One more McGahee thread....

[stinky finger]

Of course the new RB has the advantage of running behind the 75 million dollars of O-line the Bills front office just spent.

 

Considering A-Train's CAREER HIGH is 1,100 yards, though, we BETTER find an upgrade over him. The guy is mediocre in all regards.

 

I'll wager this though - McGahee will outgain Thomas this year. Anyone willing to take that bet?

You'd win that suckers bet. But, I'd bet AT has a better YPC average than WM.

 

BTW, shouldn't this self-proclaimed "best RB" run circles around AT? I'm going to let you in on a little something.....WM is not that good.

[The Dean]

You can be traded/cut/sent packing via FA if: you don't perform each day/it's about you and not the team. I am sure that JP, Lee Evans, Parrish, Whitner, etc. got this message loud and clear. If McGahee can be traded, anybody can. The likes of Nate and London cannot hold this team hostage in terms of "playing for a contract" - we'd rather just let them go. What other teams do/what other teams can offer is irrelevant - the only thing that matters to this team is this team.

 

 

I don't disagree with much of what you say, but I have a question:

 

What does London Fletcher have to do with ANY of this? Fletch played hard ALL the time and was the epitome of a "team player". He was an FA and took a good contract from the Skins. I don't even know what the Bills offered, but I don't remember there being any contentiousness (is that a word?).

 

Nate wanted (and deserved) big $. Hell the only lesson that teaches is you can get better deals by playing out your contract and going FA.

[Kelly the Dog]

You know that 40 mil isn't guaranteed and you know that Willis is going to be in trouble this year for the same reasons he was in trouble last year - he has lost a step due to his injury. This is football - not baseball - or worse, Fantasy Football, and Willis' window will close a lot faster because of it. Why should anyone care if Willis is with his buddies Do you think that goes through the heads of the vast majority of pro athletes as a priority over: 1. Having a job, 2. Winning? What goes through Willis' head, I think we can agree, is an experience only shared by intellectual gods like Brittany Spears.

 

My point is simple: Marv has made it clear that no one is above getting dropped from the roster and that the Bills are willing to make that move - damn the consequences. This is a good message to send these young guys, regardless of what happens later, because it lets them know exactly where they stand=gains their respect. If they think that Marv, DJ, etc. is willing to tolerate BS because of "how good" they are, sooner or later BS behavior will start to appear; and they won't know what they have to do/can get away with=loses their respect. It's that simple.

I like the attitude of that, and think it's good. I just think you used a bad example and don't think that is the message that it sends the other players. Players that aren't stars know 100% every day that no one, meaning them, is above getting dropped from the roster. Everyone knows what bad behavior is and that they have to learn the plays (if that was really the case, which Jauron flat denied). I think these guys know for sure that Marv is looking for better character guys, and most of the guys that are here by now already are that and don't need to worry about it. I am glad Marv is doing it, and I like for the most part what he is doing with the team. I'm also glad McGahee is gone for the most part. Your post sounded like it was teaching players a lesson and I'm just responding with an opinion, and reasons for that opinion, why I don't think that's true. I'm not sticking up for Willis' schitty-ass attitude.

[Rubes]

I'm glad you included Roscoe Parrish, if there's one guy on the team who needed to be sent that message it's him.

 

[OCinBuffalo]

I like the attitude of that, and think it's good. I just think you used a bad example and don't think that is the message that it sends the other players. Players that aren't stars know 100% every day that no one, meaning them, is above getting dropped from the roster. Everyone knows what bad behavior is and that they have to learn the plays (if that was really the case, which Jauron flat denied). I think these guys know for sure that Marv is looking for better character guys, and most of the guys that are here by now already are that and don't need to worry about it. I am glad Marv is doing it, and I like for the most part what he is doing with the team. I'm also glad McGahee is gone for the most part. Your post sounded like it was teaching players a lesson and I'm just responding with an opinion, and reasons for that opinion, why I don't think that's true. I'm not sticking up for Willis' schitty-ass attitude.

I would assume that they know this 100%, but that is an assumption. Nothing like confirmation. I don't mean "teach a lesson" in a negative way = punishment. I do mean that, without being heavy-handed and certainly without demeaning Willis in any way(big marks for the class in which Marv&DJ handled this), they have set the standard/tone in a clear way. Our newer players, and their agents, know exactly what they can expect from us - which means the air stays clear. I can only hope that this translates into positive relationships, as best as we can expect, and also puts a guy like Rosenhaus on notice:

 

Bluff all you want, we are willing to call you on it for a guy who has clearly underperformed - to the point that we are not scared of trading him.

 

Oh yeah and one other thing: Even if Willis didn't know the plays, I can't see DJ confirming that fact, because he has nothing at all to gain. It makes him look kinda bad - like he doesn't know how to teach, it makes Willis look bad=DJ doesn't know how to motivate, etc. If I was DJ I'd never confirm a rumor like that.

[OCinBuffalo]

I don't disagree with much of what you say, but I have a question:

 

What does London Fletcher have to do with ANY of this? Fletch played hard ALL the time and was the epitome of a "team player". He was an FA and took a good contract from the Skins. I don't even know what the Bills offered, but I don't remember there being any contentiousness (is that a word?).

 

Nate wanted (and deserved) big $. Hell the only lesson that teaches is you can get better deals by playing out your contract and going FA.

I am talking about the lessons it teaches the younger guys. I'm not calling out Fletcher, I am merely saying that by and large, it was kinda obvious to me - and painful as well - that we needed to move on at MLB. I don't like it, but it was the right decision. As far as the young guys are concerned - this is the one I'm worried about - in that we probably could have kept him, and potentially should have kept him as a reward for his effort. Hard to say. We aren't a playoff team that can afford the luxury of keeping LF-B around to mentor the new guys(like Vincent last year).

 

WRT Clements - yeah you are right. But it also says that hey - if you aren't putting out until the last five games - we don't want you. Let some other sap GM pay you ridiculous money, we'd rather give our new guys the chance to replace you than pay a huge signing bonus so you can return to mediocrity. Again, bluff all you want, we are calling it every time. Unless you are a clear top performer at your position - you ain't gettin paid by us I think Dockery is a top performer, which is why we paid him - and not Clements.

[The Dean]

I am talking about the lessons it teaches the younger guys. I'm not calling out Fletcher, I am merely saying that by and large, it was kinda obvious to me - and painful as well - that we needed to move on at MLB. I don't like it, but it was the right decision. As far as the young guys are concerned - this is the one I'm worried about - in that we probably could have kept him, and potentially should have kept him as a reward for his effort. Hard to say. We aren't a playoff team that can afford the luxury of keeping LF-B around to mentor the new guys(like Vincent last year).

 

WRT Clements - yeah you are right. But it also says that hey - if you aren't putting out until the last five games - we don't want you. Let some other sap GM pay you ridiculous money, we'd rather give our new guys the chance to replace you than pay a huge signing bonus so you can return to mediocrity. Again, bluff all you want, we are calling it every time. Unless you are a clear top performer at your position - you ain't gettin paid by us I think Dockery is a top performer, which is why we paid him - and not Clements.

 

I don't think we are disagreeing much. i will say this, though...

 

Unlike many others, I think Fletcher is still a top MLB and his stats support that (#3 in the NFL in tackles last year AND he was playing injured for awhile). It isn't like keeping Vincent, a player with severely diminished skills. I'm a little concerned this move says, "Be a top player, a great teammate and leader and we'll still let you go." Bad lesson, IMO.

 

As for Nate we didn't "call his bluff". He was sitting with 4 aces and he took a big pot home. He was just too expensive for us, i understand that.

 

But, we lost 2 top players (not OK players). I know what lesson you think they are being TAUGHT by these moves, i think it's just as likely the lesson they may be LEARNING is, be a great player and cash in as a free agent, because the Bills won't pay you.

 

As for Willis, I think the lesson is clear enough.

[gobillsinytown]

I don't think we are disagreeing much. i will say this, though...

 

Unlike many others, I think Fletcher is still a top MLB and his stats support that (#3 in the NFL in tackles last year AND he was playing injured for awhile). It isn't like keeping Vincent, a player with severely diminished skills. I'm a little concerned this move says, "Be a top player, a great teammate and leader and we'll still let you go." Bad lesson, IMO.

 

I understand why you would think this, but the sad fact is that, with this new CBA, the smaller market teams like Buffalo are unlikely to keep a player for their entire career. I don't think players sign long-term deals for the contract. I think they sign them for the bonus money, which is usually the only thing that's guaranteed. I also don't think that Marv is making these decisions willingly. Marv's history has always been to reward loyalty and he did that to a fault sometimes. I thought there were some players during the "glory days" of the 90's that should have been let go earlier, but Marv let them stay out of loyalty to them.

 

But the economics are different now and he has to adapt. Unless the NFL addresses the fact that larger market teams can pay almost unlimited amounts of bonus money and therefore have an advantage, teams like Buffalo are going to have to let players go before they want to.

[tombstone56]

whoa now,, london fletcher lead the team in tackles ,,yes,, but it was mainly because they ran right

 

at him,, he also lead the team in personal fouls for two seasons,, and most of his tackles were what is

 

know now as TOF,,,that is "TRIPPED OVER FACEMASK on way by him,, when the teams was down you need

 

team leaders to buck up the young talent,,fletcher like his counterpart spikes folded his tent and went

 

home he showed zero leadership in tough games ..he talked the talk but that was all it was from

 

him,, i liked him on special teams but as full time starter ,no way.. IMO he will be another in a long line

 

of FA busts for the skins

[The Dean]

whoa now,, london fletcher lead the team in tackles ,,yes,, but it was mainly because they ran right

 

at him,, he also lead the team in personal fouls for two seasons,, and most of his tackles were what is

 

know now as TOF,,,that is "TRIPPED OVER FACEMASK on way by him,, when the teams was down you need

 

team leaders to buck up the young talent,,fletcher like his counterpart spikes folded his tent and went

 

home he showed zero leadership in tough games ..he talked the talk but that was all it was from

 

him,, i liked him on special teams but as full time starter ,no way.. IMO he will be another in a long line

 

of FA busts for the skins

 

 

Totally disagree with your assessment. BTW, Fletch was #3 in the NFL in tackles.

[stinky finger]

Totally disagree with your assessment. BTW, Fletch was #3 in the NFL in tackles.

I know the numbers are there, but he doesn't supply that "Zach Thomas" type of impact. He doesn't disrupt plays before they get going.

[The Dean]

I know the numbers are there, but he doesn't supply that "Zach Thomas" type of impact. He doesn't disrupt plays before they get going.

 

 

Yes, he is a different type of player, asked to do different things AND had huge offensive lineman hanging on him do to our relative lack of talent and BEEF at DT.

 

Fletcher is not Zach Thomas. London is still one of the top MLBs in the NFL. The guy we get to replace him probably won't be Zach Thomas either.

 

We might be fine at LB...I EXPECT us to be fine. I'm just saying, Fletcher played hard and good. Was a team leader, called the D, played hurt and did everything you expect a veteran leader to do.

 

He didn't hold the Bills hostage. He is not a player who's talent has severely declined. He's not a ME guy. What's not to like about the guy?

 

Basically, I'm defending the integrity of LF-B here. I think he's been underrated and under-appreciated by many Bills fans. I also don't think he left in a negative way. To lump him in with Nate (who I would defend differently) or Willis is a mistake and unfair, IMO.

 

Also, in response to the topic at the time, I offered up the possibility that younger players may learn a lesson here...and not the one we probably want them to learn.

[Dante]

Right. Where on Earth will we find a RB that can scamper for 990 yds?

Exactly. He is so irrelaceable. What ever will we do???? The only ones who got screwed in this deal is the Ravens. Good luck guys!