downsoufbfan Posted March 25, 2007 Posted March 25, 2007 Ok, I understood why fletcher and clements was not re-signed. Everyone else seen the forecast on mcgahee after the 06 season, even some saw it after his first year playing. I just cannot seem to grab the spikes trade issue. I know it's hell to bounce back from a achillies injury, but this dude is a leader and was committed to the bills. I'm speculating that it is age, money, and more draft picks for this trade. Can someone please share da light on this situation, cause i'm confused? I just hope that there making the right decisionin the long run.
JimBob2232 Posted March 25, 2007 Posted March 25, 2007 I hope they make the right decision as well. And that decision is trade him to a contender and let him win a superbowl.
Rubes Posted March 25, 2007 Posted March 25, 2007 It's all about money. True, that. And the fact that his performance coming off that injury does not warrant that amount of coin. If he had never been injured, he'd be worth the money.
nodnarb Posted March 25, 2007 Posted March 25, 2007 Something to consider, and I'd be willing to bet the farm on it: Spikes wants to play for a large market team. He wants his shot at bigger ad contracts, greater exposure, the big time. Consider the fact that a few weeks ago, when asked about Willis, Jauron never once stated that Willis didn't want to play for Buffalo anymore. Not until after the trade went down did Jauron let on to this by taking the high road, as usual, when he simply told the media that the question of 'did he want to play here' should be directed to Willis. That answered the question well enough. And now we know from the Baltimore news article that Willis was barking behind the scenes the whole time. We are so much better without Willis McGahee. He has NEVER impressed me, on or off the field. He's an average back, period. Donahoe was wrong. Personally, I wonder if the same is true of a post-injury Spikes; that they reviewed the film on him, estimated his speed next year will not be optimal *for the Tampa-2*, and decided that that fact plus his desire to move on makes for an easy choice. I don't think you'll see Spikes traded to a small, Buffalo-type market. Spikes was never *consistently* great, but he was a very good player. But last year, the only impact play he made was the first snap of the season. After that he disappeared, was late to tackles, was out of position often, freelanced and got caught, and was not a factor in coverage, which is the #1 reason why I believe his days as a Bill are over. This has a lot to do with scheme changes, and that's something that a lot of posters seem to forget.
CJPearl2 Posted March 25, 2007 Posted March 25, 2007 The reasoning is this: he is now a sub-par player making 5 mil a year. Other than the first play of the season last year (in which he sacked Brady, caused a fumble and LF got a td - and then subsequently blew out his hammy) he didn't make any plays. Go back and watch the tape of games if you can. He is a step slower and had no real impact on the defense. Marv and Co love Ellison and believe he is an adequate replacement. Plus he has a 6th round pick's second year salary. One more thing to remember: we NEVER made the playoffs with Clements, Fletcher, Spikes and Willis.
Nanker Posted March 25, 2007 Posted March 25, 2007 Until Dockery was signed TKO was the highest paid Bill. Clumpy's Cap Page You can't justify the ROI based on his on field production in 2006. He's replacable. I don't like it either, but this is business not fantasy. The money is better spent elsewhere.
C.Biscuit97 Posted March 25, 2007 Posted March 25, 2007 Something to consider, and I'd be willing to bet the farm on it: Spikes wants to play for a large market team. He wants his shot at bigger ad contracts, greater exposure, the big time. Consider the fact that a few weeks ago, when asked about Willis, Jauron never once stated that Willis didn't want to play for Buffalo anymore. Not until after the trade went down did Jauron let on to this by taking the high road, as usual, when he simply told the media that the question of 'did he want to play here' should be directed to Willis. That answered the question well enough. And now we know from the Baltimore news article that Willis was barking behind the scenes the whole time. We are so much better without Willis McGahee. He has NEVER impressed me, on or off the field. He's an average back, period. Donahoe was wrong. Personally, I wonder if the same is true of a post-injury Spikes; that they reviewed the film on him, estimated his speed next year will not be optimal *for the Tampa-2*, and decided that that fact plus his desire to move on makes for an easy choice. I don't think you'll see Spikes traded to a small, Buffalo-type market. Spikes was never *consistently* great, but he was a very good player. But last year, the only impact play he made was the first snap of the season. After that he disappeared, was late to tackles, was out of position often, freelanced and got caught, and was not a factor in coverage, which is the #1 reason why I believe his days as a Bill are over. This has a lot to do with scheme changes, and that's something that a lot of posters seem to forget. Spikes went to college in Auburn, played in Cincy, and left there to come to Buffalo. The guy could care less where he plays. I think he just play on veteran team that he feels could compete for a championship this year. I can't blame him. And before he tore his Achilles, he was the best OLB in football.
Pyrite Gal Posted March 25, 2007 Posted March 25, 2007 . We are so much better without Willis McGahee. He has NEVER impressed me, on or off the field. He's an average back, period. Donahoe was wrong. WM is reasonably (IMHO) judged to be a failure overall as a Bill due to the simple fact we never even made the playoffs while he was here as our lead RB. However, I was certainly quite impressed with his accomplishments as a Bill in his first season and a half of play here as a Bill and I think that most folks rationally were quite impressed with: 1. The simple fact he reached 2000 yards rushing quicker than any Bill ever. This factoid does not make him at all a better RB than the far more complete player Thurnan or the exciting play of the Juice (prior to him become a stone cold killer of the mother of his children which reduces his football accomplishments to meaningless activity). He failed in the end, but this was an impressive start to me. 2. The highlights of how he ran during his first two years of play were quite impressive to me. The play where he combined with a top notch QB sneak play by the much hated Bledsoe and took a pitch and scampered for a 40+ yard TD I found to be very impressive. If one throws in his use of a stiff arm his first year, a formidable weapon which he sheathed for some reason in his last season and a half, was brutal and quite impressive to me. 3. While it was not actual yards, i also was very impressed with the diligence he showed in working out like a demon to get drafted in the 1st round and to comeback from what credibly seemed like a career ending injury to start at NFL as an RB was quite impressive to me. I know with our little brains as humans we tend to try to categorize things as either all bad or all good because this simplistic view of things does not have the complications of reality and the nuance in the world. However, i think Willis drives many folks nuts not because most always were unimpressed by his work but specifically because there were so many impressive things about what he did initially as a Bill, but he utterly failed to finish and bring the glory that he could have achieved.
Nostradamus Posted March 25, 2007 Posted March 25, 2007 While his only highlight reel play was the season-opener, I thought his play steadily improved throughout the season. Also, Spikes was due to make 4.6 million this year. Fletcher could have been signed for 5 yrs 25 million dollars. Langston Walker is making 5 million a year. Is anyone going to compare Langston Walker as a player to either Spiker or Fletch?? To me, the Walker signing was senseless and has now left us periliously thin at the LB position, as well as at running back. Unless this draft class is going to be one of the best in Bills history, I see this team as being worse than last years unit. I hate to give this doomsday forecast, but the decisionsthis off-season have been nothing short of baffling. Something to consider, and I'd be willing to bet the farm on it: Spikes wants to play for a large market team. He wants his shot at bigger ad contracts, greater exposure, the big time. Consider the fact that a few weeks ago, when asked about Willis, Jauron never once stated that Willis didn't want to play for Buffalo anymore. Not until after the trade went down did Jauron let on to this by taking the high road, as usual, when he simply told the media that the question of 'did he want to play here' should be directed to Willis. That answered the question well enough. And now we know from the Baltimore news article that Willis was barking behind the scenes the whole time. We are so much better without Willis McGahee. He has NEVER impressed me, on or off the field. He's an average back, period. Donahoe was wrong. Personally, I wonder if the same is true of a post-injury Spikes; that they reviewed the film on him, estimated his speed next year will not be optimal *for the Tampa-2*, and decided that that fact plus his desire to move on makes for an easy choice. I don't think you'll see Spikes traded to a small, Buffalo-type market. Spikes was never *consistently* great, but he was a very good player. But last year, the only impact play he made was the first snap of the season. After that he disappeared, was late to tackles, was out of position often, freelanced and got caught, and was not a factor in coverage, which is the #1 reason why I believe his days as a Bill are over. This has a lot to do with scheme changes, and that's something that a lot of posters seem to forget.
Nanker Posted March 25, 2007 Posted March 25, 2007 Funny how Willis is suddenly dedicating his offseason to fitting in with his new team. Nothing like getting told you're a bag o'chit low motor guy to get you motivated. Didn't work so well for Mike Williams though. TKO's case is different though. I think it's just numbers and his cost/benefit ratio was way too high.
Nanker Posted March 25, 2007 Posted March 25, 2007 While his only highlight reel play was the season-opener, I thought his play steadily improved throughout the season. Also, Spikes was due to make 4.6 million this year. Fletcher could have been signed for 5 yrs 25 million dollars. Langston Walker is making 5 million a year. Is anyone going to compare Langston Walker as a player to either Spiker or Fletch?? To me, the Walker signing was senseless and has now left us periliously thin at the LB position, as well as at running back. Unless this draft class is going to be one of the best in Bills history, I see this team as being worse than last years unit. I hate to give this doomsday forecast, but the decisionsthis off-season have been nothing short of baffling. WRONG! Spikes = $6.4 million Walker = $3.0 million We can sign a lot of players with the $11.4 million in loot you want to give to Spikes and London.
Paup 1995MVP Posted March 25, 2007 Posted March 25, 2007 While his only highlight reel play was the season-opener, I thought his play steadily improved throughout the season. Also, Spikes was due to make 4.6 million this year. Fletcher could have been signed for 5 yrs 25 million dollars. Langston Walker is making 5 million a year. Is anyone going to compare Langston Walker as a player to either Spiker or Fletch?? To me, the Walker signing was senseless and has now left us periliously thin at the LB position, as well as at running back. Unless this draft class is going to be one of the best in Bills history, I see this team as being worse than last years unit. I hate to give this doomsday forecast, but the decisionsthis off-season have been nothing short of baffling. Spikes play steadily improved to marginal by the end of the season. The bottom line is he is NO LONGER A GAMECHANGER. I just don't get why everyone is so worked up about losing Spikes and Fletcher. Our run D was terrible last year, and those two guys had a whole lot to do with it. Have trust and faith in Marv and Dick that they know what they're doing. Come opening day, I think we will all be please with our linebacking group. Tell me again how many playoff games we won or played in with Spikes, Fletcher and Clements. If the Steelers can let Joey Porter go while he is still somewhat in his prime, than the Bills can certainly let a damaged Spikes go.
N.Y. Orangeman Posted March 25, 2007 Posted March 25, 2007 This argument "tell me how many playoff games we won with x, y and z" is ridiculous. The question to be asking is how much worse/better are we without them when considering the other additions to the team.
HurlyBurly51 Posted March 25, 2007 Posted March 25, 2007 Don't forget TKO has been publicly critical of some front office moves, so combine that with his price tag and his fall off in production on the field, and you have a recipe for Marv to cut ties with him, consistent with his MO since he got here.
Kelly the Dog Posted March 25, 2007 Posted March 25, 2007 WRONG! Spikes = $6.4 million Walker = $3.0 million We can sign a lot of players with the $11.4 million in loot you want to give to Spikes and London. The Walker numbers you cite are cap numbers. The Bills paid him at least 5 mil in cash this year and he averages 5 mil per year. Spikes was only getting 4.5 mil in cash this year. Not to mention that the Bills, according to the article, are not using that money to sign new players except for draft choices they would have to pay for anyway.
Nanker Posted March 25, 2007 Posted March 25, 2007 The Walker numbers you cite are cap numbers. The Bills paid him at least 5 mil in cash this year and he averages 5 mil per year. Spikes was only getting 4.5 mil in cash this year. Not to mention that the Bills, according to the article, are not using that money to sign new players except for draft choices they would have to pay for anyway. But how is it that Walker's listed as $1 mil in salary then? OTs full salary doesn't count to the cap? Obviously, I'm not unnerstanding - which is nothing new in and of itself.
YOOOOOO Posted March 25, 2007 Posted March 25, 2007 TKO wants to play his natural position(WLB) and this coaching staff doesnt feel he can in the TAMPA 2....thats why were trading him...
Kelly the Dog Posted March 25, 2007 Posted March 25, 2007 But how is it that Walker's listed as $1 mil in salary then? OTs full salary doesn't count to the cap? Obviously, I'm not unnerstanding - which is nothing new in and of itself. I was surprised at Clump's numbers for Walker myself. But they could easily have given him a two tiered bonus, both guaranteed, but half this year and half next. So, for instance, they could have given him a 3 mil signing bonus, 1 mil salary and 1 mil roster bonus this year. And a 2-3 mil guaranteed bonus next year. His salary is only 1 mil, the amount they pay out is 5 mil. TKO salary all counts toward the cap, as does his amortized bonus from 4 years ago. But the cash they pay him is only the salary.
Recommended Posts