Steve O Posted February 10, 2007 Posted February 10, 2007 http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/multimedi.../content.1.html
Nanker Posted February 10, 2007 Posted February 10, 2007 Maybe he's their 21st rated FA. I didn't see many in that grouping that I would place below Fletcher. Don't get me wrong, he's been a solid player and has a few miles left on the treadmill, but he is arguably not one of the top 20 FAs this year. JMHO.
truth on hold Posted February 10, 2007 Posted February 10, 2007 http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/multimedi.../content.1.html are those in order? do they really put old man garcia #1 and asante samuel near the bottom?
truth on hold Posted February 10, 2007 Posted February 10, 2007 Garcia #1.....stop smoking the rock the guy is 37 and undersized. most experts attribute eagles performance with him to a reduction of passing and greater reliance on running westbrook. i could think of at least 10 free agents i'd want before him, especially when you consider the costs of high profile free agent QBs.
JAMIEBUF12 Posted February 10, 2007 Posted February 10, 2007 well good...maybe london dosnt get the offers he feels he should and then the bills give him a fair contract and at the press conference london tells all how he never ever planned on leaving the bills and he was"just exploring" his options...go bills in"07
Oneonta Buffalo Fan Posted February 10, 2007 Posted February 10, 2007 the guy is 37 and undersized. most experts attribute eagles performance with him to a reduction of passing and greater reliance on running westbrook. i could think of at least 10 free agents i'd want before him, especially when you consider the costs of high profile free agent QBs. I disagree. Garcia has some more left in the tank. If anyone would want him the most it would be the Bears.
C.Biscuit97 Posted February 10, 2007 Posted February 10, 2007 Why would he get respect from SI when he doesn't even get if from his own hometown fans??? Dude is a warrior and if you put him behind a decent d-line, he would be a huge improvement. That said, you franchise LF (sell the whole we're gonna do whatever we can to make the playoffs), draft a DT somewhere early in the draft, and draft LF's replacement in the 4th round.
ThreeBillsDrive Posted February 10, 2007 Posted February 10, 2007 are those in order? do they really put old man garcia #1 and asante samuel near the bottom? My take on it is its not in order. Garcia is on the list because he's seen as a hot commodity right now given his clutch performance in coming of the bench to lift the Eagles to the playoffs. On pure talent and skill, others may be more deserving of being in the top 20. But Garcia and D. Rhodes are almost in a special category: non-star players that did a lot for their teams at the end of the season / or playoffs.
ThreeBillsDrive Posted February 10, 2007 Posted February 10, 2007 http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/multimedi.../content.1.html Sirius NFL radio two minute drill at 1:30 pm says Bills 18th ranked defence could get "worse" in 2007 as Fletch and Nate leave the fold. Just shows how irrelevant the no-nothing blabbermouths on this radio "station" know about football. Read the headlines and make broad generalizations about teams' prospects. That's not analysis, that's stupidity.
Rubes Posted February 10, 2007 Posted February 10, 2007 Sirius NFL radio two minute drill at 1:30 pm says Bills 18th ranked defence could get "worse" in 2007 as Fletch and Nate leave the fold. If Fletcher and Clements both leave and we replace them with rookies or mediocre free agents, do you actually think the defense would be better?
