Felser on being miffed

[VOR]

Please explain to me how things would be better if we weren't "miffed" at Crowell? From the reports he's still not recovered from his knee surgery. So he would have missed all of last season whether we put him on IR or not. So did putting him on IR change anything?

The belief by some is that the Bills "screwed" Crowell last season by putting him on IR instead of letting him have the minor surgery and keeping him on the roster. Because he was obviously going to come back in 2 weeks, have a Pro Bowl season, not need the major surgery over the off-season, and then cash-in with a 5-year $35M contract.

[BuffaloBill]

The salient point in the article is that the Bills have not had an answer when they have let players go. It has been a revolving door that has led to nothing but stagnation at OBD since the days of Kelly et al. There are likely eight key positions on every team where you have to have sound, even better elite talent to succeed:

 

• QB
  Pass Rushing DE
  Left Tackle
  Stout interior DL (nose or DT - depending on system)
  Center
  Shutdown corner
  #1 Receiver
  #2 offensive threat (could be second receiver - including TE or rb depending on offensive philosophy)
  

 

They are listed in order of importance - beyond this - you require depth.

[PromoTheRobot]

The salient point in the article is that the Bills have not had an answer when they have let players go. It has been a revolving door that has led to nothing but stagnation at OBD since the days of Kelly et al. There are likely eight key positions on every team where you have to have sound, even better elite talent to succeed:

 

• QB
  Pass Rushing DE
  Left Tackle
  Stout interior DL (nose or DT - depending on system)
  Center
  Shutdown corner
  #1 Receiver
  #2 offensive threat (could be second receiver - including TE or rb depending on offensive philosophy)
  

 

They are listed in order of importance - beyond this - you require depth.

But how often do the other 31 teams have a perfect line of succession in place? I think while the Bills have made mistakes, they have not made any more than most teams.

 

Anyone read the Philly papers? Now Donavan McNabb wants a new deal with 2 years left on his current one. Does this make Philly "stupid" for letting things get to this point?

 

PTR

[spartacus]

But how often do the other 31 teams have a perfect line of succession in place? I think while the Bills have made mistakes, they have not made any more than most teams.

 

Anyone read the Philly papers? Now Donavan McNabb wants a new deal with 2 years left on his current one. Does this make Philly "stupid" for letting things get to this point?

 

PTR

No

 

Philly still has McNabb

 

Philly enters the Bills arena of stupidity if they did a knee jerk trade of McNabb next week so they avoid the distraction of a possible holdout in 2009 with the stated intention of converting Brain Westbrook to QB because Kevin Kolb is not ready.

[PromoTheRobot]

No

 

Philly still has McNabb

 

Philly enters the Bills arena of stupidity if they did a knee jerk trade of McNabb next week so they avoid the distraction of a possible holdout in 2009 with the stated intention of converting Brain Westbrook to QB because Kevin Kolb is not ready.

Right. And when they empty a dump truck of money at McNabb's feet, then the next guy wants a new deal...and the next. By then Peters will be feeling a little underpaid too. And the smart answer is always "just pay the man!"

 

PTR

[VOR]

No

 

Philly still has McNabb

Yep. Which means that their best chance of ever winning a SB with him was 2004, and he blew it.

[Lori]

But how often do the other 31 teams have a perfect line of succession in place? I think while the Bills have made mistakes, they have not made any more than most teams.

 

Anyone read the Philly papers? Now Donavan McNabb wants a new deal with 2 years left on his current one. Does this make Philly "stupid" for letting things get to this point?

 

PTR

The playoff drought would tend to dispute that, at least in my judgment.

[Thurman#1]

I was all for the Bills keeping Peters. The fact is the Bills offered him the same deal he signed with Philly & he REFUSED. If he has ANY success with Philly you can bet the house he will pull the same crap with them to renegotiate his contract.

 

 

VOR, here is what I was responding to. The guy says that the Bills offered him the same deal he signed with Philly. And then refuses to link to it, because there is no link, because it's not true.

 

 

 

Russ Brandon said that the Bills offered Peters the largest contract in Bills' history. Lee Evan got a deal averaging over $9M/year. Reportedly he was looking for $11.5M/year. Do the math.

 

 

Do the math? OK, here's the math.

 

In most negotiations, the player says he wants too much, and the team says we will give you too little. Then they meet in the middle. And that is exactly what appeared to be happening here.

 

The Bills offered $9 mill a year or over. Peters said it wasn't enough and lowered it to $11. The Bills refused to do any further negotiating. Russ has said that he offered the contract and Peters turned it down and that was that. The Bills stopped moving up. Because of that, Peters stopped moving down.

 

Unsurprisingly, when Peters was traded he found a team that was, extremely quickly, willing to make a deal right in the middle between the two figures, the Bills figure and the Peters figure.

 

That is the math. Peters knew his market value. The Bills refused to pay it. The Bills also wimped out at holding onto the guy for the year and pressuring him with the thought of another $3.5 million year. They did the worst thing and traded him. The Eagles paid him exactly what every neutral observer thought would be the price, about halfway between the Bills figure and the Peters figure.

 

In other words, the Bills NEVER OFFERED WHAT THE EAGLES OFFERED. There has been no evidence of that, none whatsoever.

 

Two more points. First, when Russ said he offered the biggest contract in Bills history, how much of it was guaranteed? How much of it was back-loaded in one of those Nate Clements / Bruce Smith deals? You know, the ones with the low salaries at the front and the super-high ones at the end so that the player can point to the unrealistically high total figure and the GM can go to the owner and say "Obviously we're not paying him those last two years at $15 mill each." We have only heard Russ say that it was the largest Bills contract ever, but the devil is in the details, and we have no idea what the details were.

 

Second, why doesn't Russ make the exact offer public? If he really did make an offer that was larger than or equal to the Philly offer, he takes a huge amount of pressure off himself by telling everyone the size of his offer. Bills fans all say "Ah, so the guy simply wanted to leave town," and potential FAs say "Hey, the Bills stepped up and gave the guy a tremendous offer after he played at a high level. The Bills might be worth a look." There is NO DOWNSIDE to releasing the figures of the exact offer. Except ...

 

...if the Bills final offer was still well below the Eagles final offer. Then releasing the exact terms makes the Bills look stupid and cheap.

 

Myself, I'm guessing that the terms of that offer never become public. For obvious reasons.

[Thurman#1]

No

 

Philly still has McNabb

 

Philly enters the Bills arena of stupidity if they did a knee jerk trade of McNabb next week so they avoid the distraction of a possible holdout in 2009 with the stated intention of converting Brain Westbrook to QB because Kevin Kolb is not ready.

 

 

 

Hah! Hilarious.

[Thurman#1]

Right. And when they empty a dump truck of money at McNabb's feet, then the next guy wants a new deal...and the next. By then Peters will be feeling a little underpaid too. And the smart answer is always "just pay the man!"

 

PTR

 

 

 

The other option is to never pay any of the best players, and they leave. How does that work out?

[VOR]

VOR, here is what I was responding to. The guy says that the Bills offered him the same deal he signed with Philly. And then refuses to link to it, because there is no link, because it's not true.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Do the math? OK, here's the math.

 

In most negotiations, the player says he wants too much, and the team says we will give you too little. Then they meet in the middle. And that is exactly what appeared to be happening here.

 

The Bills offered $9 mill a year or over. Peters said it wasn't enough and lowered it to $11. The Bills refused to do any further negotiating. Russ has said that he offered the contract and Peters turned it down and that was that. The Bills stopped moving up. Because of that, Peters stopped moving down.

 

Unsurprisingly, when Peters was traded he found a team that was, extremely quickly, willing to make a deal right in the middle between the two figures, the Bills figure and the Peters figure.

 

That is the math. Peters knew his market value. The Bills refused to pay it. The Bills also wimped out at holding onto the guy for the year and pressuring him with the thought of another $3.5 million year. They did the worst thing and traded him. The Eagles paid him exactly what every neutral observer thought would be the price, about halfway between the Bills figure and the Peters figure.

 

In other words, the Bills NEVER OFFERED WHAT THE EAGLES OFFERED. There has been no evidence of that, none whatsoever.

 

Two more points. First, when Russ said he offered the biggest contract in Bills history, how much of it was guaranteed? How much of it was back-loaded in one of those Nate Clements / Bruce Smith deals? You know, the ones with the low salaries at the front and the super-high ones at the end so that the player can point to the unrealistically high total figure and the GM can go to the owner and say "Obviously we're not paying him those last two years at $15 mill each." We have only heard Russ say that it was the largest Bills contract ever, but the devil is in the details, and we have no idea what the details were.

 

Second, why doesn't Russ make the exact offer public? If he really did make an offer that was larger than or equal to the Philly offer, he takes a huge amount of pressure off himself by telling everyone the size of his offer. Bills fans all say "Ah, so the guy simply wanted to leave town," and potential FAs say "Hey, the Bills stepped up and gave the guy a tremendous offer after he played at a high level. The Bills might be worth a look." There is NO DOWNSIDE to releasing the figures of the exact offer. Except ...

 

...if the Bills final offer was still well below the Eagles final offer. Then releasing the exact terms makes the Bills look stupid and cheap.

 

Myself, I'm guessing that the terms of that offer never become public. For obvious reasons.

The Bills never make contract numbers of signed players public. They're definitely not going to make them public for unsigned players.

 

As for what was offered, if it was over $9M (as it seems it was) but under $10M (which is the maximum the Eagles were willing to give), Peters could have sucked-it-up and accepted it. The Bills did give him a huge raise after his 2nd season in the NFL, and before he became a legend. The Eagles OTOH gave him nothing the past 5 years.

 

Speaking of which, the Eagles were the ONLY team interested in a) trading a high pick for him and b) giving him what he wanted. Considering at least 3, and probably 4 (the Ravens are reportedly disenchanted with Jared Gaither) teams were looking for starting LT's and used picks before #28 overall, that's pretty odd. Are the Eagles the only smart ones? Time will tell, but Peters has a lofty contract and some lofty expectations to live-up-to, and if he doesn't, he'll be crucified in Philly.

[Orton's Arm]

Felser is still terrific. Feel free to disagree with him on anything but the guy is still intelligent and still has a great viewpoint and great sources.

 

I totally disagree with you about Winfield and Clements. Why? Who were our best four CBs in the last ten years or so? I would argue that they were:

 

1) Clements

2) Winfield

3) McGee

4) Greer

 

and I would say that McKelvin is up and coming. What do they have in common? Well,

 

1) Two were first-rounders. And

2) the Bills got nothing in compensation for any of them. And

3) The Bills have spent three first-rounders on CBs and have not signed one of their best CBs to a second contract. Does anybody see that changing next year with McGee? I desperately wish that I did, but I don't.

 

We develop terrific CBs. We hold on to them so that when they either playing superbly or just beginning to play superbly, we lose them to our unwillingness to sign them to second contracts. Which means that we don't lose money, but we DO LOSE HIGH DRAFT CHOICES on replacing them. Who could we have drafted if we had managed to hold onto our better CBs?

 

I wish I didn't, but I see us developing Leodis into one of the top 5 CBs in the league and losing him to a team willing to pay him full value. And then I see us spending another high-value pick, probably another first-rounder, on a replacement for him and Youboty and Corner and ....

 

Which makes us less able to reload on the d-line, the o-line, our LBs, etc.

That's a rock-solid post. As I've written here, the Bills (from 1990 - 2005) experienced about nine success stories with their first round picks. The five non-CBs among those success stories were John Fina, Ruben Brown, Eric Moulds, Lee Evans, and Henry Jones. Each of those players was retained for the bulk of his useful career. The four CB success stories were Thomas Smith, Jeff Burris, Antoine Winfield, and Nate Clements. Other than Smith (who stayed seven years, and was the least successful of the four), none of those guys stayed more than six years. The average for the group was to stick around for 5.5 years before leaving for greener pastures.

 

And, as you point out, that's a terrible waste of our first round draft picks. Good teams don't act that way. Take the Colts, for example, during the Bill Polian era. Not every first round pick they've had has been a success story. But, when they have been successful, they've retained that player for the bulk of his useful career. The one exception was Marshall Faulk. But even in his case, they at least got something (a second and a fifth) for trading him away. Compare Polian's discipline--using first round picks as long-term building blocks--with the short-sightedness of the Bills' front office (using first round picks on quick fix CBs, who consistently go first contract and out).

[VOR]

That's a rock-solid post. As I've written here, the Bills (from 1990 - 2005) experienced about nine success stories with their first round picks. The five non-CBs among those success stories were John Fina, Ruben Brown, Eric Moulds, Lee Evans, and Henry Jones. Each of those players was retained for the bulk of his useful career. The four CB success stories were Thomas Smith, Jeff Burris, Antoine Winfield, and Nate Clements. Other than Smith (who stayed seven years, and was the least successful of the four), none of those guys stayed more than six years. The average for the group was to stick around for 5.5 years before leaving for greener pastures.

 

And, as you point out, that's a terrible waste of our first round draft picks. Good teams don't act that way. Take the Colts, for example, during the Bill Polian era. Not every first round pick they've had has been a success story. But, when they have been successful, they've retained that player for the bulk of his useful career. The one exception was Marshall Faulk. But even in his case, they at least got something (a second and a fifth) for trading him away. Compare Polian's discipline--using first round picks as long-term building blocks--with the short-sightedness of the Bills' front office (using first round picks on quick fix CBs, who consistently go first contract and out).

Jeff Burris wasn't the same player after his knee injury, which is why they let him go, and he went onto a non-descript career. Thomas Smith was actually better than Burris, despite his stone hands. Winfield is a decent player but was overpaid by the Vikes. Clements is a good player, but is too inconsistent, and not worth what the 49'ers paid him. I'd hardly call it a "terrible waste" of the 1st round draft picks.

[Orton's Arm]

Jeff Burris wasn't the same player after his knee injury, which is why they let him go, and he went onto a non-descript career. Thomas Smith was actually better than Burris, despite his stone hands. Winfield is a decent player but was overpaid by the Vikes. Clements is a good player, but is too inconsistent, and not worth what the 49'ers paid him. I'd hardly call it a "terrible waste" of the 1st round draft picks.

Winfield is far more than the "decent' player you described him as. He's top-notch in coverage, and one of the best tackling CBs you'll ever see. He has stone hands, but you can't have everything.

 

As for Winfield and Clements not being worth what they were paid--you may or may not be right. But, either way, the fact remains that the Bills do not extend their CB success stories to second contracts. Such players are allowed to hit free agency, and then they leave. Knowing that that's what will happen when a Bills CB turns out to be very successful, it's a mistake to use first round picks on the position. Rather than expending still more first round picks on that hamster wheel, the Bills should use their early picks to build a core of very good players, whom they hope to retain for the bulk of their useful careers. Without that core, the odds of winning a Super Bowl are practically nil.

[VOR]

Winfield is far more than the "decent' player you described him as. He's top-notch in coverage, and one of the best tackling CBs you'll ever see. He has stone hands, but you can't have everything.

 

As for Winfield and Clements not being worth what they were paid--you may or may not be right. But, either way, the fact remains that the Bills do not extend their CB success stories to second contracts. Such players are allowed to hit free agency, and then they leave. Knowing that that's what will happen when a Bills CB turns out to be very successful, it's a mistake to use first round picks on the position. Rather than expending still more first round picks on that hamster wheel, the Bills should use their early picks to build a core of very good players, whom they hope to retain for the bulk of their useful careers. Without that core, the odds of winning a Super Bowl are practically nil.

