Erik Pears signs extension

[ServoBillieves]

Per V-text.

Whopdie do Basil.

[mrbojanglezs]

Good signing. He has played well. More stability is a good thing

[Pinkerton Security]

Good signing. He has played well. More stability is a good thing

may not be the best lineman in the world but has been as solid as anyone else on the line this year, so may as well keep the ones who are playing the best.

[DesertFox24]

I like the signing hopefully this starts the resigning time and we can lock up Chandler and Stevie and maybe some depth players.

[OpIv37]

Oh good. The FO now has their excuse to not spend money on a more talented but more expensive offensive lineman in FA.

[DesertFox24]

Oh good. The FO now has their excuse to not spend money on a more talented but more expensive offensive lineman in FA.

Pears played pretty well for us this season.

Profootballweekly had him rated as the 3rd highest right tackle in terms of pass pro and run block.

I agree there are better tackles, but at least we know we will not be drafting a RT early.

I am hoping Bell plays well these last three games and earns one more year in BLO, so we do not have to draft a OT early.

I want us to go defense hard and early and get another interior OL and late OT to compete with Sam Young for the 4th tackle spot.

[Forward_Lateral]

I think Pears has played good for the most part. Him and Levitre are the least of the worries on the O-line, IMO.

[User Manuel]

So, we criticize them for signing a stable part of the line? If you can, in any way, point to Erik Pears as one of the problems on this team, I would listen.

Come on OP at least make sense with the criticism.

[justasportsfan]

Oh good. The FO now has their excuse to not spend money on a more talented but more expensive offensive lineman in FA.

I'd rather we spend it on an FA at a position of greater need.

[better days]

I think Pears has played good for the most part. Him and Levitre are the least of the worries on the O-line, IMO.

Agreed, along with Wood.

[mysticsoto]

Pears was going to be a UFA after this year. Do we really want to let him walk and have yet another hole to fill??? Some people here are just ******ed...he needed to be signed. He's played decent and we have large holes to fill on defense. The last thing we need is another hole elsewhere to have to fill.

[OpIv37]

I'd rather we spend it on an FA at a position of greater need.

A good FO would sign Pears then either sign another RT and use Pears as depth or let Pears stay at RT and find an upgrade at RG.

But, the Bills will sign Pears and use injuries as the excuse for the OL problems this year so they don't have to spend any money beyond that.

[mysticsoto]

A good FO would sign Pears then either sign another RT and use Pears as depth or let Pears stay at RT and find an upgrade at RG.

But, the Bills will sign Pears and use injuries as the excuse for the OL problems this year so they don't have to spend any money beyond that.

The original 5 Olinemen weren't the problem. Not having depth was. X-era and I brought this up back in July/August. That's a valid criticism. But criticizing them for signing a Tackle who's playing decent is NOT!

[OpIv37]

The original 5 Olinemen weren't the problem. Not having depth was. X-era and I brought this up back in July/August. That's a valid criticism. But criticizing them for signing a Tackle who's playing decent is NOT!

Yeah, well, everyone on this board wants to re-sign every FA that we have. I just wonder how we're going to win by re-signing the same old guys.

We have two seasons' worth of Gailey and Nix drafts with very little to show for it. In terms of FA's that they've brought in, Barnett and Chandler have been good, Dwan Edwards and Brad Smith have been decent, that's about it.

What this team should do is lock up the talent they have, then add talent through FA while using the draft to build depth and get talent for the future. What will actually happen as long as Ralph is pulling the strings is that they will re-sign a young guy like Pears and use that as an excuse to not do anything else about the position in FA.

Then, one of two things will happen: Pears will either hit a slump, or someone on the OL will get injured, forcing a re-shuffling of the entire OL because we have no depth. If Pears isn't the one who gets hurt, he'll be held back because he's getting moved all over the place.

It's the Buffalo way. Thanks Ralph.

[DesertFox24]

I am glad we got Pears back, and we should assume Urbik will be back since he is a restricted FA. That leaves us with 4 starters returning.

What happens at LT remains to be seen.

I also want them to draft another interior OL and OT as well, but later.

We need defensive help BAD.

The OL was great till Wood went down. We all saw what happened to the Jets when they did not have Mangold they lost the three games without him.

Center is an important position and we have a good one as well.

[mysticsoto]

Yeah, well, everyone on this board wants to re-sign every FA that we have. I just wonder how we're going to win by re-signing the same old guys.

We have two seasons' worth of Gailey and Nix drafts with very little to show for it. In terms of FA's that they've brought in, Barnett and Chandler have been good, Dwan Edwards and Brad Smith have been decent, that's about it.

What this team should do is lock up the talent they have, then add talent through FA while using the draft to build depth and get talent for the future. What will actually happen as long as Ralph is pulling the strings is that they will re-sign a young guy like Pears and use that as an excuse to not do anything else about the position in FA.

Then, one of two things will happen: Pears will either hit a slump, or someone on the OL will get injured, forcing a re-shuffling of the entire OL because we have no depth. If Pears isn't the one who gets hurt, he'll be held back because he's getting moved all over the place.

It's the Buffalo way. Thanks Ralph.

Pears was cheap when we got him, ($640k) and has far outplayed his contract. Don't know how much he got, but anywhere in the few low millions is probably fine. He hasn't been a problem. Pick on the ones who have done nothing. Kelsay, Moats, Batten, every CB except maybe Drayton...well, I'd give the rookies a pass, Spiller, all WRs (too many drops by them as a whole), Fitz' erratic play lately, etc.

There's lots to choose from, but whining about Erik Pears being signed really is just about whining...

[Buddo]

Yeah, well, everyone on this board wants to re-sign every FA that we have. I just wonder how we're going to win by re-signing the same old guys.

We have two seasons' worth of Gailey and Nix drafts with very little to show for it. In terms of FA's that they've brought in, Barnett and Chandler have been good, Dwan Edwards and Brad Smith have been decent, that's about it.

What this team should do is lock up the talent they have, then add talent through FA while using the draft to build depth and get talent for the future. What will actually happen as long as Ralph is pulling the strings is that they will re-sign a young guy like Pears and use that as an excuse to not do anything else about the position in FA.

Then, one of two things will happen: Pears will either hit a slump, or someone on the OL will get injured, forcing a re-shuffling of the entire OL because we have no depth. If Pears isn't the one who gets hurt, he'll be held back because he's getting moved all over the place.

It's the Buffalo way. Thanks Ralph.


Not much of this makes sense.
We've just re-signed a player who has done ok for us. Something you say above should be done.
WTF is there to complain about?
The rest of your 'scenario' is just pissing in the wind.
Little wonder that fan bases get treated with thinly veiled contempt, when their analysis of a decent move is based off of Gypsy Rose Lee's Prophesy for dummies.

[justasportsfan]

A good FO would sign Pears then either sign another RT and use Pears as depth or let Pears stay at RT and find an upgrade at RG.

.
A good FO will sign players who are playing well and bring in players at postions where there are huge holes.

[justasportsfan]

Yeah, well, everyone on this board wants to re-sign every FA that we have. I just wonder how we're going to win by re-signing the same old guys.



Stop making up stuff just to make drama.

[jimbohastle51]

i wrote an article for a site about resigning pears about a month ago. this guy is our bets tackle. he has very little penalties and has held up extremely well against top pass rushing talent. at his age if we gave him 4 or 5 years it would be a really good signing because i am almost positive that he gave the bills a discount for giving him the opportunity. i am not going to be one of the guys that claims sources but when the terms are released look at his deal compared to that of clabo and you will see that he worked with the bills to get a fair deal that helps the team lock up another player soon.

[The Jokeman]

I am glad we got Pears back, and we should assume Urbik will be back since he is a restricted FA. That leaves us with 4 starters returning.

What happens at LT remains to be seen.

I also want them to draft another interior OL and OT as well, but later.

We need defensive help BAD.

The OL was great till Wood went down. We all saw what happened to the Jets when they did not have Mangold they lost the three games without him.

Center is an important position and we have a good one as well.
Wood might be good but he has yet to show he can play a full 16 NFL season. Which means shoring up a quality back up for him is important. I say through UFA instead of the draft as if/when he goes down again I'd rather have an experienced backup than a rookie in 2012.

At LT I see us letting Bell walk and keep with Hairston and possibly getting a veteran backup. Yet one interesting guy to look at is D'Brickashaw Ferguson who I see as an upgrade to Bell/Hairston and think might be good to pursue if want to improve us and weaken the Jets.

[BLeonard]

After all the yelling I've done about getting offensive linemen, I'm not gonna knock this move.

However, OP, to an extent, is right. If the Bills think they are done with OLine now, just because they kept Pears, that's not going to cut it. The length and numbers will be interesting.

-Bill

[OpIv37]

Not much of this makes sense.
We've just re-signed a player who has done ok for us. Something you say above should be done.
WTF is there to complain about?
The rest of your 'scenario' is just pissing in the wind.
Little wonder that fan bases get treated with thinly veiled contempt, when their analysis of a decent move is based off of Gypsy Rose Lee's Prophesy for dummies.

We have to do better than "OK." What doesn't make sense about that?

[ddaryl]

it a solid move.. no complaints

We still need better depth. Fact is Woods may never be the same after 2 big injuries, and neither of our T's are superstars


this game is won and lost in the trenches IMO, so any moves used to improve our OL and DL will always be welcomed.

[Forward_Lateral]

Pears has been better than OK. He's been good. He had one bad game where he took stupid personal foul penalties. The rest of the season you barely hear his name called, which is a good thing.

As for Wood, he worries me. 2 years with major injuries is not a good thing for a Center. I think the Bills need better insurance, or get another Center and move Wood back to RG.

[OpIv37]

So, we criticize them for signing a stable part of the line? If you can, in any way, point to Erik Pears as one of the problems on this team, I would listen.

Come on OP at least make sense with the criticism.

This post gets the Krusty Brand Seal of Approval.

http://static.zoovy.com/img/gkworld/W302-H300-Bffffff/msim0001r.jpg

He's not really part of the problem, but he's not part of the solution either. He's one of many pieces of this team that should be considered for an upgrade- and would be on good teams- but won't be considered for an upgrade because of the myriad of more gaping holes this team has.

[WeAreArthurMoates]

Good move especially if he's the back up next year.

[kishoph]

I think Pears has played pretty good all season, he might have had a game where he didn't look great, but he's played good and is not a problem. As far as his numbers, he's given up 2.5 sacks and had only 1 holding penalty in 13 games, those are pretty solid numbers. I like the resigning, as been said we don't need to start making other holes to fill.

[DesertFox24]

This post gets the Krusty Brand Seal of Approval.

http://static.zoovy.com/img/gkworld/W302-H300-Bffffff/msim0001r.jpg

He's not really part of the problem, but he's not part of the solution either. He's one of many pieces of this team that should be considered for an upgrade- and would be on good teams- but won't be considered for an upgrade because of the myriad of more gaping holes this team has.

Dude the bills have to spend 92% of the cap, just like every team. We nor any team in the league will have all pros at every position. Yes we need more talent and stars totally agree, but bashing the bills for locking a good RT is asinine.

I know we are all upset over this season, but at least the bills did one decent thing and that is resign Pears instead of letting a solid starter walk for yet another unproven over the hill vet or a late round rookie.

Also before anyone bashes what the bills do lets wait and see what see if we resign more of our guys (chandler and stevie being the must resigns) and if they bring in any FA.

No pears is not the answer to our problem, but he sure as heck can be part of the solution, and that solution is fielding the best 53 man roster we can.

[TigerJ]

Oh good. The FO now has their excuse to not spend money on a more talented but more expensive offensive lineman in FA.

I don't know that the Bills have any intention of signing higher quality free agents at any position in the upcoming offseason, but there are several positions in which I would much prefer they become active more than offensive line (outside linebacker, wide receiver, cornerback).

[BillsFever21]

I'm fine by re-signing him as long as they didn't break the bank for him. If the Bills recent past when it comes to re-signing their average players(Kelsay, Fitzpatrick, etc.) is any indication of this contract then they probably overpaid for him.

I could handle a deal for around 4 million a year but who knows with this team. Anything is possible with them.

[YardRat]

Profootballweekly had him rated as the 3rd highest right tackle in terms of pass pro and run block.


Those rankings mean very little, if anything. If our offensive line was truly any good we wouldn't have to compensate by limiting our offense to the chuck and duck. Also, the run game is a completely different animal with Jackson back there...everybody else struggles.

Some have the false perception that our o-line is ok or better simply because Fitz, Freddie and the scheme made them look more capable than they actually are.

[YardRat]

The original 5 Olinemen weren't the problem. Not having depth was. X-era and I brought this up back in July/August. That's a valid criticism. But criticizing them for signing a Tackle who's playing decent is NOT!

The original 5 still weren't that good...it was smoke and mirrors.

Despite that and my previous post, I agree it was a good signing to keep Pears.

But, it would be better to get a talented tackle in here to add to the mix.

[better days]

Wood might be good but he has yet to show he can play a full 16 NFL season. Which means shoring up a quality back up for him is important. I say through UFA instead of the draft as if/when he goes down again I'd rather have an experienced backup than a rookie in 2012.

At LT I see us letting Bell walk and keep with Hairston and possibly getting a veteran backup. Yet one interesting guy to look at is D'Brickashaw Ferguson who I see as an upgrade to Bell/Hairston and think might be good to pursue if want to improve us and weaken the Jets.

Well I doubt the Bills can get a back up Center any better than Urbick has been playing. What this team needs is a STARTING OT or 2 on offense & maybe a WR or 2.

The biggest needs are still on Defense IMO, especially OLB.

[tampabay25690]

Good signing.
Right Tackle locked up...
Now lets just hope he doesnt retire (Butler)...............

[Night Train]

The last thing we need is another hole to fill.

Unless you're Charlie Sheen..

[mysticsoto]

The original 5 still weren't that good...it was smoke and mirrors.

Despite that and my previous post, I agree it was a good signing to keep Pears.

But, it would be better to get a talented tackle in here to add to the mix.

I don't disagree. But right now we have much bigger holes than the Oline and letting Pears walk would have unnecessarily created another big hole that would need to be addressed. Defense needs to be top priority in the offseason. We need 2 OLBs that are actual OLBs and not modifying DEs to play OLB.

[OpIv37]

I don't disagree. But right now we have much bigger holes than the Oline and letting Pears walk would have unnecessarily created another big hole that would need to be addressed. Defense needs to be top priority in the offseason. We need 2 OLBs that are actual OLBs and not modifying DEs to play OLB.

There are two things going on here.

First, most of you are over-rating Pears. Letting him go would have created a hole, but not a huge hole. It's not that difficult to find someone of Pears' abilities.

Second, we KNOW this team will only do so much. Guys like Pears SHOULD be upgraded, but they won't be because the FO has so much other work to do. And on top of that, it's an excuse to not do anything else with the OL.

"Well, we've had to spend a lot of money upgrading other portions of the team. We did re-sign Erik Pears, who's a good young player, and we feel this OL can play well when they're healthy."

There, I just saved you all the trouble of watching a Bills press conference. Eat the Soilent Green, people. EAT IT!!!!!

[mysticsoto]

There are two things going on here.

First, most of you are over-rating Pears. Letting him go would have created a hole, but not a huge hole. It's not that difficult to find someone of Pears' abilities.

Second, we KNOW this team will only do so much. Guys like Pears SHOULD be upgraded, but they won't be because the FO has so much other work to do. And on top of that, it's an excuse to not do anything else with the OL.

"Well, we've had to spend a lot of money upgrading other portions of the team. We did re-sign Erik Pears, who's a good young player, and we feel this OL can play well when they're healthy."

There, I just saved you all the trouble of watching a Bills press conference. Eat the Soilent Green, people. EAT IT!!!!!

LOL! This is a strange post coming from you...b'cse I have to actually say that you are being either incredibly optimistic in us being able to replace Pears with a similar or better replacement or b) you are just incredibly naive and possibly mentally deficient to have forgotten the Mansfield Wrottos, Cornell Greens, Cordaro Howards, Mike Williams, Robert Hicks, Kris Farris' that we've had in the last decade.

I mean, the few that we had that were "ok" were let go - Jonathan Scott, Langston Walker, etc - and NOT replaced by anything better!!!

History shows it's better to keep someone that's decent - especially since we have so many other holes to fill!!! And no, I don't think replacing a decent Pears is as easy as you make it sound.

[better days]

LOL! This is a strange post coming from you...b'cse I have to actually say that you are being either incredibly optimistic in us being able to replace Pears with a similar or better replacement or b) you are just incredibly naive and possibly mentally deficient to have forgotten the Mansfield Wrottos, Cornell Greens, Cordaro Howards, Mike Williams, Robert Hicks, Kris Farris' that we've had in the last decade.

I mean, the few that we had that were "ok" were let go - Jonathan Scott, Langston Walker, etc - and NOT replaced by anything better!!!

History shows it's better to keep someone that's decent - especially since we have so many other holes to fill!!! And no, I don't think replacing a decent Pears is as easy as you make it sound.

I agree, Pears would not be that easy to replace. He may not be all pro, but he is SOLID. Pears is better than many starters around the league IMO.

I for one am happy the Bills resigned him, one less hole to fill. And this team looks like a yard that has moles. You fill two today & tomorrow morning there are three more there.

[OpIv37]

LOL! This is a strange post coming from you...b'cse I have to actually say that you are being either incredibly optimistic in us being able to replace Pears with a similar or better replacement or b) you are just incredibly naive and possibly mentally deficient to have forgotten the Mansfield Wrottos, Cornell Greens, Cordaro Howards, Mike Williams, Robert Hicks, Kris Farris' that we've had in the last decade.

I mean, the few that we had that were "ok" were let go - Jonathan Scott, Langston Walker, etc - and NOT replaced by anything better!!!

History shows it's better to keep someone that's decent - especially since we have so many other holes to fill!!! And no, I don't think replacing a decent Pears is as easy as you make it sound.

That addresses half my post... but you failed to acknowledge the part about the FO now having their excuse to not do anything about the OL.

And you're right in that the FO would probably fail to replace Pears with something better if they did let him go, but this is Bills fans accepting mediocrity once again.

The best option is to upgrade Pears.
The path of least resistance is to re-sign him.
The worst option is to let him go and replace him with someone on the team already or a late round draft pick.

Well, the Bills FO didn't take the worst option, so, those that have accepted mediocrity will give them credit. Don't make me bust out the Krusty seal again.

[better days]

That addresses half my post... but you failed to acknowledge the part about the FO now having their excuse to not do anything about the OL.

And you're right in that the FO would probably fail to replace Pears with something better if they did let him go, but this is Bills fans accepting mediocrity once again.

The best option is to upgrade Pears.
The path of least resistance is to re-sign him.
The worst option is to let him go and replace him with someone on the team already or a late round draft pick.

Well, the Bills FO didn't take the worst option, so, those that have accepted mediocrity will give them credit. Don't make me bust out the Krusty seal again.

Well, this post would have more merit if Pears were mediocre. He is NOT. He is not the best in the league, but he is far from mediocre. He is a SOLID player that would start on MANY teams. NO team has an OL with a pro bowl player at every position.

[mysticsoto]

That addresses half my post... but you failed to acknowledge the part about the FO now having their excuse to not do anything about the OL.

And you're right in that the FO would probably fail to replace Pears with something better if they did let him go, but this is Bills fans accepting mediocrity once again.

The best option is to upgrade Pears.
The path of least resistance is to re-sign him.
The worst option is to let him go and replace him with someone on the team already or a late round draft pick.

Well, the Bills FO didn't take the worst option, so, those that have accepted mediocrity will give them credit. Don't make me bust out the Krusty seal again.
So now you're becoming Patti-like and know what the FO is going to do in the offseason and draft?

The Best Option is what terms? If you are looking strictly at the Oline by itself, then yes, then best option would be to replace him. But that goes for every non-pro bowl level playing player. Let's add some realism to the issue:

If we draft a top OT early for a position that initially WASN'T a need, that means you're preventing another higher need position from being filled with a top talent. OLB (2), CB, WR top my list as being more important. Maybe even RG and QB. So you hurt the draft's ability to fill those holes.

If you want to look into FA, that may make more sense. However, you are also assuming that a) an OT better than Pears is available, b) that they will want to come here and c) that they will sign for a reasonable price. If this is the route you are referring to that we should take, then I would like it very much for you to start listing names of prospects that you think fit this category.

[justasportsfan]

There are two things going on here.

First, most of you are over-rating Pears. Letting him go would have created a hole, but not a huge hole. It's not that difficult to find someone of Pears' abilities.

Second, we KNOW this team will only do so much. Guys like Pears SHOULD be upgraded, but they won't be because the FO has so much other work to do. And on top of that, it's an excuse to not do anything else with the OL.

"Well, we've had to spend a lot of money upgrading other portions of the team. We did re-sign Erik Pears, who's a good young player, and we feel this OL can play well when they're healthy."

There, I just saved you all the trouble of watching a Bills press conference. Eat the Soilent Green, people. EAT IT!!!!!


In other words, the bills are damned if they do, damned if they don't. Same argument every year. NO different from you POz argument. Bills suck for trying to sign POz and suck because they werent able to. Sigh.

[Beebe's Kid]

The pissing and the moaning never stops.

I missed the part where anybody said that the Bills are ecstatic to name Pears the cornerstone of the franchise for the next decade...

Pears has played well, outside of some dumb penalties. He has also played all year. If nothing else, he provides good depth. If Hairston and Bell end up being being the tackles, with Urbik and Levitre at the guards...I would be fine with that.

I know that people cry about Bell being injury prone, but I don't know if anybody noticed that Wood is as close to a sure thing as you can get. I like Wood, but he might not be in it for the long haul.

How does signing Pears limit the Bills from signing another FA? I know the cheap argument, and you can really frame that in around the past two off-seasons, which were a CF because of the CBA, but that is a paper thin argument.

I guess it is my fault for even reading this thread because there was bound to be the negativity that there is every year. I'll just stay encouraged about what I saw when the team was healthy. Enjoy that doom and gloom.

[justasportsfan]

The best option is to upgrade Pears.
.
the best option too is to find an upgrade to Wood, Freddie Jackson, Moorman, Dareus, Kyle Williams :rolleyes:


Pears is an upgrade over Wrotto and Howard. How dare they upgrade that position.

[OpIv37]

In other words, the bills are damned if they do, damned if they don't. Same argument every year. NO different from you POz argument. Bills suck for trying to sign POz and suck because they werent able to. Sigh.

why do you constantly insist on re-opening this can of worms?

The Bills wanted to re-sign Poz. They failed to do so. What I wanted is irrelevant to their failure.

[OpIv37]

the best option too is to find an upgrade to Wood, Freddie Jackson, Moorman, Dareus, Kyle Williams :rolleyes:


Pears is an upgrade over Wrotto and Howard. How dare they upgrade that position.

So, now our criteria is being better than Wrotto and Howard? That's accepting mediocrity.

http://static.zoovy.com/img/gkworld/W302-H300-Bffffff/msim0001r.jpg

[OpIv37]

The pissing and the moaning never stops.


Neither does the losing, the accepting mediocrity, or the repetition of past mistakes.

Ever stop to think that there might be a connection?

[mysticsoto]

why do you constantly insist on re-opening this can of worms?

The Bills wanted to re-sign Poz. They failed to do so. What I wanted is irrelevant to their failure.

That is incorrect. They wanted him at a lower price - which means they judged his ability/play correctly as being of less value and not being worth what he got.

[OpIv37]

The pissing and the moaning never stops.

I missed the part where anybody said that the Bills are ecstatic to name Pears the cornerstone of the franchise for the next decade...

Pears has played well, outside of some dumb penalties. He has also played all year. If nothing else, he provides good depth. If Hairston and Bell end up being being the tackles, with Urbik and Levitre at the guards...I would be fine with that.

I know that people cry about Bell being injury prone, but I don't know if anybody noticed that Wood is as close to a sure thing as you can get. I like Wood, but he might not be in it for the long haul.

How does signing Pears limit the Bills from signing another FA? I know the cheap argument, and you can really frame that in around the past two off-seasons, which were a CF because of the CBA, but that is a paper thin argument.

I guess it is my fault for even reading this thread because there was bound to be the negativity that there is every year. I'll just stay encouraged about what I saw when the team was healthy. Enjoy that doom and gloom.

Pears will not be the back-up. They paid him. While there is technically nothing preventing them from signing another FA, we all know how this FO works. They can sign someone else, but they won't.

And you can dismiss the past two years all you want, but the reality is that it's how the franchise has always operated under Ralph. Call it "gloom and doom" all you want, but it's reality. You don't have to accept it now, but you will when we have another mediocre product on the field next year too.

[OpIv37]

That is incorrect. They wanted him at a lower price - which means they judged his ability/play correctly as being of less value and not being worth what he got.

And how exactly did they use that money that they saved on Poz to make the team better? They didn't- they went into the season at about $20 million under the cap.

The team should only be commended for saving money if they somehow use that money to make the team better.

[mysticsoto]

Pears will not be the back-up. They paid him. While there is technically nothing preventing them from signing another FA, we all know how this FO works. They can sign someone else, but they won't.

And you can dismiss the past two years all you want, but the reality is that it's how the franchise has always operated under Ralph. Call it "gloom and doom" all you want, but it's reality. You don't have to accept it now, but you will when we have another mediocre product on the field next year too.

That must be why FJ got the nod over Spiller...

[mysticsoto]

And how exactly did they use that money that they saved on Poz to make the team better? They didn't- they went into the season at about $20 million under the cap.

The team should only be commended for saving money if they somehow use that money to make the team better.

What they did with the money is another topic. Fact of the matter is, they correctly ascertained and assigned value to Poz and didn't overpay for him. Period.

[OpIv37]

That must be why FJ got the nod over Spiller...

Terrible argument.

Playing a guy on the roster over another guy already on the roster is a LOT different than signing an FA to play in place of a guy they already paid.

[OpIv37]

What they did with the money is another topic. Fact of the matter is, they correctly ascertained and assigned value to Poz and didn't overpay for him. Period.

Either he was worth re-signing, or he wasn't. When they're sitting at $20 million under the cap, an extra million or two should not be the issue. The FO thought he was worth re-signing but couldn't get it done.

[mysticsoto]

Terrible argument.

Playing a guy on the roster over another guy already on the roster is a LOT different than signing an FA to play in place of a guy they already paid.

You mean like signing Merriman in FA when they were paying Kelsay and Maybin?

[ServoBillieves]

Good signing.
Right Tackle locked up...
Now lets just hope he doesnt retire (Butler)...............

I'm really glad I'm not the only person who remembers how badly that screwed us over. He was playing great then retired. Yes, I know he was injured and looking out for his community and et cetera but man, that reeeeally hurt our line.

Just for kicks I looked up his wikipedia page, he's down to 245. Wow.

[OpIv37]

You mean like signing Merriman in FA when they were paying Kelsay and Maybin?

When all else fails, use the exception to prove the rule.

And if you want to go that route, that proves yet another problem with the team: when they do decide to pay FA's, they pay the wrong guys.

[mysticsoto]

Either he was worth re-signing, or he wasn't. When they're sitting at $20 million under the cap, an extra million or two should not be the issue. The FO thought he was worth re-signing but couldn't get it done.

In a simple man's world, maybe. Reality has $$$ assigned to level of play. If the FO knew they could have gotten Barnett, they probably wouldn't have even bothered with Poz. I know it irks you to see a good move happen and you have to try and find a way to criticize it, but you're criticism is mostly incorrect and as was said many times before, you're talking out of your other orifice on this one.

[mysticsoto]

When all else fails, use the exception to prove the rule.

And if you want to go that route, that proves yet another problem with the team: when they do decide to pay FA's, they pay the wrong guys.

Once again, I prove you wrong, and you go off on a tangent to talk about something else. Shows just how weak your argument is...

[OpIv37]

Once again, I prove you wrong, and you go off on a tangent to talk about something else. Shows just how weak your argument is...

You didn't prove me wrong.

You found ONE example of when the FO paid a player when they were already paying two guys, vs the DOZENS where they've decided to go with the guy they paid rather than upgrading in FA.

Using the exception to "prove" the rule really doesn't prove anything.

[mysticsoto]

You didn't prove me wrong.

You found ONE example of when the FO paid a player when they were already paying two guys, vs the DOZENS where they've decided to go with the guy they paid rather than upgrading in FA.

Using the exception to "prove" the rule really doesn't prove anything.

I posted a recent example by the current administration. Bam...you're shot down, proven wrong, dead in the water, hung on a noose, left to dry for the vultures to feed, Next?

[better days]

Either he was worth re-signing, or he wasn't. When they're sitting at $20 million under the cap, an extra million or two should not be the issue. The FO thought he was worth re-signing but couldn't get it done.

They thought he was worth resigning at the RIGHT price. I don't know about you, but I would not have been happy if the Bills over paid for Poz.

[OpIv37]

I posted a recent example by the current administration. Bam...you're shot down, proven wrong, dead in the water, hung on a noose, left to dry for the vultures to feed, Next?

lmao... they do ONE thing slightly differently (which happened to be a bad decision, btw), and suddenly you think things have changed?

You haven't been paying attention to the last 10 years, have you? No matter who was in charge of the FO, things went basically the same because it all comes down to Ralph.

You can take the one exception to the rule and use it as a basis for optimism, but it's only going to lead you to more disappointment.

[OpIv37]

They thought he was worth resigning at the RIGHT price. I don't know about you, but I would not have been happy if the Bills over paid for Poz.

