nichebiche Posted February 16, 2007 Posted February 16, 2007 from espn.com one more potential top free agent off the market. for all of you who want the Bills to open the pocketbook, you won't find much left in the cupboard. so, all this arguing over the meaning of the press conference might be moot.
BillsVet Posted February 16, 2007 Posted February 16, 2007 I have to admit Marv Levy is a very nice and thoughtful man. A HOF coach and someone who guided the Bills into many successful seasons. But being nice in the NFL will not get you ahead, certainly as General Manager. The franchise tag is there for a reason to protect us in a case such as this. NC wants to get paid, and we are in the drivers seat right now to do it. While his cap knowledge is either lower than expected or he simply is joking, one thing is certain: other teams will maintain their free agents while we appear set to lose ours. We've talked on this board about keeping our own and drafting well. We'd better draft well because we're not going to retain those picks who become stars. A cycle of replacing our own continues. So many are already rationalizing Nate's departure. The only logical rationale I have is if someone makes a totally ridiculous offer w/a 25m signing bonus and 9M per or close to it. If we are close in terms of a deal, I think Nate remains. If we don't, we'd better make an effort to keep him because there's no one to replace him.
Ray Posted February 16, 2007 Posted February 16, 2007 Just who do people think we should spend millions on now? Yeah, you have the cap room but you just don't spend it on people you don't think are worth it! Remember you have a QB and a WR next year you are going to have to spend a lot of cash on (30M upfront combined) to keep. So do you want to lay out huge money for average players or players who are about equivalent to your roster? I do agree that this makes the Bills look very bad if they at least don't make a big offer to Nate. If they offer a SB over 15M and he gets an offer from the skins for like 20M--you cannot say the Bills didn't try. The Redskins are closer to the cap so will have to pay a lot of guaranteed money over a lot of yrs to lower the figure.
Mikie2times Posted February 17, 2007 Posted February 17, 2007 Just who do people think we should spend millions on now? Yeah, you have the cap room but you just don't spend it on people you don't think are worth it! Remember you have a QB and a WR next year you are going to have to spend a lot of cash on (30M upfront combined) to keep. So do you want to lay out huge money for average players or players who are about equivalent to your roster? I do agree that this makes the Bills look very bad if they at least don't make a big offer to Nate. If they offer a SB over 15M and he gets an offer from the skins for like 20M--you cannot say the Bills didn't try. The Redskins are closer to the cap so will have to pay a lot of guaranteed money over a lot of yrs to lower the figure. Steinbach or Dielman would be my number one priority for outside FAs
MadBuffaloDisease Posted February 17, 2007 Posted February 17, 2007 I'd look for Adalius Thomas to be franchised.
The Tomcat Posted February 17, 2007 Posted February 17, 2007 So if we Franchise Fletcher it 7.2 million?
obie_wan Posted February 17, 2007 Posted February 17, 2007 Why would we franchise Fletcher? because we know the name. you can't spend enough on overpaid, overhyped name players on teh down side of their careers
scribo Posted February 17, 2007 Posted February 17, 2007 Marv's comment yesterday about the need for linebackers who attack not just pursue was the clearest indication yet that a FA LB is in the Bills' plan -- not franchising Fletcher. That said, it would probably be a wise more to transition tag him so the team gets some direct compensation. If they tag him, sign someone else and cannot find a team willing to give up a pick for Fletcher, the Bills can remove the tag and let Fletcher walk. There is nothing to lose, IMHO.
nichebiche Posted February 17, 2007 Author Posted February 17, 2007 Marv's comment yesterday about the need for linebackers who attack not just pursue was the clearest indication yet that a FA LB is in the Bills' plan -- not franchising Fletcher. That said, it would probably be a wise more to transition tag him so the team gets some direct compensation. If they tag him, sign someone else and cannot find a team willing to give up a pick for Fletcher, the Bills can remove the tag and let Fletcher walk. There is nothing to lose, IMHO. there is no compensation attached to the transition tag, just the ability to match any contract offer within 7 days, kinda like a RFA, except the player is guaranteed the average salary of the top 10 players at his position. if we don't want Fletcher, we don't need to complicate things. just let him sign elsewhere so we can focus on finding a LB who does attack.
scribo Posted February 17, 2007 Posted February 17, 2007 My mistake. In that case, I agree, let him walk.
Pyrite Gal Posted February 17, 2007 Posted February 17, 2007 Why would we franchise Fletcher? 1. He is the best fit at MLB for the D scheme we are playing. Like it or not looking at the ways of acquiring players: A. FAs- There does not appear to be an MLB with demonstrated pass coverage ability to step into the dual use needs of a Tampa 2 MLB available and Fletcher who led all NFL LBs in INTs, brings a decade of experience watching NFL plays implemented and though he is a pursuittackling (as Marv describes them) rather than attacking LB he appears to be the best FA bet out there (KCs Kawika Mitchell perhaps may be the best we can do in FA). B. Internal development- One nugget of decision-making that came from yesterday's Marv talk was that he fessed up Crowell to MLB if F-B goes is something they are talking about. Perhaps #2 MLB on the depth chart deGregorio has shown something Urlacher like in practice none of us know about, but this appears to be the best and likely only real option for us internally. Perhaps he can be the attacking MLB Marv referenced vaguely wanting as he has started both at Will and Sam. However, given that he is recovering from an injury, even though the quality of his play (first day draft pick who trained initially as an MLB and ran the D well in pre-season from MLB his second year, stepped up and performed at both OLB positions when forced to by injuries) has been good uncertainties remain. C. The draft- A favorite of some folks as Willis got a lot of initial talk, but though in rare cases a rookie can start at MLB (this is rare in that the draft is basically a crapshoot anyway which only offers the possibility even a first day pick can start immediately even if you want to claim the probability a 1st day pick will finish the season as a starter, it actually is even more doubtful that any rookie will master the diverse role the MLB plays in our Tampa 2 style D. Even if lightening strikes exactly where we predict and Willis or whomever can start at our MLB spot, the real analogy for his production would seem to be what Losman showed at QB. He is a physically gifted player who simply had to got through a full season of painful development before he got the hang of being a vet. Overall, one also needs to account for the sense of most pundits that this actually looks like a weak year for LBs in this draft and after Butkus award winner as college's best LB Willis struggled with pass coverage in the senior bowl, he actually has dropped to about #30 on the often incorrect Kiper list, but when Kiper misses this estimate it still looks like the Bills can trade way down and still get Willis or that they actually might be able to trade up afew notches with their #2 pick and get him the second. All in all the draft offers no immediate replacement for F-B and if anyone DiGregorio is rooting for us to look to the draft fpr F-B's replacement because this is how he may well get a start. D. Trade- probably the best way for us to find a player capable of starting but who knows how one could really pull this off. A key reason why it might make sense to tag F-B is that though at $7.2 million he would be pricey, we not only have the cap room in a cap to cash world to absorb this hit to the cap, but Fletcher is on the wrong side of 30 for us to invest in him for the length of time necessary to really pro-rate what is likely to be similar sized bonus over a long-term contract to make this worthwhile anyway. We also have to spend a certain amount of money anyway under the CBA so why not spend this on the best alternative we have to fill the MLB slot even if the best we can do is not what we really wish we had. The Bills would likely be better off if we tag F-B and draft a Davis in the 2nd round with the idea he is gonna be schooled for a year before we turn the MLB starting job over to him and let F-B go.
nichebiche Posted February 17, 2007 Author Posted February 17, 2007 Pyrite, i understand your stance in regards to not starting a rookie MLB due to the complexities of the Cover 2. however, it was made pretty clear in yesterday's press conference that the Bills will be looking for attacking LB's. while Levy did not name names, as an active contributer on this board, it has widely been discussed that Fletcher made the majority of his tackles down the 5+ yards down the field. based on how that fact cannot be argued, it seems evident that Levy was referring to Fletcher as the pursuing-type, as opposed to the attacking LB they prefer in this scheme. based on that criteria, wouldn't it make more sense to let Fletcher walk, since he does not fit the scheme and would make $7.2 mil not fitting in? i'd rather see Crowell slide over to MLB if they cannot find a better alternative. odds are good that they will draft a MLB at some point. when he is ready he can step right in. if it is this year, great. if not, Crowell stays put at MLB. either way, the rook learns. but, you argue that the Bills need Fletcher to be the one to mentor the rook. if Fletcher does not play the style the Bills desire, why would they want him to mentor the new guy??? no matter what, if the team has decided that Fletcher is not going to solve a problem, why not let him go so we can use that $7.2 mil elsewhere, like the O-Line, for example???
obie_wan Posted February 17, 2007 Posted February 17, 2007 Pyrite, i understand your stance in regards to not starting a rookie MLB due to the complexities of the Cover 2. however, it was made pretty clear in yesterday's press conference that the Bills will be looking for attacking LB's. while Levy did not name names, as an active contributer on this board, it has widely been discussed that Fletcher made the majority of his tackles down the 5+ yards down the field. based on how that fact cannot be argued, it seems evident that Levy was referring to Fletcher as the pursuing-type, as opposed to the attacking LB they prefer in this scheme. based on that criteria, wouldn't it make more sense to let Fletcher walk, since he does not fit the scheme and would make $7.2 mil not fitting in? i'd rather see Crowell slide over to MLB if they cannot find a better alternative. odds are good that they will draft a MLB at some point. when he is ready he can step right in. if it is this year, great. if not, Crowell stays put at MLB. either way, the rook learns. but, you argue that the Bills need Fletcher to be the one to mentor the rook. if Fletcher does not play the style the Bills desire, why would they want him to mentor the new guy??? no matter what, if the team has decided that Fletcher is not going to solve a problem, why not let him go so we can use that $7.2 mil elsewhere, like the O-Line, for example??? stop with the logic. rookies can never start at MLB.
nichebiche Posted February 17, 2007 Author Posted February 17, 2007 stop with the logic. rookies can never start at MLB. sorry, my bad.
MDH Posted February 17, 2007 Posted February 17, 2007 Why would we franchise Fletcher? As idiotic as it sounds I wouldn't mind franchising him. The Bills aren't spending to the cap so that's a moot point. Franchising doesn't affect future years so that's a moot point. The Bills have nobody on the roster to fill in at MLB next year and the FA cupboard is pretty much empty. The Bills will likely draft Fletcher's replacement. Franchising him gives the rookie a year to grow into the spot. Fletcher certainly isn't "worth" that money but as a Bills fan I wouldn't mind if they did it.
nichebiche Posted February 17, 2007 Author Posted February 17, 2007 As idiotic as it sounds I wouldn't mind franchising him. The Bills aren't spending to the cap so that's a moot point. Franchising doesn't affect future years so that's a moot point. The Bills have nobody on the roster to fill in at MLB next year and the FA cupboard is pretty much empty. The Bills will likely draft Fletcher's replacement. Franchising him gives the rookie a year to grow into the spot. Fletcher certainly isn't "worth" that money but as a Bills fan I wouldn't mind if they did it. why pay $7.2 mil for a guy who doesn't fit???
Chilly Posted February 17, 2007 Posted February 17, 2007 I don't understand the "5 yards downfield logic". In the cover-2, the MLB's job is to backup and defend the middle of the field. It makes sense, then, that his tackles are 5 yards down the field as thats where he plays.
nichebiche Posted February 17, 2007 Author Posted February 17, 2007 I don't understand the "5 yards downfield logic". In the cover-2, the MLB's job is to backup and defend the middle of the field. It makes sense, then, that his tackles are 5 yards down the field as thats where he plays. perhaps Levy, Jauron and Fewell don't understand the concept of the Cover 2, because he stated the team wants LB's who attack, not tackle downfield. what you describe is certainly accurate when defending the pass, but when defending the run the goal is to penetrate and swarm the ball carrier.
Recommended Posts