Bills almost had McFarland at the deadline [Archive] - BillsZone.com

BILLSROCK1212

10-23-2006, 12:21 PM

The Colts were thankful trade talks broke down between the Bills and Bucs over DT Anthony McFarland. The teams had been in discussions about a trade that would have sent McFarland to Buffalo for CB Nate Clements. The Bills were shopping Clements because they are concerned they might lose him as a free agent after the season. McFarland would have replaced first-round draft pick John McCargo, who recently went on injured reserve. After the talks broke off, the Colts moved in and acquired McFarland for a second-round pick. . . .
What's next for the Ravens now that offensive coordinator Jim Fassel has been fired? Well, in the short term, it's possible the offense will rally under the direction of coach Brian Billick. And if the offense rights itself, chances are excellent quarterbacks coach Rick Neuheisel will be named coordinator after the season. One of the problems that led to Fassel's dismissal is he and Neuheisel butted heads and others on the staff sided with Neuheisel. The decision to relieve Fassel of play-calling duties was Billick's alone. He was not pushed by management or ownership. The decision to move on was Fassel's. . . .
Losing SS Mike Brown (torn foot ligament) might mean the Bears will have a drop-off at two positions in the secondary. Of course there will be a drop-off from Brown to his replacement, who likely will be Todd Johnson. And it's possible rookie FS Danieal Manning might not play as well without Brown next to him. Manning has given the defense a boost with his physical play and speed, and he has avoided mental errors remarkably well. Part of the credit for that goes to Brown, who provided reminders, instructions and tips to a willing listener. Whenever Manning had a moment of presnap confusion or indecision, Brown was there to clear it up. That kind of veteran presence is almost impossible to replace. . . .
Getting cut could not have worked out better for DB Troy Vincent. As a vested veteran who was released after the first game, he escaped from Buffalo collecting his entire 2006 salary of $2.6 million. Then he signed a new deal with the Redskins that will pay him approximately $800,000 this season (the prorated portion of his $810,000 salary plus a signing bonus of approximately $250,000). So all together he's being paid $3.4 million to be a part-time player. In Washington, he is expected to contribute on nickel downs as a cornerback and safety. Signing with the Redskins made the deal perfect for Vincent because he gets to be close to his family in south Jersey and gets to enhance his presence as president of the NFL Players Association because the union's offices are in D.C. What's more, Vincent is reunited with Redskins assistants Gregg Williams and Jerry Gray, for whom he played in Buffalo. . . . Trading DE Anthony Hargrove wasn't difficult for the Rams because of the development of fourth-round pick Victor Adeyanju, who stepped into the starting lineup and produced after Hargrove went AWOL. The Rams believe Adeyanju has more potential than he showed at Indiana, in part because Indiana didn't use him in a way that brought out the best in him. Rams coordinator Jim Haslett's scheme is encouraging Adeyanju to get upfield and use his pass-rush ability. Adeyanju has been like a sponge; he has learned new techniques from coaches and learned from watching veterans such as DT La'Roi Glover. The thinking is Adeyanju probably will continue to add weight to his 6-4 frame, which will enhance his ability to play the run.

http://www.sportingnews.com/yourturn/viewtopic.php?t=141051

OpIv37

10-23-2006, 12:27 PM

chalk another failure up to the Bills' FO.

I guess the good news is that it means they sense the urgency of the DL situation if they were at least trying to get him.

Saratoga Slim

10-23-2006, 12:42 PM

I don't count it as a failure at all. I'm pleased to see that OBD was actively trying to do something with Clements as well as address the DL. It doesn't say WHY talks with the Bills broke down. Maybe the Bucs didn't want to renegotiate Clements' contract and were looking for a draft pick instead. I'm OK with the fact that we didn't part with a 2nd round pick for McFarland. That's looking to be a fairly high pick in exchange for an aging, good-but-not-outstanding veteran with a big salary.

OpIv37

10-23-2006, 12:44 PM

an aging, good-but-not-outstanding veteran with a big salary....

....is still a huge improvement over the DT's already on our roster. How sad is that?

Anyway, the FO wanted the guy and couldn't get him- how is that not a failure?

Forward_Lateral

10-23-2006, 12:47 PM

I don't blame the Front Office. It's not their fault Tampa would rather have a 2nd round pick over an over-paid, over-rated CB.

OpIv37

10-23-2006, 12:54 PM

Kerr

10-23-2006, 01:16 PM

I knew dungy would be all over his former player. Well, at least marv tried. Tampa didn't like the deal and we're not indy, we need all the draft pick we can get.

jamze132

10-23-2006, 02:43 PM

Well I know the NFL isn't like Best Buy or anything, but if I'm in there and I see something that I like, I get it. Especially if there is a sale that is about to expire, like the ****ing trade deadline! You can't really give me a good reason why this trade didn't go down unless it was TB who balked.

YardRat

10-23-2006, 02:54 PM

I'd like to know the actual details of the deal breaking down.

Dozerdog

10-23-2006, 02:55 PM

I forgot, the almighty Marv is infallible.

He couldn't get a guy that he obviously wanted, and instead that player went to a team we have to play later in the season. Why would I EVER think that would be Marv's fault?

As bad as this team is, I still see a lot of excuses flying around here. If we don't start holding players and FO personnel responsible, this team is never going to get better.Yeah. We are supposed to make people take a worse offer.

Seriously- if you were Tampa would you want Clements or the 60th pick in next year's draft? With no guarantee Clements stays.

If you were Marv would you give up the 35th-40th pick in the draft for Booger?

The allmighty OpIv can get any deal done. He can sell refridgerators to eskimos

OpIv37

10-23-2006, 03:05 PM

Yeah. We are supposed to make people take a worse offer.

Seriously- if you were Tampa would you want Clements or the 60th pick in next year's draft? With no guarantee Clements stays.

If you were Marv would you give up the 35th-40th pick in the draft for Booger?

The allmighty OpIv can get any deal done. He can sell refridgerators to eskimos

just the fact that Marv was trying to get him proves the 3 DT's we brought in in the off-season haven't been performing up to expectations.

And the fact that the deal only fell through at the last minute proves there must have been something we were willing to give up that they wanted- how else would it have gone even that far?

But, it's NEVER Marv's fault. NEVER.

Saratoga Slim

10-23-2006, 04:05 PM

just the fact that Marv was trying to get him proves the 3 DT's we brought in in the off-season haven't been performing up to expectations.

And the fact that the deal only fell through at the last minute proves there must have been something we were willing to give up that they wanted- how else would it have gone even that far?

But, it's NEVER Marv's fault. NEVER.

That fact that Marv was trying to get him proves that one of the 3 DT's we brought in in the off-season broke his foot.

Maybe it was Marv's fault. But how the hell do we know? Maybe Tampa wanted Nate and a draft pick. Maybe they didn't want Nate at all and were insisting on a 2nd round pick that we didn't want to give. Who knows. And maybe Marv didn't want him that bad and shied away at the asking price. There's a lot of things that I'd kind of like to buy but won't because the sticker price is higher than I can justify spending.

patmoran2006

10-23-2006, 04:27 PM

Anyway you want to look at it, DT was one of the spots we neglected by judging that Tim Anderson was good enough to start and/or be part of a regular rotation.

We signed a trillion run-of-mill bargain-basement free agents, DT should've been one of them.

IF this report was true and Tampa wanted Clements and Marv said no then he's a total idiot.. If Tampa didnt want Nate and wanted a second rounder instead and Marv said no, then Marv made the right call.

BTW< anyone watch the Indy game Sunday? First play of the game Booger drilled Clinton Portis at the line of scrimmage.

SquishDaFish

10-23-2006, 04:57 PM

OP your blind sometimes man. I would hope that Buffalo would of hung up the phone once he heard 2nd round pick and not Clements. I hate the idea of trading 1st or 2nd rounder for a NON superstar game breaking player. Booger was shipped out for a reason. Would I like to see him come to buffalo yea but not for a 2nd round pick.

jpdex12

10-23-2006, 06:07 PM

OpIv37

10-23-2006, 06:21 PM

yeah. it's got nothing to do with the fact that we lost a 1st round DT due to injury.

yeah because McCargo was SOOO dominant before he got hurt :rolleyes:

he was being outplayed by Kyle Williams, who's a 5th round pick.

OpIv37

10-23-2006, 06:23 PM

That fact that Marv was trying to get him proves that one of the 3 DT's we brought in in the off-season broke his foot.

once again, McCargo wasn't exactly tearing it up when he broke his foot. He was being outplayed by Kyle Williams.

Dozerdog

10-23-2006, 09:10 PM

Ok Mr Answer man

What would you give up for Booger?

What deal would you make that would make Marv a genius like yourself?

Or is it all *****ing with no answers?

SquishDaFish

10-23-2006, 09:13 PM

Like normal Dozer

Mr. Pink

10-23-2006, 09:16 PM

I'd give Losman, Clements and Spikes for McFarlane personally.

I'm sure I could add to that list, but TB probably can't take on that much salary as it is.

OpIv37

10-23-2006, 09:17 PM

Ok Mr Answer man

What would you give up for Booger?

What deal would you make that would make Marv a genius like yourself?

Or is it all *****ing with no answers?

Clements.

A 3rd and Andre Davis (actually, the 3rd is probably worth more without him).

A 4th and the rights to McCargo.

A second may or may not be too steep a price- it depends on which DT's will be available in the draft or FA's next year. We're going to have to shell out for a DT at some point.

I know, everyone's going to say "well rebuilding teams need to build through the draft". Well. Marv tried that this year and it hasn't exactly worked out so far. At some point you need to fill some holes with guys you know can play. Booger may not be Pat Williams, but you guys talk like he's Erik Flowers.

Nighthawk

10-23-2006, 09:18 PM

chalk another failure up to the Bills' FO.

I guess the good news is that it means they sense the urgency of the DL situation if they were at least trying to get him.

Yeah, but Marv & Dickey are the saviors of the franchise...don't ya know?!?:roflmao:

ParanoidAndroid

10-23-2006, 09:20 PM

I forgot, the almighty Marv is infallible.

He couldn't get a guy that he obviously wanted, and instead that player went to a team we have to play later in the season. Why would I EVER think that would be Marv's fault?

As bad as this team is, I still see a lot of excuses flying around here. If we don't start holding players and FO personnel responsible, this team is never going to get better.

You're making assumptions one way and others are making assumptions a different way. Either way, they are still assumptions. We don't know why the trade talks failed.

Dozerdog

10-23-2006, 09:21 PM

And Tampa would want to take on $8 million in cap salaries and a washed up WR they don't need?

Huh...I'm suprised they wouldn't jump an do cartwheels for that package

Mr. Pink

10-23-2006, 09:22 PM

OpIv37

10-23-2006, 09:25 PM

And Tampa would want to take on $8 million in cap salaries and a washed up WR they don't need?

Huh...I'm suprised they wouldn't jump an do cartwheels for that package

they were talking with us, so we obviously had something they wanted. Indy's 2nd is probably only going to be 8 picks ahead of our 3rd. We probably could have gotten them with a 3rd and something else.

Dozerdog

10-23-2006, 09:27 PM

Tampa is 2-5. They want picks. They don't want cap -sucking payroll players

The Colts gave them better picks.

I'm glad we didn't over pay for a guy who won't be here when we get good down the road.

OpIv37

10-23-2006, 09:28 PM

Sadly though, I'm not sure which spot is worse off at this point DT or CB.

We almost can't afford to trade Clements or lose him at this point. McGee who is supposed to take over for him as the 1 has been exposed the past 2 weeks, to the point of benching. Youboty isn't ready...and so and so on...

If we were to make the trade of Clements before the deadline who's our starting corners going to be? Sadly we play a cover 2 that isn't even bend but don't break, it just breaks. So we can't stop the run or generate much of a pass rush and our corners look lost on passes.

we can't afford to lose Clements, but we can't afford to keep him either. I've wanted to get rid of Clements for a while cuz I thought McGee was good enough to be our #1 CB- guess I was a little off on that one. But I don't think hosing our cap by signing Clements is a good answer either- the guy isn't nearly worth his salary.

As far as trading him this year, I was approaching it like this: This season is a lost cause, so if we can get Youboty some experience, get a DT, and get something for Clements (who we might lose to FA with no compensation), it would be win-win.

OpIv37

10-23-2006, 09:28 PM

Tampa is 2-5. They want picks. They don't want cap -sucking payroll players

The Colts gave them better picks.

I'm glad we didn't over pay for a guy who won't be here when we get good down the road.

so I take it you're against re-signing Clements too?

and btw with the way the cap is going to go up, most teams aren't all that concerned with it.

Nighthawk

10-23-2006, 09:30 PM

we can't afford to lose Clements, but we can't afford to keep him either. I've wanted to get rid of Clements for a while cuz I thought McGee was good enough to be our #1 CB- guess I was a little off on that one. But I don't think hosing our cap by signing Clements is a good answer either- the guy isn't nearly worth his salary.

As far as trading him this year, I was approaching it like this: This season is a lost cause, so if we can get Youboty some experience, get a DT, and get something for Clements (who we might lose to FA with no compensation), it would be win-win.

Good points and I agree 100%. Exactly why I don't understand why the Genious Marv and Dickey refuse to dress Youboty and get him some experience? Want to talk about stupid coaching...not getting this kid in there ASAP to get some reps when we will lose our #1 CB in the offseason...now that is stupid coaching!

Dozerdog

10-23-2006, 09:31 PM

OpIv37

10-23-2006, 09:31 PM

Good points and I agree 100%. Exactly why I don't understand why the Genious Marv and Dickey refuse to dress Youboty and get him some experience? Want to talk about stupid coaching...not getting this kid in there ASAP to get some reps when we will lose our #1 CB in the offseason...now that is stupid coaching!

especially if they're gonna bench McGee. Hell, we got Jabari Greer and Thomas playing nickel- I can't imagine Youboty is that much behind them.

Nighthawk

10-23-2006, 09:32 PM

especially if they're gonna bench McGee. Hell, we got Jabari Greer and Thomas playing nickel- I can't imagine Youboty is that much behind them.

No, but who are we to question the greatness of Marv & Dickey? Yes, I am being sarcastic because some people still don't get it.

Forward_Lateral

10-23-2006, 09:33 PM

Did anyone mention that Booger was scheduled to make a crapload of money over the next few seasons?

Forward_Lateral

10-23-2006, 09:34 PM

especially if they're gonna bench McGee. Hell, we got Jabari Greer and Thomas playing nickel- I can't imagine Youboty is that much behind them.

It's pretty hard to put Youboty in if he's not active for the game. I doubt that Jauron, Fewell and the DB coach envisioned having to bench McGee.

OpIv37

10-23-2006, 09:34 PM

Did anyone mention that Booger was scheduled to make a crapload of money over the next few seasons?

weird. Every time we talk about re-signing the mediocre Clements, everyone talks about how great our cap shape is.

But when we fail to get a decent player who plays a position of need, no one cares because of his salary.

Whatever.

OpIv37

10-23-2006, 09:35 PM

It's pretty hard to put Youboty in if he's not active for the game. I doubt that Jauron, Fewell and the DB coach envisioned having to bench McGee.

then I guess they weren't watching the Lions or the Bears games.

Forward_Lateral

10-23-2006, 09:37 PM

weird. Every time we talk about re-signing the mediocre Clements, everyone talks about how great our cap shape is.

But when we fail to get a decent player who plays a position of need, no one cares because of his salary.

Whatever.

Booger will be 30 in December. In his 8 year career, he's played 2 full 16 game seasons. I read somewhere that he's due to make nearly an avg of 7 million a season through 2008.

If he's not due to make that much, I digress, if he is, it's good they didn't get him, IMO.

Forward_Lateral

10-23-2006, 09:38 PM

then I guess they weren't watching the Lions or the Bears games.

If Youboty isn't mentally ready, or physically (who knows) then putting him in wouldn't do any good. I can only assume he'll be activated when Jauron thinks he's ready, and I agree with you, I hope it's very soon.

OpIv37

10-23-2006, 09:40 PM

I'm against investing 7 million or more for a single player- especially if he's performing like he is.

Hey OP- if you were Marv Levy- would you give away next year's picks to bring in 3-4 top players who are free agents at the end of the year?

I might. We have a LOT of holes to fill and won't be able to do it all with the draft.

Somehow we have to come up with a DT. An experienced, run-stuffing DT, which means either a trade or shelling out in FA.

If they didn't pull the trigger on Booger because they thought a #2 was too high, they sure as hell better have a Plan B.

OpIv37

10-23-2006, 09:41 PM

Booger will be 30 in December. In his 8 year career, he's played 2 full 16 game seasons. I read somewhere that he's due to make nearly an avg of 7 million a season through 2008.

If he's not due to make that much, I digress, if he is, it's good they didn't get him, IMO.

that does seem steep for a DT but I wonder if they could have renegotiated as part of the trade.

We're still going to have to shell out for a DT at some point though.

BTW, how the **** did Indy afford him? Manning counts something like 17 million against the cap, and I can't imagine Harrison, Cato June or Dwight Freeney are bargains.

Dozerdog

10-23-2006, 09:42 PM

Then these 3-4 players walk at the end of the year and we have no picks ????

And Marv is the incompetent one?

OpIv37

10-23-2006, 09:42 PM

If Youboty isn't mentally ready, or physically (who knows) then putting him in wouldn't do any good. I can only assume he'll be activated when Jauron thinks he's ready, and I agree with you, I hope it's very soon.

he needs to suck it up because he's missing a golden opportunity.

RedEyE

10-24-2006, 07:05 AM

I'm in absolute agreement with Op this morining. The Bills need a DT and those that are on the roster aren't cutting it.

I'd have gladly given up a 2nd rounder for Booger.

Looks like Bill Polian thought this guy was talent enough to grab and get in a DT his team so desperately needed at any price. We all know and respect Polian's judgement.

ICE74129

10-24-2006, 07:22 AM

Yeah. We are supposed to make people take a worse offer.

Seriously- if you were Tampa would you want Clements or the 60th pick in next year's draft? With no guarantee Clements stays.

If you were Marv would you give up the 35th-40th pick in the draft for Booger?

The allmighty OpIv can get any deal done. He can sell refridgerators to eskimos

LMAO Op is right, the almighty Marv is always right! He can do no wrong! Jesus folks, quit kissing the mans butt. he was a good coach, but so far hasn't shown much as a GM.

Ickybaluky

10-24-2006, 07:24 AM

You guys are way off base. A second round pick is very valuable to you guys because it is a good player you are going to control for the next 4 years at reasonable dollars.

You are going to give that up for a overpaid DT with a reputation for lacking motivation? That makes no sense if you want to get better. Good teams are built through the draft, you should be stockpiling picks.

What makes you think McFarland would even help you? With McFarland, Tampa Bay was one of the worst teams in the NFL defending the rush, giving up 5 yards an attempt. After Indy picked him up, they still let Washington average 4.8 yards per rush, which is more than Washington was averaging coming into the game. It isn't like he had a big effect on their rushing defense.

Forward_Lateral

10-24-2006, 07:54 AM

he needs to suck it up because he's missing a golden opportunity.

I agree, but again, we don't know if the coaches are holding him back, or if he's holding himself back. He might think he's ready, but the coaches don't, who knows.

SquishDaFish

10-24-2006, 02:21 PM

Great posting NE. The ones who dont want to stockpile draft picks are the irrational and impatient fans of the board. They complain when we have musical QBs but when its time to let a youngster play and get experience they want musical QBs again. You can never get these mother *^&^%$.

HAMMER

10-24-2006, 03:22 PM

Dozerdog

10-24-2006, 04:21 PM

LMAO Op is right, the almighty Marv is always right! He can do no wrong! Jesus folks, quit kissing the mans butt. he was a good coach, but so far hasn't shown much as a GM.Has nothing to do with kissing Marv's but.

It has to do with giving up $7 million in cap space and an early 2nd round pick for an underacheiver.

Might as well keep Clements for that money and we'd still have the 2nd.

But hey- you suckers will overpay for just about any pig in a dress as long it's not the same pig in the dress you got now.

justasportsfan

10-24-2006, 04:29 PM

OP was b1tching that we didn't go after McFarland. Now that we tried to he's *****ing again. It takes 2 to trade and he's *****ing theother one(tampa) didn't bite and would rather blame Marv for it. Why not? He needs to find something to ***** about.

justasportsfan

10-24-2006, 04:35 PM

Clements.

A 3rd and Andre Davis (actually, the 3rd is probably worth more without him).

A 4th and the rights to McCargo.

A second may or may not be too steep a price- it depends on which DT's will be available in the draft or FA's next year. We're going to have to shell out for a DT at some point.

I know, everyone's going to say "well rebuilding teams need to build through the draft". Well. Marv tried that this year and it hasn't exactly worked out so far. At some point you need to fill some holes with guys you know can play. Booger may not be Pat Williams, but you guys talk like he's Erik Flowers.That's just stupid. While we're at it let's trade everyone we drafted. Whitner , Simpson, Kyle Williams, etc. Mortgage next years entire draft ? Yeah that's how the great teams are doing. NOT.

Besides, who the hell told you that they wanted Andre Davis?

justasportsfan

10-24-2006, 04:42 PM

Then these 3-4 players walk at the end of the year and we have no picks ????

And Marv is the incompetent one?

