Ghost of Rob Johnson Posted May 16, 2009 Share Posted May 16, 2009 I would say that he is a competent backup run stopper on obvious running plays. Which with the draft pick of Maybin is most likely the plan for him going forward. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alphadawg7 Posted May 16, 2009 Share Posted May 16, 2009 Everything is relative Alpha. When a player get's evaluated, you have to take both his play and his pay into consideration. These are the two most important things you look at. Considering he is getting payed close to $5 Million a year, he is a terrible value. Having said that, now that we've all ready have him signed and have payed him the majority of what he going to get payed, I'd rather have him as opposed to nothing. If we could get a 6th rounder in next years draft, I'd do it in a heartbeat, but just cutting him, at this point, wouldn't make too much sense to me. If I were part of the FO, I'd ask to restructure his contract and have him take a pay cut. Doesn't hurt to see if he'd accept it, it has been known to happen on more than a few occasions. Hence why I said he has value...I dont care what he makes today, he has been paid most of it...at this point whining about has no value. He has more value to us on the team than off the team at this point...if he was a free agent again and wanted that much money I say pass...but he has the bulk of it. Like I said, he is not great, but solid and a good leader on a young defense. He has value at this point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alphadawg7 Posted May 16, 2009 Share Posted May 16, 2009 Which with the draft pick of Maybin is most likely the plan for him going forward. Agreed...again, thats why he has value...and he is a good leader on a young D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spartacus Posted May 16, 2009 Share Posted May 16, 2009 It seems to me that the Bills have made an effort to upgrade almost every position on the team. They added new backups to almost every position & cut a lot of dead weight. All I can say is I am very impressed & can only see our depth bringing us closer to our true goal, .500. That is all. If our true goal is to be a .500 team, then this front office is on the right track. Ten years in the non-playoff wilderness with no incentive or objective to rise to anything more than .500 as you state, they have done a fine job of bringing in marginal backup players what they really need to add to become a contender are a bunch of game changing playmakers. TO used to be that - but at 36 it remains to be seen if he still has it. Maybin has a quick first step - let's hope that translates to sacks and pressures in 2009. "It is hard to win in the NFL" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Posted May 16, 2009 Share Posted May 16, 2009 If our true goal is to be a .500 team, then this front office is on the right track. Ten years in the non-playoff wilderness with no incentive or objective to rise to anything more than .500 as you state, they have done a fine job of bringing in marginal backup players what they really need to add to become a contender are a bunch of game changing playmakers. TO used to be that - but at 36 it remains to be seen if he still has it. Maybin has a quick first step - let's hope that translates to sacks and pressures in 2009. "It is hard to win in the NFL" I fell your pain... I really do. But, honestly, what more would you have the Bills' FO do this offseason? Name one team that has brought in 3, 4 or 5 game changing, playmaking FAs in a single offseason and went on to great success the following season. Sure it would have sounded nice to bring in Burk at center, Hayneworth at DT, Taylor at DE, Cassell at QB, re-sign Peters (or force him to play at his current contract), and TO at WR. But, ya know what? It probably would have done little to actually improve our record next year. If that were the sound way to build a team the Redskins would have won 2 Super Bowls in the last 5 years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Justice Posted May 17, 2009 Share Posted May 17, 2009 I dont dislike Kelsay because he cant get to the QB. I dislike Kelsay because he over-pursues any play headed in his direction, gets bowled over by RBs, manhandled by Offensive Tackles AND cant get to the QB. All while being paid 4 million dollars a year to do so. Other than that, he's peachy. I'll take that even further. When he does get to the QB, he can't seem to take him down. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wonderbread Posted May 17, 2009 Share Posted May 17, 2009 You'll all be eating your microphones when Kelsay has 8 sacks this year! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BobDVA Posted May 17, 2009 Share Posted May 17, 2009 I dont dislike Kelsay because he cant get to the QB. I dislike Kelsay because he over-pursues any play headed in his direction, gets bowled over by RBs, manhandled by Offensive Tackles AND cant get to the QB. All while being paid 4 million dollars a year to do so. Other than that, he's peachy. Link Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMadCap Posted May 17, 2009 Share Posted May 17, 2009 great post Great avatar! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts