Someone I actually respect hate's buffalo's FA

[MDH]

I'd be intereted in hearing Jaworski's opinion about what team has helped their 3-year outlook the most. Mostly we have let go players who would have been a problem over that span. Clements (high salary, risk), Spikes (performance), McGahee (mentality), Fletcher (risk if he insisted on a 5 year deal, and performance, though I'm not convinced), Holcolm (no upside, possible team chemistry problem).

 

Overall, this year's roster looks like they will start the year worse than the guys from last year. I say that because I think it is unlikely we will sign free agents or draft players who can start at the level of the vets who are leaving. I am excited to see how this team grows and gels over the season, who will step into the leadership void, and how they react to adversity.

 

I'd rather get worse this year and break the cycle of mediocrity than suffer another year of the same-ol' with no real change in sight. I don't think this is "our year," but I am already excited for next year if we can sustain a healthy attitude through the season, learn from our mistakes and grow as a TEAM.

 

 

So you're saying, "wait 'till next year!" before the current year even gets to the draft? This has to be the earliest I've ever seen a "wait 'till next year" uttered. Nicely done!

[Buffalolips]

If headed in the right direction means we are sinking like an anchor then yeah we're headed in the right direction. This off season has been truly pathetic. You don't replace players like Fletcher, Spikes, Clements and McGahee with kids who most likely have never even been to an NFL game as a spectator and expect to win. Let's also not forget that it's true, the best off season has been in our own division.....the Patriots. Sad but true. Get ready for a long year folks. The schedule makers certainly didn't do us any favors either. Be as upbeat as you guys want but the Bills are in big trouble.

[Matt in KC]

So you're saying, "wait 'till next year!" before the current year even gets to the draft? This has to be the earliest I've ever seen a "wait 'till next year" uttered. Nicely done!

Thank you, thank you...

 

I'm actually saying I'm as excited as ever (emotions) for this year, even though I don't see how our record is going to improve significantly until next year (brain). You can choose to wait or not (whatever that means; it's your choice), though I'd love to hear a compelling argument that we'll make the playoffs this year to get me even more excited.

[Matt in KC]

Ask yourself this.

We draft Willis at 12. (Replace Fletcher)

We draft Aaron Ross at 43 (or pick your available Cornerback to replace Clements)

Trade 1 of our two 3rd round picks this year and one of our two 3rd round picks next year to San Diego for Turner (Replaces McGahee)

Draft the best available WR, TE or LB with our remaining 3rd round pick

Walker and Dockery Obviously upgraded on the OL

Walker upgrades the DL (though we now have quantity over quality at the position)

 

Then ask yourself....are we truly better? I'd have to think so....

 

The game is only half over....give it time.

If everything works out right:

 

1) We draft Willis and he performs as well as Fletcher immediately (highly doubtful I think).

2) We draft a CB in the 2nd (no way as good as Clements in the first year)

3) SD accepts 2 first day picks for Turner

3b) and he performs significantly better than McGahee (to justify our not signing two draftees)

4) we draft a LB as good as Spikes in the 3rd or lower (doubtful in his first year)

5) Dockery - no contest, this makes us better

6) Walker performs better than Gandy/Reyes (we'll see; I'm as hopeful as anyone)

7) Walker improves the DL (better than Tim Anderson, but so much better it offsets the other losses?)

8) We find a FB better than Shelton (not hard in my opinion)

 

Then yes, we are better than last year. But, that's a lot of "if's".

 

Even our O-line, our biggest improvement, may take several games to "gel."

 

If you take the same approach for any team in the NFL you are likely to conclude that each is likely to improve for next year. Who has more holes to fill than us? Is everyone going to get better?

 

EDIT: Unlike BuffaloLips, however, I both think we're getting worse (for 2007) AND on the right track (for 2007 and beyond). Our moves have been far from pathetic. If anything I think losing so many veterans is courageous and guarantees our team chemistry (mired in mediocrity) is going to change, likely for the better.

[Ramius]

If everything works out right:

 

1) We draft Willis and he performs as well as Fletcher immediately (highly doubtful I think).

2) We draft a CB in the 2nd (no way as good as Clements in the first year)

3) SD accepts 2 first day picks for Turner

3b) and he performs significantly better than McGahee (to justify our not signing two draftees)

4) we draft a LB as good as Spikes in the 3rd or lower (doubtful in his first year)

 

Let me get this straight. The draft picks we make next month arent going to be very good, yet when we trade 2 picks for turner, he's not going to be good enough to justify spending 2 draft picks on him? Wont these draft picks also suck?

 

I forgot that we are in "the bills suck and will never be good" land, where the draft picks we do have suck, and the ones we trade away are automatically going to be pro-bowlers.

[John from Riverside]

Pro Football Weekly Interview with Jaworski

 

I respect Ron Jaworski and awful lot. He's really the only analyst who I think calls it straight and ignores the hype. However, he thinks the Bills are the biggest loser in FA. Frankly, I can't disagree. I don't have any problem with the reasons behind why we lost or got rid of the players we did, however I don't see how they are being replaced. We can't do it all in the draft, and we don't have the players on our roster that can immediately step up and get it done. There's no LB on our roster that makes up for our two LB losses. One DT doesn't equal two LB losses, especially in a rotational system.

 

I think the Bills are headed in the right direction, but I was hoping they would make a run for the playoffs this year, and I just don't see it with all the losses without a net gain.

 

It is interesting that he gives acculades to the Patriots for fixing a WR weakness....but the Bills get no credit for addressing a OL weakness which has plagued us for years.

[MRW]

Let me get this straight. The draft picks we make next month arent going to be very good, yet when we trade 2 picks for turner, he's not going to be good enough to justify spending 2 draft picks on him? Wont these draft picks also suck?

 

I forgot that we are in "the bills suck and will never be good" land, where the draft picks we do have suck, and the ones we trade away are automatically going to be pro-bowlers.

Wow, you're just an attack dog, aren't you? Reread his post and see if you find anything he said that remotely justifies saying he's in "the bills suck and will never be good" land.

[Acantha]

Let me get this straight. The draft picks we make next month arent going to be very good, yet when we trade 2 picks for turner, he's not going to be good enough to justify spending 2 draft picks on him? Wont these draft picks also suck?

 

I forgot that we are in "the bills suck and will never be good" land, where the draft picks we do have suck, and the ones we trade away are automatically going to be pro-bowlers.

Well done. In an effort be a smart ass you completely miss judge what he actually says.

 

He never said our draft picks aren't going to be very good. He said that any draft pick can't be expected to be as good in their first year as Clements, Fletcher, and Spikes (who should have stepped up his game again after another year to heal). How is that wrong?

He's also right in his judgment of Turner. That's the OBVIOUS question that everyone has to ask before making a trade. Is the player going to be worth what your giving up, whether it be draft picks or players. Is Turner going to be a good starting RB in this league? Is he worth trading two draft picks? It's not a stupid question, it's the only question.

 

But I forgot, we are on TBD where the "in your face" response if far more important than objectively understanding a point.

[bananathumb]

Pro Football Weekly Interview with Jaworski

 

I respect Ron Jaworski and awful lot. He's really the only analyst who I think calls it straight and ignores the hype. However, he thinks the Bills are the biggest loser in FA. Frankly, I can't disagree. I don't have any problem with the reasons behind why we lost or got rid of the players we did, however I don't see how they are being replaced. We can't do it all in the draft, and we don't have the players on our roster that can immediately step up and get it done. There's no LB on our roster that makes up for our two LB losses. One DT doesn't equal two LB losses, especially in a rotational system.

 

I think the Bills are headed in the right direction, but I was hoping they would make a run for the playoffs this year, and I just don't see it with all the losses without a net gain.

 

 

Aw, gee, I respect Jaws "AND" awful lot too, {and I respect the English language even more}.

 

Poor Todd, he's gonna cry about London (little Man) Fletcher, Takeo (no Achilles Spikes) and the GRRReat Nate Clements).

 

Don't worry, Todd, just because Robbie and Donahoe are gone, there is still hope.

[MDH]

Let me get this straight. The draft picks we make next month arent going to be very good, yet when we trade 2 picks for turner, he's not going to be good enough to justify spending 2 draft picks on him? Wont these draft picks also suck?

 

I forgot that we are in "the bills suck and will never be good" land, where the draft picks we do have suck, and the ones we trade away are automatically going to be pro-bowlers.

 

 

I think Matt phrased his optimism and skepticism pretty well. I guess your post just goes to prove that if anybody says anything that is not totally positive you'll jump down their throats.

[AJ1]

Pro Football Weekly Interview with Jaworski

 

I respect Ron Jaworski and awful lot. He's really the only analyst who I think calls it straight and ignores the hype. However, he thinks the Bills are the biggest loser in FA. Frankly, I can't disagree. I don't have any problem with the reasons behind why we lost or got rid of the players we did, however I don't see how they are being replaced. We can't do it all in the draft, and we don't have the players on our roster that can immediately step up and get it done. There's no LB on our roster that makes up for our two LB losses. One DT doesn't equal two LB losses, especially in a rotational system.

 

I think the Bills are headed in the right direction, but I was hoping they would make a run for the playoffs this year, and I just don't see it with all the losses without a net gain.

 

Yes, we may have 'lost' the FA battle this year but we are going to win the war. There was a justified reason for letting each and every FA go. The main reason was we could not win with the status quo ante. Is Jaworski saying keep the the old players and, in fact, let's pay them a lot more in addition?. Jaworski should stick to breaking down games and buying golf courses, something he knows what he's chirping about.

[mead107]

what gets me the most form all you experts and the jerks on TV are that we should have keep nate . If the Bills had given him 80 million everyone on this board would be screaming that the bills gave him way to much money .

seems all the experts on TV are wrong more than they are right .

[Typical TBD Guy]

though I'd love to hear a compelling argument that we'll make the playoffs this year to get me even more excited.

 

1. Same coaches, rookies, and starting QB with an extra year of experience now in the O and D systems.

 

2. An improved, more veteran-rich OL and DL from both free agency and also from the 2006 draft class' aforementioned new experience...or full health in McCargo's case.

 

3. A disgruntled, low-IQ RB with average speed (McGahee post-Fiesta Bowl) replaced with a fresh-legged RB drafted in the first day (Bush?).

 

4. A disgruntled, slowed, unproductive post-Achilles TKO replaced with a speedier day 1 draft pick (Alexander, Black?) who better fits our D system.

 

5. A small, aging MLB who couldn't attack/fill his line gap responsiblities (London) replaced with a bigger, younger, faster, and equally football-intelligent Patrick Willis (no, I don't see the 49ers picking Willis over any of the top DL players at #11).

 

6. Loss of Clements compensated by true implementation of the Tampa Cover-2, as well as contributions from Youboty and whatever other CB's Levy can find in the mid-to-late draft rounds (and this scouting team's track record with CB's has been pretty good over the past 10-15 years).

 

7. RB being among the easiest positions in football for which a college-to-pro rookie can make a significant contribution. To only a slightly lesser extent, the same is true for cover-2 OLB's and CB's who are only responsible for small pockets of the field. At these positions, speed and agility can often trump years of play recognition experience.

 

Am I putting too much of a positive spin on the 2007 season's potential? Perhaps. And I'm not saying I buy 100% into the "we make the playoffs in 2007" argument. Maybe Levy bombs the 2007 draft, and then we're screwed. But I do know one thing: we sure didn't win much when we had TD's assembled cast of name player choke artists like Fletch, Clements, and McGahee.

[John from Riverside]

If everything works out right:

 

1) We draft Willis and he performs as well as Fletcher immediately (highly doubtful I think).

 

I think more likely what happens is we go down in some areas and we get better in others.....I see Willis attacking the gaps much more aggressively

 

2) We draft a CB in the 2nd (no way as good as Clements in the first year)

 

I think this is a given...but it is important to note that this isn't the same defense as Clements first year....its the cover 2 that does not require man to man dominance....we guys who can move who are good tacklers.

 

3) SD accepts 2 first day picks for Turner

 

WHile this would not by my first choice the presence of Turner with A train backing him up with the improvements of the O line could potentially make this offense MUCH more productive.

 

4) we draft a LB as good as Spikes in the 3rd or lower (doubtful in his first year)

 

If we are talking young Takeo then you can take that from doubtful to NOT going to happen. But lets not forget we are not starting from scratch here.....Ellison was outplaying Spikes last year and he was a rook......Crowell was starting to look REALLY good before he got hurt.

 

5) Dockery - no contest, this makes us better

 

Glad you see it...I agree

 

 

6) Walker performs better than Gandy/Reyes (we'll see; I'm as hopeful as anyone)

 

I feel comfortable about this because even if he does not we have young guys waiting in the wings who showed something. Also Gandy could actually still be resigned...I dont hear about anybody else beating down his door.

 

7) Walker improves the DL (better than Tim Anderson, but so much better it offsets the other losses?)

 

In this scheme....absolutely. Walker is a pass rushing monster.....Anderson couldn't get off the line.

8) We find a FB better than Shelton (not hard in my opinion)

 

I am not sure that we even need one.....I would like to see more 2 TE sets

 

Then yes, we are better than last year. But, that's a lot of "if's".

 

Its a young team with a lot of speed with a lot of character.....I like it

 

Even our O-line, our biggest improvement, may take several games to "gel."

 

This is where I disagree....this is why you dont draft rookies on the O Line if you want to get better right away and it is why we paid so much money out for the OL we brought in.....experienced vets get it together much faster then Rooks who are still finding their way. When you think about it....we will only end up replacing 2 positions and they are being replaced with vets....smart move.

 

If you take the same approach for any team in the NFL you are likely to conclude that each is likely to improve for next year. Who has more holes to fill than us? Is everyone going to get better?

 

To me what sets things apart is having a plan and sticking to it....I see other teams instead all over the place on their thinking.