:ill:

Elminster

10-24-2006, 04:49 PM

That's just stupid. While we're at it let's trade everyone we drafted. Whitner , Simpson, Kyle Williams, etc. Mortgage next years entire draft ? Yeah that's how the great teams are doing. NOT.

Besides, who the hell told you that they wanted Andre Davis?
Cripes, I'd GIVE them a pick to take Andre Davis. He's a horrible wide receiver. So, exactly why would Tampa want a horrible wide receiver signed to a one-year deal?

As for the McFarland thing...an over-paid, underachieving 30-year old DT for a good 26-year old corner? Straight up, that's a rip-off...for us. And you want us to sweeten the deal with a 2nd-round pick? If I were Marv, I'd be asking them to send at least a 4th our way. Probably a 3rd. We're rebuilding, we need picks more than....well, anything. Same for Tampa. The Colts shelled out a 2nd-round pick for Booger....whuch would you take if you were Tampa? Exactly...

justasportsfan

10-24-2006, 05:05 PM

We're rebuilding, we need picks more than....well, anything. ..
Some people don't know what that means. Some people want instant gratification.

OpIv37

10-24-2006, 08:00 PM

SquishDaFish

10-24-2006, 08:08 PM

They just drafted McCargo so they wouldnt trade him and also I dont think you can trade an injured player can you?

goodkarma

10-24-2006, 08:30 PM

IF this report was true and Tampa wanted Clements and Marv said no then he's a total idiot.

God I hope Marv didn't pass at trading Clements. I'm still wondering what Philly, Arizona, Denver and others were offering to move up in the draft....

OpIv37

10-24-2006, 10:42 PM

Let's see, go to perennial cellar dweller, or go to perennial contender? Tough decision there huh Op?

That would be a valid point, but most players don't have a choice. Only a select few have the ability to nullify a trade written into their contract. It doesn't work like FA.

PECKERWOOD

10-25-2006, 12:18 AM

Marv isnt imcompetent guys, he knows his chit. McFarland is a good 3 technique guy, we already got our McFarland in Tripplett and McCargo. The problem is, we need a different kind of DT than McFarland. We need someone a little bit bigger 305-320lbs, to play the 1 technique. If we get a 1 technique tackle, you boys better watch out cause our defense will own.

CuseJetsFan83

10-25-2006, 01:13 AM

They just drafted McCargo so they wouldnt trade him and also I dont think you can trade an injured player can you?

nope, cant trade an injured player...... unless they do that minor IR crap.... and reach an injury settlement, but at that point their free to go anywhere.. and need not get compensation........

honestly if i was buffalo while yes booger is a well known player, i dont know if i would take the 7 mill hit for a season already halfway done....... especially if he would end up leaving...... plus, with players scheduled to "not come back" like clements and others....... it would just take money away from any other FA's that could become available...

plus as stated earlier, draft picks will be clutch....... giving one up now may be the difference between trading up or down in the first round...... or even having a chance at the 1st 5 picks..... should buffalo finish with a better record than those teams

justasportsfan

10-25-2006, 07:33 AM

right. It's stupid to trade an injured DT who was doing nothing for a proven one :rolleyes:

Sooner or later we're going to have to shell out for a DT. Accept it.The guy is a rookie for crying out loud, OP. BY your logic, why bother drafting and trade all our picks for players who are underachieving. If we are gonna shell out at least grab someone who's actually better than McFarland. Get rid of our picks. The guy who was *****ing about the last five years and telling people to learn from the past wants to repeat it. Man , sometimes I wonder if you're on crack.

Lee-83

10-25-2006, 08:08 AM

**** that we should have gotten him, **** you marv!

OpIv37

10-25-2006, 08:18 AM

The guy is a rookie for crying out loud, OP. BY your logic, why bother drafting and trade all our picks for players who are underachieving. If we are gonna shell out at least grab someone who's actually better than McFarland. Get rid of our picks. The guy who was *****ing about the last five years and telling people to learn from the past wants to repeat it. Man , sometimes I wonder if you're on crack.

Explain how having a crappy DL last year and still having a crappy DL this year is "learning from our mistakes". An underachieving McFarland is still better than anything we have. And it was one pick- I wasn't advocating trading our entire 2006 draft. Once again, you lack the ability to make distinctions between differing situations.

justasportsfan

10-25-2006, 08:48 AM

Explain how having a crappy DL last year and still having a crappy DL this year is "learning from our mistakes". An underachieving McFarland is still better than anything we have. And it was one pick- I wasn't advocating trading our entire 2006 draft. Once again, you lack the ability to make distinctions between differing situations.
McFarland maybe better than what we have but you don't mortgage our future by giving up picks for a player who's been average at best. The difference between last year and this year is that we're rebuilding. It takes time. You're the one who can't distinguish the difference between last year and this year. You're the one who can't realize that the entire D is learning a new system and not the sme system from last year. You're obviously too dense to realize that the coaches did learn from last years system which is why the switched systems and drafted McArgo and hired Tripplett. Granted the dividends have yet to show, that's what again, REBUILDING is all about, but I don't expect you to understand what that word means.

Again, you lack the ability and common sense to realize rebuilding takes time. McArgo will take time. Every draft pick takes time. Talk to me if in 5 years our DL still stinks but not after 7 games.

Dozerdog

10-25-2006, 08:53 AM

justasportsfan

10-25-2006, 09:00 AM

the weird thing is that the Colts needed at DT because they lost Tripplett.

OpIv37

10-25-2006, 09:05 AM

McFarland maybe better than what we have but you don't mortgage our future by giving up picks for a player who's been average at best. The difference between last year and this year is that we're rebuilding. It takes time. You're the one who can't distinguish the difference between last year and this year. You're the one who can't realize that the entire D is learning a new system and not the sme system from last year. You're obviously too dense to realize that the coaches did learn from last years system which is why the switched systems and drafted McArgo and hired Tripplett. Granted the dividends have yet to show, that's what again, REBUILDING is all about, but I don't expect you to understand what that word means.

Again, you lack the ability and common sense to realize rebuilding takes time. McArgo will take time. Every draft pick takes time. Talk to me if in 5 years our DL still stinks but not after 7 games.

learning a new system is one thing. Learning to deal with NFL speed is one thing. But you can't teach how to not get blown backwards on running plays. It's strength and skill.

And if you think taking 5 years to rebuild the DL is acceptable, you're sorely mistaken. This is the age of FA- if it takes 5 years to rebuild the DL, by that time the LB's or the secondary or some other position will suck because of age/FA and you'll never have a winning team.

OpIv37

10-25-2006, 09:06 AM

OP is making trade decisions in panic mode.

That will just ensure anothe rdecade of futility.

This is what Arizona and the Bengals did in the 90's. The Bengals finally sucked it up and built through the draft.

yeah, building through the draft.

So far, we did that and we got better at ONE position. If we can get better at ONE position a year, we'll have a good team by 2016. Great strategy. I know it takes time, but IMO rebuilding means improving. We need to get better at more than one position at a time if this is going to work.

You can't build solely through the draft. At some point you have to bring in proven players to fill gaps.

justasportsfan

10-25-2006, 09:18 AM

learning a new system is one thing. Learning to deal with NFL speed is one thing. But you can't teach how to not get blown backwards on running plays. It's strength and skill.

And if you think taking 5 years to rebuild the DL is acceptable, you're sorely mistaken. This is the age of FA- if it takes 5 years to rebuild the DL, by that time the LB's or the secondary or some other position will suck because of age/FA and you'll never have a winning team.

Sheez. It gets old trying to explain to you in detail.The reason why I said five years is because you are comparing last years DL to this years DL. 7 games vs. 5 years. You're *****ing about five years of sucking and tehn comparing it to 7 games . It's simple common sense, you can't expect this Dl to be better that the last fives years of damage especially with a rookie, new player (Tripplett) and a new system in seven games. :shakeno:

It's not just strength and skill. It's everything from reading gaps. to familiarity with players you play with and learning the new system.All those takes time. Not just 7 games.

BTW, skill is not acquired overnight. It is learned and practiced in any sport. It takes time. SAme thing with strength. Why do you think rookies have to bulk up? Why do you think the ability to gain more mass is important when drafting players?

justasportsfan

10-25-2006, 09:21 AM

yeah, building through the draft.

So far, we did that and we got better at ONE position. If we can get better at ONE position a year, we'll have a good team by 2016. Great strategy. I know it takes time, but IMO rebuilding means improving. We need to get better at more than one position at a time if this is going to work.

You can't build solely through the draft. At some point you have to bring in proven players to fill gaps.
But you expect that to be done in one season. :coocoo: . Again, no common sense.

OpIv37

10-25-2006, 09:23 AM

Sheez. It gets old trying to explain to you in detail.The reason why I said five years is because you are comparing last years DL to this years DL. 7 games vs. 5 years. You're *****ing about five years of sucking and tehn comparing it to 7 games . It's simple common sense, you can't expect this Dl to be better that the last fives years of damage especially with a rookie, new player (Tripplett) and a new system in seven games. :shakeno:

It's not just strength and skill. It's everything from reading gaps. to familiarity with players you play with and learning the new system.All those takes time. Not just 7 games.

BTW, skill is not acquired overnight. It is learnt and practiced in any sport. SAme thing with strength. Why do you think rookies have to bulk up? Why do you think the ability to gain more mass is important when drafting players?

Is reading gaps all that different between pro ball and college ball? Please. These guys have been playing this game their entire lives. I know the NFL is the highest level, but those kinds of things don't change that much. These rookies aren't 150 lb twigs who have never played football or worked out before- they were drafted for a reason.

Is it unreasonable to expect the DL to be dominant after 7 games? Yes. Is it unreasonable to expect our DL to be better than it is at this point? Absolutely not.

This DL had a good game against Miami and Schobel did well in the second game against NE. Other than that, they've been an absolute disaster.

OpIv37

10-25-2006, 09:24 AM

But you expect that to be done in one season. :coocoo: . Again, no common sense.

Right, it's :coocoo: to expect the FO to fix more than one position in a rebuilding year. I must be a real moron. :rolleyes:

justasportsfan

10-25-2006, 09:28 AM

Is reading gaps all that different between pro ball and college ball? Please. These guys have been playing this game their entire lives. I know the NFL is the highest level, but those kinds of things don't change that much. These rookies aren't 150 lb twigs who have never played football or worked out before- they were drafted for a reason.

Is it unreasonable to expect the DL to be dominant after 7 games? Yes. Is it unreasonable to expect our DL to be better than it is at this point? Absolutely not.

This DL had a good game against Miami and Schobel did well in the second game against NE. Other than that, they've been an absolute disaster.

College and NFL , same thing :roflmao:

Like I said, no common sense.

justasportsfan

10-25-2006, 09:30 AM

Right, it's :coocoo: to expect the FO to fix more than one position in a rebuilding year. I must be a real moron. :rolleyes:I agree. :D .

PECKERWOOD

10-25-2006, 09:39 AM

McFarland is a one technique guy? Or 3 Technique?

OpIv37

10-25-2006, 09:40 AM

College and NFL , same thing :roflmao:

Like I said, no common sense.

same thing, no. Same game, same techniques, yes. You talk like these guys have SOOO much to learn and it's SOOOO different. Yeah, it takes time, but at DT not that much time. It's not QB.

justasportsfan

10-25-2006, 09:48 AM

same thing, no. Same game, same techniques, yes. You talk like these guys have SOOO much to learn and it's SOOOO different. Yeah, it takes time, but at DT not that much time. It's not QB.
you're forgetting a few things. The more experienced and stronger OL a ROOKIE DT is facing usually has something to say about those gaps, the rb they are playing are not college rb's and last but not least, the QB's/OC's can fool those ROOKIE DT's into thinking they are going to do one thing. So it's not just about strength.

BTW, OP. I want a list of rookie DT"S that dominated in their rookie year and compare that list to the no of rookie DT's that haven't. I DARE YOU to show me that most of them dominated since it's just a DT position and not the Qb. Cmon,prove to us it's that easy .

OpIv37

10-25-2006, 10:01 AM

you're forgetting a few things. The more experienced and stronger OL a ROOKIE DT is facing usually has something to say about those gaps, the rb they are playing are not college rb's and last but not least, the QB's can fool those DT into thinking they are one thing. So it's just about strength.

BTW, OP. I want a list of rookie DT"S that dominated in their rookie year and compare that list to the no of rookie DT's that haven't. I DARE YOU to show me that most of them dominated since it's just a DT position and not the Qb. Cmon,prove to us it's that easy .

Once again, putting words in my mouth. There's a lot of middle ground between "dominant" and "sucks". I never expected McCargo to look like Pat Williams from Day 1. But he couldn't even outplay Tim Anderson (who bites) or Kyle Williams (who was picked 4 ROUNDS LATER in the same draft and has just as little experience).

But, we're rebuilding, so according to you, asking for guys to not suck is asking too much.

justasportsfan

10-25-2006, 10:04 AM

Once again, putting words in my mouth. There's a lot of middle ground between "dominant" and "sucks". I never expected McCargo to look like Pat Williams from Day 1. But he couldn't even outplay Tim Anderson (who bites) or Kyle Williams (who was picked 4 ROUNDS LATER in the same draft and has just as little experience).

But, we're rebuilding, so according to you, asking for guys to not suck is asking too much.
where's that list?

BTW, JP has had 3 years in the NFL, McArgo 6 games yet you defend JP (I agree with) and blast Mcargo. Don't give me that "qb is a harder position" crap . By your logic, JP should at least be decent but not suck. Double standard

OpIv37

10-25-2006, 10:10 AM

where's that list?

BTW, JP has had 3 years in the NFL, McArgo 6 games yet you defend JP (I agree with) and blast Mcargo. Don't give me that "qb is a harder position" crap . By your logic, JP should at least be decent but not suck. Double standard

once again, no ability to make distinctions. QB is infinitely more complicated than DT. But in your mind, everyone's the same. Hell, we didn't give Chris Watson 3 years but we gave JP 3 years- by your "every situation is the same" logic, we never should have let him go.

Yeah, we're rebuilding. That's an excuse for the team's struggles, and at times it's a legitimate one. But it doesn't give every player an excuse to suck. Again, I'm not saying McCargo should have been dominant, but he showed absolutely nothing. I don't think asking a first round draft pick to show a little promise.

justasportsfan

10-25-2006, 10:12 AM

once again, no ability to make distinctions. QB is infinitely more complicated than DT. But in your mind, everyone's the same. Hell, we didn't give Chris Watson 3 years but we gave JP 3 years- by your "every situation is the same" logic, we never should have let him go.

Yeah, we're rebuilding. That's an excuse for the team's struggles, and at times it's a legitimate one. But it doesn't give every player an excuse to suck. Again, I'm not saying McCargo should have been dominant, but he showed absolutely nothing. I don't think asking a first round draft pick to show a little promise.
this is why I want that list that you can't up with. Even if the DT position is not as hard as the QB position, show me a list where Rookie DT's didn't struggle in 6 games. Sheez, even Tripplett is struggling and yet you expect McArgo to not struggle? :coocoo:

OpIv37

10-25-2006, 10:15 AM

this is why I want that list that you can't up with. Even if the DT position is not as hard as the QB position, show me a list where Rookie DT's didn't struggle in 6 games. Sheez, even Tripplett is struggling and yet you expect McArgo to not struggle? :coocoo:

I will, when you show me a list of rookie DT's who showed ABSOLUTELY NOTHING in six games and turned out to be good. Not just "struggled"- did NOTHING like McCargo did.

justasportsfan

10-25-2006, 10:28 AM

I will, when you show me a list of rookie DT's who showed ABSOLUTELY NOTHING in six games and turned out to be good. Not just "struggled"- did NOTHING like McCargo did.

that's a cop out. I asked for a list and then you ask for one because you have NOTHING. Then again I knew you had nothing and expected you to crawl/spin away from a request. :shakeno:

I won't go far. Bunkley hasn't done crap and he was drafted higher than Mcargo.

Dewayne Robertson, high pick by the jets 2003. Didn't do squat in his first year. That's just a couple. I won't go look for you but I've already answered your request the first time you asked for it. I've made my point.

You're also forgetting it's hard to rack up stats when you're in a rotational system getting very minimal experience in your first year. Judging a ROOKIE after 6 games in a rotational system. HA! That's just dumb.

OpIv37

10-25-2006, 10:32 AM

that's a cop out. I asked for a list and then you ask for one. You have NOTHING, then again I knew you had nothing and expected you to crawl/spin away from a request. :shakeno:

I won't go far. Bunkley hasn't done crap and he was drafted higher than Mcargo.

Dewayne Robertson, high pick by the jets 2003. Didn't do squat in his first year. That's just a couple. I won't go look for you but I've already answered your request the first time you asked for it. I've made my point.

You're also forgetting it's hard to rack up stats when you're in a rotational system getting very minimal experience in your first year.

You're also forgetting that DT isn't always about stats. Penetration into the backfield, QB pressures, collapsing the pocket, forcing RB's to change direction, none of that **** appears on stat sheets. But they're all important to playing the position well.

So unless you watched every Jets game in 03 to see Robertson or have been watching Bunkley every game as well as McCargo, what you're saying is a big stretch. I know McCargo isn't doing those things well cuz I've seen every NFL snap he's played. I know you haven't seen that much of Bunkley or that much of Robertson in 03.

justasportsfan

10-25-2006, 10:36 AM

You're also forgetting that DT isn't always about stats. Penetration into the backfield, QB pressures, collapsing the pocket, forcing RB's to change direction, none of that **** appears on stat sheets. But they're all important to playing the position well.

So unless you watched every Jets game in 03 to see Robertson or have been watching Bunkley every game as well as McCargo, what you're saying is a big stretch. I know McCargo isn't doing those things well cuz I've seen every NFL snap he's played. I know you haven't seen that much of Bunkley or that much of Robertson in 03.

Haha. Another cop out. I knew you'd try to squirm away by spinning my examples. Roberston was considrered a disappointment in his first year. I followed him closely. To think he wasn't in a rotational system. I don't give a rats a$$ if I don't follow BUnkley.Since you make out that DT transition into the NFL so easy, Bunkley hasn't done squat. You wanted examples, I gave it to you.

Now I'm done attacking you're usual lack of common sense for the day. Have a great usual whiny day. :up:

OpIv37

10-25-2006, 10:46 AM

Haha. Another cop out. I knew you'd try to squirm away by spinning my examples. Roberston was considrered a disappointment in his first year. I followed him closely. To think he wasn't in a rotational system. I don't give a rats a$$ if I don't follow BUnkley.Since you make out that DT transition into the NFL so easy, Bunkley hasn't done squat. You wanted examples, I gave it to you.

Now I'm done attacking you're usual lack of common sense for the day. Have a great usual whiny day. :up:

your ability to oversimplify situations strikes again. You're measuring purely based on stats for a position that doesn't rely on stats. And you admitted that you're not even following one of your examples, so you nullify your own argument. But I lack common sense :rolleyes:

You're great at scratching the surface of an issue. You're terrible at actually analyzing it and actually discovering what is really occurring.

You're also misrepresenting what I said, yet again (which is why you think I lack common sense). I never said the transition is easy- I said it's not an excuse for completely sucking like McCargo has.

And finally, you neglected to consider the possibility that Bunkley may be a bust as well, which would make any argument involving him irrelevant.

PECKERWOOD

10-25-2006, 10:58 AM

McCargo will be a beast, you watch. He was getting double teamed his first 6 games. We need a true 1 technique tackle that demands double teams, untill we get that man. McCargo and Tripplett will be the ones taking the double teams. That is majorily the reason why Tripplett hasnt put up mind blowing numbers.

madness

10-25-2006, 12:10 PM

justasportsfan

10-25-2006, 12:17 PM

:goodpost:
No chit. Didn't see that post. I wonder why OP couldn't reply to that. Oh yeah. It makes too much sense. Besides, NE39 is a fan of a team that builds via the draft and NOT give picks away.

Dozerdog

10-25-2006, 08:08 PM

madness

10-26-2006, 08:02 AM

OP's strategy-

Give away picks and young talent, as well as trade away your garbage that teams are dying for, in exchange for top talent that other teams are willing to give up.

And when it doesn't materialize- It's Marv's fault.

:coocoo:

You forgot to blame Marv for not being able to nogotiate a top 5 CB contract between a bum CB and the team you're trying to dump him on... since it's obviously his responsibility to do that in order to get the trade done. Way to blow another one Marv. :up:

Dont drink the water

10-26-2006, 08:40 AM

The allmighty OpIv can get any deal done. He can sell refridgerators to eskimos

ICE and OpIv for to replace Marv and Jim in 2008 - 6 straight years of #1 pick!

OpIv37

10-26-2006, 08:43 AM

You forgot to blame Marv for not being able to nogotiate a top 5 CB contract between a bum CB and the team you're trying to dump him on... since it's obviously his responsibility to do that in order to get the trade done. Way to blow another one Marv. :up:

of course, Marv has NOTHING to do with why that bum CB is still on the team- it's not like Marv franchised the guy or anything :rolleyes:

OpIv37

10-26-2006, 08:45 AM

OP's strategy-

Give away picks and young talent, as well as trade away your garbage that teams are dying for, in exchange for top talent that other teams are willing to give up.

And when it doesn't materialize- It's Marv's fault.

:coocoo:

I haven't seen any talent from McCargo yet. Who cares if teams are willing to give up on McFarland? He's still better than anything we got.

Damn, the hypocrisy around here.

