Chilly Posted March 15, 2008 Posted March 15, 2008 While I think Stroud and Johnson are great additions, and that I believe Stroud will pan out, you can't completely ignore his injury and the fact that he MIGHT not return to form. Also, we can't assume that McCargo will become great either. Personally, I believe that both Stroud and McCargo will produce, but if they both go the other way, we are in serious trouble and you can't ignore that possibility. IMO, that possibility is not worth ignoring the other gaping holes on the team.
ans4e64 Posted March 15, 2008 Posted March 15, 2008 I think the front office has done a very good job the last two years in the current rebuilding effort. Anyone who thinks they haven't done anything in FA this season has had their head buried in the sand. We had a LOT of holes that needed to be plugged to keep the ship from sinking and signing Mitchell, Stroud, and Johnson will keep the defensive ship afloat next season. Now we need to be smart and draft to fill the other three need positions on this team: WR, CB, TE. Once we take care of those, then you draft for depth. There is a lot of talent at DT this year as well that can be had in the 3rd round. We DO NOT need to draft a DT in the first round this year. That said we don't have to take a receiver first either. James Hardy will be there in the second and we could easily get him at that point. Also, I highly suspect the FO will trade down in the first round and acquire an add'l 2nd rounder. If they do that, we could draft a top CB in the First, and grab Hardy at WR and Fred Davis at TE in the second. Then start drafting depth in the third round and later. That would be the BEST thing this FO could do. Hardy will almost definitely be gone by our second round pick, and maybe even Davis too. A lot of the scuddle is that since there are pretty much no great TE prospects outside of Davis, a team my jump up in the late first round to secure him. You just never know
ans4e64 Posted March 15, 2008 Posted March 15, 2008 IMO, that possibility is not worth ignoring the other gaping holes on the team. Oh I'm not saying it is, by any means. You said that we are completely set at DT, and I just wanted you to understand the possibility that there might be troubles there, that's all.
Kelly the Dog Posted March 15, 2008 Posted March 15, 2008 What would have been wrong with paying small bucks for one year to Johnson like he asked for, and like SF did, so the #1 or #2 pick at WR didn't have to walk right in and produce right away?
ans4e64 Posted March 15, 2008 Posted March 15, 2008 What would have been wrong with paying small bucks for one year to Johnson like he asked for, and like SF did, so the #1 or #2 pick at WR didn't have to walk right in and produce right away? Because Johnson would much rather try and pad his stats in Mike Martz's offense than the cold and snow running attack in Buffalo.
BillsVet Posted March 15, 2008 Posted March 15, 2008 What would have been wrong with paying small bucks for one year to Johnson like he asked for, and like SF did, so the #1 or #2 pick at WR didn't have to walk right in and produce right away? Chris Brown on his blog noted that Buffalo wasn't willing to give a one year deal to a 26 year old. I understand this, given that the Bills are trying to build around a core group, and having a guy in for one year who could be out the door doesn't fit into that. Then again, having a guy in for one year and drafting a receiver to play should that guy leave shouldn't be ruled out either. If BJ wanted money, he found the right place with the 49ers. Production as a WR won't happen though, but he went to a division rival in SF without a decent starting QB
Kelly the Dog Posted March 15, 2008 Posted March 15, 2008 Because Johnson would much rather try and pad his stats in Mike Martz's offense than the cold and snow running attack in Buffalo. He asked and the Bills turned him down, according to Chris Brown. He would have started here. He's may not going there.
Chilly Posted March 15, 2008 Posted March 15, 2008 Oh I'm not saying it is, by any means. You said that we are completely set at DT, and I just wanted you to understand the possibility that there might be troubles there, that's all. No I didn't, I said DT was not one of the top needs on the team.
ganesh Posted March 15, 2008 Posted March 15, 2008 While I think Stroud and Johnson are great additions, and that I believe Stroud will pan out, you can't completely ignore his injury and the fact that he MIGHT not return to form. Also, we can't assume that McCargo will become great either. Personally, I believe that both Stroud and McCargo will produce, but if they both go the other way, we are in serious trouble and you can't ignore that possibility. Also, he is one strike away from a year suspension.....that is a big gamble with a DT.
ans4e64 Posted March 15, 2008 Posted March 15, 2008 He asked and the Bills turned him down, according to Chris Brown. He would have started here. He's probably not going to there. I didn't here about Chris Brown's comment. I agree with you, it sounds like a pretty good idea, all I can think of is maybe the Bills didn't want someone out there who was playing for himself? And starting in SF, I don't think there's any doubt that he will. They released D. Jackson today, so I doubt Ashley Lelie or Arnaz Battle would push Johnson out of the lineup.
Kelly the Dog Posted March 15, 2008 Posted March 15, 2008 I didn't here about Chris Brown's comment. I agree with you, it sounds like a pretty good idea, all I can think of is maybe the Bills didn't want someone out there who was playing for himself? And starting in SF, I don't think there's any doubt that he will. They released D. Jackson today, so I doubt Ashley Lelie or Arnaz Battle would push Johnson out of the lineup. Kind of. The Bills don't want to sign anyone for one year, according to Brown (which is a cop out since they do it all the time). I understand that they want someone who is going to be here for awhile and have the team grow together, but WR is one position that a player can step in and play. He also said the Bills didn't want to see him have a great year and then not be able to sign him. But if he did, they would have the inside track on him and they would already have his replacement with one year under his belt. Plus it very likely would have meant their offense was very good (if he had a great year). It's not a disaster by any means, but we could have used him. I also don't think he automatically beats out Battle who has started for two years with terrible quarterbacking and they expected to be a very good WR.
ans4e64 Posted March 16, 2008 Posted March 16, 2008 Kind of. The Bills don't want to sign anyone for one year, according to Brown (which is a cop out since they do it all the time). I understand that they want someone who is going to be here for awhile and have the team grow together, but WR is one position that a player can step in and play. He also said the Bills didn't want to see him have a great year and then not be able to sign him. But if he did, they would have the inside track on him and they would already have his replacement with one year under his belt. Plus it very likely would have meant their offense was very good (if he had a great year). It's not a disaster by any means, but we could have used him. I also don't think he automatically beats out Battle who has started for two years with terrible quarterbacking and they expected to be a very good WR. Obviously the Bills didn't want him for one year, but I think Chris Brown's reasoning sucks. It doesn't make much sense. I think there are other reasons, perhaps more logical, as to why we wouldn't want him on our team for a year. I like the idea of having him for one year, not paying him a big contract, drafting a WR in the first round with more potential, and getting Johnson out after the year. But, I can understand why the Bills wouldn't want a one year selfish player who is going to B word for the ball so he can pad his stats for the offseason.
Max997 Posted March 16, 2008 Posted March 16, 2008 Not that that means anything- I am sure that is not a relief for them, nor will it affect their future plans (I hope) Despite our desperate need for upgradeS at WR, they did not overspend on what may very well be a mediocre player. I hope they follow that in the draft- when you over reach for need, you lose. If Kelly and either Ellis or Dorsey is there, I hope we go with the DT. If you have enough playmakers on your team, it usually will compensate for deficiencies. Acting on desperation can be costly, and this front office earned my respect by holding back and being smart about that yeah, giving Bryant Johnson a one deal would have killed this team...some people are simply blind loyalists, nothing more
obie_wan Posted March 16, 2008 Posted March 16, 2008 Kind of. The Bills don't want to sign anyone for one year, according to Brown (which is a cop out since they do it all the time). I understand that they want someone who is going to be here for awhile and have the team grow together, but WR is one position that a player can step in and play. He also said the Bills didn't want to see him have a great year and then not be able to sign him. But if he did, they would have the inside track on him and they would already have his replacement with one year under his belt. Plus it very likely would have meant their offense was very good (if he had a great year). It's not a disaster by any means, but we could have used him. I also don't think he automatically beats out Battle who has started for two years with terrible quarterbacking and they expected to be a very good WR. This situationi is pretty easy to understand. Johnson was a free agent. John Guy is responsible for evaluating pro personnel, including free agents. John Guy, perhaps, undersestimated the need for talent at the WR position (or he is just generally incompetent at pro personnel) The result is the Bills do not add talent and force themselves into drafting a WR if they want to improve.
Captain Hindsight Posted March 16, 2008 Posted March 16, 2008 This situationi is pretty easy to understand. Johnson was a free agent. John Guy is responsible for evaluating pro personnel, including free agents. John Guy, perhaps, undersestimated the need for talent at the WR position (or he is just generally incompetent at pro personnel) The result is the Bills do not add talent and force themselves into drafting a WR if they want to improve. Ya that worked awful last year when we passed on that stud chris brown
BillsVet Posted March 16, 2008 Posted March 16, 2008 Ya that worked awful last year when we passed on that stud chris brown You've neglected to realize the point about the college to NFL development curve of RB's versus WR's. As has been mentioned numerous times on this board, RB's generally make a quick impact while WR's require more time to develop and transition into the pro game. Put simply, playing RB in the NFL is more instinctual, while receivers must adapt to a host of new coverages and the speed of NFL DB's. Buffalo didn't ink Brown last year because they knew it'd easier to find a more viable alternative in the first round. Brown's always had durability issues, and he once again lived up to it this season. Finding a WR becomes paramount in this draft, provided the front office makes no further deals at the position. To expect a first or second round receiver to play at the level of an average NFL wideout is much more improbable than thinking that way with running backs.
Captain Hindsight Posted March 16, 2008 Posted March 16, 2008 You've neglected to realize the point about the college to NFL development curve of RB's versus WR's. As has been mentioned numerous times on this board, RB's generally make a quick impact while WR's require more time to develop and transition into the pro game. Put simply, playing RB in the NFL is more instinctual, while receivers must adapt to a host of new coverages and the speed of NFL DB's. Buffalo didn't ink Brown last year because they knew it'd easier to find a more viable alternative in the first round. Brown's always had durability issues, and he once again lived up to it this season. Finding a WR becomes paramount in this draft, provided the front office makes no further deals at the position. To expect a first or second round receiver to play at the level of an average NFL wideout is much more improbable than thinking that way with running backs. So it would be better for the FO to over pay a guy who wanted a one year deal who was the 17th overall pick and was so good they drafted a reciever in the top 5 the next year? Id rather draft a reciever especailly with our run first offense and the fact our QB loves the dump off.
Oneonta Buffalo Fan Posted March 16, 2008 Posted March 16, 2008 Not that that means anything- I am sure that is not a relief for them, nor will it affect their future plans (I hope) Despite our desperate need for upgradeS at WR, they did not overspend on what may very well be a mediocre player. I hope they follow that in the draft- when you over reach for need, you lose. If Kelly and either Ellis or Dorsey is there, I hope we go with the DT. If you have enough playmakers on your team, it usually will compensate for deficiencies. Acting on desperation can be costly, and this front office earned my respect by holding back and being smart about that You should have been happy with them 2 years ago.
In-A-Gadda-Levitre Posted March 16, 2008 Posted March 16, 2008 This situationi is pretty easy to understand. Johnson was a free agent. John Guy is responsible for evaluating pro personnel, including free agents. John Guy, perhaps, undersestimated the need for talent at the WR position (or he is just generally incompetent at pro personnel) The result is the Bills do not add talent and force themselves into drafting a WR if they want to improve. He wanted too much money (given his previous and expected performance), and later he wanted a 1 yr deal. I'm taking an educated guess here, but it sure seems the Bills FO collectively didn't want to do either of those. Bryant Johnson simply wasn't the the right fit, and no other player of his caliber (seemingly) has wanted to try out. Even though JG owns pro player development...position needs, valuation, and contract negotiation is a team effort.
BillsVet Posted March 16, 2008 Posted March 16, 2008 So it would be better for the FO to over pay a guy who wanted a one year deal who was the 17th overall pick and was so good they drafted a reciever in the top 5 the next year? Id rather draft a reciever especailly with our run first offense and the fact our QB loves the dump off. I didn't say a thing about a FA WR acquisition. My post demonstrated that it's easier for RB's to become standouts in their rookie season than WR's. After B. Johnson mentioned that the Bills didn't offer enough, I knew he wasn't worth it. I have no issue with the front office allowing him to go elsewhere. However, it puts the pressure on them to find another option for the QB, who needs all the help he can get. As for the WR position, there is no perfect solution. FA's can wreak havoc with team chemistry, and rookies lack experience and NFL savvy. Taking the best WR in the draft should now be the priority, given the lack of weapons on offense. BTW, you're reference to Edwards' habit to use the "drop-off" is short-sighted. Neither Losman nor Edwards attempted much downfield, especially considering the offense Fairychild was running. Edwards and Losman combined attempted only 118 passes out of 444 passes at 21 yards or more, or about 1/4 of their attempts. West Coast Offenses rarely throw deep, and rely on timing in routes.
Recommended Posts