Felser on being miffed

[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.