After the mess O'le Whitey left here,

[Dan]

While I appreciate your point, and it sure does make one feel warm and fuzzy inside, I think it's very much overstated. Free agents AND agents look at three factors when they shop for teams (and contracts):

 

1. $MONEY$

2. A chance to win

3. $MONEY$

 

Look no further than New England, where Bill Bellichick and the front office has proven to be among the most ruthless in the business. He cut team captain Lawyer Milloy a day before the season started, completely screwing him over. He demanded that Ty Law, who was arguably the MVP of their Super Bowl run, to take a paycut. He refused to even talk extension with the grossly underpaid Deion Branch.

 

Yet they have no problem signing one of the Top 2 free agents on the market in Adalius Thomas? Wes Welker was happy to play for them, as is Donte Stallworth. So let me get this straight... players are willing to sign with a team that is KNOWN for underpaying its players and has a coach that would cut them in a heartbeat?

 

Absolutely. You look at the way Tom Donahoe treated some of the incumbent veteran players when they walked out the door in 2001. Yet he had no problems signing some of the premier free agents in the NFL, like London Fletcher, Takeo Spikes and Sam Adams. I'm not going to sit here and say that Marv has done a bad job... I feel quite the contrary. I like the fact that he purged this team of excess baggage moving players such as McGahee and Mike Williams. But this was a mistake.

First, I'd echoe MLBs' comments... the Patriots and Bills are in 2 completely different places and therefore can shop for players on a completely different basis. Second, I'd say that money and chance to win certainly are the primary factors, but what if 2 teams offer similar money and a similar chance to win? What if Buffalo and the Lions are after the same guy and offer very comparable salaries? How then does the player decide? My guess is somewhere down the line they think about where they'll be, how they'll be treated, and the teammates they'll be playing with. And if so, then that is where being a decent GM and treating players with respect comes into play.

 

I guess the difference here is you prefer to treat players like commodities to be traded and utilized; whereas, Marv has chosen differently. Both methods have their advantages and disadvantages.

[socalfan]

I don't know what else Marv could have done except promise Nate not to put the franchise tag on him again. Nate wasn't showing up for the mini camps and may not have shown up for some of training camp if Marv had not made that promise. The defense was in the process of changing to a "Tampa 2". Nate needed to get in and learn that system.

 

The Bills had a cooperative Nate after the promise. He showed up for some of the mini camps. He played well last season. But for two years he has said he wants to be paid as the best corner in the NFL. That was not something the Bills would do. The Bills knew Nate was gone two years ago. They got a very good year from him. Without the promise the Bills would have had a Briggs situation on their hands last year, and if franchised again they would have a Briggs situation on their hands this year. I don't think the draft pick compensation could have been worth it.

[oregonbbfan]

I too agree with DAWG. He said it better than I did below, posted on 2/20/07 under the "teams using the tag " unfairly" topic. You must get something if you cannot sign the most valuable FA in the market. Good job DAWG.

 

"Now for that greed and little loyalty, I say Marv made a large mistake. Marv should have said last year after the first tag, Nate come to camp and if we cannot hammer something out, I will tag you next year but you will be free to seek a trade or contract with anyone you wish and we will even reduce the compensation to 1 first , not the required 2. Just like TD did with Price. Tell Nate we want something for our efffort, risk and past salary. That way we get something for him instead of nothing like now. I'm not a TD fan but if he had a commodity that was top guy in FA, do you not think he would get something? And it would be fair to Nate because he goes where he wants, maybe a few less million but who's counting when we are talking $50+ million, I know, NATE.

 

Marv gave his word and couldn't go back on it, but would it hurt for Nate to release Marv from his word to give something back to Buffalo since he knows we cannot match. Just a thought."

Forum: The Stadium Wall · Post Preview: #918138 · Replies

[Mark Long Beach]

Nice response Dawg.

 

I think that the big difference is in the amount of risk you're willing to take. You are willing to take a riskier position (with the potential for greater rewards) than the position that Marv took and seems to be taking with a lot of other decisions. Yes Nate was the number 1 free agent player THIS year, but the decision to cut him loose was basically made LAST year when Marv said we'd only tag Nate for 1 year, so that he could get into camp and learn our new system. Now we still had the opportunity during the season to work out a long term deal if Marv thought it was in the teams best interest. It would have been hard, and it would have been expensive, but it absolutely would have been possible.

 

I think that Marv figured it was worth the potential to get a draft pick (there's absolutely NO guarantee we'd get a worth-while draft pick for Nate) to instead have a happy Nate, in camp on time, helping out the other corners. This also avoided a potential Lance Briggs type situation. Remember, this is the first year that Marv is taking over. There are only so many battles that you can fight at once. Learn to pick and choose your battles until you understand the situation. At the time we got a good (and contract) year out Nate for the cost of a possible draft pick in the future. That was Marv's gamble, where you wanted more than that. Every year is crucial in the NFL, and this was a time of transition with a new GM and a new Head Coach. Distractions for a new management team would be bad.

 

We also got spoiled with getting a first round pick for the underachieving Peerless Price. There really aren't many deals for 1st round draft picks for players. In free agency teams don't want to pay big bucks AND big draft picks for players. That's why for even the best (and older) runningbacks lately have been low 2nd rounders along with the gadzillion dollars they earned.