Felser on being miffed

[PromoTheRobot]

The Pats* and Steelers don't ship off every guy who gets pissy. For example, the Pats* kept Ty Law for an extra year till they could better replace him, even though they had to pay him almost $10 mill. They paid huge money to Seymour. They pick and choose. And if they are going to lose a guy, and he is getting pissy, they don't have a problem with keeping him and making him eat the last year or two of a contract. They do a damn good job of replacing the ones that do leave.

 

The Steelers signed a $33 million contract with Polamalu. A safety, for Pete's sake. In 2007. With $15 mill in bonuses. A year before his contract ran out.

 

Both teams pick and choose. But if he's a crucial guy, a guy they can't replace, they step up and keep him. In no way do they ship out everybody who complains about their contract. They just don't do that.

 

Any bets that they re-sign Wilfork? Unless Brace turns out to be much better than he is supposed to be, I'd be willing to bet that the do re-sign him.

Ty Law played. He didn't hold out. What would the Pats* do if he held out? Peters was not going to play one down so he was no good to the Bills either way.

 

PTR

[VOR]

Really? I am willing to be convinced on this one. If you can find me a link or any evidence whatsoever that the Bills don't discuss contract numbers even on contracts they never signed, then I will be willing to stop arguing my (extremely reasonable) point that there are only positives, no negative consequences for the Bills in releasing their offer ... if it was close to the Eagles offer of course. If it was well below the Eagles offer, there are obvious negatives for letting it go public and we should expect never to hear the details. LINK?

If you've been a fan of the team for oh, say, even a year, you'd realize that the Bills don't release contract terms. Do a search for Bills' signees/re-signees and you'll see "Terms of the deal were not disclosed."

 

Yet freaking again, more than Evans got in total, or more than Evans got per year? You have no idea, whatsoever, about this, and neither does anyone outside the Bills and Peters's camp. You are just guessing. Why don't you admit it, because it is painfully obvious to anyone reading this thread. And for the third or fourth time, the little extras make the contract. The Eagles gave an $11 million signing bonus. How much did the Bills offer? You have no idea. The Eagles guaranteed $24 mill over the first two years of the deal. How much did the Bills offer to guarantee? You have no idea. Yet those questions are absolutely central to evaluating a contract. How much of the Bills contract was back-loaded? You have absolutely no idea.

 

I'm trying to say that the Bills lowballed or screwed him? Actually, if you would just take the trouble to read my posts carefully, you would see that I am not saying that at all. I am simply saying that there is no proof whatsoever for what you and others have taken for a fact, which is that the Bills had offered an equal or close contract to the Eagles deal. In fact, there is tremendous room for doubt on this. The last concrete numbers we heard the Bills offer was $7.5 mill. After that, Russ said that we offered the biggest contract in Bills history, but there are many ways to read that statement, and it could mean many different things, from a superb contract to a terrible one, to a contract which (and this is what I think is the truth) the Bills thought was a good offer somewhere in the Lee Evans league but which was proved to be well below market value when the Eagles made their move.

If you don't believe that the Bills offered Peters over $9M/year, which is more than Evans got, much less believe the ("concrete?") $7.5M number that was mentioned by a poster, yes you are claiming that the Bills lowballed him. The Bills knew his contract demands. They had just given Evans an extension averaging over $9M/year. Peters wanted out.

 

Again, I am really thrilled to meet a guy on these boards who has so many connections on so many teams that he feels confident saying that Tim Graham's sources are wrong, without any documentation, proof or links whatsoever, despite my having virtually begged for a link from you. It must be terrific to be all-knowing.

Hey, all I have to do point to the fact that the Eagles only needed to give-up the 28th overall pick to get Peters, to prove that no other team was seriously interested in him. The Rams should have been all over Peters. Same with the Bungles. But if you hear who that "3rd team" was, do tell. But it really won't matter because neither of them offered anything substantial(ly more than the Eagles did), otherwise the Bills would have taken it.

[Thurman#1]

Ty Law played. He didn't hold out. What would the Pats* do if he held out? Peters was not going to play one down so he was no good to the Bills either way.

 

PTR

 

 

 

Are you Peters's father? If not, you're guessing. And how about this for a possibility. We could have ... gosh, I don't know ... maybe .... possibly ... um ... given the guy a contract at market value. Think he would still have held out then?

[Thurman#1]

Not sure what you mean about spending on the CBs. Because of the way the Bills have handled (or mishandled) the defensive backs, the Bills actually have bargains at the corners. The CBs the Bills draft eventually make big bucks, but not with the Bills.

 

 

 

If you refer back, you will see that my opinion is that our unwillingness to spend on the CBs forces us to use yet more high draft picks on CBs instead of other positions we also need. 3 of our last 11 first-rounders have been CBs. More than a quarter of our recent first-rounders.

[Thurman#1]

If you've been a fan of the team for oh, say, even a year, you'd realize that the Bills don't release contract terms. Do a search for Bills' signees/re-signees and you'll see "Terms of the deal were not disclosed."

 

 

If you don't believe that the Bills offered Peters over $9M/year, which is more than Evans got, much less believe the ("concrete?") $7.5M number that was mentioned by a poster, yes you are claiming that the Bills lowballed him. The Bills knew his contract demands. They had just given Evans an extension averaging over $9M/year. Peters wanted out.

 

 

Hey, all I have to do point to the fact that the Eagles only needed to give-up the 28th overall pick to get Peters, to prove that no other team was seriously interested in him. The Rams should have been all over Peters. Same with the Bungles. But if you hear who that "3rd team" was, do tell. But it really won't matter because neither of them offered anything substantial(ly more than the Eagles did), otherwise the Bills would have taken it.

 

 

 

OK, you are not even pretending to actually read my comments and reply to them anymore. Your first two replies simply avoid looking at what I have written (two or three times each) and simply keep on saying the same things whether or not they have anything to do with what I have said.

 

I'm not going to bother responding to you anymore. Why would I? For the second time I say that there's no evidence that the Bills have a policy on talking about contracts with players they DID NOT SIGN, and for the second time you ignore what I said and once again say that the Bills don't talk about contracts THEY DID SIGN.

 

And for the second time you misinterpret what I said about what I think about Peters's contract, even though I spelled it out exactly for you, and you just went ahead and posted again opposing something I explicitly didn't say.

 

I'm sorry, I'm just not interested. It's like talking to someone with ADD. Seriously, you either aren't even reading my arguments, or you can't handle them so you just ignore them and talk about something I didn't say.

 

Everyone else on this thread, including the people who disagree with me, have managed to read and reply based on what I have actually written. You can't or won't. Goodbye and good luck.

[The Dean]

If you refer back, you will see that my opinion is that our unwillingness to spend on the CBs forces us to use yet more high draft picks on CBs instead of other positions we also need. 3 of our last 11 first-rounders have been CBs. More than a quarter of our recent first-rounders.

 

 

Yes, I understand. I was responding to this quote:

 

Wanted to add this on, even though I have fallen behind on the thread.

 

We have managed (without counting Maybin), to spend, what, $11 million on our LDTs? Remember, Denney and Kelsay play the same position, they are platoon guys. We spent I think about $11 mill total to fill that position - relatively unsuccessfully. It makes the fact that we wouldn't spend $10 mill on Peters seem a bit different.

 

Yet we won't spend considerably less on our CBs.

 

While I am not suggesting* that it is wise to use as many early draft picks on DBs, the one upside is the Bills have managed to have top level CBs for minimal dollars. So the Bills really DO spend considerably less on their CBs. I assume you use "spend" to mean money, and the other references in the post are about dollars.

 

 

 

* At this particular time.

[VOR]

OK, you are not even pretending to actually read my comments and reply to them anymore. Your first two replies simply avoid looking at what I have written (two or three times each) and simply keep on saying the same things whether or not they have anything to do with what I have said.

 

I'm not going to bother responding to you anymore. Why would I? For the second time I say that there's no evidence that the Bills have a policy on talking about contracts with players they DID NOT SIGN, and for the second time you ignore what I said and once again say that the Bills don't talk about contracts THEY DID SIGN.

 

And for the second time you misinterpret what I said about what I think about Peters's contract, even though I spelled it out exactly for you, and you just went ahead and posted again opposing something I explicitly didn't say.

 

I'm sorry, I'm just not interested. It's like talking to someone with ADD. Seriously, you either aren't even reading my arguments, or you can't handle them so you just ignore them and talk about something I didn't say.

 

Everyone else on this thread, including the people who disagree with me, have managed to read and reply based on what I have actually written. You can't or won't. Goodbye and good luck.

There's no point in responding to you anymore either. Do yourself a favor and ask Tim Graham about the Bills' policy on contract terms, for player signed or offered a contract, as well as what he's heard were the numbers on the last offer to Peters. Better yet, I'll do it myself, on the "ask Tim Graham" thread, so that everyone can read it. Toodles.

[Thurman#1]

The problem with your logic is, had the Bills pursued mostly linemen, in the early rounds of the draft, they would likely be chasing linemen early in the draft, as there is no reason to believe they would be able to keep them, either. They couldn't/didn't even keep an undrafted UFA lineman, once he became a top level player.

 

Truth is, the Bills are caught in a cycle, mostly because their judgment/luck with DBs has been extraordinary, while they have done a relatively poor job at identifying/developing the big boys. Had they done a poorer job with the DBs, they wouldn't have been so valuable in FA and they might have been able to keep them.

 

It's bad to "chase" any position, of course. Now that the team looks to be pretty well set at DB, you notice they targeted the big guys in this draft, coming away with a DL and two OL in the first two rounds. If Maybin becomes a star, I wouldn't bet on him being in Buffalo when the next contract gets signed.

 

 

 

Dean, I hear you.

 

I was responding to this post of yours, and particularly the first two paragraphs. You seemed to be saying (correct me if I'm wrong) that a factor in our spending so many picks on DBs was because we have trouble spending enough money to re-sign our best players. So I was pointing out that we actually spent a huge amount on LDE (without even getting great production), and that I thought that the problem wasn't spending enough money to sign our best players, but instead an active decision to not re-sign CBs in particular. I mean, if we can come up with somewhere around $10 to $11 mill per year to fill the LDE position, surely we should be able to (much better) fill our CB position for much less.

 

Kelsay: 4 years @ $23 mill

I tried to find Denney's numbers, but after 10 minutes, it didn't seem worth the effort.

[Thurman#1]

There's no point in responding to you anymore either. Do yourself a favor and ask Tim Graham about the Bills' policy on contract terms, for player signed or offered a contract, as well as what he's heard were the numbers on the last offer to Peters. Better yet, I'll do it myself, on the "ask Tim Graham" thread, so that everyone can read it. Toodles.

 

 

 

 

Congratulations. Once again failed to post a link, and once again repeated yourself without apparently getting my point.

 

If there were a championship for missing the point and blathering on anyway, I'd nominate you.

 

Toodles indeed.

[VOR]

Congratulations. Once again failed to post a link, and once again repeated yourself without apparently getting my point.

 

If there were a championship for missing the point and blathering on anyway, I'd nominate you.

 

Toodles indeed.

In case you missed it:

 

The Bills do not publicly disclose contract offers or terms. When talking to those in the know, we generally speak in vague terms. I never did find out what Buffalo's final offer to Peters was precisely. As for the two other teams, I only know that one was the New York Giants but they weren't nearly as serious as the Eagles were.

There are your answers for the Bils' policy on offers and contracts and the seriousness of other teams interested in Peters. As for the contract offered, when Russ Brandon says it was the richest in Bills' history, I'll believe it was in the $9M range. But I'm still in the process of getting Tim Graham's best estimate at the Bills' final offer.

[Thurman#1]

In case you missed it:

 

 

There are your answers for the Bils' policy on offers and contracts and the seriousness of other teams interested in Peters. As for the contract offered, when Russ Brandon says it was the richest in Bills' history, I'll believe it was in the $9M range. But I'm still in the process of getting Tim Graham's best estimate at the Bills' final offer.

 

 

 

Hey, it's like a miracle. You actually made a point.

 

Fair enough. It's interesting to learn that not just terms, but also offers are not disclosed. I said that I was open to learning about it, and you came through. So, nice one.

 

 

However, on your other point, in post #98, you said "And I heard about the Giants inquiring, but that's about the extent of their 'interest.' Seeing as how they had the 29th overall pick, they could have offered that and their 3rd rounder for Peters, and gotten him. There was no 3rd team."

 

Obviously, Tim's post proves you wrong in that there was indeed a third team.

 

Tim's post in no way backs you up when you said that asking was about the extent of the Giants interest.

 

So you won one and lost two.

 

Not that I expect you to realize that, but perhaps you'll surprise me.

 

And I'm waiting with you for Tim's reply on an estimate for the Bills offer. I can't imagine he would guess on something like that, and if he had heard actual figures, I would have thought he would have printed them long ago. But I could definitely be wrong. I'll be waiting.

[VOR]

Hey, it's like a miracle. You actually made a point.

 

Fair enough. It's interesting to learn that not just terms, but also offers are not disclosed. I said that I was open to learning about it, and you came through. So, nice one.

 

 

However, on your other point, in post #98, you said "And I heard about the Giants inquiring, but that's about the extent of their 'interest.' Seeing as how they had the 29th overall pick, they could have offered that and their 3rd rounder for Peters, and gotten him. There was no 3rd team."

 

Obviously, Tim's post proves you wrong in that there was indeed a third team.

 

Tim's post in no way backs you up when you said that asking was about the extent of the Giants interest.

 

So you won one and lost two.

 

Not that I expect you to realize that, but perhaps you'll surprise me.

 

And I'm waiting with you for Tim's reply on an estimate for the Bills offer. I can't imagine he would guess on something like that, and if he had heard actual figures, I would have thought he would have printed them long ago. But I could definitely be wrong. I'll be waiting.

Sorry Thurm, but you lost 2 and we're still waiting on the 3rd, which at best will likely end-up a stalement since we'll never know the actual contract offered. And instead of getting stuck on "well, there was a 3rd team," realize that the larger issue is that even if there was another team interested besides the Eagles and Giants, that's just 3/31 or less than 10% of the league that was interested in Peters. And even Graham said that the Giants weren't "nearly as interested as the Eagles," meaning they probably wouldn't have even offered their 1st round pick for him. You'd think that such a great player would have triggered a bidding war, but the best the Bills could get was the 28th overall pick, which is still good considering the Bills never used a pick on him originally.

[Thurman#1]

Sorry Thurm, but you lost 2 and we're still waiting on the 3rd, which at best will likely end-up a stalement since we'll never know the actual contract offered. And instead of getting stuck on "well, there was a 3rd team," realize that the larger issue is that even if there was another team interested besides the Eagles and Giants, that's just 3/31 or less than 10% of the league that was interested in Peters. And even Graham said that the Giants weren't "nearly as interested as the Eagles," meaning they probably wouldn't have even offered their 1st round pick for him. You'd think that such a great player would have triggered a bidding war, but the best the Bills could get was the 28th overall pick, which is still good considering the Bills never used a pick on him originally.

 

 

Oh, I shouldn't get stuck on "Well, there was a third team." Yeah, do you by any chance remember why that became an issue? Because you categorically said there was no third team. No wonder you want to forget about it. You were wrong.

 

You said "even Graham said that the Giants weren't "nearly as interested as the Eagles," meaning they probably wouldn't have even offered their 1st round pick for him." Wow. I had no idea that you could read Tim Graham's mind. Is it a super power of some kind? Do you have a super-hero name like maybe "Mind-reader Wannabe Lad?" You have no idea what it means, beyond what he said. But it's obvious that you don't mind putting words in other people's mouths, as you've done it twice to me just in the context of this thread.

 

And finally starting out on yet another red -herring chase.

 

It's funny because I've seen you make good points and be logical on other threads, but it's clear that something is seriously fogging your mind on this issue, probably the type of insane hatred for Peters which has infected a lot of posters. Well, you obviously don't even realize when you have lost an argument, on this subject at least, and the more reasonable posters who made this thread such a joy are gone.

 

So, so am I, knowing that you haven't even come close to proving your point, and knowing that you seriously don't realize it, and never will. So, what's left for me? Nothing.

[VOR]

Oh, I shouldn't get stuck on "Well, there was a third team." Yeah, do you by any chance remember why that became an issue? Because you categorically said there was no third team. No wonder you want to forget about it. You were wrong.

 

You said "even Graham said that the Giants weren't "nearly as interested as the Eagles," meaning they probably wouldn't have even offered their 1st round pick for him." Wow. I had no idea that you could read Tim Graham's mind. Is it a super power of some kind? Do you have a super-hero name like maybe "Mind-reader Wannabe Lad?" You have no idea what it means, beyond what he said. But it's obvious that you don't mind putting words in other people's mouths, as you've done it twice to me just in the context of this thread.

 

And finally starting out on yet another red -herring chase.

 

It's funny because I've seen you make good points and be logical on other threads, but it's clear that something is seriously fogging your mind on this issue, probably the type of insane hatred for Peters which has infected a lot of posters. Well, you obviously don't even realize when you have lost an argument, on this subject at least, and the more reasonable posters who made this thread such a joy are gone.

 

So, so am I, knowing that you haven't even come close to proving your point, and knowing that you seriously don't realize it, and never will. So, what's left for me? Nothing.

Your insane love of Peters has clouded your ability to think clearly Thurm. And I was once like you, except I saw the lack of interest, much less offers, for Peters once the Bills traded him, and realized that maybe he's not all that. You're stuck on things like "there WAS a 3rd team, so you're completely wrong!" when the point is that AT BEST 3 teams showed interest in Peters, and the team that got him got him for just the 5th-to-last pick in the 1st round, a late 4th rounder, and a 6th rounder next year. Real "interest" would have been getting what Denver got for Cutler. But you don't want to admit it. Fine, we'll agree to disagree. Just like we'll do on the Bills' last contract offer.

[Dan]

I must say, by and large, a great thread (although a little pissy here in the end). I hadn't read this thinking it would be full of moaning about Felser but glad I finally got bored enough to read it. Now, if I may add a few thoughts...

 

There are certainly many ways to build a contending team. The conclusion that the Bills are doing it wrong is an obvious one, due to their lack of success over the past decade. However, I'd offer the Bills' biggest problem isn't in the drafting or re-signing of DBs/linemen. It's in Head Coaching and QBs. Very few, very few teams go far without a good HC and good QB. And the Bills have failed miserably in these departments.

 

If you watch some of the old highlights surfacing around here of the Kelly teams, ya know the ones with great O-lines. What's the one thing you should notice? Kelly got rid of the ball quick! Rarely do you see him drop back, pat the ball, and look around. If we had a QB that could read a defense that quickly, take 3 steps and fire the ball out without hesitation... the line suddenly looks very good. Do that and the team starts winning. And winning teams are teams that young players are more likely to re-sign with.

 

So, in my opinion, get a good QB and we suddenly jump from the ranks of the mediocre. Of course, I'll say that goes hand in hand with coaching. Good coaches put their players in a position to do well and inspire them to be better than they are. When was the last time we had a coach at any of the 3 key positions (HC, OC, DC) that we could honestly say was good.

 

I'll add that the one thing that has been consistent on this team through all of the recent mediocrity - the talent evaluators. Why do they still have jobs if they routinely fail to find quality players? Many like to say we haven't really addressed the lines. To that I say, look it up, each year we bring in new guys. The problem is... each year these guys are average at best. So, why can't our scouts and personnel department find above average linemen? And more importantly, why do they still have jobs if none of their signings pan out?

 

If there's any glimmer of hope for this team, it's that Trent has shown flashes of being a good QB and that Russ hired Buddy Nix. As I've stated before, I have little hope for this team this upcoming year. But maybe, just maybe, those are the first inklings of a franchise that's starting to turn itself around. I'm not at all convinced we have the coaching to get the job done, but I guess time will tell.

[Bill from NYC]

Many like to say we haven't really addressed the lines. To that I say, look it up, each year we bring in new guys. The problem is... each year these guys are average at best. So, why can't our scouts and personnel department find above average linemen? And more importantly, why do they still have jobs if none of their signings pan out?

 

The free agent linemen have been awful, and at times very expensive. The thing is, the Bills were reduced to signing them because they refused for many years to address the lines with early picks. You do get lucky in the late rounds from time to time; we all know this. But, when your first round picks are wasted year after year on the secondary, it is going to take its toll. It has to.

 

Levy/Jauron placed so much emphasis on taking Whitner that they turned down a chance at a great OC. OG and DT, as well as an extra 2nd round pick. It should be noted that they were horrible at these positions. In 08, Jauron wanted McKelvin more than Branden Albert. Does this make sense to you?

 

Something tells me that Jauron was given less power in the war room this season. The Bills only drafted 3 defensive backs (one of whom it appears they could have got a first in 2010 for), and 1 midget linebacker. Thank goodness for small favors I suppose.

[Dan]

The free agent linemen have been awful, and at times very expensive. The thing is, the Bills were reduced to signing them because they refused for many years to address the lines with early picks. You do get lucky in the late rounds from time to time; we all know this. But, when your first round picks are wasted year after year on the secondary, it is going to take its toll. It has to.

 

Levy/Jauron placed so much emphasis on taking Whitner that they turned down a chance at a great OC. OG and DT, as well as an extra 2nd round pick. It should be noted that they were horrible at these positions. In 08, Jauron wanted McKelvin more than Branden Albert. Does this make sense to you?

 

Something tells me that Jauron was given less power in the war room this season. The Bills only drafted 3 defensive backs (one of whom it appears they could have got a first in 2010 for), and 1 midget linebacker. Thank goodness for small favors I suppose.

On one level, I completely agree with your post. However, it goes back to the "there's many ways to build a team" argument. If they're drafting linemen every year, then they'd be signing average CBs and getting urned for long touch downs, repeatedly. So, it 6 in one hand, half a dozen in the other for me. My concern is that they keep bringing in bad players. If the FA linemen actually worked out, then we wouldn't be having this discussion at all. So who's job is it to scout these FA players?

[Flbillsfan#1]

If you refer back, you will see that my opinion is that our unwillingness to spend on the CBs forces us to use yet more high draft picks on CBs instead of other positions we also need. 3 of our last 11 first-rounders have been CBs. More than a quarter of our recent first-rounders.

I very much wanted the Bills to keep Peters, however after hearing him say "11 & 1/2 Sacks really? SO WHAT, I'M ONLY HUMAN" He wanted to be paid as the best, but with that attitude, I say GOOD RIDDANCE.

[Bill from NYC]

On one level, I completely agree with your post. However, it goes back to the "there's many ways to build a team" argument. If they're drafting linemen every year, then they'd be signing average CBs and getting urned for long touch downs, repeatedly. So, it 6 in one hand, half a dozen in the other for me. My concern is that they keep bringing in bad players. If the FA linemen actually worked out, then we wouldn't be having this discussion at all. So who's job is it to scout these FA players?

 

True. You can lose with bad players without paying Derrick Dockery 7 million per to lose with bad players, but they really needed a guard after only getting them in late rounds and the scrap heaps of other teams. They are very expensive now, and drafting Wood and Levitre truly was an extremely smart move.

This is why I think that Jauon wasn't responsible for it.

[BillsVet]

On one level, I completely agree with your post. However, it goes back to the "there's many ways to build a team" argument. If they're drafting linemen every year, then they'd be signing average CBs and getting urned for long touch downs, repeatedly. So, it 6 in one hand, half a dozen in the other for me. My concern is that they keep bringing in bad players. If the FA linemen actually worked out, then we wouldn't be having this discussion at all. So who's job is it to scout these FA players?

 

It would seem the best way to build and get competitive is to build the OL and DL first before anything else. Of course, having at least a game manager type QB is imperative first But look for a moment at how first round picks were used in MIA and NE, not to mention PIT and BAL. These teams find difference makers on the lines and worry about the speciality positions later.

 

At this point, Buffalo's strengths lie within the WR corps, RB's, and CB's. IMO, this is a recipe not suited for competing in the AFCE. MIA dedicated a bunch of resources toward it's OL and DL in 08. They used a first on an OT (Long) signed G Justin Smiley, re-signed OT Vernon Carey, signed Jake Grove in UFA, and drafted G Donald Thomas. On defense, they picked up their complement of 3-4 DEs in Kendall Langford and Philip Merling. All of these acquisitions took place in only two off-seasons.

 

Contrast this with Buffalo, who spent picks on mostly skill positions in 06-07. Their UFA signings, particularly on the OL, were poor upon beginning the rebuilding effort those seasons. Yes, Buffalo selected McCargo, but he was the only pick made on either line in the first two rounds from 06 through 08. This attention to the lines is insufficient and a reason they've tried multiple times in four off-seasons to build an OL and DL. I have a feeling MIA won't be re-shaping their OL and DL all that much in the next 2-3 seasons.

[Dan]

True. You can lose with bad players without paying Derrick Dockery 7 million per to lose with bad players, but they really needed a guard after only getting them in late rounds and the scrap heaps of other teams. They are very expensive now, and drafting Wood and Levitre truly was an extremely smart move.

This is why I think that Jauon wasn't responsible for it.

I agree. Even with all the wasted late round picks (just my opinion, of course), I loved our draft. We selected what should be 3 solid starting linemen (Maybin, Wood, Levitre) within a couple of years. Is it a coincidence that Nix was hired just a few months prior to the draft? Maybe. But, if I were to guess, I'd say Russ sees some of these long standing problems and is slowly but surely taking steps to correct them. Hiring Nix and getting some early linemen is my only source though.

 

I know some here very much dislike Russ and his lack of experience. But, most would have to admit, he's certainly made some decent moves in the last 2 years. Will they pan out? Who knows.

[VOR]

The joy has returned!

[PromoTheRobot]

You can argue about talent but we have missed the playoffs by narrow margins the last 10 years. In fact pick any two close losses, make them wins, and we are a playoff team. That would suggest our talent is good enough to make the playoffs. Where we lack is coaching, speciffically game management.

 

PTR

[Orton's Arm]

I must say, by and large, a great thread (although a little pissy here in the end). I hadn't read this thinking it would be full of moaning about Felser but glad I finally got bored enough to read it. Now, if I may add a few thoughts...

 

There are certainly many ways to build a contending team. The conclusion that the Bills are doing it wrong is an obvious one, due to their lack of success over the past decade. However, I'd offer the Bills' biggest problem isn't in the drafting or re-signing of DBs/linemen. It's in Head Coaching and QBs. Very few, very few teams go far without a good HC and good QB. And the Bills have failed miserably in these departments.

 

If you watch some of the old highlights surfacing around here of the Kelly teams, ya know the ones with great O-lines. What's the one thing you should notice? Kelly got rid of the ball quick! Rarely do you see him drop back, pat the ball, and look around. If we had a QB that could read a defense that quickly, take 3 steps and fire the ball out without hesitation... the line suddenly looks very good. Do that and the team starts winning. And winning teams are teams that young players are more likely to re-sign with.

 

So, in my opinion, get a good QB and we suddenly jump from the ranks of the mediocre. Of course, I'll say that goes hand in hand with coaching. Good coaches put their players in a position to do well and inspire them to be better than they are. When was the last time we had a coach at any of the 3 key positions (HC, OC, DC) that we could honestly say was good.

 

I'll add that the one thing that has been consistent on this team through all of the recent mediocrity - the talent evaluators. Why do they still have jobs if they routinely fail to find quality players? Many like to say we haven't really addressed the lines. To that I say, look it up, each year we bring in new guys. The problem is... each year these guys are average at best. So, why can't our scouts and personnel department find above average linemen? And more importantly, why do they still have jobs if none of their signings pan out?

 

If there's any glimmer of hope for this team, it's that Trent has shown flashes of being a good QB and that Russ hired Buddy Nix. As I've stated before, I have little hope for this team this upcoming year. But maybe, just maybe, those are the first inklings of a franchise that's starting to turn itself around. I'm not at all convinced we have the coaching to get the job done, but I guess time will tell.

Very solid post! I agree completely with your points about the importance of a good head coach and a good quarterback.

 

I'd say that the three most important areas for a team to be solid are at quarterback, offensive line, and defensive line. Without a quarterback, you're not going to have much of a passing game; and your offense will be one-dimensional. Add to that the fact that a bad quarterback will turn the ball over a lot; whereas a good quarterback can be instrumental in snatching victory from the jaws of defeat.

 

A good offensive line is critical. You have to have at least decent protection for your passing game to work. And it's very tough for a running game to produce much of anything, unless the run blocking is solid.

 

If you have a good defensive line, you can get a good pass rush from your front four. Without it, you're more or less forced to blitz if you want any kind of pressure. On running downs, a good defensive line can either make the tackle itself, or at very least disrupt things while using up a lot of blockers.

 

As you noted, the Bills haven't had a good quarterback since Kelly hung up his cleats. Hopefully Edwards will change this. The offensive line has had some successes here and there, but for the most part has been underwhelming ever since we lost the Kent Hull/Jim Ritcher group. The defensive line was good in the '90s with guys like Bruce Smith, Ted Washington, and Pat Williams; but it's gone downhill since then.

 

Why have the Bills endured such long periods of weakness at such key positions, for such long periods of time? Probably the biggest single reason is this team's failure to build through the draft. Of the first round picks we had from 2001 - 2005, only one (Lee Evans) was used on a player who's still with the team. The Colts have four such players: Reggie Wayne, Dwight Freeney, Dallas Clark, and Marlin Jackson.

 

The next obvious question is, why have the Bills failed so spectacularly where the Colts have succeeded? Look at their first round picks from that era:

2001: Nate Clements. Short-sightedness.

2002: Mike Williams. Bad talent evaulation.

2003a: Drew Bledsoe. Short-sightedness.

2003b: Willis McGahee. Short-sightedness.

2004a: Lee Evans. A good pick.

2004b. J.P. Losman. Bad talent evaluation.

 

As is generally the case with Bills' CBs picked in the first round, Clements went first contract and out. (After allowing for the extra year we got due to the franchise tag.) Willis McGahee was a short-sighted pick, because running backs typically have short careers; and because the Bills had a lot of other holes that needed to be filled. By the time we filled them, it would likely be time for another running back! The problem with the Drew Bledsoe pick is that a 3-13 team (as we had been in 2001) should not trade away a first round pick for someone else's aging veteran. Several of the picks expended on "shortsightedness" players could have been used on present-day contributors, instead, had the Bills been run by a better GM.

 

When TD was guilty of bad talent evaluation--as he had been in the case of Mike Williams and Losman--it was typically because he'd over-emphasized physical traits, while under-emphasizing everything else. Both players had extensive physical potential. But Williams lacked the passion and work ethic he needed; while Losman lacked the on-field awareness and intelligence you'd hope your quarterback would have.

 

To what extent is Russ Brandon guilty of TD's sins? He's already used an early first round pick on a CB (McKelvin), while letting a perfectly good CB walk in the prime of his career (Jabari Greer). Hopefully, that short-sightedness represents an anomaly, not a pattern. I'm not aware of any cases in which he's allowed the physical gifts of an early draft pick to blind him to that pick's other flaws. There don't seem to be any Mike Williams or J.P. Losman stories under Brandon's tenure as GM analog--at least not thus far.

[BillsVet]

You can argue about talent but we have missed the playoffs by narrow margins the last 10 years. In fact pick any two close losses, make them wins, and we are a playoff team. That would suggest our talent is good enough to make the playoffs. Where we lack is coaching, speciffically game management.

 

PTR

 

This is revisionist history. Only in 04 did Buffalo narrowly miss the playoffs, and they controlled their own destiny. As in the final week of the season they had a chance to make the post-season.

 

2001 3-13 Not even close

2002 8-8 (division winner 9-7, wild-cards 9-7 and 10-6) Close

2003 6-10 (division winner 14-2, wild cards 12-4 and 10-6) Not close

2005 5-11 (division winner 10-6, wild cards 11-5 and 10-6) Not close

2006 7-9 (division winner 12-4, wild cards 10-6 and 9-7) Not close

2007 7-9 (division winner 16-0, wild cards 11-5 and 10-6) Not close

2008 7-9 (Division winner 11-5, wild cards 12-4 and 11-5) Not close

 

And if Buffalo is lacking in coaching, shouldn't it stand to reason that the coach be replaced for not even (by these standards admittedly) be replaced for failing to get close to a post-season berth?

 

There I go being negative again. Personally, close losses are the same as blowouts: Big L's. And L's, no matter the score difference, hurt when it comes to the end of the season.

[Rico]

You can argue about talent but we have missed the playoffs by narrow margins the last 10 years. In fact pick any two close losses, make them wins, and we are a playoff team. That would suggest our talent is good enough to make the playoffs. Where we lack is coaching, speciffically game management.

 

PTR

[spartacus]

On one level, I completely agree with your post. However, it goes back to the "there's many ways to build a team" argument. If they're drafting linemen every year, then they'd be signing average CBs and getting urned for long touch downs, repeatedly.

 

 

This is a fallacy

 

The Bills should be using average CBs because that is what the scheme they use is designed for. They would not be giving up long TDs because of the cover-2 safeties playing 30 yards off the ball, to back up the CBs playing 10 yards off the ball.

 

Since they are so committed to the soft cover-2, it is absolutely stupid and counter-productive to keep using premium picks on CBs with elite skills only to waste them in soft zone coverage.

 

If they built the OL and front 7, they would be able to control the line of scrimmage