TimGraham Posted September 10, 2009 Share Posted September 10, 2009 Tim, was this an AVP move? Something they might have done anyway if Bell had stayed healthy? Why did they even cut Chambers if they knew they were re-signing him, as there is always a bit of danger in that kind of move. Is Bell healthy enough to play against the Pats*? Well, one thing for sure, Langston was right to be frustrated and irritated about this move from RT to LT. These were not AVP moves. Remember, he was in place on Friday. The Bills cut Chambers on Saturday and held onto Walker until Tuesday. Chambers was expendable as long as they were trying to trade Walker. I'm sure they signed Chambers at a discount and saved a nice chunk of money. Bell is healthy enough to play Monday. This is, of course, only Wednesday and back injuries on humans that large can be difficult to manage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimGraham Posted September 10, 2009 Share Posted September 10, 2009 Tim, Belichick and the Pats organization are one of the best, if not the best, run organization in the NFL. They traded Seymour, a former all-pro DT, who is on the verge of entering the downside of his career. They traded him while he has optimum value, instead of waiting another year when he enters his contract year and when his value declines. If you noticed, the Pats drafted in the second round DT Brace from Boston College. This winning orgaqnization is always thinking ahead. Compare that to the Bills who traded OT Peters and then were left with few viable options to replace him. Al Davis is an unpredictable wack job. His organization is the laughing stock of the league. Yes, lunatic Al Davis acquired a very good DT. But the problem is that Seymour is entering his contract year and that he has been injury prone over the past few years. What happens if Seymour leaves the next year? Is Seymour going to make a major difference this upcoming season? I don't think so. The end result is that the losing organization gives up a high draft pick to the winning organization for a one year rental player. It doesn't make sense to me. Even before Seymour went AWOL, it was a horrible trade for the Raiders. Of all the scout types I spoke with, none thought he was worth more than a second-round pick. True, the Patriots have to wait two years for their asset to ripen, but there's a good chance it will be a top-5 or top-10 pick. They chose to acquire value now for a player they knew they weren't going to re-sign. I think it was a brilliant organizational move. It weakens the Patriots' defense a little, but they also are happy with the youngsters coming up (Brace, Pryor) and now have the money to give Wilfork an extension. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimGraham Posted September 10, 2009 Share Posted September 10, 2009 Tim, Releasing Rhodes and Walker....firing the OC....all a week before MNF against the Patriots. What is going on in Orchard Park? The depth at two positions of great importantance have been diminished. Unless there is a counter-move, I am a little incredulous. I loved Bob DiCesare's column in today's Buffalo News. Sharply written and raises a lot of valid points. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoeF Posted September 10, 2009 Share Posted September 10, 2009 I loved Bob DiCesare's column in today's Buffalo News. Sharply written and raises a lot of valid points. Ouch.....looks like a lot of yard work will get done at the F house on Sunday's this fall. Dang........ It was a frickin' good column...but damn Timmy--give us a little hope. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lori Posted September 10, 2009 Author Share Posted September 10, 2009 I have no idea if Turk scripted plays. If he did, then he shouldn't have. If he didn't, then he should have considered it. Hah. Nice. After reading your blog post about Walker which mentioned Dick Jauron's "blunt candor," I'm curious -- was the overall tone of his press conference different than the others you've covered here? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimGraham Posted September 10, 2009 Share Posted September 10, 2009 Hah. Nice. After reading your blog post about Walker which mentioned Dick Jauron's "blunt candor," I'm curious -- was the overall tone of his press conference different than the others you've covered here? My opinion is limited by the number of times I've attended them since I joined ESPN. That's why I deferred to the guys who regularly cover the team in that post. I didn't think his response was anything unusual based on other coaches I've covered, and the tone didn't seem out of the ordinary for a Jauron news conference (as I know them). But the guys who cover Jauron on a daily basis (which I will be now that I'm moving back to WNY) were surprised. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BUFFALOTONE Posted September 10, 2009 Share Posted September 10, 2009 Even before Seymour went AWOL, it was a horrible trade for the Raiders. Of all the scout types I spoke with, none thought he was worth more than a second-round pick. True, the Patriots have to wait two years for their asset to ripen, but there's a good chance it will be a top-5 or top-10 pick. They chose to acquire value now for a player they knew they weren't going to re-sign. I think it was a brilliant organizational move. It weakens the Patriots' defense a little, but they also are happy with the youngsters coming up (Brace, Pryor) and now have the money to give Wilfork an extension. Tim, I may be a bit of a conspiracy theorist but what info/pictures does New England have to keep fleecing Al Davis of players and picks? And can the NFL step in and say something when a trade is out of line with the norm? Look at it, Moss-4th rounder, Seymour-1st rounder, Burgess- not sure of the compensation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimGraham Posted September 10, 2009 Share Posted September 10, 2009 Tim, I may be a bit of a conspiracy theorist but what info/pictures does New England have to keep fleecing Al Davis of players and picks? And can the NFL step in and say something when a trade is out of line with the norm? Look at it, Moss-4th rounder, Seymour-1st rounder, Burgess- not sure of the compensation. The Moss trade wasn't a robbery at the time. The Patriots' offer was the best on the table. 30 other teams could have offered more but didn't want to touch him. There are mitigating circumstances with both Seymour and Burgess that make it more nuanced than they would appear on the surface. Seymour is entering the final year of his contract. Burgess boycotted the offseason and demanded a trade, and the Raiders signed Ellis to replace him, making Burgess expendable on their roster. They needed to unload him. While the Patriots won every one of those trades, they did so by taking some risk other teams wouldn't. Moss was radioactive. The Patriots are weaker this year without Seymour and have to wait two years to get their compensation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BUFFALOTONE Posted September 10, 2009 Share Posted September 10, 2009 The Moss trade wasn't a robbery at the time. The Patriots' offer was the best on the table. 30 other teams could have offered more but didn't want to touch him. There are mitigating circumstances with both Seymour and Burgess that make it more nuanced than they would appear on the surface. Seymour is entering the final year of his contract. Burgess boycotted the offseason and demanded a trade, and the Raiders signed Ellis to replace him, making Burgess expendable on their roster. They needed to unload him. While the Patriots won every one of those trades, they did so by taking some risk other teams wouldn't. Moss was radioactive. The Patriots are weaker this year without Seymour and have to wait two years to get their compensation. All good points. I see why they made the trades but why is it they always look to fleece the Raiders and not any other team? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lori Posted September 10, 2009 Author Share Posted September 10, 2009 All good points. I see why they made the trades but why is it they always look to fleece the Raiders and not any other team? *cough* Bledsoe *cough* Serious answer: because certain teams are more "fleeceable" than others? It is interesting that the Raiders would pay more for Seymour than the Chiefs did for their starting QB, though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BUFFALOTONE Posted September 10, 2009 Share Posted September 10, 2009 *cough* Bledsoe *cough* Serious answer: because certain teams are more "fleeceable" than others? It is interesting that the Raiders would pay more for Seymour than the Chiefs did for their starting QB, though. Right. I understand the 1st round draft pick for a LT, QB or DE in his prime. But a DT/DE that has been injury prone and in the last year of his contract and you give a 1st rounder for him? Just doesn't make sense. Maybe Belichek has some compromising photos of Davis with Judy Garland or (insert ancient movie star). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnC Posted September 10, 2009 Share Posted September 10, 2009 *cough* Bledsoe *cough* Serious answer: because certain teams are more "fleeceable" than others? It is interesting that the Raiders would pay more for Seymour than the Chiefs did for their starting QB, though. Lori, The Bills signed Dockery, Langston Walker and Fowler for hefty prices. All were let go. It should be no surprise that consistently losing organizations are more "fleesceabe" than consistently winning organizations. Al Davis and Ralph Wilson preside over dysfunctional organizations of their own creations. They just continue on doing what they do. One definition of insanity is doing something over and over and expecting different outcomes. The situation is ugly! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BUFFALOTONE Posted September 10, 2009 Share Posted September 10, 2009 Lori, The Bills signed Dockery, Langston Walker and Fowler for hefty prices. All were let go. It should be no surprise that consistently losing organizations are more "fleesceabe" than consistently winning organizations. Al Davis and Ralph Wilson preside over dysfunctional organizations of their own creations. They just continue on doing what they do. One definition of insanity is doing something over and over and expecting different outcomes. The situation is ugly! You cant honestly sit there and tell me those 3 were worth the money they were being paid. I agree with the fact that they were paid to high in the first place but all were underachievers. Walker was the lone bright spot on the right side and even he was suspect. Docker played next to Peters and was still a turn style. And don't get me started on Fowler. Watch the jets game and pats game from last year and that suns his sorry career up here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beerball Posted September 10, 2009 Share Posted September 10, 2009 You cant honestly sit there and tell me those 3 were worth the money they were being paid. I agree with the fact that they were paid to high in the first place but all were underachievers. Walker was the lone bright spot on the right side and even he was suspect. Docker played next to Peters and was still a turn style. And don't get me started on Fowler. Watch the jets game and pats game from last year and that suns his sorry career up here. Don't think that's what he's saying. More like those three walking turds fleeced the Bills, why shouldn't we expect the fleecing to continue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnC Posted September 10, 2009 Share Posted September 10, 2009 You cant honestly sit there and tell me those 3 were worth the money they were being paid. I agree with the fact that they were paid to high in the first place but all were underachievers. Walker was the lone bright spot on the right side and even he was suspect. Docker played next to Peters and was still a turn style. And don't get me started on Fowler. Watch the jets game and pats game from last year and that suns his sorry career up here. Buffalotone, You are making the same point I am, only coming at it a little differently. They were all paid inflated salaries for even their PRIOR" performances with their former teams. Our front office scouts grossly miscalculated on these free agents. Nothing in my prior posting indicated that I thought they were good players. The real issue isn't why they were dispatched because it is blatantly evident. They weren't even good enough on a mediocre team. The most troubling issue is why they were signed in the first place, especially at a premium rate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BUFFALOTONE Posted September 10, 2009 Share Posted September 10, 2009 Buffalotone, You are making the same point I am, only coming at it a little differently. They were all paid inflated salaries for even their PRIOR" performances with their former teams. Our front office scouts grossly miscalculated on these free agents. Nothing in my prior posting indicated that I thought they were good players. The real issue isn't why they were dispatched because it is blatantly evident. They weren't even good enough on a mediocre team. The most troubling issue is why they were signed in the first place, especially at a premium rate. Rog. Comprehension is not a strong suit! Anyway, than I agree with your assessment. Booooo all of them! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billsfan89 Posted September 10, 2009 Share Posted September 10, 2009 Hey Tim I caught you on 1050 ESPN radio in NY and I heard your prediction on the AFC East. You had the Bills in last place. Admittedly I only caught the end of the segment but is the Bills in last place a matter of you not thinking the Bills will be any good or do you feel the Bills will go their usual 7-9 and the rest of the division will finish 8-8 or better? I don't know if the Jets and Fins are that much better than the Bills. The Jets have a very good D on paper but they have a rookie QB with a limited amount of targets to throw to and a running back over the age of 30 who is just so due to get hurt or decline in production. They also have a rookie head coach. The Fins to me are going to suffer the downside of Chad Pennington as he is due for his usual injury filled season. The Miami D is good but they have a limited number of wide receivers and if Pennington goes down they are very limited on the offensive side of the ball. So while I am realistic about the Bills I just want to know why you picked them last is it a lack of faith in the Bills or more thinking the competition is just better? My standings for the AFC East are 1- Pats* 11-5 2- Jets 8-8 3- Bills 7-9 4- Dolphins 6-10 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimGraham Posted September 10, 2009 Share Posted September 10, 2009 Hey Tim I caught you on 1050 ESPN radio in NY and I heard your prediction on the AFC East. You had the Bills in last place. Admittedly I only caught the end of the segment but is the Bills in last place a matter of you not thinking the Bills will be any good or do you feel the Bills will go their usual 7-9 and the rest of the division will finish 8-8 or better? I don't know if the Jets and Fins are that much better than the Bills. The Jets have a very good D on paper but they have a rookie QB with a limited amount of targets to throw to and a running back over the age of 30 who is just so due to get hurt or decline in production. They also have a rookie head coach. The Fins to me are going to suffer the downside of Chad Pennington as he is due for his usual injury filled season. The Miami D is good but they have a limited number of wide receivers and if Pennington goes down they are very limited on the offensive side of the ball. So while I am realistic about the Bills I just want to know why you picked them last is it a lack of faith in the Bills or more thinking the competition is just better? My standings for the AFC East are 1- Pats* 11-5 2- Jets 8-8 3- Bills 7-9 4- Dolphins 6-10 My prediction all along for the Bills has been an "improved" 7-9. I'll still stand by that, but if I were to adjust, I would go downward in the win column. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billsfan89 Posted September 10, 2009 Share Posted September 10, 2009 My prediction all along for the Bills has been an "improved" 7-9. I'll still stand by that, but if I were to adjust, I would go downward in the win column. How many wins do you have the Fins and the Jets down for? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beerball Posted September 10, 2009 Share Posted September 10, 2009 My prediction all along for the Bills has been an "improved" 7-9. I'll still stand by that, but if I were to adjust, I would go downward in the win column. improved=continuity? 7 is a very optimistic prediction. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts