the future holds and in the rarified world of the NFL a player OCCAISIONALLY can mature and squeeze a couple of productive years out when there is not much in their past to indicate they will do this.

 

So I for one look forward to the Bills signing some players I judge to be inadequate to play back-up OL positions. I do not see the ciurrent #2s at most OL positions being likely up to job.

[stuckincincy]

What inadaquate player signings do you have in mind?

[Lv-Bills]

After years of studies, the USA Today started a newspaper quite some time ago, based on short and to the point stories, so that readers would pay attention, stay tuned to the article, and read the whole article.

 

They are now making a lot of money.

[BillsCelticsAngelsBama]

What inadaquate player signings do you have in mind?

695918[/snapback]

I believe we have already reached our quota of inadequate player signings over the last two or three years.

[Beerball]

Thank God for Cliff Notes. You know Norm, Cliff Notes were named after the White Cliffs of Dover. Back in 1786 a little known Engilsh author sat beside the Cliffs and composed notes for his next work. A big gust of wind sent the author and his notes over the side. The author did not survive the fall, but the notes did. The name stuck, now you know the rest of the story.

[Pyrite Gal]

Thank God for Cliff Notes.  You know Norm, Cliff Notes were named after the White Cliffs of Dover.  Back in 1786 a little known Engilsh author sat beside the Cliffs and composed notes for his next work.  A big gust of wind sent the author and his notes over the side.  The author did not survive the fall, but the notes did.  The name stuck, now you know the rest of the story.

696338[/snapback]

Cliff notes begin: Really? Cliff notes end

 

Really?

[Sisyphean Bills]

Cliff notes begin:  Really?  Cliff notes end

 

Really?

696387[/snapback]

 

Not really.

 

http://www.cliffsnotes.com/WileyCDA/Section/id-106249.html

[stinky finger]

Thank God for Cliff Notes.  You know Norm, Cliff Notes were named after the White Cliffs of Dover.  Back in 1786 a little known Engilsh author sat beside the Cliffs and composed notes for his next work.  A big gust of wind sent the author and his notes over the side.  The author did not survive the fall, but the notes did.  The name stuck, now you know the rest of the story.

696338[/snapback]

Paul Harvey......

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

GOOD DAY!

[agilen]

Are you Fake-Fat Sunny?