With Peerless Price and Andre Davis, everyone goes off about how good a "change of scenery" can be for a player- look at Sam Adams, Corey Dillon, etc. But when the desired player goes somewhere OTHER than Buffalo or when Marv doesn't get the job done, that logic no longer applies and the player is just some other team's trash.

Ickybaluky

10-26-2006, 09:11 AM

With Peerless Price and Andre Davis, everyone goes off about how good a "change of scenery" can be for a player- look at Sam Adams, Corey Dillon, etc. But when the desired player goes somewhere OTHER than Buffalo or when Marv doesn't get the job done, that logic no longer applies and the player is just some other team's trash.

There is a difference. Price and Davis were shorter-money (by comparison) players you didn't have to give up draft compensation to acquire. Adams, again, was a free agent the team only had to give up money to get.

Dillon you can draw as a comparison, but it was different because:

- The Pats were closer to contention and could afford to take a risk more than Buffalo can right now
- Dillon is a more accomplished and better player than McFarland is
- The Pats traded for Dillon was the #56 overall, and thus the second round pick they traded was less valuable than the pick the Bills second rounder was likely to be
- The Pats had extra draft picks they had stockpiled and could better afford to deal a second round pick. The pick they traded for Dillon was an extra pick they had picked up from Miami by trading down in the draft the year prior.

A team in Buffalo's position should be looking to acquire extra picks, not get rid of valuable first-day picks.

The bottom line:

McFarland is an older player with a big cap value who might have made the team better for the next 3 years.

That draft pick can be a younger player with a cheap cap value who might make the team better for at least the next 4 years, and maybe longer.

Given that Buffalo is currently building for long-term success and not playing for the present, which one makes sense? You can't eliminate cap resources from the equation.

OpIv37

10-26-2006, 09:20 AM

There is a difference. Price and Davis were shorter-money (by comparison) players you didn't have to give up draft compensation to acquire. Adams, again, was a free agent the team only had to give up money to get.

Dillon you can draw as a comparison, but it was different because:

- The Pats were closer to contention and could afford to take a risk more than Buffalo can right now
- Dillon is a more accomplished and better player than McFarland is
- The Pats traded for Dillon was the #56 overall, and thus the second round pick they traded was less valuable than the pick the Bills second rounder was likely to be
- The Pats had extra draft picks they had stockpiled and could better afford to deal a second round pick. The pick they traded for Dillon was an extra pick they had picked up from Miami by trading down in the draft the year prior.

A team in Buffalo's position should be looking to acquire extra picks, not get rid of valuable first-day picks.

The bottom line:

McFarland is an older player with a big cap value who might have made the team better for the next 3 years.

That draft pick can be a younger player with a cheap cap value who might make the team better for at least the next 4 years, and maybe longer.

Given that Buffalo is currently building for long-term success and not playing for the present, which one makes sense? You can't eliminate cap resources from the equation.

One flaw in that argument: Marv made 3 DL changes in the off season and so far we've seen no results. Again, I'm not expecting an instant turnaround, just better play than what we're getting. (ie, if it's 3rd and 2, I want at least the POSSIBILITY of stopping the other team, which is something we don't currently have).

Through all this rebuilding garbage, the season is half over and we've gotten better at ONE position: safety. We sacrificed a whole season to rebuild for THAT? Please. Building through the draft is the way to do it, but at some point you have to bring in proven players to fill gaps. No team can be built entirely through the draft anymore.

OpIv37

10-26-2006, 09:24 AM

Ickybaluky

10-26-2006, 09:31 AM

One flaw in that argument: Marv made 3 DL changes in the off season and so far we've seen no results. Again, I'm not expecting an instant turnaround, just better play than what we're getting. (ie, if it's 3rd and 2, I want at least the POSSIBILITY of stopping the other team, which is something we don't currently have).

Through all this rebuilding garbage, the season is half over and we've gotten better at ONE position: safety. We sacrificed a whole season to rebuild for THAT? Please. Building through the draft is the way to do it, but at some point you have to bring in proven players to fill gaps. No team can be built entirely through the draft anymore.

Yeah, Levy inherited a 5-11 team that hasn't made the playoffs in the current millenium, and had one winning record in that time. He hired a coaching staff and put in new systems on both sides of the ball (that require different kinds of players).

One would think they would have this thing turned around after 7 games, no? Think about it Op, it takes some time. I understand your frustration, but don't you think you are a tad impatient? Levy/Jauron may succeed or fail, but it isn't like you can tell yet. Heck, Belichick inherited a 9-7 team and proceded to go 5-11 in his first year in NE. Perhaps we should have given up on him.

However, it is proven that trading away draft picks for veterans does not build any long-term success, especially for a rebuilding team. Miami traded away a 2nd and 3rd a couple years ago for AJ Feeley and Lamar Gordon (instant upgrades for them), how did that work out for them?

There are cases where a trade works, but usually it is an emerging team looking for that missing piece. Buffalo is still trying to find itself and get young players that fit their new schemes. They should be stockpiling picks.

Given the rapid change Levy has put in there, it is silly to expect instant results. They are going to turn over a bunch of players and it will take time to get all the new guys on the same page. You just have to wait. Talk to me in a year and tell me if you are starting to see progress.

Ickybaluky

10-26-2006, 09:38 AM

And you guys are forgetting ONE thing- MARV wanted the guy!!!!

If it's such a bad idea to take him and his cap hit, why aren't you guys criticizing Marv for trying to get him in the first place?

Oh, yeah, I forgot- Marv's infallible.

He wanted him, but not for the compensation that it took to get him.

That said, I agree they probably shouldn't be looking to acquire high-dollar vets at this point. The Hargrove trade makes more sense because he is a young player with some upside and he didn't cost so much, but if I were Levy I'd be looking to trade my older guys to acquire draft pics. I'd also be looking to trade down on draft day to acquire extra picks, because that means extra players.

justasportsfan

10-26-2006, 10:19 AM

OP *****ed about the last 5 years and wants to repeat it by giving up draft picks for a mediocre at best DT with a huge cap.

Op *****ed about the OL and MArv tried to fix it by bringing in FA's. It takes time for things to come together especially 5 years of damage that he *****ed about.

Op *****ed about the DL. Marv brought in Tripplett and drafted two DL men. Just like the OL , it takes time. Anyone with common sense knows that rookies don't exactly take off in their 1st year regardless of position especially a DT that is in rotation.

OP *****ed up a storm because he thought MArv didn't try to get McFarland. Now that it turns out that MArv did, he's *****ing again because the deal fell through. Again, McFarland is a high priced mediocre DT that MArv didn't want give up the farm for and he's *****ing again. But wait, that's what TD would've done. The GM that OP was *****ing about.

The team is rebuilding because of the last 5 years that OP *****ed about. He's *****ing now about the things that comes with rebuilding. He's not willing to wait. He wants instant gratification.

He talks about hypocracy and yet he can't see he's being one.

Anyone with common sense knows that rebuilding takes time. I've already shown him that even the great coaches/GM's aren't successful in their first rebuilding year but that doesn't matter to him. ***** away anyways.

Now we know OP knows nothing about building teams but he's one hell on a whiner.

In conclusion, we really need to set up a *****ing forum just for him.

justasportsfan

10-26-2006, 10:24 AM

OpIv37

10-26-2006, 12:49 PM

Yeah, Levy inherited a 5-11 team that hasn't made the playoffs in the current millenium, and had one winning record in that time. He hired a coaching staff and put in new systems on both sides of the ball (that require different kinds of players).

One would think they would have this thing turned around after 7 games, no? Think about it Op, it takes some time. I understand your frustration, but don't you think you are a tad impatient? Levy/Jauron may succeed or fail, but it isn't like you can tell yet. Heck, Belichick inherited a 9-7 team and proceded to go 5-11 in his first year in NE. Perhaps we should have given up on him.

However, it is proven that trading away draft picks for veterans does not build any long-term success, especially for a rebuilding team. Miami traded away a 2nd and 3rd a couple years ago for AJ Feeley and Lamar Gordon (instant upgrades for them), how did that work out for them?

There are cases where a trade works, but usually it is an emerging team looking for that missing piece. Buffalo is still trying to find itself and get young players that fit their new schemes. They should be stockpiling picks.

Given the rapid change Levy has put in there, it is silly to expect instant results. They are going to turn over a bunch of players and it will take time to get all the new guys on the same page. You just have to wait. Talk to me in a year and tell me if you are starting to see progress.

I think it's shortsighted to say I'm being impatient. I'm not looking for a top 10 rushing D or expecting McCargo to break Strahan's single season sack record from a DT spot. I'm just looking for improvement and so far I hardly see any of it this season, and I definitely don't see any of it on the DL or the OL. Last time I checked, "rebuilding" didn't mean an entire season of stagnation.

OpIv37

10-26-2006, 12:51 PM

OP *****ed up a storm because he thought MArv didn't try to get McFarland. Now that it turns out that MArv did, he's *****ing again because the deal fell through. Again, McFarland is a high priced mediocre DT that MArv didn't want give up the farm for and he's *****ing again. But wait, that's what TD would've done. The GM that OP was *****ing about.
.

Pot calling the kettle black. You said it's a bad idea for us to get him. But Marv tried to get him. Seems to me that it should be a mistake in your eyes that Marv tried to get him and failed. But no, you manage to spin that failure into success. Because Marv's infallible.

justasportsfan

10-26-2006, 12:53 PM

Pot calling the kettle black. You said it's a bad idea for us to get him. But Marv tried to get him. Seems to me that it should be a mistake in your eyes that Marv tried to get him and failed. But no, you manage to spin that failure into success. Because Marv's infallible.
Bad idea to get a mediocre DT with a huge cap. Nice attempt to spin my post.

OpIv37

10-26-2006, 12:53 PM

for someone who kept saying, it's a different position, blah,blah blah.... it's a different circumstance, blah,blah,blah you sure love to go against your own logic when you'r losing an argument. Hypocracy? The irony.

you're right, it's an entirely different circumstance. We already had a cadre of mediocre receivers and added two more to the list. It's entirely different to want to add a good player to a position where all we have is ****.

OpIv37

10-26-2006, 12:54 PM

Bad idea to get him with his cap.

Right, but Marv still TRIED to get him and he would have come with the cap no matter what Marv gave up. Why aren't you blasting Marv for trying to get him? You said yourself it's a bad idea.

Oh, right. Because Marv's infallible.

justasportsfan

10-26-2006, 12:59 PM

you're right, it's an entirely different circumstance. We already had a cadre of mediocre receivers and added two more to the list. It's entirely different to want to add a good player to a position where all we have is ****.
a good player? According to whom? You? the guy who wanted to trade our picks for a mediocre player with a huge cap? Sure, whatever you say. :snicker:

justasportsfan

10-26-2006, 01:01 PM

Right, but Marv still TRIED to get him and he would have come with the cap no matter what Marv gave up. Why aren't you blasting Marv for trying to get him? You said yourself it's a bad idea.

Oh, right. Because Marv's infallible.Op look at my pasts posts stating the DL needs to be addressed especially the DT. BUt NOT for an expensive mediocre player. Not my problem you have a comprehension problem.

BY the way, you're the only one repeating that MArv is infallible. No one here thinks that. Your sarcasm has no point.

OpIv37

10-26-2006, 01:01 PM

a good player? According to whom? You? the guy who wanted to trade our picks for a mediocre player with a huge cap? Sure, whatever you say. :snicker:

Good according to the Indianapolis Colts. But what do they know- that team never has any good players :rolleyes:

Oh and you keep neglecting one fact: Even if I concede that he's a mediocre player, mediocre is still better than Anderson and McCargo and is an improvement to our DL.

OpIv37

10-26-2006, 01:03 PM

Op look at my pasts posts stating the DL needs to be addressed especially the DT. BUt NOT for an expensive mediocre player. Not my problem you have a comprehension problem.

BY the way, you're the only one repeating that MArv is infallible. No one here thinks that. Your sarcasm has no point.

YOU said it was a bad idea to get him. Marv tried to get him.

But instead of dissing Marv for trying to do something that YOU said was a bad idea, you turn around and find a way to compliment him for it. Seems to me I'm not the one with a comprehension problem.

justasportsfan

10-26-2006, 01:08 PM

Good according to the Indianapolis Colts. But what do they know- that team never has any good players :rolleyes:

Oh and you keep neglecting one fact: Even if I concede that he's a mediocre player, mediocre is still better than Anderson and McCargo and is an improvement to our DL.
Haha! They guy who gives JP a chance keeps b1tching about a player who's only played 6 games. The same guy who kept saying to keep JP in there last year inspite of stinking up the place.

Trade away draft picks for an expensive mediocre player. That's exactly what TD did. Yeah they guy responsible for the last 5 years. :coocoo:

Whatever. I'm not gonna waste my time anymore with someone who can't agree with himself.

Think whatever it is you want to think. Your whiny posts are nothing but whines anyways.

justasportsfan

10-26-2006, 01:10 PM

YOU said it was a bad idea to get him. Marv tried to get him.

But instead of dissing Marv for trying to do something that YOU said was a bad idea, you turn around and find a way to compliment him for it. Seems to me I'm not the one with a comprehension problem.Not gonna repeat myself just because you lack comprehension.

OpIv37

10-26-2006, 01:12 PM

Haha! They guy who gives JP a chance keeps b1tching about a player who's only played 6 games.

Trade away draft picks for an expensive mediocre player. That's exactly what TD did. Yeah they guy responsible for the last 5 years. :coocoo:

Whatever. I'm not gonna waste my time anymore with someone who can't agree with himself.

Think whatever it is you want to think. Your whiny posts are nothing but whines anyways.

George Allen and his assistant coach, MARV LEVY, used to trade away ALL their draft picks for proven players. Seemed to work out OK for them.

Your opinion of my posts is meaningless because you always spin what I say.

And you can call it whining all you want. I just want this team to be good. You ALWAYS have excuses for guys- "he needs more time", "nate sucks cuz of the pass rush", "marv inherited TD's mess"- you NEVER hold anyone accountable.

Marv just tried to get a player and failed. You said we shouldn't have that player in the first place. Either Marv screwed up by trying to get the guy in the first place, or he screwed up by not getting him- pick one. But you STILL find a way to defend him.

Let's just make excuses for everyone on this team who underperforms. That's the best way to rebuild.