YoloinOhio Posted March 9, 2017 Share Posted March 9, 2017 @pfcentral Malcolm Butler and management not pleased with Gilmore contract to say the least. He was repeatedly told that they wont pay a CB that $$ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnC Posted March 9, 2017 Share Posted March 9, 2017 It's true and underscores the value of coaching and QB play. But it's not just an indictment of the Bills.......they are a larger offendor.....but lot's of lesser organizations are in worse cap shape than the Pats. Their roster is actually not that individually impressive.........they've really managed to build a coaches dream........a team of role players lead by a great QB. That's why this Gilmore thing does not make sense........I don't think he fits the "do your job" role very well. We'll see. What the Pats have understood for a long time is that pro football is a brutal sport where injuries are inevitable. When they look at a position they don't alone judge it by who starts but also by who is behind the starter. It's the next man up mentality that is predicated on the totality of the roster. This is where coaching and preparation come into play (as you smartly noted). For the most part you are not going to be a Patriot if you are a dumb person and player. You have to be versatile, and especially on the OL play more than one position. No player on the Pats, including Brady, is the highest paid player at their position. They are spreading the money around so that when a starter goes down there is a player behind him is good enough to step in. As I said in other posts the Bills front office has a patchwork approach to assembling a roster while the Pats have a more conceptual aspect to roster building. Where I slightly disagree with you is that I understand why the Pats were interested in Gilmore. He is simply a talented player who will fill the void left by the departure of other players. He is more than a lunch bucket player; he is a top tier CB whose talents will be wisely used. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RevWarRifleman Posted March 9, 2017 Share Posted March 9, 2017 The Patriots have reached the level where people go in to games against them and get all "aww shucks it's an honor to lose to you guys!" Very few teams seem to have what it takes to knock them off. When the Ravens were great they just wanted the chance to punch them out and usually gave them trouble and beat them a few times when it counted. Ditto for the Giants. The Broncos had one year with their defense where they were ready to roll against them. In all cases having angry bad dudes on defense was the key. But so many teams (I'm looking at you Atlanta) have this "well, golly we're just happy to have flirted with the W..." type attitude when it comes to NE. They are in everyone's heads. I thought this league was full of alpha type guys who were hyper competitive? I would want a crack at them every damn week! Beating them=glory. Beating them when it really counts (post-season)=you are a star. Losing to them= what everyone does. You're playing with house money. This! An excellent post, TFP. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dave mcbride Posted March 9, 2017 Share Posted March 9, 2017 This! An excellent post, TFP. The Broncos beat the Pats twice in the AFC championship game over a three-year stretch. The Ravens should have beaten them two years in a row if not for Lee Evans. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alphadawg7 Posted March 9, 2017 Share Posted March 9, 2017 Huh? Bennet was really good and was great Gronk insurance. BB knows DB's. Gilmore is a great add to any team and he just got added to our most hated rival who pounds us into the dust every year. I did not say he wasnt good insurance or a good asset for them. You missed the point. When they got Bennett, people freaked out predicting the rebirth of Hernandez/Gronk DUO that was uncoverable. But the reality was, there were not really any games where the 2 of them took teams apart. It was not a dual threat attack. Bennett's impact was mostly in replacing Gronk, and even then, he was not near a Gronk type impact. So yes, he was a good player for them, but it was not the over reaction people had in thinking they would be a lethal DUO on the field together that was uncoverable. In the games they did play together, it still wasn't a TE Duo attack, they played their same offense regardless. That was my point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jerry Jabber Posted March 9, 2017 Share Posted March 9, 2017 You can throw as many stats out there as you would like. It's not wrong. This guy.....on film......ran away from contact in the running game on many occasions last year. Liability. He's not physical at all. He's a terrible tackler. Unless you have a computer, tablet, or smartphone that can assess those things that can't be measured by stats, film doesn't lie. As for coverage. It's not a mistake that he, on a ton of occasions, seemed to always be in the middle of some mix up in communication of some sort. Matter of fact, according to him, and his jocksniffing defenders, things were never his fault. While some of that is true, and the truth is probably somewhere in the middle, he wasn't good last year. Period. When you have a player that is elite, you don't have nearly the Media, pundits, coaches, analysts or fans that question this much of a guys ability like people do Gilmore. You debate whether or not he's the best. Not whether or not he's even worth a crap. +1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FireChan Posted March 9, 2017 Share Posted March 9, 2017 I did not say he wasnt good insurance or a good asset for them. You missed the point. When they got Bennett, people freaked out predicting the rebirth of Hernandez/Gronk DUO that was uncoverable. But the reality was, there were not really any games where the 2 of them took teams apart. It was not a dual threat attack. Bennett's impact was mostly in replacing Gronk, and even then, he was not near a Gronk type impact. So yes, he was a good player for them, but it was not the over reaction people had in thinking they would be a lethal DUO on the field together that was uncoverable. In the games they did play together, it still wasn't a TE Duo attack, they played their same offense regardless. That was my point. Bennet was a great pick up and made them that much better of a team. The overreaction is irrelevant. He was their second most productive pass-catcher. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alphadawg7 Posted March 9, 2017 Share Posted March 9, 2017 Bennet was a great pick up and made them that much better of a team. The overreaction is irrelevant. He was their second most productive pass-catcher. Geezus...ok, lets move on. I forget how much of a wall it is to try and discuss things with you. You want to make the discussion about something I am not saying, a point I am not making, and spin something into a different discussion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdand12 Posted March 9, 2017 Share Posted March 9, 2017 So we've found the weakness in the Pats secondary. Great! Just run Tolbert at him Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wppete Posted March 9, 2017 Share Posted March 9, 2017 Just run Tolbert at him He would buckle!!!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdand12 Posted March 9, 2017 Share Posted March 9, 2017 Be interesting to see what he can do in a more structured system and organization because IMO he is a good CB! That should be no question Can't wait to see Gilmore try to cover 4 FBs coming out of the backfield ahead of #thecurve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FireChan Posted March 9, 2017 Share Posted March 9, 2017 Geezus...ok, lets move on. I forget how much of a wall it is to try and discuss things with you. You want to make the discussion about something I am not saying, a point I am not making, and spin something into a different discussion. No, I just find it odd you're trying to spin zone things into "no net changes," when they clearly are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdand12 Posted March 9, 2017 Share Posted March 9, 2017 He would buckle!!!!!! and then Bill would scold him severely. I might actually watch a 3rd Patriots game early this season.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnC Posted March 9, 2017 Share Posted March 9, 2017 I get all of that - really, I do - but the point still stands: no one cares about the Bears here and everyone cares about the Pats. If Bob Woods had signed with the Pats instead of the Rams, we'd be on page 28 by now. I'm aware that a transaction that involves the Pats is going to draw more attention from the locals. But that isn't what my point is. It's that an immensely better team got better while an inferior team got weaker. The cacophonous noise is irrelevant. It's the standard discordant noise. What really matters is that the end result is the weaker team that is competing with the superior team got worse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
T-Bomb Posted March 9, 2017 Share Posted March 9, 2017 I'm aware that a transaction that involves the Pats is going to draw more attention from the locals. But that isn't what my point is. It's that an immensely better team got better while an inferior team got weaker. The cacophonous noise is irrelevant. It's the standard discordant noise. What really matters is that the end result is the weaker team that is competing with the superior team got worse. The Bills would have weakened themselves more if they paid Gilmore 14m a year as opposed to letting him walk. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RevWarRifleman Posted March 9, 2017 Share Posted March 9, 2017 The Broncos beat the Pats twice in the AFC championship game over a three-year stretch. The Ravens should have beaten them two years in a row if not for Lee Evans. True dave about the Broncos, but that's the exception, not the rule. The very fact that they've been in so many SB's in the last 17 yrs, plus those AFC championship games where they came up short, makes them the alpha dogs of the conference. And they are inside of coaches heads. Atlanta in the 3rd quarter showed that. You got to keep playing those guys aggressively and keep scoring on them when you got the lead because quite frankly, no lead is safe against those guys. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CommonCents Posted March 9, 2017 Share Posted March 9, 2017 The Bills would have weakened themselves more if they paid Gilmore 14m a year as opposed to letting him walk. It's early yet to make that assumption, who knows what they are going to do with the remaining money. As of right now they got another FB, a niche back, PK, and a guy who makes Chris Williams look desirable. As of now we are worse off and I'm not holding my breath that they nail the next few signings, they aren't rumored to anyone of significance as of now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnC Posted March 9, 2017 Share Posted March 9, 2017 (edited) The Bills would have weakened themselves more if they paid Gilmore 14m a year as opposed to letting him walk. I agree with your comment. The reason for being in such a cap bind is that the Bills didn't wisely manage theie cap. As I said in other posts the team with more talent managed their cap more smartly than our team that has less talent. That is why the Pats were in position to sign him and the Bills were not in a position to keep him. Edited March 9, 2017 by JohnC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crusher Posted March 9, 2017 Share Posted March 9, 2017 I have been of the belief that you try to keep your best players, and let the overpaid guys or guys that haven't performed up to expectations walk. I'd of much rather paid Gilmore and let Taylor go. We lost a top player and kept a bottom tier starter instead. Moves like that will hurt the overall talent of this roster, and in another year or two when Gilmore is lights out and Tyrod is cut, maybe some will come to appreciate this logic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reed83HOF Posted March 9, 2017 Share Posted March 9, 2017 I have been of the belief that you try to keep your best players, and let the overpaid guys or guys that haven't performed up to expectations walk. I'd of much rather paid Gilmore and let Taylor go. We lost a top player and kept a bottom tier starter instead. Moves like that will hurt the overall talent of this roster, and in another year or two when Gilmore is lights out and Tyrod is cut, maybe some will come to appreciate this logic. +1 The difference was $2 million a season; not insurmountable and I assume we will give that $2 million to someone we won't get a good ROI on (See Charles Clay, Chris Williams, etc.). YOu could easily just give him Mills salary as well; it was like he wasn't even out there as an RT anyways.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts