PDA

View Full Version : My Take On The TKO/Holcomb and D.Walker Trades



LifetimeBillsFan
07-30-2007, 06:17 AM
While I am concerned that, at least at present, it appears that the Bills may end up going into this season with the same DT rotation that they had last year, after careful consideration, I think that the Bills accomplished pretty much what they wanted and managed to squeeze just about as much out of these as they could have.

Here's why I have come to this conclusion (those of you who don't like to read posts with lengthy analysis can skip this part if you are not inclined to reading :lol:):

The TKO/Holcomb trade: Overview

To understand this trade, from the perspective of the Bills' FO, you have to go back to the 2005 season.

While it is safe to say that JP Losman was not ready to lead that team to the playoffs when the season began, the fact is that, with E.Moulds as its public face, there was a full-scale revolt in the Bills' lockerroom against Losman being given the starting QB job instead of K.Holcomb. While Moulds was the guy who openly led the revolt in the media, it became apparent, as the season wore on, that he was correct in saying that he had the support of others in the Bills' lockerroom.

While these players were right about Losman not being ready and about the coaching staff being inept, the fact is that the players didn't get the job done on the field either. The result was that, with "the inmates trying to run the asylum", the team had a disastrous season that left the lockerroom fractured and in disarray.

M.Levy and D.Jauron were brought in to clean up this mess. And, the only way to do that was to clean out the lockerroom by getting rid of as many of the "lockerroom lawyers" and those players who were not willing to get on board with the new direction and attitude that Levy and Jauron were bringing to the team as they could...as quickly as they could--regardless of how talented or what kind of reputations those players had.

No matter what was said publicly by Levy or Jauron or anyone else at OBD, that was Job # 1. Of course they could not say this publicly in so many words, but actions speak louder than words and this was apparent from their actions in just the first couple of months of the Levy Regime. Ownership and down the line to front office management was determined to re-establish control over the team (and, by extension, the lockerroom). And, that could only be done by getting rid of players who were obviously part of the lockerroom revolt (Adams and Moulds), those who may have quietly supported or gone along with it who were no longer the players that they once were on the field and could be replaced (Milloy and Vincent), and those who were not going to get on board with the new program that was being instituted (McGahee).

While this meant purging the team of a lot of talent and many high-profile players, it was something that Ownership and Management understood had to be done. Why, some may ask. Because in the last 60 years only one team has had a lockerroom revolt and won a championship. That was the Cleveland Browns in 1964. And, that team was not only united in its hatred of its Head Coach, but led by Jim Brown and its other captains and did not have a QB controversy to deal with internally. For all of its high-profile players, the 2005 Bills shared little in common with that 1964 Browns team both on and off the field (when 3 Pro Bowl veterans couldn't figure out who to cover and left an undersized rookie to cover C.Chambers on the winning 2 point conversion in Miami that should tell you all that you need to know in this regard).

While, obviously, any team would like to replace the talent that it is losing or letting go with equal or superior talent, when you are trying to clean up a mess like the Bills were as a team at the end of the 2005 season, it is not always possible to do that when you are faced with having to purge so many talented and not-so-talented players. You have to hope that some of your younger players will step up not only their game, but to take more of a leadership role. And, you have to hope that you are not just good, but also lucky in drafting new players and in the free agent signings that you bring in.

But, even at that, you may not be able to get rid of everyone who may have been at least somewhat supportive of the lockerroom revolt. You have to hope that some of the team leaders will get on board with the new program. And, especially if you don't know what you really have in your kid QB, you have to try to cover your bets as much as you possibly can.

So, you keep a guy like Fletcher-Baker around in the hope that he will not only fit in with your new system and set a good example for your younger players, but that he will embrace the role of "elder statesman" and not talk too much about "wanting to win now" and all of his friends that you have jettisoned as part of your purge. You keep a guy like McGahee around, hoping he will get with the program, because he is your most proven offensive weapon. You keep a Holcomb around, even though he was the focal point of the revolt and certainly did nothing to help quash it, because you don't know what you have in your kid QB or whether, after the beating he took, he will be able to bounce back and be a leader for your offense. And, you keep a guy like Spikes around, even though he is starting to complain about all of the friends that you are shipping out of town in your purge, because he really wasn't a part of the debacle that occurred on the field in 2005 and you are hoping that he will get with the program and return to his pre-injury form, when he was clearly the team's best defensive player.

That's how the Bills went into last season.

And, we all know the results. While McGahee didn't always run hard and didn't get with the program, L.Evans had a breakout season supplanting McGahee as the team's best offensive threat and Losman emerged as the clear-cut choice as starting QB. Fletcher-Baker provided good leadership for the Bills' "kiddie corps" on defense and had another good statistical season, but wasn't a great fit in their new defensive system, made a couple of comments to the media complaining about all of the vets the team was getting rid of, and ended the season looking for more money and years than it would have been prudent for the team to invest in him. Spikes came back, but was injured again for much of the season and was virtually out-played by a rookie 6th round draft pick while he was out. In addition, Spikes made comments on more than one occasion during and after the season complaining about all of his friends that had been jettisoned by the team and, then, went to management and asked to be traded with two years and over $ 10 million remaining on his contract.

The Holcomb/ Spikes Trade: Holcomb

Holcomb's tenure in Buffalo was ended when JP Losman emerged as the team's starting QB last preseason. While C.Nall didn't really show enough to establish himself as the team's # 2 QB, it was apparent that Holcomb was not a fit in S.Fairchild's offense and his days in a Bills uniform were numbered. With the Bills wanting to bring in a young QB that they could tutor in Fairchild's offense, Holcomb was going to be cut. To get anything for Holcomb in a trade--even a dirty jock strap--has to be counted as a plus. For all intents and purposes, in effect, whatever the Bills end up coming away with from these two trades can be seen as being what they got in exchange for Spikes.

The Holcomb/Spikes Trade: Spikes

I know that before his injury TKO was the Bills best defensive player, that he was one of the most dynamic players the team has ever had, that he is a real warrior, that he has a truly engaging personality and was one of the most popular players on the team in recent years. I also am very well-aware of the argument that it can take two years for a player to recover fully from an Achilles heel injury--I made that argument myself on more than one occasion. And, I understand that Spikes is a guy who has the temperment to be a fiery team leader.

But, keeping in mind what I said was Job # 1 for the Levy Regime, let's look at TKO from the perspective of Bills management--and the management of other teams around the league--for a moment.

Despite being one of the highest paid players on their defense, for the last two seasons the Bills have gotten almost nothing out of Spikes. When he was on the field last season, his play was equaled by that of a rookie 6th round draft choice--whose development as a player would only be stunted by keeping TKO around because, if the Bills were to keep Spikes, he would have to be in the starting lineup or he would make such a fuss that it would adversely impact the team.

While it is true that it is possible that TKO may, like J.Peterson, regain his pre-injury All-Pro form, it is equally possible that he may not fully regain that form or may be prone to other injuries. The team might end up paying TKO more than $ 10 million more over the next two seasons only to end up with an average player or one who would spend a lot of time on the bench injured.

Moreover, there's no guarantee that Spikes would be a good fit in their defensive system where the LBs blitz very little and drop into coverage a lot. TKO is a player who really flourishes in a system where the LBs blitz a lot (Philly!) and can free-lance a bit more than in a Cover 2, where it is important for the LBs to take the right angles to the ball and make their "fits" in the run defense. Spikes seemed to have some difficulty with this last season, although he did have a good final game.

And, then, there is the question of TKO's leadership and winning attitude. Like it or not, for as good a player as Spikes has been, the fact remains that TKO has never been on a playoff team. Yes, some of that can be excused by the fact that he has played with some pretty pitiful offensive and defensive teammates, but still he has been a part of some defenses that have shown a tendency to collapse when the game is on the line late in the fourth quarter. And, for all of his obvious on-field fire, the fact remains that, on the two occasions when he addressed his teammates at halftime of close games, exhorting them to play better, on both occasions, his defensive mates left the lockerroom and immediately gave up crucial scores to the opposition before collapsing. Some leadership...either he's not much of a leader or they were not willing to follow him--in either event, it's an indication that something may be lacking in this regard.

Add to that the fact that, even after it was apparent that Levy was getting rid of players who were at the heart of the 2005 lockerroom revolt, Spikes took it upon himself to mention, on more than one occasion, that he was unhappy with the fact that the team was getting rid of so many of his friends. In at least one interview last season, TKO questioned the direction that the team was going in. This is not what you want from anyone, let alone someone who may be in a position to be a leader of your team when you are trying to re-establish control over a lockerroom that has recently had a revolt and you want to create a new and different atmosphere in your lockerroom. If you are trying to get everyone to buy into the new system and atmosphere, you simply can't have a high-profile, would-be or potential leader, going around complaining about the direction the team is going in and moaning about the fact that you got rid of his friends on the team. That is precisely the kind of player that you cannot have in your lockerroom!

And, finally, there is the question of money and playing time. As aforementioned, Spikes was scheduled to make more than $ 4 million this season and more than $ 6 million next year with no guarantee that he would be healthy enough to play effectively enough to be worth that kind of money. If the Bills were to have kept TKO, they would have had to start him and pay him, regardless of how well his injury would allow him to play or how good of a fit he was in the defense. That would mean keeping Ellison on the bench for most of this season, even though he played as well as Spikes did last season and, being younger, has more potential to develop as a player in a system that he where he is a good fit. If the Bills were to have done that, however, Spikes would have immediately begun to lobby publicly for a contract extension after this season, regardless of whether his play warranted it or not. With L.Evans and JP Losman coming close to the end of their contracts, this would have been a problem, especially with Spikes entering those post-30 years when LBs begin to slow down and TKO's injury history.

So, with Ellison showing promise and Crowell ready to take over his spot in the lineup, why deal with the headaches and uncertainties? Especially when TKO decided to approach management and ask for a trade.

By the time word got out that TKO had asked the Bills to trade him, there had already been speculation in the local media that the Bills might cut Spikes rather than pay him the more than $ 10 million that was remaining on his contract. If the local media was smart enough to see that as a possibility, you can be sure that there were some GMs around the NFL who also were aware of it as well.

TKO's trade value had already been driven down by his less-than-stellar play last season to begin with. The possibility that he might be a salary cap casualty further reduced his trade value. And, then, with news getting out that Spikes had asked the team to trade him, his trade value hit rock bottom.

With the influx of young, athletic LBs coming into the NFL this year from the draft, it was going to be difficult for the Bills to get much of anything for TKO under the circumstances. For those who like to compare TKO's potential recovery to that of J.Peterson, consider the fact that Peterson, a former Pro Bowler like Spikes, was signed by Seattle as a free agent--the 49ers got nothing for him. While Darwin Walker is no All-Pro and not the run-stopper that the Bills need at DT, he has been a decent pass-rusher and could have helped the Bills by freeing up John McCargo to rotate in at the 1-tech spot. So, there was some potential value to the Bills there, despite the fact that Walker was looking to have his contract extended and reworked.

While I am sure that the Bills would have liked to get a guarantee of more than a 6th round pick should Walker refuse to report, in addition to the 7th round pick that Philly threw into the deal, at least, in getting that 6th round pick worked into the deal, the Bills were able to "set a floor" for the trade, insuring that they would at least end up with a 6th and 7th round pick in exchange for TKO. Not great, but a lot more than San Francisco got for J.Peterson. And, in the process, the Bills got rid of two players that they very well may have ended up cutting in order to finish the task that was Job # 1 for the Levy Regime when it took over the team early in 2006.

The Walker Trade: Overview

As we all know, Philly sent Darwin Walker to the Bills because he wanted them to extend and rework his contract and, having a surplus of DTs, the Eagles were not going to do that. We all, also, know that Walker refused to report to the Bills for that same reason.

While, as I have pointed out, Walker could have helped the Bills at least address, if not solve, their problems at DT and it is hard to understand why the Bills would have traded for Walker, knowing what he wanted, if they were not willing to give him the kind of contract extension that he wanted, there is now some evidence that it might have been difficult, if not impossible, for the Bills to come to an agreement with Walker that would not have caused huge problems for the team in its dealings with other key players.

It should be obvious that Walker and his agent have been tracking the market for DTs around the NFL since he began demanding that his contract be extended and reworked after last season. Knowing the amount of money that Philly has invested in M.Patterson and B.Bunkley, Walker and his agent had to know that Philly was not about to give them what they were asking for. With the Eagles having a surplus of DTs, that could only mean that Philly would either try to trade or cut Walker. Either way, Walker could force a team to acceed to his contract demands.

To avoid losing Walker and getting nothing in return, Philly allowed Walker to shop himself around the league last spring. But, with teams knowing the situation, it appears that the best deal that Philly could come up with was the TKO/Holcomb trade in which they agreed to give up a 6th round pick if Walker refused to report to the Bills by Aug. 5.

If the Bills had immediately given Walker what he wanted, it is possible that he might have been happy to sign with Buffalo and reported to the OTAs. While it can be argued that that is what the Bills should have done, in truth, we really have no idea what kind of numbers would have satisfied Walker and his agent at that point--we just know that what the Bills offered was not acceptable to Walker--or what kind of effect that would have had on the Bills' salary structure. It can be argued that, if the Bills had extended and reworked Walker's contract, it would have prompted Pro Bowler A.Schobel and rising star J.Peters to demand that their contracts also be extended and reworked and complicated efforts by the Bills to possbily extend the contracts of L.Evans and JP Losman after this season.

Regardless, in the following weeks and months, Walker's position was bolstered and the Bills' position was seriously weakened by the contract that C.Redding signed with Detroit, by the injury suffered by R.Coleman, and by the legal problems and suspensions of T.Johnson and a couple of other DTs around the league. With the market for a quality NFL DT getting bigger and the price for one going up, there was no reason for Walker and his agent to lessen their demands and less likelihood that the Bills would be able to meet them. If the Bills did not meet Walker's demands or trade him to a team that would or that he would rather play for, all he and his agent had to do was wait until his rights reverted back to Philly and the Eagles were forced to cut him. Then, as a free agent, he could go to the team of his choice and/or sell himself to the highest bidder. Walker was in the best position possible. And, if the Bills wanted to get more for him than Philly's 6th round pick, it was up to them to do something.

But, of course, with everyone in the NFL knowing the situation, the Bills were in a tough spot.

The D.Walker Trade: Walker to Chicago

According to ESPN's story on the trade (http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=2953545&campaign=rss&source=NFLHeadlines ), Chicago was one of the teams that Walker talked to about a trade last spring. Unlike with the Bills, Walker's agent says that Walker will not hold out and is willing to take a one year deal from the Bears.

What that tells me is that Walker never had any intention of playing for the Bills unless he got a mega-millions extension from Buffalo. Based on that, I do not believe that the Bills could have satisfied Walker without damaging their salary structure and/or team unity. In which case, trading Walker (or letting him go back to Philly) was the only sensible option for them.

Trading Walker to Chicago and out of the AFC is a good move. While it does strengthen the Bears and, if Walker only signs a one year deal he could be back out on the market next offseason, Miami was one of the teams reported to be most interested in signing Walker if he went back to Philly and was cut. And, there are other teams in the AFC that might have been interested in Walker that the Bills would end up contending with not just this year, but in the future. Walker obviously likes the Bears and may consider staying with them if he has a good season in Chicago.

Getting a fifth round pick from Chicago is, obviously, better than getting the 6th round pick from Philly that Buffalo would have gotten had Walker reverted back to the Eagles, so that is a plus. The fact that it is a conditional pick that could go up based on playing time/performance is also a plus. I know that the Bears love their young DTs, but, with I.Scott, A.Boone and T.Johnson gone, Walker should get plenty of playing time, if he can stay healthy, with A.Garay and D.Davoracek competing for playing time with him. And, Walker's stats should definitely benefit from playing next to T.Harris when he isn't spelling him. I don't know what the conditions are for the Bills to get a better pick from Chicago, but I think there is at least a fair chance that they could end up with a 4th round pick out of the deal--which would be terrific.

CONCLUSION:

I know that there are a lot of Bills fans who think that the Bills "woulda/coulda/shoulda" gotten more for Takeo Spikes than what shapes up now to be a 5th round pick from Chicago and a 7th round pick from Philly. But, under the circumstances and given what SF got for J.Peterson in a similar situation, I think they pretty much got about as much as they possibly could have gotten and have made their lockerroom stronger by sending a message that those players who work hard and buy into what the team is trying to do (ie C.Kelsay, B.Moorman, etc.) will be rewarded, while those who don't will end up playing elsewhere.

Now, of course, none of this has helped to address the weakness of the interior of the Bills' defensive line. And, I must admit that this concerns me--especially the fact that it may mean that T.Anderson may still have a place on the roster. In my view, that means that John McCargo will play a huge role in determining just how good or bad the Bills defense will be this season. He must stay healthy all season and perform at a high level all the way through.

I also think that the departure of D.Walker means that the Bills will be looking closely at those teams that do have a surplus of DTs on their rosters. I would not be surprised to see them trade for a DT using one or more of the picks that they have in next year's draft or, if they are unable to do that, pick up a DT off of the waiver wire during the preseason.

If the Bills do not add a DT before the end of the preseason, there is one thing that does give me hope that they might still get better play from their DTs this season than they did last year: while they were not "good enough",the Bills did do a significantly better job of stopping the run in their final game against the Ravens with Jason Jefferson in the lineup instead of Tim Anderson. I know that's more of a comment on how bad Anderson is than how good Jefferson is, but it's at least something.... That and the fact that teams that switch to a Tampa Cover 2 tend to be much better their second season in the system than the first are at least reasons to hope.

Even though I expect the Bills young players--their rookies in particular, but also, on occasion, their second year players--to make some mistakes, I do expect them to be better, as a unit, at stopping the run, especially as the season goes on, than they were last year.

Meathead
07-30-2007, 06:56 AM
my eyes hurt

Tatonka
07-30-2007, 07:48 AM
excellent write up, as usual.

OpIv37
07-30-2007, 08:18 AM
we got a 5th for Spikes and a 7th for Holcomb- we didn't get two draft picks for Spikes.

Don't try to make it seem like the FO did better than they did.

And since when does younger equal better? That's been accepted as fact around here without any real evidence.

Michael82
07-30-2007, 08:41 AM
Excellent post! That should be published as an article. It's very well thought out and is a great explanation of the whole situation with Marv and all that. :bf1:

Dr. Lecter
07-30-2007, 08:43 AM
we got a 5th for Spikes and a 7th for Holcomb- we didn't get two draft picks for Spikes.

Don't try to make it seem like the FO did better than they did.

And since when does younger equal better? That's been accepted as fact around here without any real evidence.

Holcomb was about to be cut, so he wasa throw in.

And younger does not always equal better. But is also does not always equal worse, especially in the longterm. The funny part is that most people want to see how the team does, while you have them 0-16 without even giving them a chance or seeing how the young guys progress. The people hoping for a good outcome has just as much evidence as do those that have already giving up ont he team this year and for the next 5 years as well.

Fact is the team did nto get it done with some of these older players so now they are trying a new group of guys. Maybe it will work and maybe it won't. We know it did not work with last years team.

Great work as usual LTBF.

Tatonka
07-30-2007, 08:48 AM
it will end up being a 4th.. chicago will have to start walker and play him a ton.. especially if harris has any lingering effects of his injury.. walker becomes their best DT.. at this point, he is only behind harris.

a 4th and a 7th for spikes is fine.

holcombe was a POS that was about to be cut.. and will end up getting cut in philly in about a month...

Mr. Miyagi
07-30-2007, 08:53 AM
we got a 5th for Spikes and a 7th for Holcomb- we didn't get two draft picks for Spikes.

Don't try to make it seem like the FO did better than they did.

And since when does younger equal better? That's been accepted as fact around here without any real evidence.
Op, even you will agree that Spikes is a shell of his former self and Holcomb stinks. I know you like to argue just for the sake of arguing, but you wouldn't prefer that we kept them would you?

OpIv37
07-30-2007, 08:54 AM
Holcomb was about to be cut, so he wasa throw in.

And younger does not always equal better. But is also does not always equal worse, especially in the longterm. The funny part is that most people want to see how the team does, while you have them 0-16 without even giving them a chance or seeing how the young guys progress. The people hoping for a good outcome has just as much evidence as do those that have already giving up ont he team this year and for the next 5 years as well.

Fact is the team did nto get it done with some of these older players so now they are trying a new group of guys. Maybe it will work and maybe it won't. We know it did not work with last years team.

Great work as usual LTBF.

But this team is hardly any different- Ellison and DiGiorgio were playing last year. The only difference is Poz, who may have better physical talent than Fletcher but doesn't have the leadership or the experience (at least not yet).

OpIv37
07-30-2007, 08:56 AM
Op, even you will agree that Spikes is a shell of his former self and Holcomb stinks. I know you like to argue just for the sake of arguing, but you wouldn't prefer that we kept them would you?


I don't care about Holcomb. But he said we got a 5th and a 7th for Spikes- that's inaccurate because the 7th came for Holcomb.

I'd be happier if we kept Spikes. A shell of Takeo Spikes at LB is still better than Coy ****ing Wire and may be better than Keith Ellison depending on how the recovery goes.

Philagape
07-30-2007, 09:00 AM
I don't care about Holcomb. But he said we got a 5th and a 7th for Spikes- that's inaccurate because the 7th came for Holcomb.

It was all the same trade ... arguing which pick is for which player is semantics. If Holcomb was a throw-in worth nothing because he was going to be cut anyway, then one can say both picks were for Spikes and not be wrong.

OpIv37
07-30-2007, 09:04 AM
It was all the same trade ... arguing which pick is for which player is semantics. If Holcomb was a throw-in worth nothing because he was going to be cut anyway, then one can say both picks were for Spikes and not be wrong.

huh? How do you know they would have given up that 7th if Holcomb wasn't included?

Even if you don't know which pick was for which player, we got two picks for two players- not two picks for ONE player, which is what he said.

And I was even giving the benefit of the doubt by saying the better pick was for Spikes.

Mr. Miyagi
07-30-2007, 09:04 AM
I don't care about Holcomb. But he said we got a 5th and a 7th for Spikes- that's inaccurate because the 7th came for Holcomb.

I'd be happier if we kept Spikes. A shell of Takeo Spikes at LB is still better than Coy ****ing Wire and may be better than Keith Ellison depending on how the recovery goes.
But a maybe on Spikes is definitely not worth the huge contract he's got.

I'd much rather go with a cheap 6th rounder who's younger, no injury, and has more potential.

Philagape
07-30-2007, 09:05 AM
huh? How do you know they would have given up that 7th if Holcomb wasn't included?

I don't, and neither do you know they wouldn't have. That was my point. There is no right or wrong.

OpIv37
07-30-2007, 09:08 AM
But a maybe on Spikes is definitely not worth the huge contract he's got.

I'd much rather go with a cheap 6th rounder who's younger, no injury, and has more potential.

If we can give Price, Reed, Royal, Everett, Shaud Williams and Wire chance after chance after chance after chance, why can't we give a guy like Spikes a chance? He's meant more to this team than any of those guys ever have.

We give virtually guaranteed roster spots to mediocrity but dump a proven player at the first sign of trouble.

What's wrong with letting Ellison and Spikes compete for the spot? When it comes to DiGiorgio and Poz, let's let them fight it out, but when it comes to Ellison and Spikes, just give the job to Ellison?

None of this makes any sense.

Wys Guy
07-30-2007, 09:10 AM
While I am concerned that, at least at present, it appears that the Bills may end up going into this season with the same DT rotation that they had last year, after careful consideration, I think that the Bills accomplished pretty much what they wanted and managed to squeeze just about as much out of these as they could have.

Here's why I have come to this conclusion (those of you who don't like to read posts with lengthy analysis can skip this part if you are not inclined to reading :lol:):

I was going to quote the entire thing just for kicks and giggles. :D

Very nice write-up! Well thought/reasoned out.

Here are my thoughts and some counterpoints not necessarily in any particular order.

The only real mention of talent or capability for our DL was the Ravens game. The Ravens were no great team to benchmark for success in stopping the run. In fact, on the season they averaged just over 102 ypg rushing. We allowed them to amass 111, nearly 9 yards more. Jamal Lewis is not a good RB, he's about as good as Anthony Thomas is.

As to the "inmates," is it not possible that players with playoff experience, and moreover, experience with winning, a novel concept here in Buffalo, oh, since the mid-90s or so, at least in a steady-state condition, were merely frustrated to not be winning?

The players that you mentioned, Milloy, Vincent, Adams, Moulds, were all members of much better teams at one point and teams that actually won a playoff game.

How many starting caliber players on our team do we have that are like that now? Can anyone name one besides Larry Tripplett who lost his starting job, twice, in Indy? Unless I'm missing someone here, we have none besides the below average yet overpaid Tripplett.

It will take more than "getting along" and no "lockerrom issues" to see this team, or any team, win and become a playoff caliber team.

And don't misunderstand, I felt that the Milloy and Vincent signings were fully overrated to begin with and stated so in print publicly. So that's not my point. I would generally agree with your statements.

Where we digress is in the extent to which a simple "house cleaning" has helped. No matter how you slice it it is good to have at least a few players that "have been there" and have some playoff wins under their belts.

I obviously don't see the line playing any better this year than last, or not more than marginally so with the development of two rookies, if McCargo can stay healthy for the first time in three seasons. Tripplett is Tripplett and why anyone is expecting more from him mid-prime in his sixth season is beyond me and not a lot to hang one's hopes on..

As to TKO, he was not good last year b/c he came off of one of the worst injuries in football to recover from. It is a foregone conclusion that he will be much better this season. The question is by how much. No one is making the mistake of assuming that he will ever be what he was, particularly turning 31 later this season and exiting his prime.

However, we did trade him when his value was the lowest. For that I question Marv. He would have had greater value as an "unknown quantity" prior to last season or following this one. And while he will never be "what he was," he was tops, so even a regression in play might see him regain a level of play to above average levels which is more than we will likely get from all three of our present starting LBs whomever they are, or will be, clearly Poz and Crowell among them.

But Spikes' performance also stepped up later last season over the last four or five games, quietly, and clearly with no one here or elsewhere in Buffalo eager to admit that.

We talk about the games in which we lost by 3 or fewer points (see my last article on that), however in the most relevant one of those, Spikes was the team's leading tackler. He was also the team's leading tackler in the Ravens game that you just cited. Yet I haven't heard anyone to date here even mention that, and how that he may have really come back on this season.

IMO had we held onto him for one more season, it would have helped us stabilize a defense in sore need of leaders and tremendously short on experience not to mention talent, and perhaps allowed us to trade for as much as a 3rd, but likely easily a 4th round pick even in next year's draft as well. We'd have been better suited all the way around. As it is we'll likely get a late 5th now. The delta there could easily be 50-90 draft slots.

Levy's methodologies will begin to play out this year. I will say this, with rookies, the more you have that have a shot at starting, the greater your chances are of one of them working out. Clearly the higher round players have better odds all other things being equal, but we have two rookies to improve the team amidst very little else besides Dockery and one other dubious RT acquisition amidst a veritable gutting of the defense from an experience standpoint.

Even odds for 1st an 2nd round players suggest that if both Poz and Lynch are to work out as y'all say here, are probably less than 50/50. Sure, they may work out that way, but on the flip side they may also both end up like Cedric Bensen or Carnell Williams even though no one here will admit even the remotest chance of that. And Poz could end up like Rocky McIntosh. The odds of both of those occurring are also remote.

More likely is that we'll get play from both ranging in the solid to above average caliber over time.

Anyway, just some thoughts FWIW which isn't much. ;)

OpIv37
07-30-2007, 09:10 AM
I don't, and neither do you know they wouldn't have. That was my point. There is no right or wrong.

Yes, there is.

We got two picks for two players. Not two picks for one player. Anything else is just speculation, like when he said we got two picks for Spikes. There is absolutely no evidence of that, therefore he shouldn't say it like it's fact (which is what he did).

Philagape
07-30-2007, 09:13 AM
Yes, there is.

We got two picks for two players. Not two picks for one player. Anything else is just speculation, like when he said we got two picks for Spikes. There is absolutely no evidence of that, therefore he shouldn't say it like it's fact (which is what he did).

I can speculate we got both picks for Spikes and we threw in Holcomb to dump salary, and there's no way you can disprove that :ignore:

Both for Spikes! Both for Spikes! Both for Spikes! :ignore:

And if the Eagles cut Holcomb, that'll support my speculation being right.

Wys Guy
07-30-2007, 09:13 AM
If we can give Price, Reed, Royal, Everett, Shaud Williams and Wire chance after chance after chance after chance, why can't we give a guy like Spikes a chance? He's meant more to this team than any of those guys ever have.

We give virtually guaranteed roster spots to mediocrity but dump a proven player at the first sign of trouble.

What's wrong with letting Ellison and Spikes compete for the spot? When it comes to DiGiorgio and Poz, let's let them fight it out, but when it comes to Ellison and Spikes, just give the job to Ellison?

None of this makes any sense.
DiGiorgio is nothing. I'll make the prediction now that he won't even be on the 53-man roster in '08.

Darwin Walker is also nothing. All of this talk as to how much he would have helped our team take it to the next level or provide the missing piece is absurd. He would have been a backup and role player.

Anyone else hoping for anyone else on that list to "emerge" may as well put their money in stocks for a company whose sole goal it is to erect a wall along our southern border. Ain't gonna happen.

Price is the most washed up of the bunch and also won't make the 53-man in '08.

Mr. Miyagi
07-30-2007, 09:15 AM
If we can give Price, Reed, Royal, Everett, Shaud Williams and Wire chance after chance after chance after chance, why can't we give a guy like Spikes a chance? He's meant more to this team than any of those guys ever have.

We give virtually guaranteed roster spots to mediocrity but dump a proven player at the first sign of trouble.

What's wrong with letting Ellison and Spikes compete for the spot? When it comes to DiGiorgio and Poz, let's let them fight it out, but when it comes to Ellison and Spikes, just give the job to Ellison?

None of this makes any sense.
Again, Spikes had a huge contract. None of the other guys you mentioned does. No way I'd pay so much just to compete for a spot, especially given the downside of his age and injury.

OpIv37
07-30-2007, 09:15 AM
I can speculate we got both picks for Spikes and we threw in Holcomb to dump salary, and there's no way you can disprove that :ignore:

Both for Spikes! Both for Spikes! Both for Spikes! :ignore:

And if the Eagles cut Holcomb, that'll support my speculation being right.

but it's still SPECULATION that he stated as FACT in his argument. You even admit that it's speculation- so DON'T TREAT IT AS FACT.

Philagape
07-30-2007, 09:16 AM
but it's still SPECULATION that he stated as FACT in his argument.

How does it feel to be on the other end? :snicker:

Wys Guy
07-30-2007, 09:17 AM
I can speculate we got both picks for Spikes and we threw in Holcomb to dump salary, and there's no way you can disprove that :ignore:

Both for Spikes! Both for Spikes! Both for Spikes! :ignore:

And if the Eagles cut Holcomb, that'll support my speculation being right.
Holcomb didn't have a huge hit. Spikes could easily have been reworked, restructured, etc.

He had more value than any other non-rookie player brought on besides Dockery.

OpIv37
07-30-2007, 09:17 AM
Again, Spikes had a huge contract. None of the other guys you mentioned does. No way I'd pay so much just to compete for a spot, especially given the downside of his age and injury.

so, let's just cross our fingers and give the spot to ellison. And if he gets hurt, let's let Coy Wire play LB.

Jesus, no wonder we never win.

Philagape
07-30-2007, 09:20 AM
:dance: :jig: Both for Spikes! Both for Spikes! Both for Spikes! :jig: :dance:

Wys Guy
07-30-2007, 09:21 AM
Fact is the team did nto get it done with some of these older players so now they are trying a new group of guys. Maybe it will work and maybe it won't. We know it did not work with last years team.

The one thing that cannot be argued is that this team really has no starting players with winning playoff experience. Again, besides Larry "Yawn" Tripplett.

Actually, Dockery has the '05 season with a PO win in Washington too.

But that's also significant. At least is was right here, and back when, when we signed players like Milloy, Vincent, Bledsoe, etc. I'm sure that that's all changed by now. ;)

Jan Reimers
07-30-2007, 09:31 AM
And since when does younger equal better? That's been accepted as fact around here without any real evidence.
Every great player was a rookie at some point.

And if your older players have not taken you to the playoffs in 7 years, and are starting to stink like dead fish, why not try younger?

I think every Bills fan everywhere should be excited about the great young players we've acquired in the past 2 drafts, and give them a chance to succeed in this league.

OpIv37
07-30-2007, 09:33 AM
Every great player was a rookie at some point.

And if your older players have not taken you to the playoffs in 7 years, and are starting to stink like dead fish, why not try younger?

I think every Bills fan everywhere should be excited about the great young players we've acquired in the past 2 drafts, and give them a chance to succeed in this league.

"giving them a chance" means waiting. We've been waiting 7 years.

And if the FO is wrong about these guys, it means waiting, yet again, when their replacements have a chance to succeed....

It's always about building for a future that never gets here.

BTW if our FO was so confident in the youth on the DL, what were they doing messing around with Walker in the first place?

Jan Reimers
07-30-2007, 09:34 AM
But that's also significant. At least is was right here, and back when, when we signed players like Milloy, Vincent, Bledsoe, etc. I'm sure that that's all changed by now. ;)
Yeah, we rolled through the playoffs with those winners.

Dr. Lecter
07-30-2007, 09:34 AM
As to TKO, he was not good last year b/c he came off of one of the worst injuries in football to recover from. It is a foregone conclusion that he will be much better this season. The question is by how much. No one is making the mistake of assuming that he will ever be what he was, particularly turning 31 later this season and exiting his prime.



So McCargo is guarenteed to be re-injured and Spikes is a lock to be much better, when both suffer injuries, the more significant of which was Spikes?

OpIv37
07-30-2007, 09:35 AM
So McCargo is guarenteed to be re-injured and Spikes is a lock to be much better, when both suffer injuries, the more significant of which was Spikes?

McCargo's injury has a much greater chance of recurring. In fact, it already has recurred.

Dr. Lecter
07-30-2007, 09:35 AM
"giving them a chance" means waiting. We've been waiting 7 years.


You are doing it again.

Marv and crew were not here 7 years ago. Using the TD reign as a means to bash the current guys is inaccurate.

Dr. Lecter
07-30-2007, 09:36 AM
McCargo's injury has a much greater chance of recurring. In fact, it already has recurred.

And Spikes has a much greater chance of slowing him down for the rest of his career.

Jan Reimers
07-30-2007, 09:40 AM
"giving them a chance" means waiting. We've been waiting 7 years.

And if the FO is wrong about these guys, it means waiting, yet again, when their replacements have a chance to succeed....

It's always about building for a future that never gets here.

BTW if our FO was so confident in the youth on the DL, what were they doing messing around with Walker in the first place?
You're right. Screw it all and *****, *****, *****.

Never mind that 6 of those non-playoff years were under different coaches and GMs, and that we now have a vastly different player roster.

Just condemn the present based on a past that no one can change.

ParanoidAndroid
07-30-2007, 09:41 AM
I don't care about Holcomb. But he said we got a 5th and a 7th for Spikes- that's inaccurate because the 7th came for Holcomb.

I'd be happier if we kept Spikes. A shell of Takeo Spikes at LB is still better than Coy ****ing Wire and may be better than Keith Ellison depending on how the recovery goes.

Wire is your favorite whipping boy even though he is a back up. Let me get this straight. Even though Ellison might be better than Spikes, you would keep Spikes as a back-up for $4 Mil?

jmb1099
07-30-2007, 09:42 AM
Holcomb didn't have a huge hit. Spikes could easily have been reworked, restructured, etc.

He had more value than any other non-rookie player brought on besides Dockery.
Spikes didn't want to be re-worked or restructured so the point is moot. But lets play devil's advocate and say he did..to what end? To be honest I wouldn't mind the least bit if he were still here but how much would he have wanted to stay? And if we had met his hypothetical demands than the same group of people who are moaning at the FO because he's gone would be the same one's moaning that we paid too much to keep him.

Now considering some of our recent history I understand the penchant for pessimism, however there is a need on both sides of this issue to come clean and admit a few things.
1) While it is true that our d line is largely unchanged there is the wild card that is John McCargo
2) While the LB corps is also largely unchanged there is the addition of Poz, a rookie, but a very good addition nonetheless.
3) There is a learning curve with any new system football or otherwise so it is expected that the returning personnel will have a better handle on their assignments etc.
4) Out of the three units, defense appears to be our weakest link.
5) Some additional help on D would be a welcome thing

OpIv37
07-30-2007, 09:44 AM
You're right. Screw it all and *****, *****, *****.

Never mind that 6 of those non-playoff years were under different coaches and GMs, and that we now have a vastly different player roster.

Just condemn the present based on a past that no one can change.

oh, I'm condemning the present based on the present's own actions, like doing NOTHING to improve a **** run D for starters.

I could go on all day but basically the only talent they added to the D was a rookie in Poz. Their entire strategy is dependent on the same guys improving- that's insane.

OpIv37
07-30-2007, 09:47 AM
Wire is your favorite whipping boy even though he is a back up. Let me get this straight. Even though Ellison might be better than Spikes, you would keep Spikes as a back-up for $4 Mil?
:rolleyes:

And who exactly are we using that $4 million for right now?

You let Spikes and Ellison fight it out. Maybe, just maybe, he'll recover from his injury, and maybe he doesn't- but either way we don't have to worry about Wire taking the field.

And Wire isn't my favorite whipping boy- Josh Reed is. But they're both emblematic of the mediocrity that has mired this team for the last 7+ years.

ParanoidAndroid
07-30-2007, 09:50 AM
"giving them a chance" means waiting. We've been waiting 7 years.

And if the FO is wrong about these guys, it means waiting, yet again, when their replacements have a chance to succeed....

It's always about building for a future that never gets here.

BTW if our FO was so confident in the youth on the DL, what were they doing messing around with Walker in the first place?

But you wanted to give Spikes a chance to recover. Keep Spikes and you end up waiting longer for someone else to come along and refill the position. Poor logic, Op.

Dr. Lecter
07-30-2007, 09:53 AM
And Wire isn't my favorite whipping boy- Josh Reed is. But they're both emblematic of the mediocrity that has mired this team for the last 7+ years.

And both are back-ups.

Like it or not, there are not all-pros that are back-ups. In today's age of Free Agency, players like Reed (who is a decent #3 guy once he stopped the dropsies he had for one season) and Wire are your back-ups.

ParanoidAndroid
07-30-2007, 09:56 AM
:rolleyes:

And who exactly are we using that $4 million for right now?

You let Spikes and Ellison fight it out. Maybe, just maybe, he'll recover from his injury, and maybe he doesn't- but either way we don't have to worry about Wire taking the field.

And Wire isn't my favorite whipping boy- Josh Reed is. But they're both emblematic of the mediocrity that has mired this team for the last 7+ years.

Whether we're using it or not, $4mil is money that you don't spend on a backup. You keep it for a future investment opportunity. Again...poor logic Op.

Oaf
07-30-2007, 10:07 AM
Thank you for the time you invested in writing up such a report. My mind is now at ease on the topic, and I no longer feel the need to read anything else about it.

Let us all hope that Walker does well in Chicago, nets us a 4th, and from there tanks it for the rest of his career.
:gobills:

OpIv37
07-30-2007, 10:09 AM
But you wanted to give Spikes a chance to recover. Keep Spikes and you end up waiting longer for someone else to come along and refill the position. Poor logic, Op.
ONE position- if that position is set with Spikes and and the youth develops at other positions, we can afford to replace ONE position at a time- every team has to do that.

We're trying to simultaneously replace our entire D with youth at the same time and have no experience or leadership.

OpIv37
07-30-2007, 10:10 AM
Whether we're using it or not, $4mil is money that you don't spend on a backup. You keep it for a future investment opportunity. Again...poor logic Op.

are you daft?

SALARY CAP.

It's not rollover cell phone minutes- you lose whatever you don't use.

mysticsoto
07-30-2007, 10:58 AM
are you daft?

SALARY CAP.

It's not rollover cell phone minutes- you lose whatever you don't use.

#1 - you don't know what's going to happen, who they will pick up from here onward, who they may trade for, etc. You complain when players get rich deals, and you complain when the FO does the right thing from a monetary stand point. You just love to complain. $4 mil is too much to play a backup LB who is going to whine about not seeing time and be a distraction in the locker room. And by the way, if there is money leftover, the FO is not going to lose it - that's daft of you even to say. It could be used (and in all likelyhood used) to extend Evans. It could even be used to bring Schobel up to par with what he should be probably be making to ensure he remains happy as a Bill. There's lot of things that can be done with leftover money - certainly better than giving it to a hobbled LB who may or may not recover and will sit on the bench!!!

#2 - it should be noted specifically - Takeo asked to be traded. Period. Can you understand that? He didn't want to be here. He knew that he was on his last legs and that he needed to go elsewhere to get a fair shot at starting. It's why we even played Ellison so much last year - so he could get experience and be ready for this year.

Dr. Lecter
07-30-2007, 11:05 AM
are you daft?

SALARY CAP.

It's not rollover cell phone minutes- you lose whatever you don't use.

It is nothing like rollover minutes. By not spending huge amounts on signing bonuses the Bills will not OWE against the cap in future seasons. A credit card is a better example. By not borrowing money, they won't owe it next year. Or the year after. Or the year after that.

ParanoidAndroid
07-30-2007, 11:43 AM
are you daft?

SALARY CAP.

It's not rollover cell phone minutes- you lose whatever you don't use.

You're getting rude, now. Yet you don't really understand how the $$$ works.
I'm out.

OpIv37
07-30-2007, 11:47 AM
#1 - you don't know what's going to happen, who they will pick up from here onward, who they may trade for, etc. You complain when players get rich deals, and you complain when the FO does the right thing from a monetary stand point. You just love to complain. $4 mil is too much to play a backup LB who is going to whine about not seeing time and be a distraction in the locker room. And by the way, if there is money leftover, the FO is not going to lose it - that's daft of you even to say. It could be used (and in all likelyhood used) to extend Evans. It could even be used to bring Schobel up to par with what he should be probably be making to ensure he remains happy as a Bill. There's lot of things that can be done with leftover money - certainly better than giving it to a hobbled LB who may or may not recover and will sit on the bench!!!

#2 - it should be noted specifically - Takeo asked to be traded. Period. Can you understand that? He didn't want to be here. He knew that he was on his last legs and that he needed to go elsewhere to get a fair shot at starting. It's why we even played Ellison so much last year - so he could get experience and be ready for this year.

I complain when the WRONG guys get rich deals- we don't pay Pat Williams- we do pay Josh Reed and Chris Kelsay.

If they're going to extend anyone with the money, what the hell are they waiting for.

It should be noted specifically- WHY did TKO want to be traded? The FO is willing to make Poz and DiG compete for a starting spot but would have just handed the job to Ellison if TKO had stayed? I don't buy that for a second.

OpIv37
07-30-2007, 11:48 AM
You're getting rude, now. Yet you don't really understand how the $$$ works.
I'm out.

you're the one who thinks we can use the money later and we can't- it's not me who doesn't understand.

ParanoidAndroid
07-30-2007, 11:53 AM
I would take the chance that I could sign someone later in free agency, maybe re-work someone else's contract with that money rather than keep a multi-million dollar back up. Thanks, though. Now I really am out.

OpIv37
07-30-2007, 11:54 AM
It is nothing like rollover minutes. By not spending huge amounts on signing bonuses the Bills will not OWE against the cap in future seasons. A credit card is a better example. By not borrowing money, they won't owe it next year. Or the year after. Or the year after that.

ok, except we're talking about TKO here. He was already under contract, hence no signing bonus was necessary. We currently have well over $4 million in cap available, so keeping him would have had ZERO effect on our future cap.

mysticsoto
07-30-2007, 12:05 PM
I complain when the WRONG guys get rich deals- we don't pay Pat Williams- we do pay Josh Reed and Chris Kelsay.

If they're going to extend anyone with the money, what the hell are they waiting for.

It should be noted specifically- WHY did TKO want to be traded? The FO is willing to make Poz and DiG compete for a starting spot but would have just handed the job to Ellison if TKO had stayed? I don't buy that for a second.

Ellison did okay last year and has been doing great so far in the minicamps and in TC. Ellison is cheaper and able to do the job. Period. Spikes was costly, and an unknown to be able to do the job, on top of which, he'd likely be a complainer and a distraction throughout the season. Looks to me like the coaches are very happy with Ellison's progression so far:


--OLB Keith Ellison (http://www.sportsline.com/nfl/players/playerpage/504706) has had a hot start to camp, particularly in pass coverage. Buffalo likes his athleticism and it has showed early on with several interceptions.

http://www.sportsline.com/nfl/teams/report/BUF/10274460

Dr. Lecter
07-30-2007, 12:07 PM
ok, except we're talking about TKO here. He was already under contract, hence no signing bonus was necessary. We currently have well over $4 million in cap available, so keeping him would have had ZERO effect on our future cap.

True. Except for the fact: It limits the cash to cap movement and he would be untradable next offseason. If he did not fit and did not want to be here, why keep a bad situation and make it ongoing?

OpIv37
07-30-2007, 12:18 PM
True. Except for the fact: It limits the cash to cap movement and he would be untradable next offseason. If he did not fit and did not want to be here, why keep a bad situation and make it ongoing?

everyone is signed- including our rookies- and even after cash to cap we still have more than 4 million in cap room. And why wouldn't he be tradable next year?

OpIv37
07-30-2007, 12:41 PM
Ellison did okay last year and has been doing great so far in the minicamps and in TC. Ellison is cheaper and able to do the job. Period. Spikes was costly, and an unknown to be able to do the job, on top of which, he'd likely be a complainer and a distraction throughout the season. Looks to me like the coaches are very happy with Ellison's progression so far:


--OLB Keith Ellison (http://www.sportsline.com/nfl/players/playerpage/504706) has had a hot start to camp, particularly in pass coverage. Buffalo likes his athleticism and it has showed early on with several interceptions.

http://www.sportsline.com/nfl/teams/report/BUF/10274460



And what if Ellison or Crowell get injured? Then what? Coy Wire? Please.

mysticsoto
07-30-2007, 01:17 PM
And what if Ellison or Crowell get injured? Then what? Coy Wire? Please.
No. DiGiorgio...who's much improved and giving Poz a run for his money! Funny how you care about depth all of a sudden at the LB position, but could care less for good depth at the QB position...

And by the way, you continually put Coy Wire down, but the fact is that he played decent as LB last year when he was in - better than Spikes. Not only that, but he's an order of magnitude cheaper, and contributes in STs. He doesn't just sit on the bench collecting huge paychecks like Spikes would have!!!

OpIv37
07-30-2007, 01:31 PM
No. DiGiorgio...who's much improved and giving Poz a run for his money! Funny how you care about depth all of a sudden at the LB position, but could care less for good depth at the QB position...

And by the way, you continually put Coy Wire down, but the fact is that he played decent as LB last year when he was in - better than Spikes. Not only that, but he's an order of magnitude cheaper, and contributes in STs. He doesn't just sit on the bench collecting huge paychecks like Spikes would have!!!

See... here's the issue with QB: you think a rookie who was mediocre in college constitute "depth". It doesn't. QB and LB are not the same. Here's the other issue with QB: You play ONE at a time, not three, so the chances of injury are less. In fact, rules are designed to PROTECT the QB to make it even less likely. Nall, Edwards, Holcomb- we'd be screwed with any of them on the field.

Wire did NOT play better than Spikes at LB- you're simply wrong about that. The guy ranges from mediocre to awful at D. I like having good ST's but when we have guys like Wire on the field at D I have to wonder if it's worth it.

mysticsoto
07-30-2007, 01:35 PM
See... here's the issue with QB: you think a rookie who was mediocre in college constitute "depth". It doesn't. QB and LB are not the same. Here's the other issue with QB: You play ONE at a time, not three, so the chances of injury are less. In fact, rules are designed to PROTECT the QB to make it even less likely. Nall, Edwards, Holcomb- we'd be screwed with any of them on the field.

Wire did NOT play better than Spikes at LB- you're simply wrong about that. The guy ranges from mediocre to awful at D. I like having good ST's but when we have guys like Wire on the field at D I have to wonder if it's worth it.
I don't see what you thought you saw to think that Spikes played well last year. He was a non-entity and was frequently left chasing someone past him whenever he was in. It was clear he had lost his speed and couldn't keep up with a position that now demands more speed than ever. Sorry, but keeping Spikes at $4 mil to sit on the bench would have just been ridiculous and as much as you like to complain about talent level, there would have been plenty to complain about in terms of cap mgmt had we kept him - regardless of whether there is extra money right now or not(and who knew at the time whether there would be or not)!!!

OpIv37
07-30-2007, 01:42 PM
I don't see what you thought you saw to think that Spikes played well last year. He was a non-entity and was frequently left chasing someone past him whenever he was in. It was clear he had lost his speed and couldn't keep up with a position that now demands more speed than ever. Sorry, but keeping Spikes at $4 mil to sit on the bench would have just been ridiculous and as much as you like to complain about talent level, there would have been plenty to complain about in terms of cap mgmt had we kept him - regardless of whether there is extra money right now or not(and who knew at the time whether there would be or not)!!!

Ok, let's pretend I accept your premise that Spikes was awful and has no chance of getting better as he continues to recover (which I don't)....

So, getting rid of Spikes is the way to go. Fine- REPLACE HIM. Yeah, I know, Ellison and DiGiorgio- well, guess what? They played last year and if they were any better, it wasn't by much.

I fail to see how our D is gonna get better by replacing Spikes with guys who a) couldn't overtake him on the depth chart and b) didn't make the D any better when they were on the field.

As far as Wire's speed- that may help in pass D but pass D wasn't the problem- run D was.

mysticsoto
07-30-2007, 02:00 PM
Ok, let's pretend I accept your premise that Spikes was awful and has no chance of getting better as he continues to recover (which I don't)....

So, getting rid of Spikes is the way to go. Fine- REPLACE HIM. Yeah, I know, Ellison and DiGiorgio- well, guess what? They played last year and if they were any better, it wasn't by much.

I fail to see how our D is gonna get better by replacing Spikes with guys who a) couldn't overtake him on the depth chart and b) didn't make the D any better when they were on the field.

As far as Wire's speed- that may help in pass D but pass D wasn't the problem- run D was.

Okay, 1st, Wire was always better against the run than against the pass as a safety. He just didn't have the speed that a safety needed. As a LB however, he has decent speed - now does that mean that he all of a sudden lost his tackling abilities? I hardly think so. I actually find it funny that I'm here defending Wire when I was calling for his head 2 years ago. But I had to admit that he played ok as LB last year - he played at just about what you'd expect from a backup LB. Nobody is saying he is great enough to start, but he is good enough to be a backup and at a good price AND is great at STs. Spikes is good enough to be a backup LB also, but not at his price.

As to Ellison and DiGiorgio playing last year and the D still not being good enough. They were rookies and still learning...Jesus, how about cutting them some slack. What? Rookies don't have an ability to learn and get better? What? Gaining experience doesn't better your game? Extra mini camps and a new TC now this year will allow JP to fine tune his game but not others??? Why even have these mini camps and TCs to begin with then?

FlyingDutchman
07-30-2007, 02:07 PM
And what if Ellison or Crowell get injured? Then what? Coy Wire? Please.

and last week you saw no reason for getting the back up QBs some extra reps, and now you complain about "WHAT IF" a LB gets hurt. What if this, what if that, should have kept him, shoulda got rid of him...blah blah blah...all you spit is verbal diarrehhia. You just love to complain. Bottom line. complain, complain, complain. You argue in cirlcles and think you know everything. Go get a job with the FO mr guru.

OpIv37
07-30-2007, 02:10 PM
and last week you saw no reason for getting the back up QBs some extra reps, and now you complain about "WHAT IF" a LB gets hurt. What if this, what if that, should have kept him, shoulda got rid of him...blah blah blah...all you spit is verbal diarrehhia. You just love to complain. Bottom line. complain, complain, complain. You argue in cirlcles and think you know everything. Go get a job with the FO mr guru.

I saw no reason for getting the back up QB some extra reps at the expense of the starting QB. Why are the reps meaningless for Losman but oh so important for a back up who shouldn't even see the field.

BTW, we've had ONE injury at starting QB going back to 2002 (Holcomb missed the end of the Chiefs game). We had two injuries at LB (Spikes and Crowell) last year alone.

LifetimeBillsFan
07-31-2007, 05:03 AM
OpIV and Wys Guy: You miss the point completely.

Job # 1 when Marv Levy took over as GM after the 2005 debacle was to clean up the mess that the Bills' lockerroom was in and establish an atmosphere in the lockerroom that would allow the team to win. Which means--in part, but at a minimum--making sure that player on the roster are willing to buy into the direction that the team is going in and what management and the coaches are trying to do. That's one of the things that separates winning teams from those that lose--if you don't believe me, see Tom Brady's comments about Randy Moss needing to buy into the Patriots' way of doing things this season or being gone.

Since Marv could not (and did not want to) get rid of ALL of the players from the 2005 team and he and Jauron did not know exactly which players would buy into what they were trying to do and they did not want to leave the team totally uncompetitive in the event that some of the young players on the team were unable to step up, they did not jettison all of the veteran players that they could have gotten rid of prior to last season. They gave some of those players--Fletcher-Baker, Spikes, McGahee, Vincent, etc.--a chance to show them where they stood.

Some, like Kelsay, Schobel, Peters, Reed, etc., responded by "getting with the program" on and off the field and Kelsay was rewarded for this with the contract that they gave him in the off-season (you may not think Kelsay's play warrants the kind of money he got, but for the past two seasons Kelsay has been stepping up as a vocal leader on the team, while the quieter Schobel and Crowell have been leading by example--the team needs both kinds of leaders).

Some, like Fletcher-Baker, McGahee and Spikes, could or would not.

Make no mistake about it, those players could see what was going on around them and had a choice (at least in the case of Spikes and McGahee) in how to respond to it.

As I pointed out and mysticsoto reiterated, knowing this, Spikes chose to complain to the media about losing his friends on the team and the direction that the team was taking on more than one occasion and, then, after the season, asked the team to trade him.

If the team had wanted to keep Spikes--regardless of the money he was to get--it would have been difficult for them to do so after he asked for a trade. Having already gone to the media with his complaints about the direction the team was taking, there can be little doubt that he would have again gone to the media with his trade demand if the team had not accomodated him. That is not the kind of distraction that the Bills need and would have soured the atmosphere that Levy and Jauron are trying to create with this team. And, under the circumstances, the team had little choice but to trade him, regardless of the depth at his position on the roster or his diminished trade value.

While Spikes was far more subtle and sophisticated in going about things than McGahee, make no mistake about it, Spikes forced his way out of Buffalo just as surely as McGahee did.

And, after the way that Spikes complained to the media during the course of last season about the direction that the team was taking--knowing that Levy was cleaning out the lockerroom and trying to get everyone on the team on the same page--it is doubtful that the Bills would have wanted to keep Spikes even if he had not asked for a trade.

Again, remember that Levy's first task was to clean up the lockerrom and re-establish control over the team. In that situation--in any organization that ends up being successful in any endeavour--management's approach has to be: if you are not part of the solution, you are part of the problem.

And, Spikes had, knowingly, made it clear that he was not interested in being part of the solution. While I was not in a position to write about it at the time, when I read Spikes' comments--especially the second time he made the--it was my opinion that he was going to be gone, regardless of what the Bills could get for him, for this reason (when he asked to be traded, I had no doubt that his request would be granted ASAP).

The point is that, talentwise, the Bills might be worse off this season without Spikes, especially if he recovers fully from his injury, but, as a team, after what happened in 2005, his attitude and antics (going to the media, complaining about the direction the team is going in with younger players, etc.) simply could not be tolerated. If you are trying to get a group of young players to go in a certain direction with a certain attitude, you simply can't have an older, potential leader going off in his own direction and complaining about the direction that the group is taking. It's that simple.

And, you can blame Spikes, as much as you can blame the Bills' FO, for him being traded when his trade value was at its lowest. After all, it was HE, not the Bills, who asked to be traded and let it be known to the media. Other teams had already been waiting to see if the Bills would cut TKO for salary reasons, which had already lowered his potential trade value. His request for a trade and allowing it to become public virtually destroyed his remaining trade value. Teams then knew that, in addition to TKO being a player that the Bills might not want to pay, he was disgruntled and asking to be traded--virtually assuring that the team would not be able to keep him and would have to accept whatever they could get in a deal.

And, what really was Spikes' trade value? (And, why is it so hard for some to accept that Ellison could replace him?)

Let's look at the stats from last season:

Spikes started 11 of 12 games played, had 43 solo tackles, 27 assists, for a total of 70 tackles, with one sack and one forced fumble (which came on the first play of the season) and 3 passes defensed.

Ellison started just 7 of 14 games played, had 33 solo tackles, 32 assists, for a total of 65 total tackles, with one sack, a fumble recovery, an interception and 2 passes defensed.

Ellison was a raw rookie, thrown into the fray due to injuries, who played a lot fewer minutes than Spikes. He's younger, faster and showed a knack for being around the ball. And, he has bought into the program that Levy and Jauron are trying to establish.

Why keep Spikes around? Because he's better than Coy Wire? Who's kidding who? Can anyone believe that Takeo Spikes would sit on the bench and not complain loudly to the media if he was not starting--regardless of his health? Be realistic--Spikes complained in the press last season when the coaches tried taking him out when the team went to its nickle and dime defenses, even though he was clearly a shadow of his former self! (Listen to the post-game interviews and read all of the articles that are posted on the BZ front page every day.)

You talk about the Bills needing veteran leadership (and I agree that they do). But, there is a difference between veteran leadership that takes the team in a winning direction and veteran leadership that does not. And, not just on the field, but off it as well. With all of his moaning and complaining last season, what kind of leadership would Spikes be giving to the Bills' young players in the lockerroom?

One final point: T.Donahoe is the GM who refused to re-sign Pat Williams. M.Levy, who has said that it was a mistake for the Bills not to re-sign Williams, should not be held responsible for that decision.

As I touched on earlier, C.Kelsay was re-signed both because he is a player who has bought into what management is trying to do and for the leadership that he has tried to provide (he, along with F-B, was one of the few Bills defensive players to talk to the media about players needing to take personal responsibility for their assignments and their mistakes in games; it has been reported that he has been taking a vocal leadership role with the team this season and that he is a very hardworker; it should also be noted that he was a captain of the Nebraska team in college). P.Price may not be the same receiver that he once was, but he has, reportedly, worked hard, set a good example for the young WRs, and been more than willing to help the younger guys on the team. It is very possible that management sees this kind of leadership-by-example as being more important for the team than his production on the field. Denney and J.Reed are two players who were re-signed and essentially given a second chance to prove themselves who have also "gotten with the program". Seeing players, even of modest accomplishments, being rewarded for this is part of the message that management is trying to send to its players: if you "buy into" what we are trying to do and give it your all, you will be rewarded to the best of our ability; if not, you will be gone.

While they might not have been willing to admit it publicly, after the debacle of 2005, R.Wilson and M.Levy decided to do what a lot of fans say they want their team's management to do when the team implodes: they decided tear the team down and rebuild it from scratch by creating a new atmosphere and attitude and, then, keeping those players on the roster who were willing to buy into the new program and getting rid of those who weren't, replacing those latter players with young players whose attitudes and play they could mold into a winning mind-set, even if they had somewhat less talent than some of the players that they were getting rid of. In doing that, they are trying to build the foundation of a team that can deal with adversity well enough to ultimately compete for a championship, not one that can just squeak into the playoffs one year and that will implode in the face fo adversity. And, that's likely to take another year. And, that's the reality ofthe situation, like it or not. But, that's also how a lot of great teams have been built over the years.