MadBuffaloDisease Posted February 25, 2007 Posted February 25, 2007 I will say that I do agree that Marv screwed-up the Clements situation.
DrDawkinstein Posted February 25, 2007 Posted February 25, 2007 I will say that I do agree that Marv screwed-up the Clements situation. Â but we cant re-sign him under our Cap to Cash policy anyways so... its sort of a moot point
nucci Posted February 25, 2007 Posted February 25, 2007 My fear exactly. Can someone point to a single sign during the Levy era that this is NOT happening? The Levy era is barely one year old. Up to this point TODAY, what young star have we lost?
K-Gun10 Posted February 25, 2007 Posted February 25, 2007 The Levy era is barely one year old. Up to this point TODAY, what young star have we lost? Â Â ask us in one week ill give clements and kelsay.
MartyBall4Buffalo Posted February 25, 2007 Posted February 25, 2007 The Levy era is barely one year old. Up to this point TODAY, what young star have we lost? Â As of this point today we only have 2 "STAR" Caliber players on this team. Nate Clements and Lee Evans.
BillsVet Posted February 25, 2007 Posted February 25, 2007 Huh?????????? What Jr. High are you attending? Let me see... Levy's spent 50+ years in football. A Phi Beta Cappa with a Masters Degree in History, Been a GM in three professional leagues, coached 4 Super Bowls, inducted into the FB Hall of Fame. But he lacks experience?  For someone who has absolutely no clue as to what, how, why this regime does what it does, you seem to think you know a lot more than them. Like... how do you know this isn't a simple plot to get Roesnhozer to shut the fukk up? I mean, when Rozenhozer sees that no team is willing to give up more than a Walmart gift card for this jerk, and realize that his client is a career backup in the NFL.  Your assignment for this week is to publicly apologize for totally insulting, demeaning, and disrespecting a Buffalo Bills Icon.   Marv is certainly a distinguished gentleman. There's no doubt he's accomplished a great deal is his life. But at the heart of the discussion remains his qualities/deficiencies as a National Football League General Manager. Yes, he was a GM in the CFL, but that was a lifetime ago, let alone another league. That experience is fairly unrelated to the topic and position he now holds.  In order to remain objective on these pages, Marv will be criticized. I see two distinct groups of people on these boards. The first refuses to criticize Marv for anything and will make it known that no attack on Marv's decision making will be tolerated. The other group criticizes Marv for questionable (as of right now) decisions and let's it be known.  Now, no one is questioning Marv's character. Everyone should know he's a stand up, first rate individual and Dick Jauron is very similar. Unfortunately, I get the feeling neither are extremely football savvy. It almost seems they're not willing to scheme like other front offices will do this time of year to get an edge. They show their hand much too early. Or they play it conservative and do not take calculated risks.  It's obvious there are some choices Marv's made that did not go over with some fans. He's not a proven GM in the NFL yet. I get the feeling he's part of a group of individuals who make the decisions. But, GM's are ultimately the ones in charge of the on-field product with any major sports team. It cannot be a power sharing. Someone needs to make the decisions, and if people like Jim Overdorf are having a significant hand in the process, that's not letting a GM be a GM.  All in all, the 2007 chapter of the Bills is yet to be written. Free Agency starts next Friday and Buffalo will be forced to play some of its cards. Year one of the Levy/Jauron era is over. We'll have better insight into whether this team is good on paper in about 2 weeks. Of course it doesn't mean we're doomed, but now is the time to get/retain the players to become a winner this year. I for one believe 2007 will be year 2 of about a 3 year re-building plan. Hopefully that's not the case and we can be in the post-season this year.
MadBuffaloDisease Posted February 25, 2007 Posted February 25, 2007 but we cant re-sign him under our Cap to Cash policy anyways so... its sort of a moot point Not true. As I've said repeatedly, the Broncos signed Bailey to a tiered-bonus contract. He got $6M upfront, and another 2-$6M option/buyout payments that were paid at a later date (like 2 years apart each, or all at once if he were cut). If the Bills offered Nate that, his "cash" against the "cap" would be somewhere in the $7M range ($6M in bonus and $1M in salary, if even). Â And I wouldn't call Kelsay or even Willis a "star" player. Both have been disappointments.
