Felser on being miffed

[Griswold]

I hear what he's saying. But he ignores the aspect that it's a two way relationship between the team and player.

 

Yes, as a team you cannot let being miffed interfere with your personnel decisions. On the other hand, if you're a GM you can't let players who are miffed at the team, have their way either.

 

Even if you are miffed, that doesn't mean you are wrong. You just have to be careful that you miff-ism doesn't cloud your decision process.

 

Also..

 

Common thread I see in Felser's examples of Bills being miffed at players: The Bills weren't miffed, they were UNCERTAIN. The players had uncertain futures. In the future: they may be good, or they may suck. These are all players entering the second phase (or maybe final) of their career and their future success is uncertain in relation to the high dollars they negotiate.

 

Jason Peters.. he "might" be successful in Philly, but given bucks he wanted, not sure he would have produced in Bflo

Angelo Crowell.. surprise surgery: was it disloyalty, or just poor mgmt of personal life. Either way = unreliable.

Pat Williams.. OK, maybe the Bills dropped this one

Antoine Winfield.. Reliable or mercenary? He's holding out in the final year of Vikes contract

Jim Leonhard.. his future success was hardly a slam dunk; but good for him that he was

Roscoe Parrish.. actually, I think RP is victim of roster excess in this position

 

The Bills were not miffed. They offered, or didn't offer, contracts that accounted for their confidence in the players future production.

[Orton's Arm]

I hear what he's saying. But he ignores the aspect that it's a two way relationship between the team and player.

 

Yes, as a team you cannot let being miffed interfere with your personnel decisions. On the other hand, if you're a GM you can't let players who are miffed at the team, have their way either.

 

Even if you are miffed, that doesn't mean you are wrong. You just have to be careful that you miff-ism doesn't cloud your decision process.

 

Also..

 

Common thread I see in Felser's examples of Bills being miffed at players: The Bills weren't miffed, they were UNCERTAIN. The players had uncertain futures. In the future: they may be good, or they may suck. These are all players entering the second phase (or maybe final) of their career and their future success is uncertain in relation to the high dollars they negotiate.

 

Jason Peters.. he "might" be successful in Philly, but given bucks he wanted, not sure he would have produced in Bflo

Angelo Crowell.. surprise surgery: was it disloyalty, or just poor mgmt of personal life. Either way = unreliable.

Pat Williams.. OK, maybe the Bills dropped this one

Antoine Winfield.. Reliable or mercenary? He's holding out in the final year of Vikes contract

Jim Leonhard.. his future success was hardly a slam dunk; but good for him that he was

Roscoe Parrish.. actually, I think RP is victim of roster excess in this position

 

The Bills were not miffed. They offered, or didn't offer, contracts that accounted for their confidence in the players future production.

I agree with most of your post, but strongly disagree with the part relating to Winfield. The Bills used a first round pick on him. He worked out very well. Instead of re-signing him, they let him walk in free agency. Then used a first round pick on his replacement, whom they also let walk after his first contract. There's no excuse for any of that.

 

The fact that Antoine Winfield wants to maximize his salary does not make him any more mercenary than most other NFL players.

[Jeffery Lester]

Larry Felser sure sounds like an un-informed hack with this article. Peters held out of the whole training camp last year not part of it. He was offered a contract similar to the one he signed in Philly but refused to accept it. Buffalo had no choice but to trade him. Angelo Crowell made a terrible professional decision last year. Probably a good personal decison in regards to his long term health. Not a good professional decision. Roscoe Parrish is still a member of the Bills and will be this season, I have not heard one bad word from management or the coaches about him being a negative.

In regards to Antoine Winfield, he has been replace twice already. Greer and now Leodis, Antoine is good maybe the best tackling CB in the league, but easily replaced. Pat Williams is a seperate story all together, a huge huge huge mistake by the Donahoe regime. He has not been replaced yet.

[vincec]

The Bills have consistently lost their best players, for one reason or another, over the last 10 years. You can't always be rebuilding and expect to win and the Bills haven't. Some of this is the result of the Bills being "miffed", some due to cheapness and some to incompetence. Whatever the reason, the Bills are basically becoming a farm team for the rest of the league.

[spartacus]

I hear what he's saying. But he ignores the aspect that it's a two way relationship between the team and player.

 

Yes, as a team you cannot let being miffed interfere with your personnel decisions. On the other hand, if you're a GM you can't let players who are miffed at the team, have their way either.

 

Even if you are miffed, that doesn't mean you are wrong. You just have to be careful that you miff-ism doesn't cloud your decision process.

 

Also..

