DrDawkinstein Posted March 1, 2007 Posted March 1, 2007 awesome article. if anyone needs to be reassured that this team is building correctly, there it is.
Fan in San Diego Posted March 1, 2007 Posted March 1, 2007 Good article. But I'm wondering why the heck Marv resigned Shaud Williams. I thought for sure he would be let go.
Kelly the Dog Posted March 1, 2007 Posted March 1, 2007 In 2001, the Patriots first Super Bowl appearance, and the year that was most responsible for their mini-dynasty, they signed 21 free agents. That was at least as responsible as the ascension of Brady. I think they kept 17 veteran free agents which produced two team captains, seven full-time starters, three special teams specialists and two veteran nickel backs. It included Mike Vrabel, David Patton, Antowain Smith, Roman Phifer, Larry Izzo, Terrell Buckley, their #2, #3, #4 and #5 WRs (after Glenn went down in game four) etc. More importantly, free agency counts signing your own stars. The Patriots, the Colts, etc., won by signing their own stars, which is something the Bills will not do. Free agency is just as important as the draft depending on how you look at it. Manning, Harrison and Wayne were all basically signed in free agency by the Colts. Brady and Seymour and others on the Pats. Stupidly overspending for non-star players is what gets the Redskins in trouble, not the money itself.
Bill from NYC Posted March 1, 2007 Posted March 1, 2007 Stupidly overspending for non-star players is what gets the Redskins in trouble, not the money itself. I take the above to mean over the hill guys like Bruce Smith, Deon Sanders and Mark Brunnell. Am I correct? The reason I ask is that some are accusing Marv of over spending on Kelsay, who certainly (at least so far) is a "non-star." Personally, I thought it was a great move, and I am just trying to clarify, know what I mean?
MDH Posted March 1, 2007 Posted March 1, 2007 awesome article. if anyone needs to be reassured that this team is building correctly, there it is. You mean by being the only team in the league to let their best players actually hit free agency?
Lurker Posted March 1, 2007 Author Posted March 1, 2007 More importantly, free agency counts signing your own stars. The Patriots, the Colts, etc., won by signing their own stars, which is something the Bills will not do. ...at positions that make sense financially and production-wise like QB (not CB in a cover-2 D).
MDH Posted March 1, 2007 Posted March 1, 2007 ...at positions that make sense financially and production-wise like QB (not CB in a cover-2 D). Unfortunately when the Bills played the traditional cover 2 to start the year last year they were toasted over and over again. Only when they let Clements line up on the side of the other teams #1 over and over again did the pass D improve. Tell me again how this team isn't going to miss Clements?
Bill from NYC Posted March 1, 2007 Posted March 1, 2007 ...at positions that make sense financially and production-wise like QB (not CB in a cover-2 D). Ok.....in light of the above, would you consider a 1st round corner a wasted pick?
MDH Posted March 1, 2007 Posted March 1, 2007 Ok.....in light of the above, would you consider a 1st round corner a wasted pick? I think you have officially joined the dead horse beaters club.
DrDawkinstein Posted March 1, 2007 Posted March 1, 2007 You mean by being the only team in the league to let their best players actually hit free agency? yes, when those players are going to command way to much money and/or are entering the twilight of their career. we are better off investing in our own young talent. and the way that article reads, it almost wouldve been best for Clements if he allowed the Bills to franchise him again this year. its not a great year for free agency anyways, so lets lock down the guys that will be the building blocks of this team for the next 5 years. and if those 2 want to go collect, it was nice having them, but good luck where ever you land. tell eric moulds we said hi.
Kelly the Dog Posted March 1, 2007 Posted March 1, 2007 I take the above to mean over the hill guys like Bruce Smith, Deon Sanders and Mark Brunnell. Am I correct? The reason I ask is that some are accusing Marv of over spending on Kelsay, who certainly (at least so far) is a "non-star." Personally, I thought it was a great move, and I am just trying to clarify, know what I mean? It includes those guys and a dozen others, like Archuleta and Lloyd and Randle El last year. Look at their roster. For all the money they spend, they have exactly one star and perhaps no great players, if you count Portis, and perhaps Santana Moss. And both of those guys came in trades. Their other big name is a thug #1 pick in Sean Taylor.
DrDawkinstein Posted March 1, 2007 Posted March 1, 2007 Unfortunately when the Bills played the traditional cover 2 to start the year last year they were toasted over and over again. Only when they let Clements line up on the side of the other teams #1 over and over again did the pass D improve. Tell me again how this team isn't going to miss Clements? i will be the first to admit that we will miss clements. and im dont stand behind the "we need LESS talent at CB" philosophy. BUT its not that the bills cant see what a great corner Nate is. its that they cant see spending that money on just ONE GUY. he is very talented and i wish we could keep him. but we cant. so we let him and it go, and plan for replacing him. whether that is with moving youboty in, and/or drafting a CB, and/or finding a 2nd Tier guy in FA. sorry, Nate is gone, there really wasnt much we could do about it. but we did sign a lot of good up-and-coming talent, and STILL HAVE a bunch more to re-sign next year and the year after. lets hope for another great draft and we're well on our way.
Kelly the Dog Posted March 1, 2007 Posted March 1, 2007 ...at positions that make sense financially and production-wise like QB (not CB in a cover-2 D). Different players and positions are stars on different teams. In SD, its RB and DE. In Indy, it's QB and WR (and they never would have won without their defensive MVP, a safety. In Chicago, it's MLB and DL. In NE it's QB and DL. In Pitts, they won mostly because of their RBs and DBs. Nate is our best player. Everyone of the other positions is affected by his play, including and especially the DL.
Bill from NYC Posted March 1, 2007 Posted March 1, 2007 I think you have officially joined the dead horse beaters club. Sorry about that, if in fact it bothers you that much. I do however think that it was a valid question, because if Marv does go after a 1st round corner, I think that a great many posters would defend him for doing so. In reality, Mave made a "promise" not to franchise a guy who is one of the most athletic players I have ever seen, and in his prime. This leads us to the question of exactly how much of a priority a CB is to the Bills. What do YOU think?
obie_wan Posted March 1, 2007 Posted March 1, 2007 Sorry about that, if in fact it bothers you that much. I do however think that it was a valid question, because if Marv does go after a 1st round corner, I think that a great many posters would defend him for doing so. In reality, Mave made a "promise" not to franchise a guy who is one of the most athletic players I have ever seen, and in his prime. This leads us to the question of exactly how much of a priority a CB is to the Bills. What do YOU think? sure you need CBs. but you don't need to spend $20 mil in cash for one. Bill Parcells had philosophy that you don't spend big bucks on CBs and WRs. Although teh cap got bigger, the annual budget is limited and you have to decide where to spend your resources.
Dan Posted March 1, 2007 Posted March 1, 2007 ... if Marv does go after a 1st round corner, I think that a great many posters would defend him for doing so. If we select a CB at #12 I, for one, will find that indefensible and look with genuine concern for the first time at Marv's GM performance.
OCinBuffalo Posted March 1, 2007 Posted March 1, 2007 Sorry about that, if in fact it bothers you that much. I do however think that it was a valid question, because if Marv does go after a 1st round corner, I think that a great many posters would defend him for doing so. In reality, Mave made a "promise" not to franchise a guy who is one of the most athletic players I have ever seen, and in his prime. This leads us to the question of exactly how much of a priority a CB is to the Bills. What do YOU think? I will be pissed - but like I said earlier, it's not like the move would be completely invalid. It is defensible all day because of the: "we need competition at every position" philosophy that Marv/DJ have. It worked great for the QB issue. Why wouldn't it work great at CB? We are losing a significant guy, and therefore that is going to create a significant hole. That hole has to be addressed in some fashion, and that is why taking a CB is "defensible". I just hope they don't so it. CB at #3 I'm OK with. IMO there is no way that Hall or whoever, is as valuable as Willis or Okoye or any of the guys that are listed in that other voting thread. I could be wrong, but I doubt it.
MDH Posted March 2, 2007 Posted March 2, 2007 Sorry about that, if in fact it bothers you that much. I do however think that it was a valid question, because if Marv does go after a 1st round corner, I think that a great many posters would defend him for doing so. In reality, Mave made a "promise" not to franchise a guy who is one of the most athletic players I have ever seen, and in his prime. This leads us to the question of exactly how much of a priority a CB is to the Bills. What do YOU think? It doesn't bother me that much, I just know exactly what you're going to say in any given thread. Everybody does. As for what I think, as I've told you before, I agree with you. Theoretically, I'd prefer OL or DL to a CB. That being said, I want to see what the Bills do in FA and how the draft plays out before I'll say that the Bills absolutely should not take a CB with their 1st round pick.
Recommended Posts