 

EDIT: Unlike BuffaloLips, however, I both think we're getting worse (for 2007) AND on the right track (for 2007 and beyond). Our moves have been far from pathetic. If anything I think losing so many veterans is courageous and guarantees our team chemistry (mired in mediocrity) is going to change, likely for the better.

 

Last year I thought we would get off to a slow start and get better as the season went on....especially on offense. Which we did.

 

This year I expect our offense to be much better out the gate......Losman really came on last year....he has a massive mauling OL in front of him. We have a potential pro bowl receiver in Lee Evans.......and I think the O will offset the D weaknesses that might happen at the beginning of the year while they find themselves. We just need to do ok in the first half and biulding momentum as the season goes on.

 

I think we are going to get a wildcard.

[Rico]

I don't agree with Jaws... The Bills finally did what they should've done last off-season, and that is setting their young franchise QB up for success by strengthening the OL. I will miss Nate, but I liked Youboty coming out of OSU more than any of the other CBs in this year's draft. As for Willis, Fletcher, and TKO: LBs and RBs in this league in this day-and-age are a dime-a-dozen, you can always pick someone half-way decent up before Week 1 off waivers or for a low draft pick if things don't look good.. I would not burn a high Day 1 pick on either of the 2 units. Interior DL still looks to be the biggest problem area to me, I see a lot of complimentary players there but no real, true talent unless McCargo steps up & stays healthy (and I still have zero expectations that he will)... I'd like to see this area addressed early on Day 1.

[stinky finger]

How can a team with a sub .500 record the previous season coupled with the fact that they haven't sniffed the playoffs in a decade be considered a FA loser? I don't care how "talented" these guys were, they weren't winners.

 

The time has come to break it down and rebuild with a solid foundation. Just need to be a bit more patient people. Marv is working on it. He'll get it right.

[dave mcbride]

Todd, I hate to say it but I agree with him as well. If you asked most NFL scouts who were the 10 most talented players we had on our team last year, I'd reckon most people would include Fletcher, Clements in that group. Spikes, if he has recovered to even 80% of his 2004 talent, would probably also be in that group. McGahee, even with his problems, would fit there as well. I don't blame Marv for doing what he's doing - but make no mistake, this is a rebuilding year and we should not expect to be any more than a .500 team.

 

My primary beef with the Bills front office is what we paid Walker and what we paid Kelsay - this resembles the Peerless signing last year - not bad moves per se, just way more than market value for their skill level - and these signings limit what we can pay potential game changers like Evans and (possibly) Losman. What I'm surprised at is the overwhelming number of knowledgeable fans on this board who have a hard time admitting that we will probably be worse before we get better based on our moves this offseason. Who knows, maybe we'll strike lightning in a bottle and Lynch (or Peterson or whoever in this weak RB class) becomes a capable performer instantly - or better yet, Willis or Poz is an impact starter that vastly improves our run D - or Youboty or Hall becomes a solid corner in short order. Overall, I expect our offense to improve a bit if we get Lynch or Turner but I don't see our defense looking better no matter who we draft. I'm a diehard fan but it's hard to deny we've lost an awful lot of leadership and talent over the last couple months.

 

I hate to be a stickler about terminology, but if Spikes was 80% of his former self, he'd maybe qualify for a moderately decent high school team. If you lose more anything more than 5% of your ability in the NFL (speed/strength/agility/leaping ability), it usually means that you're going to end up on the street.

[Lothar]

I hate to be a stickler about terminology, but if Spikes was 80% of his former self, he'd maybe qualify for a moderately decent high school team. If you lose more anything more than 5% of your ability in the NFL (speed/strength/agility/leaping ability), it usually means that you're going to end up on the street.

 

And if you were the half the person I thought you were before your response, I'd be angry ... or at least pi$$ed ... possibly even perturbed.

 

Jeez, look what you made me do for my 500th post - hope you're happy. I'll have you know I was planning a diatribe worthy of Pyrite Gal but noooooo, someone's got to be a total ^&%$ - sheesh.

[Phil Indablanc]

If its any consolation, most years the Redskins are given the title of FA winner.

You have lost some significant talent however that I dont think will be replaceable this year. Even if you have a phenominal draft, how many players can you reasonably expect to contribute right away?

 

Excellent point on Washington.

[Mile High]

Of course, a lot will depend on what the Bills do between now and the start of training camp. They have a bunch of options w/ the 12th pick and they have the additional 3rd from the McGahee trade plus their other day 1 picks, so they should come out of the first day of the draft w/ a nice group of players. Couple that w/ some shrewd moves on day 2 (let's hope!), and some good scouting of the available free agents later, and the Bills may not look like such losers going into camp.

Exactly, and Rich quit making sense.