Pyrite Gal Posted February 10, 2007 Posted February 10, 2007 There is certainly more than one legit method for ranking the top 20 FAs and SI and also many fans seem to be merging two different rankings and not realizing or depicting the fact the two methods are different. A ranking could show the top 20 expected likely salaries and this list would legitimately have a number of FAs QBs like Garica high on it even though I do not think he has played or will play effectively enough to merit a top QB salary or actually deserve based on his play to be among the top FA salaries. A ranking could show the writers estimate of the 2O best players and depending upon the intelligence and biases of the ranker likely not even have Garcia even on the list. A ranking could look beyond the 2007 season and rank players in terms of their likely contribution to a team over their career which for a 37 year old like Garcia could easily be 2 seasons (if not 1) max. This list seems to be a merger which include players likely to make big bucks not only because they are good, but because there is no top 10 player at their position in the draft (Lance Briggs for example). The list includes folks like Garcia who really have no upside for a team which views itself as at least a couple of years away from competing for the SB (even if a team has no QB but views themselves as a ways away Garcia has little value to them). For the Bills purposes, I would rank Fletch as a more important FA for us to keep than Clements. Clements will almost certainly make more $ than F-B from his next contract and also the relative age of the two players versus the Bills easily being a couple of years away from even thinking about an SB would have NC make more sense for the Bills. However, when one factors in that we have an heir apparent for Clements (Youbouty may need another year but then sign a one year placeholder FA CB to train him and keep the spot warm but if you give a big contract to NC, you end up with the semi-sizable McGee extension and Youbouty's first day slotted draftee contract which are all starter money sitting on 2 spots. However, the Bills have DeGregorio behind Fletch on the depth chart and more likely one moves Crowell back to MLB, but he is recovering from injury and now one has a hole at OLB to fill. In addition, with us playing a Tampa 2 which calls upon the MLB to both tackle like a DT and to cover the deep middle like a safety, plugging a rookie in to start for him while not unprecedented for an MLB would likely be quite painful to watch next year. Particularly given that the likely top MLB Willis seems to be a player we could trade down and still get and that he clearly is talented but struggled with pass coverage at the Senior Bowl, the calls for drafting him on TSW have reasonably subsided. The way we run the Cover 2, the CB releases the WR to the safeties and MLB after 10-15 yards and we are moving to a CB press coverage scheme which Clements can play certainly, but is far from his highest and best use sitting on and jumping on passes fir INTs playing the drop back coverage typical of the Bills in the past. A player like Clements is great, he just isn'y worth Cmap Bailey type money or even the franchise amount of the top 5 avg of CB salaries for a player who is gonna be beaten out for INTs by the MLB as the CBs were in our scheme. I'd franchise Fletch before I franchise NC if I were the Bills are they seem to be part of the way to exactly this decision.
Ozymandius Posted February 10, 2007 Posted February 10, 2007 Sirius NFL radio two minute drill at 1:30 pm says Bills 18th ranked defence could get "worse" in 2007 as Fletch and Nate leave the fold. Just shows how irrelevant the no-nothing blabbermouths on this radio "station" know about football. Read the headlines and make broad generalizations about teams' prospects. That's not analysis, that's stupidity. That's not a reasonable possibility?
Miyagi-Do Karate Posted February 10, 2007 Posted February 10, 2007 If Fletcher and Clements both leave and we replace them with rookies or mediocre free agents, do you actually think the defense would be better? Depends. If we take a guy at #12 to start at CB and shore up our d-line, I think it could be just as good, if not better. Clements will definitely be missed.
Rubes Posted February 10, 2007 Posted February 10, 2007 Depends. If we take a guy at #12 to start at CB and shore up our d-line, I think it could be just as good, if not better. Clements will definitely be missed. True, but that's a couple of big if's. The point is that the radio head said the defense 'could get worse' with the leaving of Fletcher and Clements, which is a definite possibility.
Miyagi-Do Karate Posted February 10, 2007 Posted February 10, 2007 True, but that's a couple of big if's. The point is that the radio head said the defense 'could get worse' with the leaving of Fletcher and Clements, which is a definite possibility. We're on the same page. All things being equal, we will definitely be worse. Crowell for Fletcher. Youboty for Clements. No help on d-line. We will be far worse. I am hoping though that they shore up this defense--even if that means not addressing the offense at all in the draft or free agency.
Pyrite Gal Posted February 10, 2007 Posted February 10, 2007 We're on the same page. All things being equal, we will definitely be worse. Crowell for Fletcher. Youboty for Clements. No help on d-line. We will be far worse. I am hoping though that they shore up this defense--even if that means not addressing the offense at all in the draft or free agency. I agree that all things being equal if all we do is plug in the above guys on the existing roster for NC and F-B we are almost certainly worse, but I think this lays the groundwork to employ the cap resources we have to do some damage. If one signs a Lance Briggs to replace Crowell who has moved over, I actually feel somewhat hopeful about Youbouty though not nearly being as good as NC, he our scheme actually will call for him to do alot less than what NC can do (press coverage in the short zone and then release the WR going deeper to the safeties and MLB we are already getting there. Of the first draft choice is Okoye to rotate in on the DL if the braintrust looks him in the eye and feels comfortable being a very young pro I feel pretty good about the D. As far as the O, I think that actually the existing roster was not as well coached as they could have been last year, If Fairchild has gained from his first time OC experience and JP continues to come into his own, I think our O can be productive with a play selection which uses the still speedy PP (I do not know why we used him as a possession WR) and the speed shown in some great episodes by Parrish and more use of WM as a receiver (he showed some potential in college and on plays like the first play of the Ravens game where he caught and ran the ball to a nice game which was called back on a seemingly unrelated penalty) I think that the skill players can get better production. The OL seems to be going in the right direction but can still use a good FA G to upgrade, but I feel like if we make the right moves we can definitely challenge for and make the playoffs.
scribo Posted February 11, 2007 Posted February 11, 2007 I think we get better if we replace Nate with Asante or Harper. And I think we potentially get better in the long run if London is replaced by Patrick Willis.
The Jokeman Posted February 11, 2007 Posted February 11, 2007 I agree that all things being equal if all we do is plug in the above guys on the existing roster for NC and F-B we are almost certainly worse, but I think this lays the groundwork to employ the cap resources we have to do some damage. If one signs a Lance Briggs to replace Crowell who has moved over, I actually feel somewhat hopeful about Youbouty though not nearly being as good as NC, he our scheme actually will call for him to do alot less than what NC can do (press coverage in the short zone and then release the WR going deeper to the safeties and MLB we are already getting there. Of the first draft choice is Okoye to rotate in on the DL if the braintrust looks him in the eye and feels comfortable being a very young pro I feel pretty good about the D. As far as the O, I think that actually the existing roster was not as well coached as they could have been last year, If Fairchild has gained from his first time OC experience and JP continues to come into his own, I think our O can be productive with a play selection which uses the still speedy PP (I do not know why we used him as a possession WR) and the speed shown in some great episodes by Parrish and more use of WM as a receiver (he showed some potential in college and on plays like the first play of the Ravens game where he caught and ran the ball to a nice game which was called back on a seemingly unrelated penalty) I think that the skill players can get better production. The OL seems to be going in the right direction but can still use a good FA G to upgrade, but I feel like if we make the right moves we can definitely challenge for and make the playoffs. According to the NFLPA.org the second highest paid CB behind Bailey in the league is Rhonde Barber who only 8 more career INTs then Nate does. So even if Nate doesn't get picks I think it shows just how valuable quality CBs in the cover 2. To ask Youboty to start and replace a Pro Bowl caliber type CB like Nate when he didn't even see the field as a nickel or dime CB is asking a lot. People can point he missed most of training camp due to his mothers death etc are making an excuse as even in the season finale Coy Wire was seeing more playing time at CB then Youboty was, while he still has potential I wouldn't actually hang my hat on him to start and this doesn't even factor in that McGee was losing some starting time to Kiwaukee Thomas last year as well. In terms of LB, I can understand why signing Briggs is a popular idea. Though I still maintain that drafting a guy like Patrick Willis and bringing in a vetean like Wali Rainer is a smart idea as well. As Rainer did start five games for the Lions in 2005 under Jauron if Willis should faulter. As I'm not high on a plan to shift Crowell MLB but if we do then I'd say we might want to consider drafting a guy Lawrence Timmons to play WLB. Then we could re-sign Nate and allow Youboty to develop a little more and maybe replace McGee if needed. As again think Nate's greatness is being underappreciated by those that don't think he deserves Bailey type money but mark my words some team will give him that money. As by contrast he is easily a top 10 CB in this league where no one else on the current roster or free agent landscape can make that claim. I think your saying the O was not well coached last year is a misnomer. As maybe the reason the Bills made Peerless a possesion WR is we don't have one on the current roster and we needed someone to play the position. I think Fairchild also took some baby steps this season with JP and while he showed some good things last year he still needs to improve as can't help but notice that we won just two of the six games in which JP had more then 30 pass attempts which tells me a balanced approach will help us win more next year or that JP has to find target JP's comfortable with in on first and second downs outside of Lee Evans. A possession WR should definately be considered and welcome a WR with size to compliment our current crop of undersized WRs. The O-line definately needs an upgrade at both OG positions and hope we can address one through free agency and the other with a high (see day 1) draft pick.
Recommended Posts