flopagamo Posted September 30, 2010 Share Posted September 30, 2010 P.S Keith Ellison is a better lb than Chris Kelsay. He's quicker, and much better in coverage. Infact Keith Ellison is our best coverage lb. Which isn't saying a lot, but if the choice was to extend Ellison or Kelsay, the logical football choice would've been Ellison as it relates to coverage ability of our olb's in the 3-4. Also Andra Davis is a guy you keep. He has the most 3-4 experience of any of our lb's, and is the best run defender of the bunch. Different position playing inside than out, but he's a natural albeit aging 2 down run defender at ilb. Circle gets the square. +1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billsfan714 Posted September 30, 2010 Share Posted September 30, 2010 These are adjectives you would use to describe Kelsay; journeyman, pedestrian. These are adjectives you would not use to describe Kelsay; sack artist, difference maker, run stuffer and probowler. One term you should not use to describe Keslay, six-million dollar man. How do you ever expect to get better by retaining people who are not going to make your defense better. Groundhog day at OBD keep replaying. You guys are gonna love the Whitner extension at about 5-6 mill per. Look foward to another decade of less than mediocrity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill from NYC Posted September 30, 2010 Share Posted September 30, 2010 Is anybody here old enough to remember the prehistoric days when Bills perennially had among the best LB corps in the league? Apparently not, judging by the twists used to justify the Kelsay extension. Are you saying that Kelsay is worth that much more than Keith Bulluck's $2.5 million, or Jason Taylor's $3.5 mil (if he hits all incentives)? Imo Sam Rogers was a better and more productive player, and I am being serious. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reed83HOF Posted September 30, 2010 Share Posted September 30, 2010 Is anybody here old enough to remember the prehistoric days when Bills perennially had among the best LB corps in the league? Apparently not, judging by the twists used to justify the Kelsay extension. Are you saying that Kelsay is worth that much more than Keith Bulluck's $2.5 million, or Jason Taylor's $3.5 mil (if he hits all incentives)? We also had one of the best defense in the league during that time...I really miss those LBs... The fact is is that we are a long way from having that occur again...did we pay way more than we should've?? - possibly/probably He has been with the team his whole career, the team knows what they have as far as soom one who is not a locker room distraction, is consistently voted a captain...With all of the other holes and him having zero trade value whatsoever why create another spot to fill??? We are at least 2 years out to being able to replace him.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DaGimp Posted September 30, 2010 Share Posted September 30, 2010 THE MATRIX HAS YOU Look at the Bills linebackers. You have Poz. You have Kelsay. Then you have: Akin Ayodele Antonio Coleman Andra Davis Chris Ellis Keith Ellison Aaron Maybin Arthur Moats Reggie Torbor I mean, there is just not much there. Do you want to extend Keith Ellison instead? It is just not realistic to replace all of these players in one offseason. Kelsay isn't very good, but neither is anyone else. You just have to keep some mediocre players around while the team goes through the process of rebuilding. It's not like the Bills are going to run out of cap space. This has no bearing on free agency or the draft. There are bigger areas of need on this team, and Kelsay is just a band-aid for a few years while more important issues are addressed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
metzelaars_lives Posted September 30, 2010 Share Posted September 30, 2010 Oh boy....I can hear the engines of the bombers that are coming for this thread in the distance. My question is: do have time to get to the store and back before they get here? What a premise for a thread. I actually enjoyed your post. To your picture there: I want my damn country back. I'm FED UP! All these career politicians- get 'em outta there! Clean house! I'm ANGRY! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buffalonian-at-Heart Posted September 30, 2010 Share Posted September 30, 2010 Guys, thread topic is wrong. It makes no sense to give Kelsay a new deal. He's not a linebacker, never will be and let's get by the year with him and move on. This deal is just stupid. To compound the problem he wasn't a good 4-3 defensive end either and that's his more natural position. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted September 30, 2010 Share Posted September 30, 2010 Imo Sam Rogers was a better and more productive player, and I am being serious. That is indisputable, as I think that Rogers was among the underrated LBs in Bills' uniform. I'm going to risk a lightning strike by invoking Bennet, Paup, Tlaley & Stratton in this thread. Sad part is that in the same breath they extend Kelsay, they will say there's no cash to pick up Flozell Adams. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill from NYC Posted September 30, 2010 Share Posted September 30, 2010 That is indisputable, as I think that Rogers was among the underrated LBs in Bills' uniform. I'm going to risk a lightning strike by invoking Bennet, Paup, Tlaley & Stratton in this thread. Sad part is that in the same breath they extend Kelsay, they will say there's no cash to pick up Flozell Adams. Different positions, but I would also rather have a pre-injury Holocek, or even Maddox. If I wasn't so tired (worked last night) I could come up with a lot more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted September 30, 2010 Share Posted September 30, 2010 (edited) We also had one of the best defense in the league during that time...I really miss those LBs... The fact is is that we are a long way from having that occur again...did we pay way more than we should've?? - possibly/probably He has been with the team his whole career, the team knows what they have as far as soom one who is not a locker room distraction, is consistently voted a captain...With all of the other holes and him having zero trade value whatsoever why create another spot to fill??? We are at least 2 years out to being able to replace him.... Yes, I understand the logic of extending him, but not at that price. I highly doubt that Kelsay would command that kind of cash in the open market. When you see an Ayodele, Mitchell and Torbor be marginlaly worse than Kelsay at the OLB position at a fraction of the cost, you have to scratch your head. Of course this rebuilding will take time. But it's also a crack that the entire rebuild will take place through the draft, especially with the crappy draft record of this crew in a decade. So, you will need to add quality FAs to the mix. By allocating such a big $$ number to Kelsay, under Ralph's cash to cap empire, you naturally have less cash availble to a superstar or even a decent player. Edited September 30, 2010 by GG Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fan in Chicago Posted September 30, 2010 Share Posted September 30, 2010 I mean, there is just not much there. Do you want to extend Keith Ellison instead? It is just not realistic to replace all of these players in one offseason. Kelsay isn't very good, but neither is anyone else. You just have to keep some mediocre players around while the team goes through the process of rebuilding. You make some good points. I dont have data but it seems like Kelsay is durable also compared to Poz and Mitchell. Another point to note for Kelsay vs Ellison is that Kelsay is listed as 261 lb and Ellison is 229 lb. I think the current regime is trending towards larger DL and LBs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
metzelaars_lives Posted September 30, 2010 Share Posted September 30, 2010 (edited) Look at the Bills linebackers. You have Poz. You have Kelsay. Then you have: Akin Ayodele Antonio Coleman Andra Davis Chris Ellis Keith Ellison Aaron Maybin Arthur Moats Reggie Torbor I mean, there is just not much there. Do you want to extend Keith Ellison instead? It is just not realistic to replace all of these players in one offseason. Legitimate question: Is Chris Kelsay even a better linebacker than Keith Ellison? Seriously? Say whatever you want about Ellison, but he always ends up with a lot of tackles and he always manages to stay healthy (cue the "yeah but he tackles people 15 yards downfield"- which is oversimplifying things). I think I'd rather have Keith Ellison as my backup linebacker, especially at what he makes, than Kelsay on my roster at all. Kelsay is the poster boy for the Williams/Mularkey/Jauron era of mediocrity being rewarded. Keith Ellison was a 5th or 6th rounder who is a very dependable backup. Edited September 30, 2010 by metzelaars_lives Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramius Posted September 30, 2010 Share Posted September 30, 2010 In some respects, I do agree with the OP. Earlier this month I talked about possibly trading Evans for a pick (still not a bad idea for a high pick) and got trashed with the excuse that it creates another hole to fill, we have plenty of them to fill, why so we can draft another WR - should use the draft pick for another area of need, etc. Not extending Kelsay, who is average at best, creates another hole that will have to be filled. We need more than one LB, we need DE and DT help, OL help, QB help etc...so we extended Kelsay for 4 years, we are in good cap shape and this doesn't set us back at all. It buys us what 4 years to find a replacement while we fill the other holes we have...If we find a replacement for him sooner, he can be a backup or get released (and not screw us over in much dead cap money)...In the mean time, he is a good locker room guy who is respected by his peers - why replace him with a Cornell Green???? If we signed or drafted the next TKO or Patrick Willis or whatever, then you put him in one of 4 spots and play your next best 3 LBs as starters and the rest are backups...We really have much more to worry about than us extending Kelsay for 4 years... The problem isn't extending Kelsay. The problem is paying him 6 million per season. If Kelsay was being extended at 1-2 million per season, thats fine. Not for 6. I don't know what the hell OBD is thinking. Ayodele or any number of other players can fill Kelsay's void for 1 million per season. No need to pay a worthless LB 6 million per. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RkFast Posted September 30, 2010 Share Posted September 30, 2010 Yes, it makes sense to overpay an aging, clumsy, slow, defensive end to play linebacker for a four year deal, because it is impossible to conceive that the Bills might be able to replace him. In four years. Four years. I feel a little better now about the rude post you felt like putting in my thread, to see that you are actually just a total idiot. Its bad form to call someone an idiot when you purposely put an incorrect statement in your post. Kelsaty NO WAY IN HELL sees the end of this contract. He knows it, the Bills know it, Kelsay's agent knows it. Length of a deal means ZIP in the NFL, when players can get cut at any time, as we all well know. And that is the saving grace in this deal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
papazoid Posted September 30, 2010 Share Posted September 30, 2010 kelsay does NOT deserve $6mil/yr. i bet the upfront and guaranteed numbers are very low compared to other LB's. i predict he is cut after year 2. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peace Posted September 30, 2010 Share Posted September 30, 2010 (edited) Look at the Bills linebackers. You have Poz. You have Kelsay. Then you have: Akin Ayodele Antonio Coleman Andra Davis Chris Ellis Keith Ellison Aaron Maybin Arthur Moats Reggie Torbor I mean, there is just not much there. Do you want to extend Keith Ellison instead? It is just not realistic to replace all of these players in one offseason. Kelsay isn't very good, but neither is anyone else. You just have to keep some mediocre players around while the team goes through the process of rebuilding. It's not like the Bills are going to run out of cap space. This has no bearing on free agency or the draft. There are bigger areas of need on this team, and Kelsay is just a band-aid for a few years while more important issues are addressed. I posted this argument 3 times in the last week. The only argument I hear against signing Kelsay that makes sense is the money. And I'd say he's the Bills top LB because at least he can get onto the field. Poz is better but the guy is hurt all the time. Edited September 30, 2010 by Peace Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted September 30, 2010 Share Posted September 30, 2010 Different positions, but I would also rather have a pre-injury Holocek, or even Maddox. If I wasn't so tired (worked last night) I could come up with a lot more. Let's just say that Kelsay is the Ostroski of the LBs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KOKBILLS Posted September 30, 2010 Share Posted September 30, 2010 (edited) Look at the Bills linebackers. You have Poz. You have Kelsay. Then you have: Akin Ayodele Antonio Coleman Andra Davis Chris Ellis Keith Ellison Aaron Maybin Arthur Moats Reggie Torbor I mean, there is just not much there. Do you want to extend Keith Ellison instead? It is just not realistic to replace all of these players in one offseason. Kelsay isn't very good, but neither is anyone else. You just have to keep some mediocre players around while the team goes through the process of rebuilding. It's not like the Bills are going to run out of cap space. This has no bearing on free agency or the draft. There are bigger areas of need on this team, and Kelsay is just a band-aid for a few years while more important issues are addressed. Look your campaign for Kelsay is duly noted...How many Posts now? But any logic in your argument is trumped by the dollar amount they are going to pay for a guy you admit is not very good...This is the type of decision that has got the Bills EXACTLY where they are and that's at the bottom of the NFL...It is indisputable that based on production Kelsay HAS to be among the most overpaid players at his position in the NFL...It makes even less sense for a Team that is clearly rebuilding and needs to get younger players more PT...Kelsay is going to take Reps away from Ellis, Maybin, and other younger players down the road, and that's just stupid for a Team in full rebuild mode... This was a poor decision...But poor decisions are something the Bills have just about cornered the market on over the past decade...It's no surprise...But it's still dumb... I'd also like to add that your assumption that those who think this deal is pure stupidity don't understand "the bigger picture" is a bit arrogant to say the least...Especially considering it can be easily assumed this team is rebuilding, and signing a Vet LB for $6 mil per year is not exactly in tune with "the bigger picture..." Edited September 30, 2010 by KOKBILLS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob_not_Rian_Lindell Posted September 30, 2010 Share Posted September 30, 2010 Look at the Bills linebackers. You have Poz. You have Kelsay. Then you have: Akin Ayodele Antonio Coleman Andra Davis Chris Ellis Keith Ellison Aaron Maybin Arthur Moats Reggie Torbor I mean, there is just not much there. Do you want to extend Keith Ellison instead? It is just not realistic to replace all of these players in one offseason. Kelsay isn't very good, but neither is anyone else. You just have to keep some mediocre players around while the team goes through the process of rebuilding. It's not like the Bills are going to run out of cap space. This has no bearing on free agency or the draft. There are bigger areas of need on this team, and Kelsay is just a band-aid for a few years while more important issues are addressed. I bet every Tight End we play against over the next 4 years were the happiest with this deal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted September 30, 2010 Share Posted September 30, 2010 I posted this argument 3 times in the last week. The only argument I hear against signing Kelsay that makes sense is the money. Which is the whole f-ng point! By tying up serious dollars to an average player, you limit your resources to improve the club. Has anyone said Mickey Mouse operation, yet? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts