Jump to content


Photo

Spinning our wheels


  • Please log in to reply
77 replies to this topic

#41 ScottLaw

ScottLaw

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,295 posts

Posted 20 March 2017 - 03:22 PM

 
No one in the first wave of free agency deserves what they get.  The market bears it out though if you want to sign a quality UFA you're going to pay.
 
 
I realize discussion of roster and cap management here is an exercise in futility, but whatever.  Good teams don't perennially use the draft to fill gaping roster needs.  Usually, a team that drafts well has a player ready to step in and play.  That doesn't happen in Buffalo, and their depth is typically lousy which requires them to spend in UFA when that those players should be on lower rookie contracts.
 
And this narrative of not being able to re-sign everyone should be dead.  From 2009-2013 Buffalo had a total of 17 draft picks in the first 3 rounds. 4 (Maybin, Troup, Graham, EJM) were busts.  7 were not re-signed and hit UFA (Byrd, Levitre, Spiller, Carrington, Gilmore, Woods, and Goodwin). 2 were traded (Sheppard, Alonso).  And a grand total of 4 players were re-signed (Wood, Dareus, A. Williams, and Glenn).
 
They're not signing so many of their own it precludes them from keeping other players.  They're just not getting value from the draft, especially after the 2nd round and trying to balance that in free agency.  They've been fast and loose with resources and now find themselves backed into a corner.
 
I'm not a big Tim Graham fan, but his article at the end of last season hit the nail on the head.  The root cause for their inept roster is poor drafting.  And the same guy who's been affiliated with the team since 2010 is still there.  For the past 4 years he's been behind on the draft and result it relying heavily on free agents.  It's only papering over the real issue. 


Reaching for need and not taking QBs is why they are experiencing the longest playoff drought in all major sports.

Not sure why it's so hard for them to learn..... QB should be the pick at 10. My guess is it won't be.

#42 hondo in seattle

hondo in seattle

    Rookie

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,113 posts

Posted 20 March 2017 - 03:26 PM

 

No one in the first wave of free agency deserves what they get.  The market bears it out though if you want to sign a quality UFA you're going to pay.

 

 

I realize discussion of roster and cap management here is an exercise in futility, but whatever.  Good teams don't perennially use the draft to fill gaping roster needs.  Usually, a team that drafts well has a player ready to step in and play.  That doesn't happen in Buffalo, and their depth is typically lousy which requires them to spend in UFA when that those players should be on lower rookie contracts.

 

And this narrative of not being able to re-sign everyone should be dead.  From 2009-2013 Buffalo had a total of 17 draft picks in the first 3 rounds. 4 (Maybin, Troup, Graham, EJM) were busts.  7 were not re-signed and hit UFA (Byrd, Levitre, Spiller, Carrington, Gilmore, Woods, and Goodwin). 2 were traded (Sheppard, Alonso).  And a grand total of 4 players were re-signed (Wood, Dareus, A. Williams, and Glenn).

 

They're not signing so many of their own it precludes them from keeping other players.  They're just not getting value from the draft, especially after the 2nd round and trying to balance that in free agency.  They've been fast and loose with resources and now find themselves backed into a corner.

 

I'm not a big Tim Graham fan, but his article at the end of last season hit the nail on the head.  The root cause for their inept roster is poor drafting.  And the same guy who's been affiliated with the team since 2010 is still there.  For the past 4 years he's been behind on the draft and result it relying heavily on free agents.  It's only papering over the real issue. 

 

True enough.  Whaley has so far proven himself to be better in free agency than in the draft.

 

Being good in free agency is not a sin.  It means his pro scouts do a good job of identifing NFL talent.

 

But his college scouts haven't been as successful thus far.

 

When our college scouting becomes as good as our pro scouting, we'll build a great roster.



#43 yungmack

yungmack

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,653 posts

Posted 20 March 2017 - 03:27 PM

 

No one in the first wave of free agency deserves what they get.  The market bears it out though if you want to sign a quality UFA you're going to pay.

 

 

I realize discussion of roster and cap management here is an exercise in futility, but whatever.  Good teams don't perennially use the draft to fill gaping roster needs.  Usually, a team that drafts well has a player ready to step in and play.  That doesn't happen in Buffalo, and their depth is typically lousy which requires them to spend in UFA when that those players should be on lower rookie contracts.

 

And this narrative of not being able to re-sign everyone should be dead.  From 2009-2013 Buffalo had a total of 17 draft picks in the first 3 rounds. 4 (Maybin, Troup, Graham, EJM) were busts.  7 were not re-signed and hit UFA (Byrd, Levitre, Spiller, Carrington, Gilmore, Woods, and Goodwin). 2 were traded (Sheppard, Alonso).  And a grand total of 4 players were re-signed (Wood, Dareus, A. Williams, and Glenn).

 

They're not signing so many of their own it precludes them from keeping other players.  They're just not getting value from the draft, especially after the 2nd round and trying to balance that in free agency.  They've been fast and loose with resources and now find themselves backed into a corner.

 

I'm not a big Tim Graham fan, but his article at the end of last season hit the nail on the head.  The root cause for their inept roster is poor drafting.  And the same guy who's been affiliated with the team since 2010 is still there.  For the past 4 years he's been behind on the draft and result it relying heavily on free agents.  It's only papering over the real issue. 

The only way your claim works is by restricting your evidence to the first 3 rounds and by including the years 2009-2013. At the moment, the Bills seem to have a solid "replacement" for Gilmore in Darby, they have Seymour apparently ready to go, Listenbee makes up for the "loss" of Goodwin and might be a worthy replacement for Woods, and so on. To be blunt, you've massaged the data to support your narrative that the Bills suck, and made the clearly false claim that "that doesn't happen in Buffalo" when the facts show that it indeed does happen in Buffalo. Then you say that they have to spend on UFA's when that money could be spent on draftees on rookie contracts...which is exactly what they are doing vis a vis Gilmore and Woods, likely replacing them with guys on rookie contracts. You have me confused.



#44 1billsfan

1billsfan

    All Pro

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,809 posts

Posted 20 March 2017 - 03:27 PM

Is losing Gilmore in his prime, then using a 1st rounder on a CB, the definition of spinning our wheels? Especially considering all of the other holes to fill on this roster (safety, DT, #2 WR, etc).

This is frustration talking, but to be mired in mediocrity for 18 years, and be bleeding talent (Gilmore, Woods, Aaron Williams, Goodwin, maybe Zach Brown) really sucks.

 

This is the main reason I want the Bills to pick Mahomes at #10.

 

As big and huge Bills fans think of 1st round picks, not one has turned the franchise around since the Kelly days. It never happens. Yes, they failed with the Manuel 1st round QB pick...but they need to try again with Mahomes. I never heard anyone compare Manuel to Favre or Stafford. That's the ceiling some are talking about with the "boom or bust" pick of Mahomes.

 

I'd rather have a potential boom/bust Favre type of QB on the bench, than to have a great TE or CB or WR prospect. Because nothing ever will change until they find a QB and they won't find a QB with a higher ceiling in this draft. He can sit the year and develop, and take over in 2018. How exciting would that be Bills fans?

 

BTW, if Cardale Jones starts showing himself as real starter material in preseason games, then you have a potential high draft pick coming back to you down the road through a trade, be it Jones or Mahomes.


Edited by 1billsfan, 20 March 2017 - 03:28 PM.


#45 Schpiely

Schpiely

    Probation

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 44 posts

Posted 20 March 2017 - 03:35 PM

I don't understand why anyone goes on a cruise ship without getting the all inclusive drink package.

 

Some people just hate fun plain and simple. God forbid they were offered a free massage...



#46 Meatplow

Meatplow

    Practice Squad

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 230 posts

Posted 20 March 2017 - 03:40 PM

Is losing Gilmore in his prime, then using a 1st rounder on a CB, the definition of spinning our wheels? Especially considering all of the other holes to fill on this roster (safety, DT, #2 WR, etc).

This is frustration talking, but to be mired in mediocrity for 18 years, and be bleeding talent (Gilmore, Woods, Aaron Williams, Goodwin, maybe Zach Brown) really sucks.

Forgive me, but I was under the impression that the draft HADN'T happened yet?  :oops:



#47 Pbomb

Pbomb

    Rookie

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 447 posts

Posted 20 March 2017 - 03:49 PM

This is an incredibly shallow approach to the greater problem.  Yes, it will be cheaper to pay a rookie...until their contract is up.  Then we will release them and draft another.  It's like leasing a car versus owning one outright.  Teams like the Patriots might be able to afford this luxury, but we need to be buying our cheaper cars outright and working hard at trying to get a franchise QB.
 
Drafting a CB in the first after releasing Gilmore is a fundamental error. If you want to break the cycle, then just release Gilmore. To release him and replace with a coveted top 10 pick is the antithesis of building a roster.

i never said draft one at ten i said if they do, and yes his contract will be up but not for 4 or 5 years of cheap service to the team.

By your argument what is the point of drafting anyone, it will just be wasting resources to replace someone we lost or a hole on the team only to have them leave.

#48 BillsFan17

BillsFan17

    RFA

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 861 posts

Posted 20 March 2017 - 04:30 PM

You draft BPA. Gilmore was a very good corner but not without his faults.

Remember, of all the guys we let walk, Winfield is the only one who was still highly successful.

Nate flopped with that contract in San Francisco and Greer while good with the Saints wasn't anything special.

Gilmore could flourish with NE, but at that price...

I mean seems like we are damned if we do damned if we don't wit retaining players.

That being said, I am really starting to lean towards Reddick as our pick.

#49 BillsVet

BillsVet

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,662 posts

Posted 20 March 2017 - 04:36 PM

The only way your claim works is by restricting your evidence to the first 3 rounds and by including the years 2009-2013. At the moment, the Bills seem to have a solid "replacement" for Gilmore in Darby, they have Seymour apparently ready to go, Listenbee makes up for the "loss" of Goodwin and might be a worthy replacement for Woods, and so on. To be blunt, you've massaged the data to support your narrative that the Bills suck, and made the clearly false claim that "that doesn't happen in Buffalo" when the facts show that it indeed does happen in Buffalo. Then you say that they have to spend on UFA's when that money could be spent on draftees on rookie contracts...which is exactly what they are doing vis a vis Gilmore and Woods, likely replacing them with guys on rookie contracts. You have me confused.

 

Your picks in rounds 1-3 are where you should find starters.  And I chose 2009-13 because those players would now be on their second contract, and therefore re-signed. 

 

Darby is not a replacement for Gilmore.  He was chosen because they needed another CB in 2015 and met RR's priority on the position.  Seymour is almost a complete unknown and it seems the off-season revisionist history now pronounces him a starter.  He hasn't proven after 1 season he's starting material. 

 

Listenbee is a complete unknown who's never run a full route tree and is coming off multiple injuries.  If you bank on essentially a redshirt freshman basically being a reliable pass catcher, it's delusional.  

 

The Bills needed to sign so many players this off-season because the roster is without much depth.  If Doug Whaley was this great architect of a roster, why would this be the case after 4 seasons he was in charge of personnel? 



#50 TPS

TPS

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,478 posts

Posted 20 March 2017 - 04:45 PM

 
Exactly! He isn't worth what he got, so why would you expect another 1st round DB would be?
 
Winfield
Clements
McKelvin
Whitner
Gilmore
 
None of these DBs that we took in the first round were worth the next big contract, so why would we think it will be any different this time.  It's a terrible investment, nevermind the fact that you're wasting away resources on a hole you just created.

you make a good case for not going cb in R1.

 
Your picks in rounds 1-3 are where you should find starters.  And I chose 2009-13 because those players would now be on their second contract, and therefore re-signed. 
 
Darby is not a replacement for Gilmore.  He was chosen because they needed another CB in 2015 and met RR's priority on the position.  Seymour is almost a complete unknown and it seems the off-season revisionist history now pronounces him a starter.  He hasn't proven after 1 season he's starting material. 
 
Listenbee is a complete unknown who's never run a full route tree and is coming off multiple injuries.  If you bank on essentially a redshirt freshman basically being a reliable pass catcher, it's delusional.  
 
The Bills needed to sign so many players this off-season because the roster is without much depth.  If Doug Whaley was this great architect of a roster, why would this be the case after 4 seasons he was in charge of personnel? 

coaching changes?

#51 wilcoam

wilcoam

    Rookie

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 352 posts

Posted 20 March 2017 - 04:52 PM

No, there are a number of great reasons to go crusing, though I just got off my first musical cruise, and we all took the prepaid drink package 

Nothing like seeing The Mavericks, Steve Earle, Lucinda, and the Old 97's play 3 sets each

Back to our #1 draft pick

What's the difference between taking a CB, WR, ILB, S or QB?

Gilmore is gone, its old news, we made an offer, he wanted more money, he's no longer a bIll

Now this draft is NOT about replacing him 

Its only about taking the best possible player in the first round at #10 who will be around for a min 4 years, maybe a 5th, maybe longer

If that's a CB, great, if it's a QB, great, it doesn't make difference  

You just hope to get a potential game changing player 

Re-cycling isn't in the thought process, hitting the best right player is the only focus 

 

jc



#52 stuvian

stuvian

    RFA

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 516 posts

Posted 20 March 2017 - 07:22 PM

I'll take Bills busts for $100 Alex. Who's Torrell Troupe?



#53 jeffismagic

jeffismagic

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,930 posts

Posted 20 March 2017 - 07:31 PM

 

This is the main reason I want the Bills to pick Mahomes at #10.

 

As big and huge Bills fans think of 1st round picks, not one has turned the franchise around since the Kelly days. It never happens. Yes, they failed with the Manuel 1st round QB pick...but they need to try again with Mahomes. I never heard anyone compare Manuel to Favre or Stafford. That's the ceiling some are talking about with the "boom or bust" pick of Mahomes.

 

I'd rather have a potential boom/bust Favre type of QB on the bench, than to have a great TE or CB or WR prospect. Because nothing ever will change until they find a QB and they won't find a QB with a higher ceiling in this draft. He can sit the year and develop, and take over in 2018. How exciting would that be Bills fans?

 

BTW, if Cardale Jones starts showing himself as real starter material in preseason games, then you have a potential high draft pick coming back to you down the road through a trade, be it Jones or Mahomes.

 

The Bills need a game changer at 10. When a potential game changer at QB is there and available you run to the podium.


I'll take Bills busts for $100 Alex. Who's Torrell Troupe?

 

Drafted to be the nose tackle as the Bills were switching to a 3-4 Defense. I actually think we never will know if he would have been good or not as he had a terrible back injury that he never recovered from.



#54 todd

todd

    a redder shade of neck on a whiter shade of trash

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,627 posts

Posted 20 March 2017 - 07:43 PM

Is losing Gilmore in his prime, then using a 1st rounder on a CB, the definition of spinning our wheels? Especially considering all of the other holes to fill on this roster (safety, DT, #2 WR, etc).

This is frustration talking, but to be mired in mediocrity for 18 years, and be bleeding talent (Gilmore, Woods, Aaron Williams, Goodwin, maybe Zach Brown) really sucks.

 

It is a new regime with new schemes. Temper your expectations with reality, please.



#55 jmcraig44

jmcraig44

    "8-8 EndsNow"

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,756 posts

Posted 20 March 2017 - 07:55 PM

If Seymour builds on 2016 and turns out to be a player, the Gilmore move looks really good.   Deep draft for DBs as well.  This isn't their worst move.   



#56 Big C

Big C

    All Pro

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,916 posts

Posted 20 March 2017 - 07:58 PM

If you can get a top prospect in the draft with your first pick, you take him and get him for 5 years. Gilmore was a good corner in his time here. We got good value for the pick. And while some are disappointed that he did not become "elite," all we have to do is take a look at the other names that came off the board around him and discount hindsight. It was a good pick and we got five years of, at worst, serviceable play at a difficult position. The issue comes down to money in the present. Was good CB play worth game breaker money? Absolutely not. Maybe the Patriots think he can be even better than he was here, but also maybe they have a top team already and can afford to pay whatever they want to a corner that can be sturdy of the next few years. Meanwhile, we have extended contracts at other positions for our top players (McCoy, Glenn, Incognito, Hughes, Dareus, Taylor) based on their value to our team, the market for their position at the time and certainly other factors as well.

 

Of course, it's also hard to compare picks over regimes especially since our team has gone through so many changes in the past couple decades. With a deep DB class in the next draft, it's possible that we have a plan!


Edited by Big C, 20 March 2017 - 07:59 PM.


#57 Section242

Section242

    RFA

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 537 posts

Posted 20 March 2017 - 08:09 PM

 

Exactly! He isn't worth what he got, so why would you expect another 1st round DB would be?

 

Winfield

Clements

McKelvin

Whitner

Gilmore

 

None of these DBs that we took in the first round were worth the next big contract, so why would we think it will be any different this time.  It's a terrible investment, nevermind the fact that you're wasting away resources on a hole you just created.

 

Winfield was good for a long time. He got two big contracts from the Vikings.  Clements was the highest paid defensive player in league history when SF signed him. McKelvin as ok, Gilmore is underrated and Whitner was a starting caliber S. Not all 1st rd picks are stars. Everybody overpays in free agency. 



#58 racketmaster

racketmaster

    Practice Squad

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 138 posts

Posted 20 March 2017 - 09:56 PM

A rookie to replace gilmore will also cost about 12 million less if we go cb at 10. Thats 12 mil we spent filling other holes.

Aaron has hardly played the last 2 years and im not sure i would classify goodwin as talent. Also not sure i would want to pay woods 8 mil a year with sammys contract coming up


This

#59 Sammy Watkins' Rib

Sammy Watkins' Rib

    Practice Squad

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 226 posts

Posted 20 March 2017 - 10:20 PM

A rookie to replace gilmore will also cost about 12 million less if we go cb at 10. Thats 12 mil we spent filling other holes.
 

 

Doesn't exactly seem like we got real good bang for our buck with that extra 12 million so far.

 

Management should have had the foresight to sign Gilmore to a more team friendly contract extension a season or two ago. Waiting till the player hits free agency never works out.



#60 Buddo

Buddo

    UDFA

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 87 posts

Posted 21 March 2017 - 04:59 AM

Coaching and scheme changes, have played a big part in the turnover of players, imho. We are actually fortunate that the Pegulas pulled the trigger when they did, and got a coach who wants to run some version of a 4-3, as we have a good deal of the pieces in place to do so, already.

 

The thing with scheme changes, is that when you do so, immediately your priorities change, both in terms of which positions you need to get a different type of player for, and in how much you are prepared to pay said players.

In zone based schemes, you simply don't have to have the most talented CBs around. Sure, it's nice to have them, but they aren't an absolute need, for the scheme to work. Hence, you aren't going to be paying them anywhere near as much as if you run a man coverage scheme, where elite talent becomes needed - at least on one side of the field.

 

Unfortunately, due to the nature of the various CBA agreements, player turnover is simply inevitable, as teams can't sign players to long enough deals. Some of that is reasonable, and some of it, doesn't work out so well, either for the teams or the players, particularly talented athletes who need time to develop. The onus being much more 'how quickly can we get him on the field', rather than 'how good can we get this guy to be'.

 

In respect of Gilmore, I think that if Ryan had been HC still for this coming season, we probably would have him already re-signed, because we needed his abilities at the position, for what Ryan supposedly wanted to do. Is letting him walk, because we don't need the same sort of ability, to play a different scheme, and consequently are prepared to pay for it, actually 'spinning wheels?'