truth on hold Posted March 8, 2007 Share Posted March 8, 2007 why again did we dump willis given that list of replacements? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truth on hold Posted March 8, 2007 Author Share Posted March 8, 2007 why again did we dump willis given that list of replacements? no replies guess no one else can figure it out either Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SuperBills12 Posted March 8, 2007 Share Posted March 8, 2007 If I had to guess we'll sign Chris Brown and A Train and let them fight it out for number 1 for 2007, and draft a RB high and groom them this year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Squeally Posted March 8, 2007 Share Posted March 8, 2007 It seems like they waited awhile to get this done. Quality FAs are not there anymore. Now that they have an extra 3rd, why not take a run at Michael Turner? I know the price is steep, but the cupboard is extremely bare and a rookie starter (to carry the entire load) is not the short term answer. Thoughts?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2003Contenders Posted March 8, 2007 Share Posted March 8, 2007 I am in agreement that there are no ample replacements out there. Perhaps a combination of, say, A-Train and Dillon will be sufficient to carry us through 2007 until whomever we pick in the draft begins to emerge. After all, if by replacement you mean a back capable of matching Willis' 3.8 YPC average, well then these guys should make do just fine. I think the trade is more about addition by subtraction than it is anything else. That is, the front office simply wanted to wash their hands of Willis for once and for all. Time to move on... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Posted March 8, 2007 Share Posted March 8, 2007 It seems like they waited awhile to get this done. Quality FAs are not there anymore. Now that they have an extra 3rd, why not take a run at Michael Turner? I know the price is steep, but the cupboard is extremely bare and a rookie starter (to carry the entire load) is not the short term answer. Thoughts?? Who were the quality FA RBs that we missed by taking so long to sign someone? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bills Fan888 Posted March 8, 2007 Share Posted March 8, 2007 Dillon would be nice if he would run hard against the Pats. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marauderswr80 Posted March 8, 2007 Share Posted March 8, 2007 If I had to guess we'll sign Chris Brown and A Train and let them fight it out for number 1 for 2007, and draft a RB high and groom them this year. Now that gives me a warm fuzzy feeling! Chris Brown sucks and A-train is no more then a backup! We traded a starting RB for what again? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sketch Soland Posted March 8, 2007 Share Posted March 8, 2007 why again did we dump willis given that list of replacements? If you think about it for half a second instead of just saying "why again did we dump willis given this arbitrary list of three players that are the only possibilities to be running the football for us next year", you'll realize that it's in the best interest of building this team from the inside out with younger players who are better fits for the offensive and defensive systems that we now run. That's what draft picks can do for a team. And if you don't think that, for example, a combination 1 and 1a style RB system with a brown or dillon and a young early draft pick RB can't run for 933 yards, then..... salut, sir... especially with our new OL additions which are likely to make larger holes to run through.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Squeally Posted March 8, 2007 Share Posted March 8, 2007 Who were the quality FA RBs that we missed by taking so long to sign someone? Well, Green, allbeit injury prone, is a capable stopgap and had over 1,000 yards last season...Lewis is better than a sharp stick in the eye given a better situation...and Henry, granted he probably would not have come back anyway, is better than a kick to the crotch and had a good year. We are now left with Pappy Dillon, Christin Brown, and the Refrigerator Droughns (probably)...not a handsome choice! The best available is probably Rhodes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stuckincincy Posted March 8, 2007 Share Posted March 8, 2007 Who were the quality FA RBs that we missed by taking so long to sign someone? Well, for depth - Kenny Watson would have been more useful than Thomas and Williams. And not much more cost than last year. He signed the 5-year vet minimum then; and now signed a 6 -year vet minimum. Albeit with tangible $ throughout the contract this year. Also can run back kicks...if not in spectacular fashion. 3 fumbles over 6 years of NFL play. Saves a returner roster spot if there is injury to the #1 fellow... Watson: http://www.nfl.com/players/playerpage/235389 Thomas: http://www.nfl.com/players/playerpage/235248 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mickey Posted March 8, 2007 Share Posted March 8, 2007 why again did we dump willis given that list of replacements? We dumped Willis because he misses crucial blitz pick ups and on the other side of the coin, is an average running back at best. Add in a possible hold out and a long, messy negotiation and what do you have? Would all that be worth if for 3.1 yards per carry? I think the odds of us taking Marshawn Lynch just edged upwards. He is the exact kind of back that Fairchild's system needs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truth on hold Posted March 8, 2007 Author Share Posted March 8, 2007 If you think about it for half a second instead of just saying "why again did we dump willis given this arbitrary list of three players that are the only possibilities to be running the football for us next year", you'll realize that it's in the best interest of building this team from the inside out with younger players who are better fits for the offensive and defensive systems that we now run. That's what draft picks can do for a team. And if you don't think that, for example, a combination 1 and 1a style RB system with a brown or dillon and a young early draft pick RB can't run for 933 yards, then..... salut, sir... especially with our new OL additions which are likely to make larger holes to run through.... problem is even if 2 of those backs workout the combination will cost more than keeping willis at $2MM. for a team that is always crying the sky is falling financially this is a bad move there too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MartyBall4Buffalo Posted March 8, 2007 Share Posted March 8, 2007 Out of this list of rb's I dont care who we sign would prefer rhodes and a rookie over any combination of rb's. None of this list will ever be confused with viable answers at rb. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sketch Soland Posted March 8, 2007 Share Posted March 8, 2007 problem is even if 2 of those backs workout the combination will cost more than keeping willis at $2MM. for a team that is always crying the sky is falling financially this is a bad move there too. So what's your point? That we shouldn't pay more for different players or ones that fit our system better so that we can become a better team and win more games? How is that a bad move if we have the cap room? How is it a bad move for a small market team to become a better team, win more games, sell more tickets, and overall raise our stature in the league? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike formerly from Florida Posted March 8, 2007 Share Posted March 8, 2007 So what's your point? That we shouldn't pay more for different players or ones that fit our system better so that we can become a better team and win more games? How is that a bad move if we have the cap room? How is it a bad move for a small market team to become a better team, win more games, sell more tickets, and overall raise our stature in the league? Don't bother reasoning with them. All I hear is complaints on this board...no matter what Marv does. First of all, how is it that Dillon is suddenly over the hill? 30 is old for a back, but he had dam good numbers playing part-time. I think he has one more year left in those legs especially since he will be fired up about starting with a new team. If we sign A-train, Dillon and draft say a Tony Hunt, tell me we won't get better production from this trio than we did last year? Stop bitchin'. Marv is the man!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truth on hold Posted March 8, 2007 Author Share Posted March 8, 2007 Don't bother reasoning with them. All I hear is complaints on this board...no matter what Marv does. First of all, how is it that Dillon is suddenly over the hill? 30 is old for a back, but he had dam good numbers playing part-time. I think he has one more year left in those legs especially since he will be fired up about starting with a new team. If we sign A-train, Dillon and draft say a Tony Hunt, tell me we won't get better production from this trio than we did last year? Stop bitchin'. Marv is the man!! dillon is 32 and will turn 33 in the first half of the 07 season. thats old for a running back, no doubt about it. especially one with the mileage he has. and as for the post above about "what's my point", point is a team with financial constraints like buffalo has to spend it's money wisely. they could have had a proven starter-quality back for a mere $2 million next year, now they need to sign a group of flawed backs to replace him at what will certainly exceed $2 million. that means less for all the other vital-need areas this team has like linebacker and defensive back. maybe you didn't hear but we couldn't afford to keep flectcher and clements and they signed with other teams. it would be nice to operate in a world without financial constraint like you assume, however bills face far different reality. how about having kept willis for $2 million and given him a chance behind the oLine bills spent most of their available "cash to cap" space on instead? this trade was unnecessary and the ravens are understandably ecstatic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Posted March 8, 2007 Share Posted March 8, 2007 dillon is 32 and will turn 33 in the first half of the 07 season. thats old for a running back, no doubt about it. especially one with the mileage he has. and as for the post above about "what's my point", point is a team with financial constraints like buffalo has to spend it's money wisely. they could have had a proven start-quality back for a mere $2 million next year, now they need to sign a group of flawed backs to replace him at what will certainly exceed $2 million. that means less for all the other vital-need areas this team has like linebacker and defensive back. maybe you didn't hear but we couldn't afford to keep flectcher and clements and they signed with other teams. it would be nice to operate in a world without financial constraint like you assume, however bills face far different reality. how about having kept willis for $2 million and given him a chance behind the oLine bills spent most of their available "cash to cap" space on instead? this trade was unnecessary and the ravens are understandably ecstatic. You're not by any chance an accountant are you? Because you sound just like one. Only looking at numbers. The game is much more than numbers and plugging one player in here and the value with this player versus the 40 time of that player and so forth. A team is made up of individulas that must play together and work as a group. To break a team down into individual players and only look at their stats and salaries is one of the biggest mistakes any fan, analyst or GM can make. Like it or not, Willis did not seem to want to play here. Nothing else matters. I agree he had a good salary. He was also a fairly productive back (averaging 1000 yards a season). All the numbers added up to keeping the guy. But, his heart said get him gone. In the end, I'm fairly certain that whomever replaces him will be better for the team and that is what Marv is looking at. Clearly, money is not the only thing guiding the decision process this off season. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sketch Soland Posted March 8, 2007 Share Posted March 8, 2007 as for the post above about "what's my point", point is a team with financial constraints like buffalo has to spend it's money wisely. You think Ralph Wilson doesn't want to spend his money wisely? they could have had a proven start-quality back for a mere $2 million next year, a proven starter-quality back huh? that rushed for 933 yards last year? who has yet to consistently prove on the field that he was worth a 1st round pick? the starter-quality back who Marv Levy and Dick Jauron, two obviously super-qualified judges of football talent, couldn't wait to ship off to another team? now they need to sign a group of flawed backs to replace him at what will certainly exceed $2 million. Oh yeah? Because they are entertaining visits from various players for various reasons, you automatically assume that they are going to sign "a group of flawed backs" to replace Willis McGahee. Not only are you getting the cart way before the horse, but you fail to consider all the possible permutations that can happen between now and opening day, as in, signing a dillon or not, drafting one of many possible young RB's, platooning these players, finding an older veteran RB who works well in the system and can mentor a young RB, etc. etc. etc. that means less for all the other vital-need areas this team has like linebacker and defensive back. but more draft picks to sign young players to play these positions! and more possible scenarios of trading up and down to get the players we want! and grabbing one or more RB via draft or other means that have a better chance of being more effective in out style of offense, who want to be in Buffalo, and will be committed to winning football games as a team! maybe you didn't hear but we couldn't afford to keep flectcher and clements and they signed with other teams. Oh yeah? No sh--!? We didn't want to re-sign them my friend. We could have paid Clements but we decided he was not worth the outrageously overpriced contract he got. And Fletcher at 32 we didn't want to commit to long term, as we want to move to a more attacking style of LB (per Marv) and also get younger in the process. it would be nice to operate in a world without financial constraint like you assume, however bills face far different reality. Please find me in any of my previous posts where i state that the Bills operate in a "world without financial constraint". You won't be able to find this statement. Please don't put words into my mouth in order to twist an argument to your favor. Thanks! how about having kept willis for $2 million and given him a chance behind the oLine bills spent most of their available "cash to cap" space on instead? this trade was unnecessary and the ravens are understandably ecstatic. How about picking up three more draft picks and being able to address the positions like LB and CB that you mentioned earlier? How about getting value for a RB that the braintrust of this organization did not want playing for them this upcoming year? How about finding a RB or two that they do want and who will fit the system and will be a good team player and step up to the requirements that Marv and Juaron ask of their football players? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LabattBlue Posted March 8, 2007 Share Posted March 8, 2007 why again did we dump willis given that list of replacements? How do you know that his replacement(FA or draft) will not be better. After all, the guy did not set the world on fire last year. We are talking about finding a replacement fot WM not LaDanian Tomlinson or Larry Johnson. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts