Jump to content

You pick the curve... (OBD will be behind in '18)

#34fan

By #34fan
in The Stadium Wall Archives

 Share

OBD's next big miss.  

26 members have voted

  1. 1. Pick this year's OBD gaffe that will live on in infamy.

    • Drafting around a generational defensive player in the draft.
      3
    • Missing out on valuable F/A acquisition.
      3
    • Trading away a core veteran.
      4
    • Drafting around a generational WR/RB in the draft.
      0
    • Drafting around a franchise quarterback.
      5
    • Drafting a franchise QB BUST.
      10
    • Dealing a promising player, only to watch him succeed elsewhere.
      4

This poll is closed to new votes

  • Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.
  • Poll closed on 02/11/2018 at 07:41 AM

Recommended Posts

BigBuff423 Veteran

BigBuff423

Posted
Posted

I chose Trading Away a Core Veteran, but I don't see that as a "gaffe" despite the title. To me, it's Beane's interest in re-making the roster the way he and McD and their FO believe it needs to be so they can be competitive and have the right group of guys in the locker room. Everyone roasted Beane for the Watkins trade until months later Sammy made statements about his selfishness, hence the trade and the kind of atmosphere McD and Beane want in the locker room. 

 

Reading an article about Belichick and how many UDFAs he gets and how many 1st round and early round drafted guys he cuts or trades, you see how important it is to acknowledge when it's time to move on. We don't like to give Belichick credit, but if you're a football fan, you have to respect his accomplishments and how he's achieved them, not to say you like him as a person or the Pats. With that in mind, I think we're seeing how much more important it is that a player fit within the larger system rather than just getting a guy who is supremely talented and assuming he'll make a difference. To that end, I think Beane sheds a few Vets one way or another. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
boater Veteran

boater

Posted
Posted

I don't think "drafting around" someone who later turns out to be stellar is a gaffe of infamy. It's just a garden variety oops. Despite pundits that make it seem like you can evaluate players to the tenth of a degree--the draft is pretty much a crapshoot.

 

Also, I don't think the future success of a traded player is gaffe of infamy. Who cares? They're gone. What is important is the production you got on your end of the trade.

 

Bills most frequent gaffes of infamy, IMO, come in awarding star money contracts to players who turn out to be mediocre at best. That's a gaffe of infamy because the player had a track record and the future is somewhat predictable--you should have known better---and you louse up future year salary caps.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
#34fan Veteran

#34fan

Posted
  • Author
Posted
3 hours ago, BigBuff423 said:

I chose Trading Away a Core Veteran, but I don't see that as a "gaffe" despite the title. To me, it's Beane's interest in re-making the roster the way he and McD and their FO believe it needs to be so they can be competitive and have the right group of guys in the locker room. Everyone roasted Beane for the Watkins trade until months later Sammy made statements about his selfishness, hence the trade and the kind of atmosphere McD and Beane want in the locker room. 

 

Reading an article about Belichick and how many UDFAs he gets and how many 1st round and early round drafted guys he cuts or trades, you see how important it is to acknowledge when it's time to move on. We don't like to give Belichick credit, but if you're a football fan, you have to respect his accomplishments and how he's achieved them, not to say you like him as a person or the Pats. With that in mind, I think we're seeing how much more important it is that a player fit within the larger system rather than just getting a guy who is supremely talented and assuming he'll make a difference. To that end, I think Beane sheds a few Vets one way or another. 

 

Whoa.. So a GM stays competitive by de-valuing players that don't fit whatever "grand scheme" they're cooking up? - I Don't think I can buy that one.

 

Watching guys like Dareus, Hogan, Watkins, Woods, Ragland, and yah, I'll say it, -even Pozlusny find precise roles on playoff teams just proves that historically, our personnel decisions can make other teams better, but not necessarily this one....  Filling out a roster with STRONG contributors is infinitely more advisable than filling one out with people you think have good locker-room chemistry. -Strong contributors drive competition, making the team more competitive... Want to get rid of somebody? -Why not off load the QB who refuses the throw the football?  -Dump the aging, overweight RB who can't pass protect, and needs a Google Drive to find the frickin' hole! -To many fans dismay, these seem to be the players we add and even extend year after year!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
BigBuff423 Veteran

BigBuff423

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, #34fan said:

 

Whoa.. So a GM stays competitive by de-valuing players that don't fit whatever "grand scheme" they're cooking up? - I Don't think I can buy that one.

 

Watching guys like Dareus, Hogan, Watkins, Woods, Ragland, and yah, I'll say it, -even Pozlusny find precise roles on playoff teams just proves that historically, our personnel decisions can make other teams better, but not necessarily this one....  Filling out a roster with STRONG contributors is infinitely more advisable than filling one out with people you think have good locker-room chemistry. -Strong contributors drive competition, making the team more competitive... Want to get rid of somebody? -Why not off load the QB who refuses the throw the football?  -Dump the aging, overweight RB who can't pass protect, and needs a Google Drive to find the frickin' hole! -To many fans dismay, these seem to be the players we add and even extend year after year!

 

Ok, but where did I say unproductive? It's not like they're selling Girl Scout cookies and whoever sells the most gets the badge. It's that there is a philosophy that no matter how supremely talented a single player is or might be, if he can't play as part of the larger team, then it is counter-productive, ala Watkins. I'm not for signing Tolbert or trading / cutting Tyrod, I'm all-in on both of those. And to say that you can't "buy that one", that's fine...but good teams are built with a team concept, not just individual stars, and when it becomes about the individual talent, the team suffers. I think, IMHO, that's the larger issue for Beane and the team. Dareus and Watkins to me were character moves, Darby and Ragland was a scheme move and to acquire Draft for this year's process in the rebuild.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...