BADOLBILZ Posted February 17, 2007 Share Posted February 17, 2007 Franchise tag, "fair" or "unfair"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NavyBillsFan Posted February 17, 2007 Share Posted February 17, 2007 Why does it matter for the Bills? We are nothing but a farm team for the rest of the league. We are like a retarded Statue of Liberty... Bring us your poor, your hungry, your rookies... So they can develop and leave for better teams..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoeF Posted February 17, 2007 Share Posted February 17, 2007 Which TBDer would we franchise if they were a free agent? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoeF Posted February 17, 2007 Share Posted February 17, 2007 Why does it matter for the Bills? We are nothing but a farm team for the rest of the league. We are like a retarded Statue of Liberty... Bring us your poor, your hungry, your rookies... So they can develop and leave for better teams..... We are McDonald's to the rest of the league's Outback.... We are Dunkin Donuts to the rest of the league's Starbucks We are Topps to the rest of the league's Wegmans We are Chevy to the rest of the league's Mercedes Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarkyMannn Posted February 17, 2007 Share Posted February 17, 2007 Franchise tag, "fair" or "unfair"? Tell Marv that unfair is working, but not no more, for Chrysler, Ford, GM, Tyco, and Enron Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AKC Posted February 17, 2007 Share Posted February 17, 2007 We are McDonald's to the rest of the league's Outback....We are Dunkin Donuts to the rest of the league's Starbucks We are Topps to the rest of the league's Wegmans We are Chevy to the rest of the league's Mercedes I don't buy it. Marv's cerebral, and by now with his history in the league and new experience negotiating player deals he has to realize that a good negotiatior is at his core a good gambler. He may just be gambling that the best way to get Nate under a long term contract in Buff is to live up to whatever was said last year when the tagged Nate. Marv might feel that applying the tag again this year might actually guarantee the '07 season would be Nate's last in our uni. Every scenario is a gamble. Wilson's GMs have had the go ahead to spend the same money as others for a long time now. I'd prefer to assume Marv has a plan in place here and conceding the Tag for Nate is part of it versus unfairly claiming we've penney pinched our way out of competitiveness in the NFL. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Acantha Posted February 17, 2007 Share Posted February 17, 2007 We are McDonald's to the rest of the league's Outback....We are Dunkin Donuts to the rest of the league's Starbucks We are Topps to the rest of the league's Wegmans We are Chevy to the rest of the league's Mercedes DD is WAY better than Starbucks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
In space no one can hear Posted February 17, 2007 Share Posted February 17, 2007 DD is WAY better than Starbucks. At what? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BADOLBILZ Posted February 17, 2007 Author Share Posted February 17, 2007 I don't buy it. Marv's cerebral, and by now with his history in the league and new experience negotiating player deals he has to realize that a good negotiatior is at his core a good gambler. He may just be gambling that the best way to get Nate under a long term contract in Buff is to live up to whatever was said last year when the tagged Nate. Marv might feel that applying the tag again this year might actually guarantee the '07 season would be Nate's last in our uni. Every scenario is a gamble. Wilson's GMs have had the go ahead to spend the same money as others for a long time now. I'd prefer to assume Marv has a plan in place here and conceding the Tag for Nate is part of it versus unfairly claiming we've penney pinched our way out of competitiveness in the NFL. So, you are saying Marv is naive? When Clements hits the market, possibly the thinnest crop of free agents ever, he's going to get a ridiculous offer the Bills will be afraid to match. If they even got a chance to. The tag gives teams negotiating leverage, not the other way around. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoeF Posted February 17, 2007 Share Posted February 17, 2007 DD is WAY better than Starbucks. You mean there is hope??? Wow... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill from NYC Posted February 17, 2007 Share Posted February 17, 2007 So, you are saying Marv is naive? When Clements hits the market, possibly the thinnest crop of free agents ever, he's going to get a ridiculous offer the Bills will be afraid to match. If they even got a chance to. The tag gives teams negotiating leverage, not the other way around. I would be hard pressed to find any way at all to justify this dumb "promise" that Marv made to Nate. If anything, it indicates that there was never really any chance of Ralph coughing up the big bucks. I must admit that my anger at this idiocy was tempered to some degree by Marv's statements at the press conference wrt blocking. I never heard these comments from Bills management, even during the days that you personally dubbed the "Ostroski Era." Badol, IF he is serious, maybe, just maybe we can get better with lesser corners if we strengthen the blocking and the pass rush. Of course I will believe it when I see it, but I must say that it was wonderful to hear Marv Levy say something that people who really follow about this football team have known for more than a decade. We already have a LT who I would catagorize as bordering upon splendid. That is at least half the battle in terms of building a strong line imo. I think that if the braintrust is really serious, they really can put together a good OL between now and opening day. Can you even imagine? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beerme1 Posted February 17, 2007 Share Posted February 17, 2007 At what? Coffee. Real coffee. Not grande this or grande that flavor of the day crap. Just real coffee. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BADOLBILZ Posted February 17, 2007 Author Share Posted February 17, 2007 I would be hard pressed to find any way at all to justify this dumb "promise" that Marv made to Nate. If anything, it indicates that there was never really any chance of Ralph coughing up the big bucks. I must admit that my anger at this idiocy was tempered to some degree by Marv's statements at the press conference wrt blocking. I never heard these comments from Bills management, even during the days that you personally dubbed the "Ostroski Era." Badol, IF he is serious, maybe, just maybe we can get better with lesser corners if we strengthen the blocking and the pass rush. Of course I will believe it when I see it, but I must say that it was wonderful to hear Marv Levy say something that people who really follow about this football team have known for more than a decade. We already have a LT who I would catagorize as bordering upon splendid. That is at least half the battle in terms of building a strong line imo. I think that if the braintrust is really serious, they really can put together a good OL between now and opening day. Can you even imagine? Having a top OL would be nice, but there is no reason to do a reset on one of the few things that was actually working. If they place this little value on a top CB, then I hope to hell they don't draft another one early. You'd hope top picks would be foundation players, not disposables to be let go as soon as they hit unrestricted FA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AKC Posted February 17, 2007 Share Posted February 17, 2007 So, you are saying Marv is naive? When Clements hits the market, possibly the thinnest crop of free agents ever, he's going to get a ridiculous offer the Bills will be afraid to match. If they even got a chance to. The tag gives teams negotiating leverage, not the other way around. There are other scenarios, for instance Marv and Nate may have talked and from NCs side the suggestion of a holdout may have been floated if the tag were applied. In that case conceding the tag would give us a better chance to match an offer versus losing most of the leverage during a protracted holdout. I won't say that early in his Buff coaching days Marv didn't show some moments of naivety, but at this point it's hard to imagine he isn't proceeding along the best path in his opinion to have a shot at Nate for the long term. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BADOLBILZ Posted February 17, 2007 Author Share Posted February 17, 2007 There are other scenarios, for instance Marv and Nate may have talked and from NCs side the suggestion of a holdout may have been floated if the tag were applied. In that case conceding the tag would give us a better chance to match an offer versus losing most of the leverage during a protracted holdout. Verrrry interesting. A player threatening a holdout in the face of a franchise tag. Very scary indeed. Imagine the impact. As for the "opportunity to match", I think that concept died about a decade ago. At least it should have at some point between transitioning Wil Wolford and "conceding" the tag on Biscuit and having both players BOLT. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill from NYC Posted February 19, 2007 Share Posted February 19, 2007 If they place this little value on a top CB, then I hope to hell they don't draft another one early. You'd hope top picks would be foundation players, not disposables to be let go as soon as they hit unrestricted FA. I couldn't agree more. If the Bills DO draft another 1st round corner, the handwriting will be on the wall, because we have continuously went down this stupid, losing path with nothing to show for it but losses and a lack of playoff appearances. Before this press conference, I was ready to pay less atention to the draft than in previous seasons, all but sure that Levy would squander yet another early 1st round pick on a defensive back. Now, I just don't know. Marv sounded like us at a tailgate when he was talking about the OL. He pulled no punches, and mentioned them over and over, including their inability to maintain long, steady drives. Despite my skeptical nature, I can only construe this as good news. Do you care to offer a prediction as to what Marv will do on day 1 and in free agency? At this point, I have no idea whatsoever. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted February 19, 2007 Share Posted February 19, 2007 Having a top OL would be nice, but there is no reason to do a reset on one of the few things that was actually working. If they place this little value on a top CB, then I hope to hell they don't draft another one early. You'd hope top picks would be foundation players, not disposables to be let go as soon as they hit unrestricted FA. So you think Nate is great and has been pretty great for five years, is the core and only invaluable member of this defense, and was drafted at #21 or so, but you don't want a player who plays the same position for the next 5-6 years drafted at #12 or so? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miyagi-Do Karate Posted February 19, 2007 Share Posted February 19, 2007 If they place this little value on a top CB, then I hope to hell they don't draft another one early. You'd hope top picks would be foundation players, not disposables to be let go as soon as they hit unrestricted FA. Why? We can draft a CB in the first round this year that will come in here and start from day #1 and play at a level of a shut-down corner and cost 1/2 as much as Clements. Then when his contract runs up and he asks for big bucks, we can draft his replacement who will cost half has much. Just doesn't make sense to me why you'd even sign a free agent cornerback--too expensive and not enough difference in talent level to justify the price tag. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BADOLBILZ Posted February 19, 2007 Author Share Posted February 19, 2007 So you think Nate is great and has been pretty great for five years, is the core and only invaluable member of this defense, and was drafted at #21 or so, but you don't want a player who plays the same position for the next 5-6 years drafted at #12 or so? Actually, I'm assuming they won't get another Nate Clements. That's a pretty safe bet. And we should know, the Bills draft DB's in round 1 like nobody else. You might get one who can cover. Or one who can make plays. Or one who can stay healthy or play the run or not throw his coaches or teammates under the bus when things aren't going well. But to get one who is all of that or even MOST of that? Not likely. I DO NOT want another JD Williams or Thomas Smith or Antoine Winfield. Get me a difference maker at the LOS OR a playmaker with that first round pick. If the Bills had abided by that simple philosophy the past 15 years, they'd be a much better organization. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BADOLBILZ Posted February 19, 2007 Author Share Posted February 19, 2007 Why? We can draft a CB in the first round this year that will come in here and start from day #1 and play at a level of a shut-down corner and cost 1/2 as much as Clements. Well, you see the problem is NEXT year our best WR and QB are BOTH free agents so we have to use that guaranteed successful #1 pick on one of those THIS year so we can replace the other one NEXT year. Personally, I think we need more pitching. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts