NewHampshireBillsFan Posted August 27, 2009 Posted August 27, 2009 Probably because they had already drafted his replacement in McKelvin the year before, wanted to get McKelvin on the field since he was a high 1st round pick, and didn't want to pony up the cash to keep Greer. We always seem to be drafting corners in anticipation of losing our current starters. I wish we could have drafted a lineman instead of McKelvin and kept Greer, who clearly was good enough to be at least a decent starter in the NFL.
cale Posted August 27, 2009 Posted August 27, 2009 I think this franchise has been grossly mis-managed & mis-owned. But the one thing we seem to do well is draft and develop corners. In fact, if you go back and look at our history the last 5 years or so, corner has been a position of strength. So I can't find fault with the franchise letting Greer go for above market. As much I liked his as a player. Be prepared for more of the same with McGee et al. Charles
Rico Posted August 27, 2009 Posted August 27, 2009 He was OK for a midget CB, but still no great loss.
thebandit27 Posted August 27, 2009 Posted August 27, 2009 Can't say that I agree with the majority of the replies here, as I thought Greer was clearly the best pure cover man on the team last season. My definition of a good CB is a guy that you never notice until he makes a big play, and that--in my opinion--was Greer to a tee. McGee and McKelvin, on the other hand, I routinely notice getting beaten in one-on-one coverage. I also notice that opposing offenses rarely challenged Greer, and often opted to throw at McGee instead. At this point, folks usually choose to chime in with the idea that opponents' opting to challenge McGee over Greer is a function of McGee matching up with the opposing #1 WR, which is a bit misleading, since Buffalo's defense doesn't really match up CB to WR, but rather assigns one guy a side of the field and asks that he cover the WR that lines up in his zone. Regardless, I would've preferred to keep him over McGee.
DrDawkinstein Posted August 27, 2009 Posted August 27, 2009 But we still would have had Greer, an OL/DL or LB who we would have picked instead of Leodis last year as well as all of the picks from this year. The only difference is that we would have spent $23m to keep Greer plus another $23m on whomever we drafted instead of Leodis. That is, I assume, where the problem would have come into play for the Bills. I guess my question is, why open up a whole in the defense and them immediately draft to fill it when you could have kept Greer and addressed another need? I think that Leodis in the long run will be a much better player than Greer, but its interesting to consider anyways. and that is what i am betting the FO thought as well.
Recommended Posts