The Bills have shown that they'll invest money in guys they think are worth it. I think most people would have a hard time saying that Clements was worth what he got from the 49'ers. So merely keeping him just for the sake of keeping him, and spending close to 10% of the cap on him, wouldn't have been wise. And from what I recall about Winfield, his wife hated it in Buffalo and wanted out.

[Bill from NYC]

As for Winfield and Clements not being worth what they were paid--you may or may not be right. But, either way, the fact remains that the Bills do not extend their CB success stories to second contracts. Such players are allowed to hit free agency, and then they leave. Knowing that that's what will happen when a Bills CB turns out to be very successful, it's a mistake to use first round picks on the position. Rather than expending still more first round picks on that hamster wheel, the Bills should use their early picks to build a core of very good players, whom they hope to retain for the bulk of their useful careers. Without that core, the odds of winning a Super Bowl are practically nil.

 

This paragraph serves as a textbook illustration of the Bills futility imo. Time and again people will defend the idiocy that you describe, but when doing so they omit the fact that we lose football games.

 

I love what they did wrt the selections of Wood, Levitre and too a lesser degree Maybin. The thing is, a team who picked after us in the 2nd round got a first rounder in 2010 for that pick. Jauron took yet another defensive back.

In summary, they might be turning the corner with the dumb strategy that you describe so well, but Jauron has got to go.

[The Dean]

The Bills have shown that they'll invest money in guys they think are worth it. I think most people would have a hard time saying that Clements was worth what he got from the 49'ers. So merely keeping him just for the sake of keeping him, and spending close to 10% of the cap on him, wouldn't have been wise. And from what I recall about Winfield, his wife hated it in Buffalo and wanted out.

 

 

In the cases of Winfield and Clements, the Bills had little choice to let them go, once they became UFA's and received those huge offers. The key is to identify the players you want to keep and re-sign them BEFORE they become free agents.

[VOR]

In the cases of Winfield and Clements, the Bills had little choice to let them go, once they became UFA's and received those huge offers. The key is to identify the players you want to keep and re-sign them BEFORE they become free agents.

I know for a fact that the Bills approached Clements several years before he became an UFA, but he wanted Champ Bailey money. And Winfield's wife wanted out.

[Bill from NYC]

I know for a fact that the Bills approached Clements several years before he became an UFA, but he wanted Champ Bailey money. And Winfield's wife wanted out.

 

I have no quarrel with this. I've posted before that I heard Clements on Sirius say that he wanted out of Buffalo. This still doesn't make it a winning strategy to chase defensive backs with first round picks, many of them early ones. Our losing record indicates this, which is the point I am trying to make.

[The Dean]

I have no quarrel with this. I've posted before that I heard Clements on Sirius say that he wanted out of Buffalo. This still doesn't make it a winning strategy to chase defensive backs with first round picks, many of them early ones. Our losing record indicates this, which is the point I am trying to make.

 

 

The problem with your logic is, had the Bills pursued mostly linemen, in the early rounds of the draft, they would likely be chasing linemen early in the draft, as there is no reason to believe they would be able to keep them, either. They couldn't/didn't even keep an undrafted UFA lineman, once he became a top level player.

 

Truth is, the Bills are caught in a cycle, mostly because their judgment/luck with DBs has been extraordinary, while they have done a relatively poor job at identifying/developing the big boys. Had they done a poorer job with the DBs, they wouldn't have been so valuable in FA and they might have been able to keep them.

 

It's bad to "chase" any position, of course. Now that the team looks to be pretty well set at DB, you notice they targeted the big guys in this draft, coming away with a DL and two OL in the first two rounds. If Maybin becomes a star, I wouldn't bet on him being in Buffalo when the next contract gets signed.