NFL Live just murdered the Bills offseason moves

[Gordio]

Been waiting to see your initial reaction to the offseason moves Daq, I feel the same way.

 

My view is that the Bills have lost more than they've gained by far. At absolute best the general direction could be characterized as 'lateral' but one would have to drink 100,000,000 gallons of Marvs kool-aid to even believe that.

 

What concerns me the most is that the defense now has no "leader" or however it needs to be said. To sign Langston Walker to the same deal that L-FB was given in Washington spoke volumes to me. L-FB should have been kept around if for nothing other than his locker room presence. The front office took a potential huge bust over a player that was going to guarantee some solid leadership for a team that grows younger every year.

 

I hope the draft goes very very well because otherwise I have very little confidence in an 8 win season next year.

 

 

LF has a career record as a bill of 35-45. Somehow I think the bills will find the guys to replace such so called solid leadership. People have got to start accepting one thing. There is a new sheriff in town & the bills arent building their team around older players that are on the downside of their career anymore. This team is now Losman's & Evan's & Whitner's & Simpson's team. They are going to be the leaders now. We lost for years doing it the other way. I like the fact that we are building the nucleaus of the team around young guns like we have.

[LabattBlue]

I've been hearing that 08 will be our TRUE year to contend in the NFL.

Where are you hearing this?

[Fingon]

What do they know? They said the same thing about our draft.

[mary owen]

Yeah.....ESPN is so right about everything. Remember, Miami was a winner a few years in a row as well. I mean, ESPNtertainment 2night told us so. They pointed to the Nick Saban hiring and the decision to pick up Daunte Culpepper over Drew Brees, and they even foretold us of the Dolphins playing SB XLI at home.

 

Remember all of that?

[marauderswr80]

There is noway Buffalo could have spent the money on Fletch & Clements combined and with what McGahee got thats around 125 million for all 3 guys. Insane if you ask me.

 

First off, Fletcher was getting older.

 

Clements had 1 solid year the past 2 years, you all remember 2005 season right? Toast anyone?

 

McGahee, even if it was his contract year, I really do think he would have sat out to start the year.

 

So in the long run, we might be better off doing what we did. These 3 players will be missed, but we have the opportunity right now to fix it.

[The Dean]

I believe many of the fans on this board have too high of an expectaction for the Bills next season and also believe this off-season has been more productive than it truly has been. Let me just recap: The Bills lost 1. one of the best DB's in the league, 2. a decent MLB, and 3. a good RB. In return 4. we have signed one good offensive lineman, and an offensive lineman that Raiders fans have called a "turnstile." Therefore I must pardon the media for believing that we have had a sub-par off-season.

 

 

1. We certainly lost one of the best DBs in the league. I don't blame the Bills on this one, but it is a hole that needs to be filled. Fortunately, in our D-scheme, it is a hole that can be adequately filled by a good CB or two and improvements in the DL

 

2. We did not lose a decent MLB, we lost a GREAT MLB. London should have been a regular Pro Bowl player, and may have the chance to be one in DC. I think we should have kept him. IF Spikes returns to form, we should be OK here, if not we will probably have some trouble. Fletch's leadership and knowledge will not be easily replaced, however.

 

3. Bingo! We lost a good back and retained a good back. "Good backs are a dime-a-dozen" (Repeat this mantra every time you start to worry about losing Willis.) MaGahee didn't want to be here and was probably not the best team guy. I think the Bills may be better off as a result of this move.

 

4. Raiders fans may not think that highly of Walker, but to be fair their whole line sucked, and Raider's fans are not the most objective when it comes to analysis. Does any RESPECTABLE expert doubt the Bills have made a MAJOR improvement in the O-Line? I've heard some question the cost of the moves, but I have yet to see an intelligent analysis that doesn't admit the Bills should have a good O-line this year.

 

Let me add:

 

5. We gained a 3rd round draft and a bunch of cash with should help us make moves.

 

6. It's mid-MARCH.

 

What I just gave is an overly-simplistic analysis of the Bills situation, yet it is way more complete than almost any you will get in the press (and that includes ESPN). Certainly many here have done a better and more complete job than I.

 

What's my point? A. The bad is not as bad as it looks on the surface. B. It's WAY TOO EARLY to evaluate any offseason moves. The moves are still being made. At least wait until after the draft to see what teams have done. Finally, C. if you are going to evaluate this early in the process, at least consider what the team is likely trying to accomplish and try to see the if their strategy is likely to get them there. Of course that requires more work than most reporters want to do and the resulting story is more complicated than most consumers of the reports can comprehend.

[Lurker]

No point trying to guage where the Bills stand until after the draft.

 

Last year, we got two solid starters, a good LB who may start this year, a good rotational DT and wild cards in McCargo and Youbouty. If we get equal production/potential from the 2007 draft class, this team will look a lot different than it does now.

[Sisyphean Bills]

I found a $20 bill in the back of an old book I bought at a garage sale once, too.

[Fan in San Diego]

ESPN always poo poo's our moves until they work out and then praise us for being so smart. Don't worry about it. They get paid to make controversial statements to rile people up, make phone calls and write letter so they can charge more for advertising.

[MDH]

Um, that was not my reasoning at all. And, in effect, that is what is happening over the last two years. Think about the guys that have been cut/released/traded/ingored. Also, think about the "stars" amongst this group. Are you gonna start crying over Posey? How about Sam Adams? Milloy? Deadslow? Vincent? If you think about it, we basically did "cut the entire team" over the last 2 years.

 

These guys are the new guys - I'm taking about the old "veteran playmakers" who are supposed to be the "reason" we win.

 

Again, you can't be a "playmaker" and go 38-58. It's one or the other=you can have a bad year, but you can't have 6 bad years. If you are a good player on a bad team, fine, you might be a good player. You are not a GREAT player - who simply cannot be parted with because he elevates the players around him(Michael Jordan, Derek Jeter). Fletcher had 5 years to be a GREAT player, I didn't see it - did you? Of course not. So why are we crying about losing a 32-year-old good player, when we can replace him with a 22-year-old good player in the draft? Moreover, if Nate is such a GREAT player? Why are you talking about the rest of the team? If GREAT players make others good, then other players being bad should not affect them, unless they aren't actually GREAT - merely good. If they are merely good - again the draft.

 

What's a bigger hole - a guy like Clements who suddenly turns it on the last 5 games of his 6-year relationship with a team, and not much to lose due to FA? Or getting rid of that guy and putting a rookie/young player there who has everything to play for and everything to lose? Nate had a whopping 4 INTs last year - do you need me to list the people who had more? How's about we talk London Fletcher's tackle for loss stats? Or are you done?

 

 

Yeah, you're totally right. If you put Deon Sanders in his prime on the Bills D in the past 5 years the Bills would have instantly made the playoffs. That's what happens in football you know. If you have one of the best CBs to ever play the game lining up for you then you will automatically win.

 

Getting rid of your best player simply because the team hasn't won while he's been around is not getting rid of dead wood. It's called creating holes.

[DE Bills Fan]

The only thing that I'm REALLY praying for this season is that NO MATTER WHAT RECORD WE HAVE AT THE END OF THE YEAR, WE DON'T RUN MARV OR JAURON OUT OF TOWN! I've been hearing that 08 will be our TRUE year to contend in the NFL.

I've been hearing that since 1999. This team will NEVER compete at a championship level until we get a TRUE GM and an owner who really wants to win and take advantage of the accounting rules offered (Cash to the CAP is like saying we'll field a team, but never a winning one!!!!!)

[Fewell733]

There is nothing insightful about ESPN's analysis. All they did was look at which teams have lost the most players that they have heard of and who signed big contracts. Clements, Fletcher, and McGahee fit that bill. There ends the analysis. Just judging by this they are right. I don't think any other teams have lost 3 "name" guys that ESPN would talk about.

 

However it can't be disputed that these loses have left us with some big question marks. But that's about it. The moves were all the right thing to do for the team...except maybe Fletcher.

[bartshan-83]

!@#$ those !@#$ity !@#$s. Championships aren't won in March.

This is definitely the best response in this thread. Why anyone cares enough to get worked up over the off-season opinion of someone in the sports media is beyond me.

[Sketch Soland]

1. We certainly lost one of the best DBs in the league. I don't blame the Bills on this one, but it is a hole that needs to be filled. Fortunately, in our D-scheme, it is a hole that can be adequately filled by a good CB or two and improvements in the DL

 

2. We did not lose a decent MLB, we lost a GREAT MLB. London should have been a regular Pro Bowl player, and may have the chance to be one in DC. I think we should have kept him. IF Spikes returns to form, we should be OK here, if not we will probably have some trouble. Fletch's leadership and knowledge will not be easily replaced, however.

 

3. Bingo! We lost a good back and retained a good back. "Good backs are a dime-a-dozen" (Repeat this mantra every time you start to worry about losing Willis.) MaGahee didn't want to be here and was probably not the best team guy. I think the Bills may be better off as a result of this move.

 

4. Raiders fans may not think that highly of Walker, but to be fair their whole line sucked, and Raider's fans are not the most objective when it comes to analysis. Does any RESPECTABLE expert doubt the Bills have made a MAJOR improvement in the O-Line? I've heard some question the cost of the moves, but I have yet to see an intelligent analysis that doesn't admit the Bills should have a good O-line this year.

 

Let me add:

 

5. We gained a 3rd round draft and a bunch of cash with should help us make moves.

 

6. It's mid-MARCH.

 

What I just gave is an overly-simplistic analysis of the Bills situation, yet it is way more complete than almost any you will get in the press (and that includes ESPN). Certainly many here have done a better and more complete job than I.

 

What's my point? A. The bad is not as bad as it looks on the surface. B. It's WAY TOO EARLY to evaluate any offseason moves. The moves are still being made. At least wait until after the draft to see what teams have done. Finally, C. if you are going to evaluate this early in the process, at least consider what the team is likely trying to accomplish and try to see the if their strategy is likely to get them there. Of course that requires more work than most reporters want to do and the resulting story is more complicated than most consumers of the reports can comprehend.

 

Preach on, brother!

 

Well said.

[OCinBuffalo]

Yeah, you're totally right. If you put Deon Sanders in his prime on the Bills D in the past 5 years the Bills would have instantly made the playoffs. That's what happens in football you know. If you have one of the best CBs to ever play the game lining up for you then you will automatically win.

 

Getting rid of your best player simply because the team hasn't won while he's been around is not getting rid of dead wood. It's called creating holes.

It's interesting that you would use Deion to make that point - since each team he went to instantly got better(Redskins), or won the Superbowl(49ers, Cowboys). The only time that didn't happen was when he went to his last team(ravens back from retirement) - but he was 37 years old.

 

How in the hell was Nate Clements our "best player" last year? Don't bother - he wasn't.

[MDH]

It's interesting that you would use Deion to make that point - since each team he went to instantly got better(Redskins), or won the Superbowl(49ers, Cowboys). The only time that didn't happen was when he went to his last team(ravens back from retirement) - but he was 37 years old.

 

How in the hell was Nate Clements our "best player" last year? Don't bother - he wasn't.

 

Clements did make the Bills better. You're just not going to realize it until he's gone.

 

As for Clements not being the Bills best player I'd have to throw that blink right back at you.

 

Actually, it deserves a double blink.

[OCinBuffalo]

Clements did make the Bills better. You're just not going to realize it until he's gone.

 

As for Clements not being the Bills best player I'd have to throw that blink right back at you.

 

Actually, it deserves a double blink.

And that accounts for your ill-advised Deion example how exactly?

 

Better players than Nate:

 

Aaron Schobel

Brian Moorman

 

Um, Pro-Bowlers.

[sarmanuscg07]

these guys are horrible with predictions anyhow.. we will be this years sleeper team (kinda like the jets and saints last year). Losman is going to have a break out season!!

[MDH]

And that accounts for your ill-advised Deion example how exactly?

 

Better players than Nate:

 

Aaron Schobel

Brian Moorman

 

Um, Pro-Bowlers.

 

The example wasn't ill advised in the least. The fact that Deon cherry picked teams that were on the verge has something to do with his winning. Deon himself didn't bring the winning to those teams, he was a big part, no doubt, but without the other pieces in place Deon on the team doens't mean squat. No player, not even a QB, can will his team to win simply because he is a "difference maker". It just doesn't happen that way in the game of football.

 

As for your other players, Schobel was not better than Clements last year. If you want to go simply by Pro Bowl voting have at it. Nate is a better CB than Schobel is a DE (and I like Schobel a lot). Anyway, by your rational we should just dump Schobel anyway, that bum. What has he ever done for the Bills?

[OCinBuffalo]

The example wasn't ill advised in the least. The fact that Deon cherry picked teams that were on the verge has something to do with his winning. Deon himself didn't bring the winning to those teams, he was a big part, no doubt, but without the other pieces in place Deon on the team doens't mean squat. No player, not even a QB, can will his team to win simply because he is a "difference maker". It just doesn't happen that way in the game of football.

Um, yes it friggin does! The primary reason SF got off the schnide and won the SB is Deion. His contributions moved them from win a playoff game and then lose team to a SB winning team. Yeah they were good before, just like the Colts were good before this year -> the point is they weren't good ENOUGH until he got there. The same thing is true with the Cowboys. Reverse your logic -> are u telling me that adding Nate to the Patriots/Bears/Saints would have gotten them a SB? - of course not.

 

As for your other players, Schobel was not better than Clements last year. If you want to go simply by Pro Bowl voting have at it. Nate is a better CB than Schobel is a DE (and I like Schobel a lot). Anyway, by your rational we should just dump Schobel anyway, that bum. What has he ever done for the Bills?

If that's what you think then you have missed my rationale. I am not saying we shouldn't actively pursue players with upside/proven performance. I am saying that a veteran guy like Clements, who isn't even in the top 5 in his position, is not worth pursuing. Schobel is. Moorman is. We shouldn't look to spend big money on a guy with 4 INTs, who hasn't made a pro-bowl in 3 years(at least), and ain't getting any better. We should give the guys we drafted a chance, rather than "locking up" mediocrity. Btw, Schobel was 3rd in the league in the main stat for his position - sacks. Clements wasn't even in the top 30 for his - INTs. How the hell is Nate a better CB than Schobel is a DE, again?