 

Common thread I see in Felser's examples of Bills being miffed at players: The Bills weren't miffed, they were UNCERTAIN. The players had uncertain futures. In the future: they may be good, or they may suck. These are all players entering the second phase (or maybe final) of their career and their future success is uncertain in relation to the high dollars they negotiate.

 

Jason Peters.. he "might" be successful in Philly, but given bucks he wanted, not sure he would have produced in Bflo

Angelo Crowell.. surprise surgery: was it disloyalty, or just poor mgmt of personal life. Either way = unreliable.

Pat Williams.. OK, maybe the Bills dropped this one

Antoine Winfield.. Reliable or mercenary? He's holding out in the final year of Vikes contract

Jim Leonhard.. his future success was hardly a slam dunk; but good for him that he was

Roscoe Parrish.. actually, I think RP is victim of roster excess in this position

 

The Bills were not miffed. They offered, or didn't offer, contracts that accounted for their confidence in the players future production.

 

Felser is right

 

When the Bills get a bug up their butt because a player does not toe the company line, they ship him out

 

almost always for far less than fair market value in return - (if they get anything at all)

 

and that is the crux of the problem - the Bills lose elite talent and continuously spending premium picks and big free agent money to just get back to even.

 

they are not ADDING talent to improve the team

 

The whole Peters mess was caused by Brandon absolutely refusing to re-do Peters contract in 2008. IF Brandon had even offered the possiblity of a new deal in Jan 2008 to Peters, the situation likely would not escalated as it did to no win one for the Bills.

[BillsVet]

Larry Felser sure sounds like an un-informed hack with this article.

 

Larry Felser, because you don't know, has covered the Bills since Day 1. His opinion is extremely valuable, and here his examples demonstrate a growing trend at OBD: uncertainty and knee-jerk reactions.

 

There is no rhyme nor reason to Buffalo's personnel management and direction of the franchise. Because there is no bona-fide GM holding things together, transactions are made which seem random and unorthodox.

 

Felser is simply pointing out that when Buffalo is faced with a difficult situation, they aren't clear on how to handle it and go with the nuclear option. I would agree.

[Original Byrd Man]

Felser is right

 

When the Bills get a bug up their butt because a player does not toe the company line, they ship him out

 

almost always for far less than fair market value in return - (if they get anything at all)

 

and that is the crux of the problem - the Bills lose elite talent and continuously spending premium picks and big free agent money to just get back to even.

 

they are not ADDING talent to improve the team

 

The whole Peters mess was caused by Brandon absolutely refusing to re-do Peters contract in 2008. IF Brandon had even offered the possiblity of a new deal in Jan 2008 to Peters, the situation likely would not escalated as it did to no win one for the Bills.

Not overspending is a classic mode of operation for the Pats. The big difference is they are able to acquire more in trades due to their success. "Players that play for them must be very good for them to be so successful" is the logic of the trading partners. I still wish Crow were on the field on opening day and I don't want RP to go anywhere. That being said as for the rest of the departed, with the exception of PW I can't say I truly miss any of them. Although the jury is out on JP. This one may come back to haunt us for years to come I'm afraid.

[The Dean]

I have always like Felser, but I don't agree with everything he writes. In this case, I think he's mostly right about some of the Bills past mistakes.

 

I have a question and a comment.

 

What makes Felser think the Bills are miffed at Parrish? It's the crux of the article, really, but he doesn't get to why he believes Parrish is in the dog house.

 

And, to Griswold, Winfield missing VOLUNTARY workouts does not constitute a holdout.

[toddgurley]

I agree with most of your post, but strongly disagree with the part relating to Winfield. The Bills used a first round pick on him. He worked out very well. Instead of re-signing him, they let him walk in free agency. Then used a first round pick on his replacement, whom they also let walk after his first contract. There's no excuse for any of that.

 

The fact that Antoine Winfield wants to maximize his salary does not make him any more mercenary than most other NFL players.

 

who was winfields repalcement? You said we used a 1st rd pick on his replacement, and then let him walk? Who, because Nate clements was not winfields replacment-so who was?

[ganesh]

Interestingly, Felser picked the players in the current team who have had disputes with the team....This is a way too one-sided editorial. Sure the Bills could have re-signed Peters if they chose to. The question was if Peters wanted to really sign a contract and be aware of the small-market nature of buffalo.

 

Crowell showed a lack of respect for his team when he suddenly chose to opt for the surgery. Sure, everyone needs to do what is in their best interest, but football is the ultimate team game and requires everyone on the team to be aware of it. By doing what he did, he put the Bills suddenly in a huge hole in its LB corps. What do you expect the Bills to do ?

 

Larry is way off the target...Teams release players for different reasons...Even the big Belichek let go of Lawyer Milloy only to see him and the Bills beat up the Pats 31-0....However the Pats had their last laugh when they went on to win the SB.

 

Also including Pat Williams or Winfield in the equation is stupid....It had nothing to do with this regime.

[ganesh]

What makes Felser think the Bills are miffed at Parrish? It's the crux of the article, really, but he doesn't get to why he believes Parrish is in the dog house.

 

You nailed it....I thought Larry was going to say something interesting about Parrish.....Yawn

[BADOLBILZ]

Kudos to Felser for writing an article that dumbs down this blatantly obvious point so the average talk-show-calling fan can at least try to understand it. Which, sadly, is the level that about 90% of the people who post here are at. If you are somehow trying to defend the Bills front office on this, you are probably in that group because the numbers don't lie. Bad personnel moves = losing. And personnel does include coaches.

 

But what nobody has pointed out is the last part of the article, the adage about hanging on to a player until someone better comes along.

 

That is a big part of personnel management at most SUCCESSFUL companies, not just a football team. Sometimes you have to stick with a pain-in-the-asss employee, and even overpay them or coddle them if you have to in order to ensure the success of your company. I would venture a guess that some of you are that type of employee. You might not even realize it. Maybe you spend half your time online surfing at work or you complain about the people you have to work with or the equipment you have to use, but the company puts up with you because you provide some service that they have a hard time replacing or takes a lot of training to do. Then, out of the blue one day you are surprisingly fired when the company feels they have a replacement or no longer need that service. That's how it has to be done sometimes to ensure success. The Bills..........hell, they would just fire you, let the company take big losses and then try to rationalize it to stockholders. Something tells me if wins were dollars, and fans were stockholders, things might be different.

 

I have a small company with about 20 full time people and half of them think the company can't go on without them and are utter pains in the asss like Jason Peters and don't seem to realize it, but it is mostly tolerated because the goal is company success(winning?), not employee domination. If you want to succeed, you learn to handle people like that and minimize the damage they do. If I had a nickel for everytime some outsider asked me why I put up with such and such employee seeming totally oblivious to the fact that it's working. The Bills aren't truly a win-first organization, and ultimately that keeps setting them back.

 

I mean, seriously, in the long run who cares if you have to swallow your pride once in a while or be "miffed". Winning makes you forget less important things. Hopefully, one day the Bills will learn that.

 

On a related note, perhaps Russ would be better served if he did just two things, final "yes and no" on personnel moves and dealing with season ticket holders, suite holders etc.. Then, he would understand what it's really like to run a business and perhaps show a little more common sense and restraint when dealing with players. Customer relations is high maintenance work and might give him more perspective on the business of dealing with people and their different personalities. Simplistic, but that's the point.

[Lurker]

I agree with most of your post, but strongly disagree with the part relating to Winfield. The Bills used a first round pick on him. He worked out very well. Instead of re-signing him, they let him walk in free agency. Then used a first round pick on his replacement, whom they also let walk after his first contract. There's no excuse for any of that.

 

The fact that Antoine Winfield wants to maximize his salary does not make him any more mercenary than most other NFL players.

Nor does the fact the Bills didn't want to pay the 'going rate' for free agent CB mean they were miffed.

 

Felser didn't eat his wheaties on this column, I'm afraid.

[offde-fence]

Whatever the reason, the Bills are basically becoming a farm team for the rest of the league.

 

 

That's a good one. Well, I'd say it goes both ways. He didn't mention players we got rid of and gained in so doing: McGahee comes to mind. There're probably more. In the instances he mentioned, I would've done the same thing on those occasions except Crowell, Pat Williams, and Winfield. I'd also keep Roscoe around until I could be certain - through game experience - that he's not a better weapon on offense than we see him as in his past limited role. On a whole, it looks to me like there is a certain culture a H.C. or G.M. brings to a team, that includes winning and losing, and building strong rosters. If a player is on a team that year in and out brings in upgrades at various positions, so that every players security is based on achievement through competition, then there isn't a lot of room for holding out, because they know they can be replaced; and, if that team is consistently good, the overall talent on a team can make one player seem better than he is, on account of the talent around him. Such teams, I think, while they remain strong, can keep players around a lot easier on account of the players knowing their value to other teams is higher for them being where they are. On the Bills, good talent can go overlooked, and a guy who is exceptional can look at the management and feel he holds a superior position, because they've got no one to take his place. So, it's either pay me, or pay the consequences. In that scenerio, the player wins because the team will lose talent, but the player stands the chance to go to a better team and maybe win a SB, or gain much more name recognition - and then there's post season pay. So, a team that builds good rosters and plays good consistently has less to lose from these type situations. That's how I see it. Next year we can look at the Patriots and see how they deal with their many up and coming contract situations. Do they continue to find a way to be solid?

[BillsWatch]

Now you see why Felser does editorials not articles now - he is not willing to go through the effort he would make earlier in his career to do actual journalism.

[2003Contenders]

Larry Felser, because you don't know, has covered the Bills since Day 1. His opinion is extremely valuable, and here his examples demonstrate a growing trend at OBD: uncertainty and knee-jerk reactions.

 

There is no rhyme nor reason to Buffalo's personnel management and direction of the franchise. Because there is no bona-fide GM holding things together, transactions are made which seem random and unorthodox.

 

Felser is simply pointing out that when Buffalo is faced with a difficult situation, they aren't clear on how to handle it and go with the nuclear option. I would agree.

 

 

There was a time when Felser was indeed the most informed and best writer in town. Alas, since he more or less retired several years ago, he no long has the cred he did when he was a real practicing journalist. I like that he writes these columns for the Buffalo News for old times sake, but it is more about the nostalgia for those who grew up reading his columns that actually trying to get his take on the team's present situation. Unfortunately, this column reads too much like the ill-informed national bits we get from ESPN and their ilk.

 

In all honesty, I think the team has done a pretty good job over the years of keeping who they should and waving goodbye to those they shouldn't. Pat Williams is the most notable exception -- and maybe the absolute biggest mistake that Donahoe made in his tenure as GM. The problem with both Winfield and Clements is that they wanted ridiculous paydays -- and got them. I NEVER faulted the Bills for not signing them to the kind of lucrative contracts that they found in Minny and SF. The Parrish thing is something entirely different. My great fear with him is that he winds up in the hands of a team with a quality coaching staff (Like NE) that knows how to make the best use f his unique skills.

[BillsVet]

I'm miffed on how any knowledgeable fan can defend an organization that hasn't made the playoffs in nine seasons during the salary cap era.

 

Most of all, I'm miffed at the structure of the organization. There is no one individual managing the football side of the house like most successful franchises feature. Instead, the arrangement is a triumvirate of Wilson, Littman, and to a much lesser extent, Brandon controlling things they have no business or training in handling.

 

And through it all, a respected writer authors something questioning the direction of a moribund team that has proven nothing on the field since the 20th century, and he's instantly discredited. That's mystifying.

[Lurker]

And through it all, a respected writer authors something questioning the direction of a moribund team that has proven nothing on the field since the 20th century, and he's instantly discredited. That's mystifying.

Since it feeds into your world view, regardless of validity, not so mystifying...

[VOR]

Felser reached badly trying to justify his premise that the Bills have been "miffed" with players they've let-go. They weren't miffed at anyone except Crowell and Peters, because of what they pulled . And they weren't miffed at Winfield, Clements, Pat Williams, or Ted Washington, and aren't miffed at Parrish at all, although he's probably miffed at them.

 

Personally I think Winfield is a decent but not great CB and didn't have a problem with letting him go, especially since the Vikes gave him a $10M roster bonus and a huge contract for that time. And Clements was sorely overpaid. Letting Pat Williams go was a mistake, as was letting Ted Washington go, but neither was a case of the Bills being miffed, although Pat Williams had some choice words for Donahoe and Washington had some for Greggo.

 

In Peters' case, he was miffed that the Bills didn't outright give him a huge contract raise after another 2 years in the league (after getting a huge contract raise after his first 2 years in the league). And the Bills were rightfully miffed at him and his pathetic performance last year. Crowell's situation isn't fully known, but since he needed major surgery on his knee, I can't believe for 1 second that the Bills advised him not to get surgery at all after the 2007 season. I think what happened is that he delayed having it because he knew it would knock him out for a long time (like it has so far) and damage his contract year 2008 season. But the pain was too much and he decided to have something done at the last second. And as I said in my other post, the Bills did him a favor at that point, putting him on IR, paying him his 2008 salary, and letting him have the surgery he really needed, so he could get that $3M contract from the Bucs.

[BillsVet]

Since it feeds into your world view, regardless of validity, not so mystifying...

 

What's completely mystifying is how, out of 31 teams that played the past 10 years, that only two have failed to make the playoffs. Worse yet, the other woeful franchise, Detroit, finally made changes at GM and HC in 08-09.

 

I've got no issue if fans want to hope the team's on the right track. Just provide some evidence suggesting that this is so.

[Offside Number 76]

What makes Felser think the Bills are miffed at Parrish? It's the crux of the article, really, but he doesn't get to why he believes Parrish is in the dog house.

 

There's nothing to indicate that the Bills are miffed at Parrish. Parrish may or may not fit into the Bills' current plans, but where was Felser coming from?

[Steely Dan]

Here's a link to the article for hose who can't find the article.

 

 

I have always like Felser, but I don't agree with everything he writes. In this case, I think he's mostly right about some of the Bills past mistakes.

 

I have a question and a comment.

 

What makes Felser think the Bills are miffed at Parrish? It's the crux of the article, really, but he doesn't get to why he believes Parrish is in the dog house.

 

And, to Griswold, Winfield missing VOLUNTARY workouts does not constitute a holdout.

 

If Parrish is traded it's because he's the highest value expendable player on the team.

 

 

Felser reached badly trying to justify his premise that the Bills have been "miffed" with players they've let-go. They weren't miffed at anyone except Crowell and Peters, because of what they pulled . And they weren't miffed at Winfield, Clements, Pat Williams, or Ted Washington, and aren't miffed at Parrish at all, although he's probably miffed at them.

 

Personally I think Winfield is a decent but not great CB and didn't have a problem with letting him go, especially since the Vikes gave him a $10M roster bonus and a huge contract for that time. And Clements was sorely overpaid. Letting Pat Williams go was a mistake, as was letting Ted Washington go, but neither was a case of the Bills being miffed, although Pat Williams had some choice words for Donahoe and Washington had some for Greggo.

 

In Peters' case, he was miffed that the Bills didn't outright give him a huge contract raise after another 2 years in the league (after getting a huge contract raise after his first 2 years in the league). And the Bills were rightfully miffed at him and his pathetic performance last year. Crowell's situation isn't fully known, but since he needed major surgery on his knee, I can't believe for 1 second that the Bills advised him not to get surgery at all after the 2007 season. I think what happened is that he delayed having it because he knew it would knock him out for a long time (like it has so far) and damage his contract year 2008 season. But the pain was too much and he decided to have something done at the last second. And as I said in my other post, the Bills did him a favor at that point, putting him on IR, paying him his 2008 salary, and letting him have the surgery he really needed, so he could get that $3M contract from the Bucs.

 

What he said.

[Griswold]

And, to Griswold, Winfield missing VOLUNTARY workouts does not constitute a holdout.

 

You are correct. I read to much into this article.

 

I am old fashioned guy who believes a contract is a contract, and the whole renegotiation thing rubs me wrong.. in most situations.

 

I hope it works out for AW. I always respected his play and 'tude.

[The Dean]

You are correct. I read to much into this article.

 

I am old fashioned guy who believes a contract is a contract, and the whole renegotiation thing rubs me wrong.. in most situations.

I hope it works out for AW. I always respected his play and 'tude.

 

 

Me, too. I'm a huge Winfield fan. I doubt he sits out, either way.

[TheChimp]

So, Felser thinks the Bills are mad at Roscoe for being short, and people are agreeing with him? That about right?

[PromoTheRobot]

The Bills have consistently lost their best players, for one reason or another, over the last 10 years. You can't always be rebuilding and expect to win and the Bills haven't. Some of this is the result of the Bills being "miffed", some due to cheapness and some to incompetence. Whatever the reason, the Bills are basically becoming a farm team for the rest of the league.

Unlike the Sabres, where you could build an all-star team from players who have walked away, I challenge anyone to say the same of most of the players who leave the Bills. In fact most ex-Bills rarely make much of an impact with their new teams, IMO. There are certainly exceptions, but I think the Bills have been right more often than not in not caving to unreasonable salary demands. Peters' loss is TBA.

 

PTR

[Jeffery Lester]

What's completely mystifying is how, out of 31 teams that played the past 10 years, that only two have failed to make the playoffs. Worse yet, the other woeful franchise, Detroit, finally made changes at GM and HC in 08-09.

 

I've got no issue if fans want to hope the team's on the right track. Just provide some evidence suggesting that this is so.

[/quot

How about a very scary trio of RB, 2 very dangerous WR, the rebuilding of an terrible offensive line with legitimit college talent. And a young QB who many think will be very good. Routinely having the best special teams in the league. Resigning Stroud. Drafting the best pass rusher in the draft. Drafting a down the field tight end. Drafting a ball hawk safety.

 

I personally find these moves to be on the right track.

 

Be a piss in the oatmeal fan if you want, your boy Larry was at best grossly incorrect in his article and at worst lied in a one sided ramble that did not make any sense.

[Sisyphean Bills]

So, Felser thinks the Bills are mad at Roscoe for being short, and people are agreeing with him? That about right?

