In-A-Gadda-Levitre
-
Posts
1,737 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Gallery
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by In-A-Gadda-Levitre
-
-
And, if they slapped him with the franchise tag (used their leverage), they'd not have had to pay him that $80 million.
A deeper problem is finding the players that actually want to play and stay in Buffalo. If most of the guys that one drafts and develops are ready to bolt as soon as their rookie contracts are up, then the franchise is little more than a farm team. And after a decade of losing and bumbling, top shelf players are either going to want exorbitant contracts to be on a loser or want to play for an organization that actually has a chance of contending.
Meanwhile, we got 0.189 vs. playoff teams.
So they break their promise, he's pissed off, the players don't trust the FO, and you put off the decision for 1 year, then what? Perhaps the problem is worse, because the trust is broken and the price likely went up from market conditions. I must be missing something here.
Yes, I agree that getting talent to play and stay here is a challenge, but IMO it's more about money. Most of the players that leave the Bills do so because they want the money, and they weren't offered it in Buffalo. You can fault the management and/or the reality of small market professional football. So that's an issue, but not having the deep pockets is a much bigger factor.
-
It seems most people that want that corner at #1 seem to think letting Clements walk to save a couple million per season was a good idea.
$80 million here, $80 million there, pretty soon you're talking about some real money
I'm totally against drafting a CB in round 1, but to refer to the kind of money we would've had to pay NC as saving a couple million per season is pretty silly. Dockery arguably wasn't a top 5 guard, and we overpaid for him, but we got a lot of starting players for your few million per year.
-
How is it a bad thing that they could have had a bona fide NFL WR for 1 year for less than $2mil.
Another stupid move by the Bills if they end up reaching for WRs and missing out on real playmakers in the 1st round.
There could be a couple of answers to that.
1) They really didn't think Johnson was much better than their current stable of WRs, knowing they will draft 1 or 2 anyways as a result, so why go through the motions if he doesn't have enough value.
2) They're building for the future and don't like rental players in skill or critical positions.
I think they will absolutely draft a playmaker WR in round 1, and another in the later rounds, a Jordy Nelson type, unless they make some mega trade on draft day.
-
That's why you hold the mag with your left hand, if you are right handed...moving picutres are much better....I guess I date myself!!!!! Who uses magazines anymore?
how does this relate to one-handed typing?
-
If teh Bills were so desparate for WR help, they would have signed Bryant Johnson for 2007
I assume you meant 2008...
Desperate for WR help, yes, but that doesn't mean overpaying for mediocre talent (real or perceived), or compromising their strategy not to sign veteran players to 1-year contracts. Bryant Johnson was merely a choice that visited 1 Bills Drive and they passed. No other teams offered him what he was looking for either, meaning multi-year #2 receiver money, so we shouldn't necessarily connect need with signing leftover FAs. The draft is flush with real good receiver talent, though not top 15. JMO, but they were smart in saying thanks, but no thanks to Johnson. If he turns out to be a burner, then shame on them.
-
This is a tough call. Mark has some good sources on the Bills staff, but he might be only reading into what Modrak said, and with some research into other areas.
I can't remember ever seeing a reporter with solid information on who the Bills were gonna draft, with the exception of someone like OJ. They just don't tell people what their plans are, even to the extent of saying that they're really high on someone, for good reasons.
-
Even if all that were true, the Bills should've franchised him to get a first-rounder in a trade. By not franchising him and letting him leave without compensation, the Bills cost themselves the addition of a talented player to the team.
If memory serves me right, NC agreed to be franchised in 06 with the explicit promise by Marv that they wouldn't slap the tag on him again in 07. Not that they needed him to agree, but that was the deal. Could Marv have gone back on his word? Sure, but the FO's credibility with the players would have tanked. You can fault the Bills for agreeing to this in the first place, but not for sticking by their promises.
-
I've been a fan since the OJ Simpson years, so I don't know what you're talking about as far as the "young board" comment. I've seen plenty of bad players and plenty of good players too. I like to think I can be fair-minded about present and former Bills players.
So let's talk about the RJ years...
