Reggie Ragland's play for the chiefs

[Real McClappy]

5 hours ago, GG said:

 

Talent was lost, but the team's record also indicates that the talent was over rated at least and overpaid at most.

 

IDK about overpaid other than Dareus and not paying Gilmore a new contract?

 

We could have used these guys and possibly had a better record. It's the direction the coaching staff wanted to go so I must "trust the process"  even though I'm not happy with a few of the moves. 

 

Most will be filled with the draft next April  or FA. Our LB core needs some serious help and Ragland could have been a nice run stuffer to have on this squad with a rookie contract.

 

Robey-Coleman

Woods (Easily worth a new contract)

Ragland
Lee

Goodwin

Watkins (Was still on rookie contract thru 2017)

Darby

Hunter

Z. Brown (might have cost, would have been worth it IMO)

 

 

Edited December 12, 2017 by Real McCoy

[Alaska Darin]

 

194
298
146
191
163

 

Rush yardage totals the BILLS have given up since week 7 (I left out the KC game because Andy Reid inexplicably just abandoned the run despite our inability to stop, well, anyone else).  You know why we give up so many yards on the ground?  Our LBers (outside of the new draftees) have been pretty much terrible.

[Hapless Bills Fan]

3 hours ago, Real McCoy said:

 

IDK about overpaid other than Dareus and not paying Gilmore a new contract?

 

We could have used these guys and possibly had a better record. It's the direction the coaching staff wanted to go so I must "trust the process" though even though I'm not happy with a few of the moves. 

 

Most will be filled with the draft next April  or FA.

Our LB core needs some serious help and Ragland could have been a nice run stuffer to have on this squad with a rookie contract.

 

Robey-Coleman

Woods (Easily worth a new contract)

Ragland
Lee

Goodwin

Watkins (Was still on rookie contract thru 2017)

Darby

Hunter

Z. Brown (might have cost, would have been worth it IMO)

 

Good post. 
 

I do have the caveat that McDermott came here with the goal to change the culture.  You can't change the culture without changing minds.  And you can't change minds without sending some minds resistant to change out of the building, and bringing in fresh thoughts. 

 

Still, it kind of strains credulity that these guys were all "phone it in" bed-heads who needed a change of scene.

Overall it does worry me to have the "not a fit to our scheme" philosophy, because the team that must acquire specific types of talent is always going to be at a competitive disadvantage to the team that can acquire the best talent and figure out how to utilize it to best effect.

[Bleeding Bills Blue]

3 hours ago, Real McCoy said:

 

IDK about overpaid other than Dareus and not paying Gilmore a new contract?

 

We could have used these guys and possibly had a better record. It's the direction the coaching staff wanted to go so I must "trust the process" though even though I'm not happy with a few of the moves. 

 

Most will be filled with the draft next April  or FA.

Our LB core needs some serious help and Ragland could have been a nice run stuffer to have on this squad with a rookie contract.

 

Robey-Coleman

Woods (Easily worth a new contract)

Ragland
Lee

Goodwin

Watkins (Was still on rookie contract thru 2017)

Darby

Hunter

Z. Brown (might have cost, would have been worth it IMO)

 

 

 

NRC was replaced by L.Johnson who I thought has been pretty good this year.

 

Woods was a UFA.  Got a big deal.  Goodwin was a UFA.  

 

Hunter has 3 catches this year.  Holmes has out-performed him.  

 

Z. Brown didn't get a big deal, perhaps it was a fit issue.  They brought in Hodges, and he didn't make the team.

 

Ragland was always a step behind in preseason regarding coverage.  Scheme fit was talked about before the pads went on, and he definitely struggled.

 

Darby was hurt for half the year and so was matthews so... wash there and we netted a 3rd.

 

Watkins hasn't done much and is a guarantee to hit UFA in 2018.  Gaines has been really good when he's on the field.  I think Watkins was the one guy who really could've helped this offense a ton, but they must be after a QB hard in 2018 if they were willing to move him. 

 

You didn't mention Dareus, and i think we all hoped the lightbulb would turn on and he would become the guy he needed to be.  He did not, and we moved him to maximize the cap space we could net for 2018.  

 

[Doc]

3 hours ago, Real McCoy said:

 

IDK about overpaid other than Dareus and not paying Gilmore a new contract?

 

We could have used these guys and possibly had a better record. It's the direction the coaching staff wanted to go so I must "trust the process" though even though I'm not happy with a few of the moves. 

 

Most will be filled with the draft next April  or FA.

Our LB core needs some serious help and Ragland could have been a nice run stuffer to have on this squad with a rookie contract.

 

Robey-Coleman

Woods (Easily worth a new contract)

Ragland
Lee

Goodwin

Watkins (Was still on rookie contract thru 2017)

Darby

Hunter

Z. Brown (might have cost, would have been worth it IMO)

 

I'd have kept Seymour, re-signed Zach Brown, and not traded Dareus.  The rest were guys who didn't show much until they left. 

[26CornerBlitz]

Just now, dneveu said:

 

NRC was replaced by L.Johnson who I thought has been pretty good this year.

 

Woods was a UFA.  Got a big deal.  Goodwin was a UFA.  

 

Hunter has 3 catches this year.  Holmes has out-performed him.  

 

Z. Brown didn't get a big deal, perhaps it was a fit issue.  They brought in Hodges, and he didn't make the team.

 

Ragland was always a step behind in preseason regarding coverage.  Scheme fit was talked about before the pads went on, and he definitely struggled.

 

Darby was hurt for half the year and so was matthews so... wash there and we netted a 3rd.

 

Watkins hasn't done much and is a guarantee to hit UFA in 2018.  Gaines has been really good when he's on the field.  I think Watkins was the one guy who really could've helped this offense a ton, but they must be after a QB hard in 2018 if they were willing to move him. 

 

You didn't mention Dareus, and i think we all hoped the lightbulb would turn on and he would become the guy he needed to be.  He did not, and we moved him to maximize the cap space we could net for 2018.  

 

 

7 TDs is not doing much? 

[Bleeding Bills Blue]

11 minutes ago, 26CornerBlitz said:

 

7 TDs is not doing much? 

 

Fair enough I looked more at yardage and catches so "touche" - however, does he re-sign there in 2018?  58 targets and 34 catches through 13 games.  I think his agent looks at that and cringes.  He wants 10 targets a game...

 

If they manage to manipulate the comp pick formula they should get a 2019 end of round 3rd for him.  We got a 2018 2nd and Gaines who has been pretty good.  

[SaviorPeterman]

I've been hearing whispers from some sources of mine that the Bills are going to regret not finding a place for Ragland in McD/Frasier's defense.

 

Ragland has entrenched himself as a starter with the Chiefs this year and appears to be 100% back from his injury. He's also been a bright spot on a pretty bad Chiefs defense this year.

 

Still don't understand why this new regime was so eager to unload all our recent draft picks and getting very little in return. It's one thing to distance yourself from the previous regime but it's another to make hasty decisions just for the sake of getting rid of guys.

Edited December 12, 2017 by SaviorPeterman

[Bleeding Bills Blue]

40 minutes ago, SaviorPeterman said:

I've been hearing whispers from some sources of mine that the Bills are going to regret not finding a place for Ragland in McD/Frasier's defense.

 

Ragland has entrenched himself as a starter with the Chiefs this year and appears to be 100% back from his injury. He's also been a bright spot on a pretty bad Chiefs defense this year.

 

Still don't understand why this new regime was so eager to unload all our recent draft picks and getting very little in return. It's one thing to distance yourself from the previous regime but it's another to make hasty decisions just for the sake of getting rid of guys.

I would've liked to see if he could grow into something here... but they got a pretty decent return.  The trade up makes the value worse.

[Hapless Bills Fan]

4 hours ago, SaviorPeterman said:

I've been hearing whispers from some sources of mine that the Bills are going to regret not finding a place for Ragland in McD/Frasier's defense.

 

Ragland has entrenched himself as a starter with the Chiefs this year and appears to be 100% back from his injury. He's also been a bright spot on a pretty bad Chiefs defense this year.

 

Still don't understand why this new regime was so eager to unload all our recent draft picks and getting very little in return. It's one thing to distance yourself from the previous regime but it's another to make hasty decisions just for the sake of getting rid of guys.

 

I dunno about your "whispers", but I agree that at times, it has seemed as though McBeane have been interested in getting rid of guys for the sake of getting rid of guys.

[3rdand12]

23 hours ago, BuffaloBillsMagic1 said:

Guy was  coming off major knee surgery.  Should have waited until he was 100% fit.  Did not like them trading him as at Alabama he was great.

 

yes, this. not hindsight for me. have not followed him since gone away. I sure was looking forward to see him destroying  some A gaps. And I think he and Brown may have worked well with our safeties and secondary really. < Thats hindsight though

[Alphadawg7]

4 hours ago, dneveu said:

I would've liked to see if he could grow into something here... but they got a pretty decent return.  The trade up makes the value worse.

 

The biggest thing about the Ragland trade was that we never once as a Bills organization got to see what he could do on the field.  He was coming back from a serious injury and was a bit behind, but so freaking what, you wait and have patience for talent.  This was a first round graded prospect we stole in the 2nd, and invested to trade up to get who had not even had one snap on an NFL field due to an unfortunate rookie injury.  They should have at least tried to be patient and let him come all the way back.  

 

I still hate the Watkins trade, although I can live with the net return of a 2nd and Gaines since Gaines has had value.  I would 100% still take Watkins over that 2nd and Gaines though, especially since we already have enough other draft assets to trade for a higher pick if needed to get our future QB.  There was literally no reason to trade Watkins in terms of getting a QB.  We had 2 firsts, a 2nd and 2 thirds not to mention lower picks and picks the following year all to create a package to get our QB.  Hell we may not even need to trade up to get the guy they want.  

 

Dareus one though I can't live with, absolutely hate the trade.  Let me clarify, I don't hate we traded him...I hate that we not only gave him away, but we essentially traded Both Dareus and a high draft pick and only got back a 6th rounder.  Why you might ask...becasue our DL is now crap, and he MUST be replaced and we will need to CERTAINLY invest a 3rd round pick or better, and likely a 2nd or even a first depending how the draft goes in relation to getting a QB because its one of our biggest holes now.  And when you factor in its quite possible we are drafting to replace Kyle Williams too, its an even bigger issue.  So the net return is losing Dareus, creating a hole we MUST fill with a quality draft pick and ONLY getting a 6th rounder which won't help us fill that hole.  

 

Darby was another I wasn't thrilled about, but the trade felt fair in compensation at the time although I am starting to wonder if Jordan is even on this roster next year.

Edited December 13, 2017 by Alphadawg7

[3rdand12]

9 minutes ago, Alphadawg7 said:

 

The biggest thing about the Ragland trade was that we never once as a Bills organization got to see what he could do on the field.  He was coming back from a serious injury and was a bit behind, but so freaking what, you wait and have patience for talent.  This was a first round graded prospect we stole in the 2nd, and invested to trade up to get who had not even had one snap on an NFL field due to an unfortunate rookie injury.  They should have at least tried to be patient and let him come all the way back.  

 

I still hate the Watkins trade, although I can live with the net return of a 2nd and Gaines since Gaines has had value.  I would 100% still take Watkins over that 2nd and Gaines though, especially since we already have enough other draft assets to trade for a higher pick if needed to get our future QB.  There was literally no reason to trade Watkins in terms of getting a QB.  We had 2 firsts, a 2nd and 2 thirds not to mention lower picks and picks the following year all to create a package to get our QB.  Hell we may not even need to trade up to get the guy they want.  

 

Dareus one though I can't live with, absolutely hate the trade.  Let me clarify, I don't hate we traded him...I hate that we not only gave him away, but we essentially traded Both Dareus and a high draft pick and only got back a 6th rounder.  Why you might ask...becasue our DL is now crap, and he MUST be replaced and we will need to CERTAINLY invest a 3rd round pick or better, and likely a 2nd or even a first depending how the draft goes in relation to getting a QB because its one of our biggest holes now.  And when you factor in its quite possible we are drafting to replace Kyle Williams too, its an even bigger issue.  So the net return is losing Dareus, creating a hole we MUST fill with a quality draft pick and ONLY getting a 6th rounder which won't help us fill that hole.  

 

Darby was another I wasn't thrilled about, but the trade felt fair in compensation at the time although I am starting to wonder if Jordan is even on this roster next year.

In short, this regime still mystifies me.
 But i am going to give leeway as he seemingly is a fully involved H Coach and learning on the go.
we always argue about patience and being patient or not  here. This is one, both  Sean and Brandon , time i feel patience really is worthwhile. 

 

 I am truly intrigued as to what the off season looks like. I expect turnover and look forward to the changes. That will be telling about the direction  imho
 

[BringBackOrton]

1 hour ago, Alphadawg7 said:

 

The biggest thing about the Ragland trade was that we never once as a Bills organization got to see what he could do on the field.  He was coming back from a serious injury and was a bit behind, but so freaking what, you wait and have patience for talent.  This was a first round graded prospect we stole in the 2nd, and invested to trade up to get who had not even had one snap on an NFL field due to an unfortunate rookie injury.  They should have at least tried to be patient and let him come all the way back.  

 

I still hate the Watkins trade, although I can live with the net return of a 2nd and Gaines since Gaines has had value.  I would 100% still take Watkins over that 2nd and Gaines though, especially since we already have enough other draft assets to trade for a higher pick if needed to get our future QB.  There was literally no reason to trade Watkins in terms of getting a QB.  We had 2 firsts, a 2nd and 2 thirds not to mention lower picks and picks the following year all to create a package to get our QB.  Hell we may not even need to trade up to get the guy they want.  

 

Dareus one though I can't live with, absolutely hate the trade.  Let me clarify, I don't hate we traded him...I hate that we not only gave him away, but we essentially traded Both Dareus and a high draft pick and only got back a 6th rounder.  Why you might ask...becasue our DL is now crap, and he MUST be replaced and we will need to CERTAINLY invest a 3rd round pick or better, and likely a 2nd or even a first depending how the draft goes in relation to getting a QB because its one of our biggest holes now.  And when you factor in its quite possible we are drafting to replace Kyle Williams too, its an even bigger issue.  So the net return is losing Dareus, creating a hole we MUST fill with a quality draft pick and ONLY getting a 6th rounder which won't help us fill that hole.  

 

Darby was another I wasn't thrilled about, but the trade felt fair in compensation at the time although I am starting to wonder if Jordan is even on this roster next year.

This makes zero sense because we would have to replace him if we traded him no matter what we got back.

[Alphadawg7]

1 hour ago, 3rdand12 said:

In short, this regime still mystifies me.
 But i am going to give leeway as he seemingly is a fully involved H Coach and learning on the go.
we always argue about patience and being patient or not  here. This is one, both  Sean and Brandon , time i feel patience really is worthwhile. 

 

 I am truly intrigued as to what the off season looks like. I expect turnover and look forward to the changes. That will be telling about the direction  imho
 

 

I pretty much feel the same...its odd, I haven't been thrilled and down right hated some decisions, yet still somehow have confidence in them lol.  

25 minutes ago, jmc12290 said:

This makes zero sense because we would have to replace him if we traded him no matter what we got back.

 

Let me explain...we did NOT get back something of value to use towards replacing him.  The odds are nearly impossible we are going to fill that hole with a 6th round pick.  Sure, the 6th round has produced a guy like Brady, but the odds of getting that hole filled with a 6th rounder is almost zero.  Had we at least gotten back a 3rd or higher, then at least we received an asset we can invest into replacing him.  But we did NOT get such an asset, meaning we have to spend our already existing assets to fill a hole we created that netted nothing essentially in return.   

 

Now had we gotten a 2nd or even a 3rd, then at least we wouldn't be spending one of our existing 2nd or 3rd round picks trying to fill this hole.  Instead, we got a lousy 6th which is more likely going to net a ST contributor at best and not a DT that anchor our line.  And make no mistake about it, DL is one of our biggest needs now, especially since we might have TWO holes to fill as there is no guarantee Kyle will be here next year and he's is winding down anyway.

[LABILLBACKER]

7 hours ago, dneveu said:

 

Fair enough I looked more at yardage and catches so "touche" - however, does he re-sign there in 2018?  58 targets and 34 catches through 13 games.  I think his agent looks at that and cringes.  He wants 10 targets a game...

 

If they manage to manipulate the comp pick formula they should get a 2019 end of round 3rd for him.  We got a 2018 2nd and Gaines who has been pretty good.  

The Rams hardly target him, just like in Buffalo. Eventually Sammy is going to a team that targets him like the Falcons target Julio....as for Ragland he doesn't fit the goal McD has of finding another Kueckly...

[BringBackOrton]

33 minutes ago, Alphadawg7 said:

 

I pretty much feel the same...its odd, I haven't been thrilled and down right hated some decisions, yet still somehow have confidence in them lol.  

 

Let me explain...we did NOT get back something of value to use towards replacing him.  The odds are nearly impossible we are going to fill that hole with a 6th round pick.  Sure, the 6th round has produced a guy like Brady, but the odds of getting that hole filled with a 6th rounder is almost zero.  Had we at least gotten back a 3rd or higher, then at least we received an asset we can invest into replacing him.  But we did NOT get such an asset, meaning we have to spend our already existing assets to fill a hole we created that netted nothing essentially in return.   

 

Now had we gotten a 2nd or even a 3rd, then at least we wouldn't be spending one of our existing 2nd or 3rd round picks trying to fill this hole.  Instead, we got a lousy 6th which is more likely going to net a ST contributor at best and not a DT that anchor our line.  And make no mistake about it, DL is one of our biggest needs now, especially since we might have TWO holes to fill as there is no guarantee Kyle will be here next year and he's is winding down anyway.

No one was giving a 2nd or 3rd for a malcontent with a bloated contract.

[Alphadawg7]

4 minutes ago, jmc12290 said:

No one was giving a 2nd or 3rd for a malcontent with a bloated contract.

 

Hence why we should have kept him 

[BringBackOrton]

2 minutes ago, Alphadawg7 said:

 

Hence why we should have kept him 

Then you don't agree with trading him at all.

 

That makes sense.

[Alphadawg7]

4 minutes ago, jmc12290 said:

Then you don't agree with trading him at all.

 

That makes sense.

 

Thats exactly what I said in the OP you responded.  I hate the trade.  I was ok with trading IF we got something back to help fill the hole it created.  I absolutely hated trading him for a measly 6th because not only did we not get something back to help replace him, we now MUST replace him and its going to force us to use a good draft pick to TRY and do so...and we might still miss on that pick and need to invest more as well.  

 

So yes, I don't agree with the trade.  I could live with it had we at least recouped assets to contribute to his replacement though and we didn't.  He was coming off his best game under this regime, was finally healthy and fit...let him play the remainder of the season to at least up his value before we unload him.  There was no reason to dump him in a fire sale for just a 6th.  

Edited December 13, 2017 by Alphadawg7

[Bleeding Bills Blue]

11 hours ago, Alphadawg7 said:

 

The biggest thing about the Ragland trade was that we never once as a Bills organization got to see what he could do on the field.  He was coming back from a serious injury and was a bit behind, but so freaking what, you wait and have patience for talent.  This was a first round graded prospect we stole in the 2nd, and invested to trade up to get who had not even had one snap on an NFL field due to an unfortunate rookie injury.  They should have at least tried to be patient and let him come all the way back.  

 

I still hate the Watkins trade, although I can live with the net return of a 2nd and Gaines since Gaines has had value.  I would 100% still take Watkins over that 2nd and Gaines though, especially since we already have enough other draft assets to trade for a higher pick if needed to get our future QB.  There was literally no reason to trade Watkins in terms of getting a QB.  We had 2 firsts, a 2nd and 2 thirds not to mention lower picks and picks the following year all to create a package to get our QB.  Hell we may not even need to trade up to get the guy they want.  

 

Dareus one though I can't live with, absolutely hate the trade.  Let me clarify, I don't hate we traded him...I hate that we not only gave him away, but we essentially traded Both Dareus and a high draft pick and only got back a 6th rounder.  Why you might ask...becasue our DL is now crap, and he MUST be replaced and we will need to CERTAINLY invest a 3rd round pick or better, and likely a 2nd or even a first depending how the draft goes in relation to getting a QB because its one of our biggest holes now.  And when you factor in its quite possible we are drafting to replace Kyle Williams too, its an even bigger issue.  So the net return is losing Dareus, creating a hole we MUST fill with a quality draft pick and ONLY getting a 6th rounder which won't help us fill that hole.  

 

Darby was another I wasn't thrilled about, but the trade felt fair in compensation at the time although I am starting to wonder if Jordan is even on this roster next year.

 

I don't think they had any interest in tagging Watkins, and his agent probably said no to an extension

[GG]

On 12/11/2017 at 8:53 PM, PetermanThrew5Picks said:

Why is it a surprise that Whaley was competent at drafting front 7 if nothing else? For everyone clamoring to trade Lawson.. is mcbean's 5th better than Whaley's 1st? If he really believes that , then it's just arrogance

 

Is Reggie Ragland better than Jarran Reed AND Pharoh Cooper?

[Bing Bong]

1 hour ago, GG said:

 

Is Reggie Ragland better than Jarran Reed AND Pharoh Cooper?

Hardly even know who Pharoh Cooper is, but Reed is okay and wasn't a need at the time with Dareus. Ragland's running downs depth at the very worst on this team. I'm not really debating the decision to draft him, just the decision to offload him, Dareus, (and I hope not Lawson) for picks that aren't worth the player value.

[Alphadawg7]

4 hours ago, dneveu said:

 

I don't think they had any interest in tagging Watkins, and his agent probably said no to an extension

 

I understand why you might say that, certainly plausible, but Sammy repeatedly stated he wanted to stay in Buffalo.  So there is honestly zero evidence to support that and everything that was known suggested otherwise.  Not to mention, people forget he grew up a Bills fan and was excited to come here.  Doesn't matter what an agent says, its what the player wants, and we still have no evidence of any kind suggesting his agent said no to an extension.  And Beane suggested the concern about not being able to resign him was really over their ability/willingness to pay what the market would be to keep him had he had a big year.  

 

So I think it was more about the fact that Beane didn't want to invest heavy into a WR in terms of a big contract.  So the result would have been Sammy has a big year and even if Sammy wants to stay here, Beane won't pay what the market would be for Sammy.  Or, Sammy would not have a big year just in general or from injuries, then they would likely not sign him and get nothing in return.  So in Beanes eyes, there was likely not a scenario where we kept him and saw a chance to get a 2nd and a DB for him.  

 

And I am fine with that, but where I disagree with this decision is being unwilling to pay him after a big season.  Had Sammy gone on to have as strong year now that he was healthy, we should want to resign and keep a top notch WR to pair with a young QB.  Look at how valuable someone like Hopkins is for Watson.  And I like Kelvin, but he is substantially a bigger injury risk than Sammy ever was.  

 

Truthfully, the colossal mistake was not picking up his option.  That was utterly stupid by whoever made that decision.  That gave them insurance to keep him and see him stay healthy for 2 seasons before any big contract decisions would need to be made.  

[GG]

2 hours ago, PetermanThrew5Picks said:

Hardly even know who Pharoh Cooper is, but Reed is okay and wasn't a need at the time with Dareus. Ragland's running downs depth at the very worst on this team. I'm not really debating the decision to draft him, just the decision to offload him, Dareus, (and I hope not Lawson) for picks that aren't worth the player value.

 

In a vacuum, you retain Ragland.  But that wasn't the case this summer.  The reality is, whether it was the lingering effects of the injury or inability to grasp the defense, Ragland was 3rd string in camp and didn't even look good there.  There's no doubt that Bills wanted him to do better because it doesn't look like they like P Brown either.  Brown hasn't played well and Ragland is even worse than him in a 4-3.   

 

What role would he play on this team, knowing that you wouldn't want him anywhere else but MLB, and he couldn't beat out Vallejo in camp?

 

 

[dave mcbride]

16 hours ago, Alphadawg7 said:

 

Thats exactly what I said in the OP you responded.  I hate the trade.  I was ok with trading IF we got something back to help fill the hole it created.  I absolutely hated trading him for a measly 6th because not only did we not get something back to help replace him, we now MUST replace him and its going to force us to use a good draft pick to TRY and do so...and we might still miss on that pick and need to invest more as well.  

 

So yes, I don't agree with the trade.  I could live with it had we at least recouped assets to contribute to his replacement though and we didn't.  He was coming off his best game under this regime, was finally healthy and fit...let him play the remainder of the season to at least up his value before we unload him.  There was no reason to dump him in a fire sale for just a 6th.  

Just to be clear, it's going to be a fifth rounder. If he's on the roster and the Jags make the playoffs, the pick becomes a fifth.

[JohnC]

16 hours ago, Alphadawg7 said:

 

Thats exactly what I said in the OP you responded.  I hate the trade.  I was ok with trading IF we got something back to help fill the hole it created.  I absolutely hated trading him for a measly 6th because not only did we not get something back to help replace him, we now MUST replace him and its going to force us to use a good draft pick to TRY and do so...and we might still miss on that pick and need to invest more as well.  

 

So yes, I don't agree with the trade.  I could live with it had we at least recouped assets to contribute to his replacement though and we didn't.  He was coming off his best game under this regime, was finally healthy and fit...let him play the remainder of the season to at least up his value before we unload him.  There was no reason to dump him in a fire sale for just a 6th.  

This trade was never about getting a commensurate value in return because that was an impossibility. The point of the deal was getting rid of a high salaried slacker with the hope that in the near future his salary space would be filled by a more committed player. You don't think the wrestling coach didn't want a player with Dareus's immense talent playing to his potential on his team? Of course he would. But if the player didn't show much interest in recommitting after plenty of hectoring by the staff then so be it. This regime did what it said it was going to do when it clearly stated upon taking over the operation. He didn't come close to filling the mold of the type of player they wanted on the roster. So instead of just talking a good game it acted by dealing him.

 

What's very revealing is that after Dareus was dealt no one on the team criticized the deal and offered much support on behalf of the departed player. Do you want to know why? Because they had an insider's view of how Dareus conducted himself on and off the field. Keeping a player on a team who doesn't care is never the right thing to do.    

[Alphadawg7]

2 minutes ago, JohnC said:

This trade was never about getting a commensurate value in return because that was an impossibility. The point of the deal was getting rid of a high salaried slacker with the hope that in the near future his salary space would be filled by a more committed player. You don't think the wrestling coach didn't want a player with Dareus's immense talent playing to his potential on his team? Of course he would. But if the player didn't show much interest in recommitting after plenty of hectoring by the staff then so be it. This regime did what it said it was going to do when it clearly stated upon taking over the operation. He didn't come close to filling the mold of the type of player they wanted on the roster. So instead of just talking a good game it acted by dealing him.

 

What's very revealing is that after Dareus was dealt no one on the team criticized the deal and offered much support on behalf of the departed player. Do you want to know why? Because they had an insider's view of how Dareus conducted himself on and off the field. Keeping a player on a team who doesn't care is never the right thing to do.    

 

It was only an impossibility because of when we were trying to trade him, not because he's not worth more than a 6th.  We traded him at his lowest value, he had just gotten healthy and had a good game.  Had he played and finished the season strong we could have traded him for substantially more in the offseason.  That is the point.  Its not that we traded him, there was literally ZERO reasons to trade him then if all we were going to get back was a 6th.  He had much more value moving forward now that he was healthy both to us as a team and as a trade chip later if at the end of the season Beane still wanted to move him.

 

So to it was impossibility is completely false...sure, it was an impossibility maybe when they did mid season, but there was a ton of upside in his value compared to where it was at time of trade and we certainly could have used him out there during this playoff run a hell of a lot more than a 6th round pick.  

 

So again, I didn't hate we traded him, I hate that we gave him away at his lowest value rather than let him play now that he was healthy.  

 

 

[Big Gun]

5 hours ago, GG said:

 

Is Reggie Ragland better than Jarran Reed AND Pharoh Cooper?

Isnt Cooper a WR somewhere?

[JohnC]

4 minutes ago, Alphadawg7 said:

 

It was only an impossibility because of when we were trying to trade him, not because he's not worth more than a 6th.  We traded him at his lowest value, he had just gotten healthy and had a good game.  Had he played and finished the season strong we could have traded him for substantially more in the offseason.  That is the point.  Its not that we traded him, there was literally ZERO reasons to trade him then if all we were going to get back was a 6th.  He had much more value moving forward now that he was healthy both to us as a team and as a trade chip later if at the end of the season Beane still wanted to move him.