Not sure that is quite what Felser is saying. Felser wrote, "It’s hard to understand why they would be miffed at Parrish." The paragraph before he wrote, "The guess here is that the Bills were miffed." The article is about the Bills chaotic attempts at team building. They let players go when they have no one behind them to replace them. They fill one hole one year and make more holes to be filled in subsequent years. They let their home grown players walk in free agency too often and bring in free agents that don't even fulfill their contracts. So, no, Felser isn't saying the Bills are being petulant, whimsical, and are annoyed with Parrish for being short. But, he is questioning the wisdom of dumping a potential playmaker, a guy they've been developing and who has demonstrated true ability as a return man, a guy that isn't a cap breaker, at this time. I don't think they are annoyed with Roscoe per se, but rather that the coaches feel Parrish is another player that doesn't "fit the system" and as such he can be let go now and replaced sometime in the future.

[BillsVet]

How about a very scary trio of RB, 2 very dangerous WR, the rebuilding of an terrible offensive line with legitimit college talent. And a young QB who many think will be very good. Routinely having the best special teams in the league. Resigning Stroud. Drafting the best pass rusher in the draft. Drafting a down the field tight end. Drafting a ball hawk safety.

 

I personally find these moves to be on the right track.

 

Be a piss in the oatmeal fan if you want, your boy Larry was at best grossly incorrect in his article and at worst lied in a one sided ramble that did not make any sense.

 

If the team is relying on no less than five rookies (Maybin, Wood, Byrd, Levitre, and Nelson) to improve their standing in the AFCE, I've got an issue with that. I like their draft, but not the fact that they'll again bank on rookies to improve. If, after three seasons of rebuilding you're forced to count on first year players, that indicates to me that the previous off-seasons weren't all that good. And it would be an indictment of those who make decisions on building a team.

 

For the record, I've read Larry Felser and don't necessarily agree with everything he writes. If people want to say RW knows something about football, then Felser does as well. Covering as many seasons of Bills football means you've seen quite a bit.

 

This is a 7-9 team from a season ago. Rookies are merely something new to hope will make a positive difference. And from a marketing/business vantage point, they're a relatively inexpensive option to hype. History shows that few draft classes move a team from mediocrity to a playoff appearance.

[BADOLBILZ]

Unlike the Sabres, where you could build an all-star team from players who have walked away, I challenge anyone to say the same of most of the players who leave the Bills. In fact most ex-Bills rarely make much of an impact with their new teams, IMO. There are certainly exceptions, but I think the Bills have been right more often than not in not caving to unreasonable salary demands. Peters' loss is TBA.

 

PTR

 

An All star team? Perhaps not. But it doesn't take 22 All stars to win a Super Bowl. While we were enduring some dreadful offensive line play last year, Buffalo cast-off Mike Gandy was starting at LT for a Super Bowl team. Great? No. Good enough to be playing here providing real insurance for Jason Peters or maybe even starting at guard for the disappointing Dockery or the injury prone Butler? Yeah. Remember when the Bills in essence traded Ruben Brown for Chris Vilarrial? Ruben was a good starter on their SB team, Villarial was a POS.

 

There are a number of instances like that, where guys who were plenty good enough to play well here were let go because of rigid schemes and bad money and strategic decisions. That is besides losing high quality durable starters like Pat Williams, Antoine Winfield, London Fletcher, Nate Clements, even Lawyer Milloy. Then using first day picks, and in the case of Williams a pick on McCargo and then multiple pics on Stroud just to replace them(then waiting for those guys to develop with mixed results). Then when the roster isn't good enough, it gives management an excuse to stick with the abysmal Dick Jauron.

 

It's an utterly ridiculous situation. That is beside using #1 and #2 picks on Henry and McGahee to later trade them for lesser picks in their primes. Face it, the likelihood is Marshawn Lynch will be the next to go for cheap if anything and his career stat line won't read much better, if even as good as McGahee's.

 

People are always rationalizing why it was a good idea to get rid of a player. The standings don't lie. It's no mistake this team can't get ahead, they do an awful job of handling their personnel. AWFUL.

[Sisyphean Bills]

How about a very scary trio of RB, 2 very dangerous WR, the rebuilding of an terrible offensive line with legitimit college talent. And a young QB who many think will be very good. Routinely having the best special teams in the league. Resigning Stroud. Drafting the best pass rusher in the draft. Drafting a down the field tight end. Drafting a ball hawk safety.

 

I personally find these moves to be on the right track.

All of these moves were this off-season. Where is the track record in that? Really, this argument is nothing but ample speculation since no one knows how these moves will work out this year or even 3-4 years down the line.

 

It's sort of curious that a move such as drafting a S is offered as continued positive progress when this same regime drafted 2 safeties just 3 years ago. Likewise, they drafted a TE in the 4th round last year as well and a TE/FB the year before that.

[thewildrabbit]

Unlike the Sabres, where you could build an all-star team from players who have walked away, I challenge anyone to say the same of most of the players who leave the Bills. In fact most ex-Bills rarely make much of an impact with their new teams, IMO. There are certainly exceptions, but I think the Bills have been right more often than not in not caving to unreasonable salary demands. Peters' loss is TBA.

 

PTR

Yea,well look back at the Buffalo Bills history:

 

1967: Prior to the start of the season the Raiders acquire QB Daryle Lamonica from the Buffalo Bills, for Tom Flores in a trade of single callers. Lamonica would prove to be the final piece of the puzzle and he won the AFL Player of the Year while passing for 3,228 yards and 30 TD passes, as the Raiders dominated the AFL on the way to a 13-1 season in which they rolled over opponents by a score of 468-233. In the AFL Championship Game the Raiders continued to roll destroying the Houston Oilers 40-7 at Oakland to advance to the AFL-NFL Championship Game.

 

Bobby Chandler ring a bell?

 

Jim Kelly ALMOST went to the Raiders, Al Davis was courting Kelly and sent two Raider cheerleaders to join him on a trip to England. Bill Polian stepped in and RW finally coughed up the dough to sign Kelly.

 

Bruce Smith ALMOST went to the Bronco's for 2 first round draft picks after his contract was up and he wanted to leave the Bills, again Polian steps in and resigns Smith.

Bruce Smith, Thurman Thomas and Andre Reed all Left Buffalo and signed with other teams

 

All Pro LT Will Wilford

With Polian gone...

All Pro LT Jason Peters

All Pro G Ruben Brown

All Pro DT Pat Williams

All Pro CB Antoine D. Winfield

Angelo Crowell...

Jim Leonhard...

 

So perhaps they weren't all pro while in Buffalo they did go on to have very successful careers and be named all pro later on.

[VOR]

An All star team? Perhaps not. But it doesn't take 22 All stars to win a Super Bowl. While we were enduring some dreadful offensive line play last year, Buffalo cast-off Mike Gandy was starting at LT for a Super Bowl team. Great? No. Good enough to be playing here providing real insurance for Jason Peters or maybe even starting at guard for the disappointing Dockery or the injury prone Butler? Yeah. Remember when the Bills in essence traded Ruben Brown for Chris Vilarrial? Ruben was a good starter on their SB team, Villarial was a POS.

 

There are a number of instances like that, where guys who were plenty good enough to play well here were let go because of rigid schemes and bad money and strategic decisions. That is besides losing high quality durable starters like Pat Williams, Antoine Winfield, London Fletcher, Nate Clements, even Lawyer Milloy. Then using first day picks, and in the case of Williams a pick on McCargo and then multiple pics on Stroud just to replace them(then waiting for those guys to develop with mixed results). Then when the roster isn't good enough, it gives management an excuse to stick with the abysmal Dick Jauron.

 

It's an utterly ridiculous situation. That is beside using #1 and #2 picks on Henry and McGahee to later trade them for lesser picks in their primes. Face it, the likelihood is Marshawn Lynch will be the next to go for cheap if anything and his career stat line won't read much better, if even as good as McGahee's.

 

People are always rationalizing why it was a good idea to get rid of a player. The standings don't lie. It's no mistake this team can't get ahead, they do an awful job of handling their personnel. AWFUL.

Please stop with the erroneous generalizations. Most will tell you that letting Pat Williams go and cutting Ted Washington were mistakes, and some will say that letting Winfield go was a mistake. The rest however weren't.

 

Look at Travis Henry now. The Bills obviously knew something was up when they cut him. Look at McGahee, who had 1 productive year after being traded, and now is a backup. The Bills got value for him when they could. Same goes for Peters, Walker, Spikes, and Holcomb (okay, he was a throw-in with the Spikes deal). They didn't with Clements, but neither did the Patriots* with Samuel, since teams aren't looking to trade high picks for franchise CB's.

[gregkash]

I have always like Felser, but I don't agree with everything he writes. In this case, I think he's mostly right about some of the Bills past mistakes.

 

I have a question and a comment.

 

What makes Felser think the Bills are miffed at Parrish? It's the crux of the article, really, but he doesn't get to why he believes Parrish is in the dog house.

 

And, to Griswold, Winfield missing VOLUNTARY workouts does not constitute a holdout.

 

Is Parrish really that valuable? I mean, he can't be a legit receiver... he'd need to play in the slot, and our slot receivers HAVE to be able to block. They HAVE to. We're not good enough for them to be able to not block. his only value is on the punt return and if I'm not mistaken, can't McKelvin take it to the house?

[Buftex]

Is Parrish really that valuable? I mean, he can't be a legit receiver... he'd need to play in the slot, and our slot receivers HAVE to be able to block. They HAVE to. We're not good enough for them to be able to not block. his only value is on the punt return and if I'm not mistaken, can't McKelvin take it to the house?

 

 

I think this is the best Bills piece that Felser has written in decades...

 

The Bills may or may not be miffed at Parrish, but Felser is dead on when he questions the wisdom of letting go the best play maker you have (Parrish) on your strongest unit (special teams). It is just stupid...frankly. If they are expecing McKelvin and McGee to start at the corner positions, do they really need for them to be returning kicks as well? Fred Jackson is okay in the return game, but he isn't going to make anyone forget Parrish. What do the Bills stand to save, other than a few $, but shipping out Parrish? There really is no reason to get rid of him, unless they were to get something very valuable in return. And, I am not talking about a 5th round draft pick.

 

If you recall, when Ralph Wilson fired Tom Donohoe, one of the things he mentioned, in his litany of TD's sins, was "drafting an undersized player, with the second pick". I don't think Wilson is a huge Parrish fan.

[The Dean]

Is Parrish really that valuable? I mean, he can't be a legit receiver... he'd need to play in the slot, and our slot receivers HAVE to be able to block. They HAVE to. We're not good enough for them to be able to not block. his only value is on the punt return and if I'm not mistaken, can't McKelvin take it to the house?

 

 

What does any of this have to do with the Bills being miffed at Parrish?

 

I think Parrish is far more valuable for what he brings to the team as a punt returner (one of the very best ever), and as a potentially dangerous weapon as a WR, than what they are likely to get in trade. But for the right deal, I think they have to consider moving him. They'd be stupid to simply dump him, or make a bad trade just to get him off of the roster.

 

I would hope with the addition of TO, the coaches will find some better ways to use Roscoe in the passing game. I am not convinced he has been used properly in his time in Buffalo.

 

If they can get a starting quality LB, DT or OT for him (and a mid-round draft pick, maybe) then I would be for a trade. Otherwise, what's the hurry to move him?

[The Dean]

I think this is the best Bills piece that Felser has written in decades...

 

The Bills may or may not be miffed at Parrish, but Felser is dead on when he questions the wisdom of letting go the best play maker you have (Parrish) on your strongest unit (special teams). e things he mentioned, in his litany of TD's sins, was "drafting an undersized player, with the second pick". I don't think Wilson is a huge Parrish fan.

 

 

Did I miss something? Did the Bills already trade Parrish? Cut him? WTF is with criticizing the Bills for dumping Parrish when they haven't done it?

 

I'll reserve judgment on any trade until after the deal is done.

[Buftex]

Did I miss something? Did the Bills already trade Parrish? Cut him? WTF is with criticizing the Bills for dumping Parrish when they haven't done it?

 

I'll reserve judgment on any trade until after the deal is done.

 

 

Sorry The Dean, I thought we were talking in hypotheticals. It is known that the Bills have tried to trade Parrish. And yes, I realize they haven't succeeded yet. I was only commenting on the article that the thread was referring to. Some people here are just too literal for their own good... You left out the part where I said "unless they can get something of value for him"...

[The Dean]

Sorry The Dean, I thought we were talking in hypotheticals. It is known that the Bills have tried to trade Parrish. And yes, I realize they haven't succeeded yet. I was only commenting on the article that the thread was referring to. Some people here are just too literal for their own good...

 

 

The article is really an odd one, IMO. I don't disagree with some of Felser's criticisms, but he's just wrong about some of the situations, I think. Were the Bills "miffed" at Ted Washington, or Winfield (for example). It destroys the point of the piece, IMO.

 

Also he's guessing the Bills are miffed at Parrish, while at the same time admitting there is no good reason to think they are. Maybe Larry is hitting the sauce. (I used to live next door to Larry, and like him very much. I'm kidding about hitting the sauce.)

 

As for Parrish's name being discussed in some potential trades, the Bills FO wouldn't be doing their job, if they weren't at least exploring the opportunities.

[jester43]

The Bills have consistently lost their best players, for one reason or another, over the last 10 years. You can't always be rebuilding and expect to win and the Bills haven't. Some of this is the result of the Bills being "miffed", some due to cheapness and some to incompetence. Whatever the reason, the Bills are basically becoming a farm team for the rest of the league.

that's the thing that really disgusts me about ralph. if you want to win you lock up your best players. ralph doesn't want to win. he wants to count his nickels.