RJ had MUCH better offensive players and coaches around him during his years here, than Losman has had. Compare rosters of their best seasons here and it's not even a close argument. Plus Wade wasn't afraid to lose, they threw the ball back then.
RJ was only two inches taller than Losman, yet he was far more fragile. I think Trent is more like RJ in the fragile department. Losman had a 300 pound defensive tackle land on his knee, nothing fragile about that injury last year.
RJ had far better touch than Losman? Both QBs lacked "touch" on short and intermediate passes. I never viewed RJ as "accurate", not sure where you are getting that from. As for both players' passing ability overall, Losman wins that hands down. When you can throw 19 touchdowns with the offensive talent or lack there of on that 2006 team, that should tell you all you need to know. RJ would have landed in the infirmary in the first quarter of the first game with Peters, Gandy, Fowler, Preston and Pennington as his pass blockers. Losman is deadly accurate on his bombs, RJ was supposed to have this talent but it just never materialized. I know that you only want to compare these guys and not take into account the players and coaches surrounding them, but I can't let you get away with that.
RJ's career is in the books. Losman will eventually get another shot to prove the doubters wrong. I see a guy with a ton of ability that is being coached by a bunch of pansy-assed morons who couldn't put a winning gameplan together if their lives depended on it. Is Losman still a work in progress? Yes. Are the Bills pulling the plug too early? Absolutely. That's how I feel and I won't apologize.
I will be rooting for Trent to do great things as long as he remains the starting QB on this team. That's a given. I'm just seeing some warning flags in his game that having a smart brain won't be able to fix. His deep passes look weak, he's injury prone and he checks down way too much. I think that the NFL defenses were catching up to his game and that's why he struggled so badly at the end of last year. He has a great release and is very quick to make a decision, but he will have to overcome his deficiencies in his game that I can see. Yes, Trent took to the pro game much quicker than JP, but that doesn't mean that JP won't end up being the better QB. Some guys just take longer to develop. Let's see what happens.
See Bill, we still can disagree! We'll come together for the draft though, right?
great post
-
I believe he was injured every year he was in college. That was a knock on him when he got drafted.
ok, yes, I got you
I guess his OL was like a subway station, a bunch of turnstiles
-
-
Another similarity between Rob & Trent is both are often INJURED.
Trent is injured a lot? I thought only that wrist injury during the Jet's game. Was there another 1?
-
Add Jim Kelly's grit and determination as well.
definitely agreed
-
RJ was bigger than JP. While he might not have possessed the cannon for a 25 yard fastball that JP has, he had far better touch and a legit deep arm as well. Not only that, he could run like a deer. He had each and every thing a quarterback needs except a head for the game. He would, despite his athleticism, take sacks.
umm, I don't really agree. In some ways (don't freak out on me here), RJ reminds me of Trent. Big, pretty fast, good enough arm to throw the long ball, but a traditional pocket passer. Yeah, maybe a better touch than JP, who knows. The big difference is that TE has the built-in play clock in his head, better at sensing the pass rush, and is MUCH smarter about dumping it off to his secondary receivers. RJ was not a particularly mobile quarterback and he wasn't real good at throwing on the run like JP (or Flutie), more like Trent. He reminded me of Bledsoe; he held the ball too long trying to make something happen, and got sacked, kinda like what JP does sometimes. Sure he could scramble, he could throw the bomb, but didn't have a cannon for an arm, again like Trent. I do agree that he was like JP in that he made dumb decisions that cost ball games. He also wasn't a born leader, not saying JP is or isn't. I think JP is more liked by the players than RJ was.
Let's do some surgery...
JP's arm and legs
Trent's touch, smarts and built-in clock, and oh yeah, that poise thing
Bledsoe's leadership (most of the time)
Flutie's magic and heart
RJ's uhhh, never mind, we don't need any of his parts
Now we have a QB!
-
ESPN article on overrated and overpaid CBs
Let's look at the San Francisco 49ers. In 2007, they jumped at the chance to sign Clements from the Buffalo Bills. The Niners' deal with Clements was eight years for $80 million. And what did the Niners get? From 2006 to 2007, the opposition's passing yards went up (from 3,817 to 3,826), interceptions went down (from 14 to 12) and sacks went down (34 to 31). And that's with the NFL's defensive rookie of the year, linebacker Patrick Willis.It's obvious what the Niners really needed: a pass rush. That's why coach Mike Nolan persuaded his front office to sign defensive end Justin Smith from the Bengals. Did the Niners overpay for Smith, who had just two sacks last season? Maybe so. But they had no choice. You can cover all day, but if you can't rush the passer, you're not going to win in today's NFL.
-
And remember comments in the past by Losman and coaches that he doesn't seem to handle competition very well. He's the one more likely to fall into the "looking over his shoulder" syndrome.
I don't remember anything like this, quite the opposite, Losman welcomed competition. He stands up when he thinks he's being shafted, such as 2005 when he was yanked in and out of the starting QB position. and last year when he seemingly lost his job to injury, but to say he doesn't handle competition well or looks over his shoulder is just wrong.
-
Second, that the experts were deliberately fed one side of the story, given talking points etc., and were expected to not present opposing POVs....and if they did, they would be cut off from their government access.
I agree with your 1st and 3rd, but here's a couple quotes that demonstrate it was little more than talking points
“You could see that they were messaging,” Mr. Krueger said. “You could see they were taking verbatim what the secretary was saying or what the technical specialists were saying. And they were saying it over and over and over.” Some days, he added, “We were able to click on every single station and every one of our folks were up there delivering our message. You’d look at them and say, ‘This is working.’ ”Another analyst, Robert L. Maginnis, a retired Army lieutenant colonel who works in the Pentagon for a military contractor, attended the same briefing and recalled feeling “very disappointed” after being shown satellite photographs purporting to show bunkers associated with a hidden weapons program. Mr. Maginnis said he concluded that the analysts were being “manipulated” to convey a false sense of certainty about the evidence of the weapons. Yet he and Mr. Bevelacqua and the other analysts who attended the briefing did not share any misgivings with the American public.Yet these harsh realities were elided, or flatly contradicted, during the official presentations for the analysts, records show. The itinerary, scripted to the minute, featured brief visits to a model school, a few refurbished government buildings, a center for women’s rights, a mass grave and even the gardens of Babylon. -
No, that's pretty much exactly what I'm talking about. Why would anyone expect anything different? That's also exactly what the networks do: convey to the public only a specific set of information that supports their strategy. It's a legacy of Vietnam that there are no independent media analyses - since everyone realized that the media can not only report but influence, the government specifically restricts and manipulates what they release to get the influence they want, and the media exercises its influence according to its editorial bent, be it positive or negative towards the government.
Again, not news. The Times plays the game as well as anyone. Probably better, considering they're "independently" breaking the very process they helped create.
I would agree that Fox News has a specific agenda and strategy that they want to achieve, and ABC, NBC, etc. have theirs; that they manipulate the stories and analysts to deliver that agenda and influence the public to varying degrees of success.
This campaign transcends all of those networks, by planting false stories and coordinating them across multiple outlets, measuring how often and how effective they have manipulated the public as a whole.
I expect the Fox conservatism and manipulation thereof, and I expect the New York Times and their brand of propaganda. I don't expect a coordinated disinformation campaign by the Pentagon and the White House that transcends the entire mainstream media market, that promotes an already corrupt federal contracting practice with huge conflicts of interest.
Deliberately spreading false information and planting speakers across all of the networks and news outlets is simply not in the same galaxy as Fox spreading their conservative agenda to viewers of the Fox network, or the New York Times spewing its liberal agenda across its readership.
-
He's a blue chip talent. If I were the GM, I'd make every attempt to get him signed and once done, inform the head coach he had better figure out a way to generate a return on the investment. The Bills are giving Jauron some talent to work with. The pressure is now shifting to him IMO.
but alas, we only have a COO
-
After throwing all of 5 passes in his rookie season, JP was handed the job by virtue of Bledsoe being cut.
well, not exactly... The Bills announced that Losman was to be the starting QB and Bledsoe refused to be his backup. The Bills cut him as a favor, so he could catch on with another team.
-
The sad thing is that passes as "news". It doesn't take a whole lot of insight to figure out that's how the system works. Hell, you only have to listen to about an hour's worth of "analysis" and look up the analysts' affiliations on the internet to figure out that there are no "independent" analysts. The NY Times does the exact same thing with their "analysts".
umm, it sounds a lil more serious than you making it out to be.
The Pentagon and White House wanted the public to only have a specific set of information that supported their strategy and that covered their failures This is a PsyOps! They manipulated and falsified the entire mainstream news media using these puppets to speak for them.
The conflict of interest just made it worse.
-
The New York Times breaks an incredible story about supposedly unbiased military analysts that were coached by the Pentagon to support their strategies, while working for contractors that set up huge contract opportunities.
Hidden behind that appearance of objectivity, though, is a Pentagon information apparatus that has used those analysts in a campaign to generate favorable news coverage of the administration’s wartime performance, an examination by The New York Times has found.The effort, which began with the buildup to the Iraq war and continues to this day, has sought to exploit ideological and military allegiances, and also a powerful financial dynamic: Most of the analysts have ties to military contractors vested in the very war policies they are asked to assess on air.
-
How did Crown Royal become so big now? It just seems that it is the "in" thing... Marketing? Younger generation...??
That and Grand Marquis' always seemed like "old men" things...
Hey, who would have known I have a little bit of Crayonz writing style!
my choice is Crown as well. the reason is that it's incredibly smooth and goes down easier than others
-
Doesn't it seem a bit disingenuous to say no one besides Modrak in the front office knows personnel, implying that TSW posters know more?
Brandon may be new to the GM role, but he has access to infinitely more information on these players than ANY fan will ever have. John Guy, the scouting staff, and probably folks we've never heard of on the Bills payroll are all more knowlegeable than us, given their inside information. Hell, even Ralph knows more about personnel right now than we do.
I was also surprised to hear Brandon say he's been plugged into the draft process for the last decade. Can he evaluate talent? Not sure, but I'm betting that he's learned a lot about personnel along the way.
-
I thought my earlier post had been clear, but I guess it wasn't. The Bills' organizational track record is clear: this team is NOT willing to pay to re-sign high performing CBs. Period. Given that fact, if the Bills take a CB in the first round, and if he does well, the Bills' track record indicates he will NOT be given an extension.
If the Bills are not willing to give extensions to high-performing CBs, they shouldn't be using first round picks on CBs in the first place. First round picks should be used on guys who, if they work out well, will end up spending their useful careers in Buffalo. First round picks should NOT be used on guys you're planning to let walk via free agency after their first contract is over.
it's very interesting that this specific issue was raised by a fan named Jason in last week's Fan Friday on bb.com. Scroll down to question #6.
Chris Brown's response is money:
CB: While you raise a valid point that a first-round cornerback who lives up to his potential will likely be difficult to re-sign in five years, that's not the way to build a successful football team. While you always have to look a couple of years into the future, you can't say, 'Well we'll only have this guy for five years so why bother?' What if he has ridiculous talent and is the difference in putting your team over the top and you go to the playoffs for four straight seasons and maybe even a Super Bowl? You don't pass on a guy that can help bring that kind of success because you might not be able to re-sign him in five years. You gladly add that talent to your team and make the most of it for those five years. The NFL has become a very transient league. Franchise quarterbacks and franchise pass rushers are the only players that more often than not stay in one place. Every other player at every other position is on loan it seems so I understand the frustration, but you don't turn your back on talent you think helps your team, provided the player is an upstanding citizen.
Anquan Boldin requests trade
in The Stadium Wall Archives
Posted
Who said Lee Evans wanted out of his current situation or wasn't interested in signing a long term deal here? Certainly not the man himself or his agent. He's under contract for 1 or 2 more years, and the Bills are saying that they're serious about extending him. Would the Bills trade him? Possibly, but as Buftex pointed out, they'd be right back where they started from, needing a strong #2 receiver to compliment whomever they got to replace Lee Evans.