 

So to it was impossibility is completely false...sure, it was an impossibility maybe when they did mid season, but there was a ton of upside in his value compared to where it was at time of trade and we certainly could have used him out there during this playoff run a hell of a lot more than a 6th round pick.  

 

So again, I didn't hate we traded him, I hate that we gave him away at his lowest value rather than let him play now that he was healthy.  

 

 

You are missing my point. There was something going on within the confines of the locker room that the staff simply found unacceptable. McDermott usually doesn't publicly call out players. He did with Dareus. On more than one occasion he commented on the record that he needed to see more consistent effort and preparation. When Dareus was traded a message was being sent not only to the dispatched player but also to the players who are on the roster grinding it out and doing the right thing. The message is simple to state but not easy to execute i.e. Everyone is being held accountable

 

There has been a lot of talk about changing the culture and turning things around. Talk is cheap. It doesn't long for the overflow Rex bullshiiiit to be ignored. What doesn't get ignored is a coach living up to his talk and values. The value of the deal comes not only from the future cap space that can be used to a more committed player but also to the integrity of the message that the coach is espousing. You may disagree with the timing of the deal but I don't. Most often taking action sooner is better than later

[Alphadawg7]

17 hours ago, JohnC said:

You are missing my point. There was something going on within the confines of the locker room that the staff simply found unacceptable. McDermott usually doesn't publicly call out players. He did with Dareus. On more than one occasion he commented on the record that he needed to see more consistent effort and preparation. When Dareus was traded a message was being sent not only to the dispatched player but also to the players who are on the roster grinding it out and doing the right thing. The message is simple to state but not easy to execute i.e. Everyone is being held accountable

 

There has been a lot of talk about changing the culture and turning things around. Talk is cheap. It doesn't long for the overflow Rex bullshiiiit to be ignored. What doesn't get ignored is a coach living up to his talk and values. The value of the deal comes not only from the future cap space that can be used to a more committed player but also to the integrity of the message that the coach is espousing. You may disagree with the timing of the deal but I don't. Most often taking action sooner is better than later

 

I don't disagree with you there and not missing your point.  But they could send the same statement trading him at end of season.  Its a management of assets, and we gave away a valuable trade chip at its lowest value.  Also its a bit premature to say what McD normally does or doesnt do, he was a HC for all of 6 NFL games at that point. 

 

McD also had not gotten to really work with a fully capable Dareus given his early season injury woes.  If he became an on going issue they could have benched him all together or deactivated him...all that was at risk was losing was a low round draft pick.  And the upside could have been a young stud DT coming around and buying fully in (assuming that was an accurate issue) or a higher draft pick in an off season trade.  

 

So you keep missing my point, there was very little to lose and everything to gain by waiting until the offseason to make a decision on trading him, especially given what we got back.  The team had a ton of tools at their disposal if he became a problem in the locker room to nullify that and send a big message.  So I still hate this trade without question because we got terrible value in return.  And I am sorry, but its the coaches job to reach the players and the regime basically gave up before they really got started.  

 

 

Edited December 14, 2017 by Alphadawg7

[oldmanfan]

30 minutes ago, Alphadawg7 said:

 

I don't disagree with you there and not missing your point.  But they could send the same statement trading him at end of season.  Its a management of assets, and we gave away a valuable trade trip at its lowest value.  Also its a bit premature to say what McD normally does or doesnt do, he was a HC for all of 6 NFL games at that point. 

 

McD also had not gotten to really work with a fully capable Dareus given his early season injury woes.  If he became an on going issue they could have benched him all together or deactivated him...all that was at risk was losing was a low round draft pick.  And the upside could have been a young stud DT coming around and buying fully in (assuming that was an accurate issue) or a higher draft pick in an off season trade.  

 

So you keep missing my point, there was very little to lose and everything to gain by waiting until the offseason to make a decision on trading him, especially given what we got back.  The team had a ton of tools at their disposal if he became a problem in the locker room to nullify that and send a big message.  So I still hate this trade without question because we got terrible value in return.  And I am sorry, but its the coaches job to reach the players and the regime basically gave up before they really got started.  

 

 

I am sorry but when you are the highest paid player in the team and supposedly an All Pro talent, you should be leading and not being dependent on a coach to reach you.

 

did guys like Rice, Montana, or any truly great player have to have a coach reach them?  Did they show up late to games?  

 

Spare me how Dareus' issues are somehow a coaching failure.  

[JohnC]

5 minutes ago, Alphadawg7 said:

 

I don't disagree with you there and not missing your point.  But they could send the same statement trading him at end of season.  Its a management of assets, and we gave away a valuable trade trip at its lowest value.  Also its a bit premature to say what McD normally does or doesnt do, he was a HC for all of 6 NFL games at that point. 

 

McD also had not gotten to really work with a fully capable Dareus given his early season injury woes.  If he became an on going issue they could have benched him all together or deactivated him...all that was at risk was losing was a low round draft pick.  And the upside could have been a young stud DT coming around and buying fully in (assuming that was an accurate issue) or a higher draft pick in an off season trade.  

 

So you keep missing my point, there was very little to lose and everything to gain by waiting until the offseason to make a decision on trading him, especially given what we got back.  The team had a ton of tools at their disposal if he became a problem in the locker room to nullify that and send a big message.  So I still hate this trade without question because we got terrible value in return.  And I am sorry, but its the coaches job to reach the players and the regime basically gave up before they really got started.  

 

 

What's a trade value of a talented player who without question was not committed to working hard and lacked the desire to turn it around. If he is benched or his playing time is severely curtailed then what value does he have on the market when it is already well known that this toxic player is not wanted. When I say toxic I'm not referring to him as a bad person but I'm referring to his work habits and attitude. 

 

You don't think that the coaches and teammates over an extended period of time didn't try in a variety of ways to get him motivated? You don't think that tough love and empathetic strategies were used to get him in line? The wrestling coach may be irritating to many people but he isn't a dope. The wrestling coach has been around the game long enough to know that having talent doesn't mean much if it isn't actualized without the required effort and attitude. 

 

I want Dareus to succeed. It wasn't going to happen in Buffalo not because of the coaches he had but because of how he conducted himself here. A change of scenery under a coach who knows him and has handled him before  might be the best thing for him. 

 

This staff has a vision and framework in how to rebuild. It's not simply about accumulating talent. They are trying to create a culture of accountability. Some people consider that to be a saccharine idea. I don't. When the boat is struggling to float one of the things you do is throw over the dead weight. With Dareus that was a lot of soft and jiggly fat to heave over the side. By his own behavior Dareus showed that he didn't want to be in Buffalo. So he was accommodated. It was the right thing to do for all parties involved. 

[GG]

1 hour ago, PeterGriffin said:

Isnt Cooper a WR somewhere?

 

He's the Rams' primary return guy

[JohnC]

2 minutes ago, oldmanfan said:

I am sorry but when you are the highest paid player in the team and supposedly an All Pro talent, you should be leading and not being dependent on a coach to reach you.

 

did guys like Rice, Montana, or any truly great player have to have a coach reach them?  Did they show up late to games?  

 

Spare me how Dareus' issues are somehow a coaching failure.  

Bingo! You are astute. Your words are few but on message. Your laser is properly targeted to the most important issue. 

[Alphadawg7]

19 minutes ago, oldmanfan said:

I am sorry but when you are the highest paid player in the team and supposedly an All Pro talent, you should be leading and not being dependent on a coach to reach you.

 

did guys like Rice, Montana, or any truly great player have to have a coach reach them?  Did they show up late to games?  

 

Spare me how Dareus' issues are somehow a coaching failure.  

 

Not all players are leaders, and your paycheck size does not define leadership by any means.  Often some of the biggest leaders on teams aren't even the most impactful players on the roster.  Leadership isn't something determined in a contract, you either are or not.

 

I don't fault you for feeling that way, but its a very naive fan way of thinking, and its not even a wrong way to think, its just that its absolutely not reality in any sport.  

 

What separates great coaches from just another guy is there ability to reach their players.  Every individual is a completely different personality, and coaching is as much psychological as it is strategic.  

 

And this brings me back to my original point...this stuff I think is grossly over blown by fan speculation and based on everything Beane has done strongly suggests that he is more interested in moving talent, even young talent, for draft equity and cap space.  I think the size of his contract was substantially more of a factor than issues between him and McD.  

11 minutes ago, JohnC said:

Bingo! You are astute. Your words are few but on message. Your laser is properly targeted to the most important issue. 

 

Except its more cute than reality.  In fact, it has almost no accuracy in the reality of sports.  I get it, and don't even disagree with him really, but its not in any way accurate...and its unfortunate, but thats the truth.

 

19 minutes ago, JohnC said:

What's a trade value of a talented player who without question was not committed to working hard and lacked the desire to turn it around. If he is benched or his playing time is severely curtailed then what value does he have on the market when it is already well known that this toxic player is not wanted. When I say toxic I'm not referring to him as a bad person but I'm referring to his work habits and attitude. 

 

You don't think that the coaches and teammates over an extended period of time didn't try in a variety of ways to get him motivated? You don't think that tough love and empathetic strategies were used to get him in line? The wrestling coach may be irritating to many people but he isn't a dope. The wrestling coach has been around the game long enough to know that having talent doesn't mean much if it isn't actualized without the required effort and attitude. 

 

I want Dareus to succeed. It wasn't going to happen in Buffalo not because of the coaches he had but because of how he conducted himself here. A change of scenery under a coach who knows him and has handled him before  might be the best thing for him. 

 

This staff has a vision and framework in how to rebuild. It's not simply about accumulating talent. They are trying to create a culture of accountability. Some people consider that to be a saccharine idea. I don't. When the boat is struggling to float one of the things you do is throw over the dead weight. With Dareus that was a lot of soft and jiggly fat to heave over the side. By his own behavior Dareus showed that he didn't want to be in Buffalo. So he was accommodated. It was the right thing to do for all parties involved. 

 

Just to once again be clear...I don't disagree or have an issue with him having been traded.  I whole heartedly disagree of giving in and dumping him at his lowest value rather than go for the upside since he was now healthy and letting his value increase.  I would risk that measly 6th round pick 100% of the time to see if we can either get him to a key member of this team or get his value up and move in the offseason.  

 

Its all good, I get you see it different, but there is no line of reasoning that will change my feeling that it was a mistake to move a young talented DT at his lowest absolute value when we had much more to gain waiting to the offseason and very little to lose. 

Edited December 13, 2017 by Alphadawg7

[oldmanfan]

46 minutes ago, Alphadawg7 said:

 

Not all players are leaders, and your paycheck size does not define leadership by any means.  Often some of the biggest leaders on teams aren't even the most impactful players on the roster.  Leadership isn't something determined in a contract, you either are or not.

 

I don't fault you for feeling that way, but its a very naive fan way of thinking, and its not even a wrong way to think, its just that its absolutely not reality in any sport.  

 

What separates great coaches from just another guy is there ability to reach their players.  Every individual is a completely different personality, and coaching is as much psychological as it is strategic.  

 

And this brings me back to my original point...this stuff I think is grossly over blown by fan speculation and based on everything Beane has done strongly suggests that he is more interested in moving talent, even young talent, for draft equity and cap space.  I think the size of his contract was substantially more of a factor than issues between him and McD.  

 

Except its more cute than reality.  In fact, it has almost no accuracy in the reality of sports.  I get it, and don't even disagree with him really, but its not in any way accurate...and its unfortunate, but thats the truth.

 

 

Just to once again be clear...I don't disagree or have an issue with him having been traded.  I whole heartedly disagree of giving in and dumping him at his lowest value rather than go for the upside since he was now healthy and letting his value increase.  I would risk that measly 6th round pick 100% of the time to see if we can either get him to a key member of this team or get his value up and move in the offseason.  

 

Its all good, I get you see it different, but there is no line of reasoning that will change my feeling that it was a mistake to move a young talented DT at his lowest absolute value when we had much more to gain waiting to the offseason and very little to lose. 

Ok take the money out of it if you want.  The great players don't need motivation.  They work hard to be the best and to continue to get better.  Saw it in high school on my teams and it exists regardless of level of play.

 

Dareus had a rep for not giving it everything, and you aren't going to get much for that.  And you may not like to talkabout money but you cannot have your top paid individual half assing it and not have it affect the team.  You need to get his butt out, because despite several different coaching staffs he did not show he was dedicated to his craft.

 

Last week on the NFL pregame Kurt Warner talked about his time with the Rams.  He said what turned it around was getting rid of the malcontents.  The next year they won the whole thing.

 

It's great to think there was some gigantic market out there for him, or that keeping him would have not affected the team.  But that does not appear to be the case.

[JohnC]

2 hours ago, Alphadawg7 said:

 

Not all players are leaders, and your paycheck size does not define leadership by any means.  Often some of the biggest leaders on teams aren't even the most impactful players on the roster.  Leadership isn't something determined in a contract, you either are or not.

 

I don't fault you for feeling that way, but its a very naive fan way of thinking, and its not even a wrong way to think, its just that its absolutely not reality in any sport.  

 

What separates great coaches from just another guy is there ability to reach their players.  Every individual is a completely different personality, and coaching is as much psychological as it is strategic.  

 

And this brings me back to my original point...this stuff I think is grossly over blown by fan speculation and based on everything Beane has done strongly suggests that he is more interested in moving talent, even young talent, for draft equity and cap space.  I think the size of his contract was substantially more of a factor than issues between him and McD.  

 

Except its more cute than reality.  In fact, it has almost no accuracy in the reality of sports.  I get it, and don't even disagree with him really, but its not in any way accurate...and its unfortunate, but thats the truth.

 

 

Just to once again be clear...I don't disagree or have an issue with him having been traded.  I whole heartedly disagree of giving in and dumping him at his lowest value rather than go for the upside since he was now healthy and letting his value increase.  I would risk that measly 6th round pick 100% of the time to see if we can either get him to a key member of this team or get his value up and move in the offseason.  

 

Its all good, I get you see it different, but there is no line of reasoning that will change my feeling that it was a mistake to move a young talented DT at his lowest absolute value when we had much more to gain waiting to the offseason and very little to lose. 

Respectfully, we are riding on different buses and going to very destinations on this issue. You are however very right that not all players are leaders. And there are a variety of different personalities with different makeups in any large group. But that doesn't relieve the individual, high salaried or not, to be in sync with the other players and coaches from being a dependable teammate/person. Football is a team sport---not an individual sport. The mix is most often just as important, if not more important, than the individual collection of talent. You make it seem as if the wrestling coach didn't put in the effort to get to player to the right place. That's where you and I philosophical have our major divide. For me the onus is more on the player to do what is necessary to mesh with the program. That is not to say that McDermott didn't try to steer the recalcitrant player. I don't care how great a teacher is. If the student doesn't care and isn't willing to work the failing emanates from the student, not the teacher.   

 

With respect to the highlighted area I have some agreement and disagreement with your opinion. I agree that McBeane are rebuilding and reshaping the roster. That was publicly declared when they took over the operation.  And without question contract size is part of the consideration when forming the roster. But where I disagree with you is that although Dareus has a gargantuan contract if he played up to his ability he would not only be worth his fat contract but he would be considered an anchor/core player to build a defense around. The decision-makers quickly came to the realization that he wasn't the type of person who can live up to that responsibility. 

[3rdand12]

6 hours ago, GG said:

 

In a vacuum, you retain Ragland.  But that wasn't the case this summer.  The reality is, whether it was the lingering effects of the injury or inability to grasp the defense, Ragland was 3rd string in camp and didn't even look good there.  There's no doubt that Bills wanted him to do better because it doesn't look like they like P Brown either.  Brown hasn't played well and Ragland is even worse than him in a 4-3.   

 

What role would he play on this team, knowing that you wouldn't want him anywhere else but MLB, and he couldn't beat out Vallejo in camp?

 

 

Brown has played fine. everyone has a bad day or so. When he looked bad so did the rest of the front seven.Bad team effort those games
 

Vallejo was at best a cover LB at the beginning of the season. he played teams.

4 hours ago, oldmanfan said:

I am sorry but when you are the highest paid player in the team and supposedly an All Pro talent, you should be leading and not being dependent on a coach to reach you.

 

did guys like Rice, Montana, or any truly great player have to have a coach reach them?  Did they show up late to games?  

 

Spare me how Dareus' issues are somehow a coaching failure.  

agin' missing the point.

 it was about maximizing value. at some point in time Dareus would have been a better opportunity to offer up. likely by the end of the season.

 If Sean was making a point he could have just benched him.

Bad play by Buffalo.
But young HC is still learning.

Edited December 14, 2017 by 3rdand12

[Real McClappy]

Whole thread comes down to Buy High and Sell Low. This doesn't work in the real world on many, many platforms of life outside of Football, let alone in it.

Edited December 14, 2017 by Real McCoy