K-Gun10 Posted February 25, 2007 Posted February 25, 2007 Not true. As I've said repeatedly, the Broncos signed Bailey to a tiered-bonus contract. He got $6M upfront, and another 2-$6M option/buyout payments that were paid at a later date (like 2 years apart each, or all at once if he were cut). If the Bills offered Nate that, his "cash" against the "cap" would be somewhere in the $7M range ($6M in bonus and $1M in salary, if even). And I wouldn't call Kelsay or even Willis a "star" player. Both have been disappointments.   well if we get rid of them i guess will rind out and like most cases the hard way is the way will find out.
The Jokeman Posted February 25, 2007 Posted February 25, 2007 but we cant re-sign him under our Cap to Cash policy anyways so... its sort of a moot point Maybe Levy should have held off announcing that policy too until after free agency begin and we started adding players etc. I understand why Levy annonced the policy to prepare the fans etc to understand why we likely won't re-sign Nate and not get a big name like Steinbach etc but it to me it also impacts how other teams pursue our free agents (as now maybe a team will go harder after Kelsay even though early reports had him wanting to stay here) or even impact potential free agents will consider signing here. Though back onto Nate we could of always tagged him and let another team sign him and get some form of compensation for him then just letting him go for nothing.  Not true. As I've said repeatedly, the Broncos signed Bailey to a tiered-bonus contract. He got $6M upfront, and another 2-$6M option/buyout payments that were paid at a later date (like 2 years apart each, or all at once if he were cut). If the Bills offered Nate that, his "cash" against the "cap" would be somewhere in the $7M range ($6M in bonus and $1M in salary, if even). And I wouldn't call Kelsay or even Willis a "star" player. Both have been disappointments. I'll agree Kelsay is not a star. Yet McGahee on the other hand could be argued. As let's not forget last year he missed some time due to injury and think he is among the top 15 of his positon which puts him to the average to above average status. Either way both are key cogs that if lost or let go without a suitable replacement could cause this team to take a step back or prevent a step up next year. I think one only needs to look at the Patriots as an example of team hardly filled with stars but finds ways to continually win as they retain guys like Troy Brown year in and year out because he provides solid production. I felt a few years ago it was a mistake to let Ruben Brown go because it made a hole that wasn't necessary to make which has yet to be filled, I felt the same way with Sam Adams last year but will admit that maybe Adams loss wasn't as big as thought it was going to be. I'm going to definately feel the same if McGahee is dealt. While Anthony Thomas proved to be a good backup/role player I feel it's foolish to anyone think he could step in and replace Willis game in and game out.
UConn James Posted February 25, 2007 Posted February 25, 2007 The Levy era is barely one year old. Up to this point TODAY, what young star have we lost? Â I know it wasn't under Marv, but TD brought in the farm league mentality i.e. Washington, Winfield, Rueben, Pat.... He had some name-signings but what we lost and what we got in place have us where we are today. A number of older, expensive UFAs who are gone or not much longer for this team, and we're weak vs. the run. Marv was absolutely right that you have to build through the draft, but the add-on is you need to keep them on your team (try the utmost, but not always possible). Marv not being able/not choosing to re-sign our own core is just a continuation of the farm phenomenon. Â As of this point today we only have 2 "STAR" Caliber players on this team. Nate Clements and Lee Evans. Â Like above, I would classify it as losing our core, not our "league stars." Say, over a few seasons, teams can lure away 5-10 of our better players which are better than their starters; what we will be able to plug in won't be much. Development will not coincide at every spot, so you get holes. You don't have to lose 'stars' (and I would argue that a team can lose a star and recover); losing several of your 'above average' core over several years can break your team.
DrDawkinstein Posted February 25, 2007 Posted February 25, 2007 I'll agree Kelsay is not a star. Yet McGahee on the other hand could be argued. As let's not forget last year he missed some time due to injury and think he is among the top 15 of his positon which puts him to the average to above average status. Â Â McGahee was 24th in the league in rushing last season...
The Jokeman Posted February 25, 2007 Posted February 25, 2007 McGahee was 24th in the league in rushing last season... He only played in 14 games last season and probably not at full strength/speed for another three games. Yet despite all that he still averaged around 70.7 rushing yards per game, if he gets a few more carries and a little healthier he'd easily gain another 10 yards a game which place him among the top 10 in the NFL.
Captain Hindsight Posted February 25, 2007 Posted February 25, 2007 I never said he was a bust. Not at all. I am simply saying that taking him at #8 and passing on more Day1 draft picks was the wrong decision. Â As far as his play goes, I hope he improves. But many other touted safeties came in the league and excelled right away. Donte is not one of them. the reason marv took himat 8 was bc the browns were gonna take him at 9 Â and why the are we still talking about this..... move on people
DrDawkinstein Posted February 25, 2007 Posted February 25, 2007 He only played in 14 games last season and probably not at full strength/speed for another three games. Yet despite all that he still averaged around 70.7 rushing yards per game, if he gets a few more carries and a little healthier he'd easily gain another 10 yards a game which place him among the top 10 in the NFL. Â Â oh yeah, thats true. and if he had an adimantium skeleton and a mutant regenerative ability he would be Wolverine. and if he could grow little wings he couldve flown over the defenses and into the endzone. and if...
nucci Posted February 25, 2007 Posted February 25, 2007 ask us in one week ill give clements and kelsay. I agree on Clements. I do not want to see him leave. Kelsay? Come on. Will not miss him at all.
MadBuffaloDisease Posted February 25, 2007 Posted February 25, 2007 With Kelsay the Bills' defense was no great shakes. I'd go with Hargrove and take my chances, at a fraction of the cost, which can be used for more important things, like keeping Nate, getting better OG's, and adding a DT. Kelsay will be SORELY overpaid, just because he's one of the better DE's of a bad FA crop. Â As for Willis, he averaged 3.8 YPC, caught 18 passes, and scored 6 TD's. Hardly the stuff of legends.
DC Tom Posted February 25, 2007 Posted February 25, 2007 What were the first two bungling mistakes again?
Nanker Posted February 25, 2007 Posted February 25, 2007 What were the first two bungling mistakes again? Â He let Ralph hire him back as GM. He cut Jim Kelly in his first organizational move to save salary.
Ray Posted February 25, 2007 Posted February 25, 2007 What if Clements decided to hold out the whole year last year if the Bills said they would not promise to tag him again for this year? Would that have been a mistake or good negotiating? You can't have it both ways! Remember Nate was coming off of a very average year and I don't recall ANYONE saying to sign him to C Bailey money! It was a good move at the time to get him in to camp, playing with his teammates and learning the new coaches' system. If you want to say it was a bad move you should have said it at the time, not a year later. Give me a year and I'll make you a millionaire by telling you what stocks you should have bought last year at this time---sorry, but life does not work that way. And as far as Willis goes, see ya' later! An average back--that's it. Probably around number 16-20 in the league and a dumb player as well.
MadBuffaloDisease Posted February 25, 2007 Posted February 25, 2007 What if Clements decided to hold out the whole year last year if the Bills said they would not promise to tag him again for this year? Would that have been a mistake or good negotiating? You can't have it both ways! Remember Nate was coming off of a very average year and I don't recall ANYONE saying to sign him to C Bailey money! It was a good move at the time to get him in to camp, playing with his teammates and learning the new coaches' system. If you want to say it was a bad move you should have said it at the time, not a year later. Give me a year and I'll make you a millionaire by telling you what stocks you should have bought last year at this time---sorry, but life does not work that way. And as far as Willis goes, see ya' later! An average back--that's it. Probably around number 16-20 in the league and a dumb player as well. I didn't realize at the time that he promised Nate to NOT franchise him again. As you said, Nate was coming off a bad year, so holding-out for half of it would have been very stupid on his part.
Recommended Posts