Once again: over-paying only matters if we were tight on cap space or lost the opportunity to sign someone else with the money used to over-pay. If we're $20 million under the cap, so what if we overpay for a guy and end up a mere $18 million over the cap?

[mysticsoto]

lmao... they do ONE thing slightly differently (which happened to be a bad decision, btw), and suddenly you think things have changed?

You haven't been paying attention to the last 10 years, have you? No matter who was in charge of the FO, things went basically the same because it all comes down to Ralph.

You can take the one exception to the rule and use it as a basis for optimism, but it's only going to lead you to more disappointment.

In hindsight it was a bad decision. At the moment, it seemed like a great decision - and in truth, it helped recruit Barnett who we might not have had otherwise.

I judge things based on each administration - not by Ralph. By your standards, you'd have to judge that under Ralph we went to 4 superbowls and so he must be doing something right also. That's just a stupid way to look at things.

[OpIv37]

In hindsight it was a bad decision. At the moment, it seemed like a great decision - and in truth, it helped recruit Barnett who we might not have had otherwise.

I judge things based on each administration - not by Ralph. By your standards, you'd have to judge that under Ralph we went to 4 superbowls and so he must be doing something right also. That's just a stupid way to look at things.

Again, the 4 Super Bowls are the exception to the rule. They happened in spite of Ralph, not because of him.

Look at the complete history of this team from 1960 on. We had the mid-60s and most of the 90's and that was it. This team has had maybe 12 good seasons in 51 tries, and the only consistent factor is Ralph.

[mysticsoto]

Again, the 4 Super Bowls are the exception to the rule. They happened in spite of Ralph, not because of him.

Look at the complete history of this team from 1960 on. We had the mid-60s and most of the 90's and that was it. This team has had maybe 12 good seasons in 51 tries, and the only consistent factor is Ralph.

LOL! Another exception to the rule excuse? So every time someone points out a flaw in your argument, this is what you're going to use?

Okay, then you can't criticize the Poz deal, it was the exception to the rule. Usually the Bills don't try to keep players and just let them go...

[better days]

Once again: over-paying only matters if we were tight on cap space or lost the opportunity to sign someone else with the money used to over-pay. If we're $20 million under the cap, so what if we overpay for a guy and end up a mere $18 million over the cap?

Well, if it were to keep a player I WANTED to keep, I would agree with you about over paying them.

I'm just HAPPY the Bills did not do that with Poz because I wanted him GONE.

[justasportsfan]

why do you constantly insist on re-opening this can of worms?

The Bills wanted to re-sign Poz. They failed to do so. What I wanted is irrelevant to their failure.
the damned if they do damned if they dont argument is relevant.

[justasportsfan]

And how exactly did they use that money that they saved on Poz to make the team better? They didn't- they went into the season at about $20 million under the cap.

The team should only be commended for saving money if they somehow use that money to make the team better.
what they did with the money has nothing to do with what value they thought POz had. They didn't overpay and should be commended.

[OpIv37]

LOL! Another exception to the rule excuse? So every time someone points out a flaw in your argument, this is what you're going to use?

Okay, then you can't criticize the Poz deal, it was the exception to the rule. Usually the Bills don't try to keep players and just let them go...

Only if the person pointing out the supposed "flaw" continues to use the exception as a point. We know how this FO does business. On very rare occasions, they deviate from that plan, but that does not change how they typically do business no matter what you say. You have not challenged or refuted my point at all- you just found a few rare exceptions where it didn't hold true in contrast to the dozens or hundreds of times where it did hold true.

And as far as the Poz deal, it's completely irrelevant to this conversation. My criticism in that case had nothing to do with whether the Bills try to re-sign players. It had to do with the fact that they wanted to re-sign a player and failed to do so.

You are twisting my words and logic to make them fit into this bizarre fantasy world you have where doing something (almost) right once negates the dozens of times it was wrong.

[OpIv37]

what they did with the money has nothing to do with what value they thought POz had. They didn't overpay and should be commended.

lmao.

This is the kind of twisted logic that happens on this board that drives me nuts.

The Bills wanted to re-sign a player. He signed elsewhere. Instead of criticizing the FO for failing to re-sign a player that YOU wanted to keep, you buy into Russ Brandon's propaganda that paying players is always bad and compliment the FO for not overpaying.

In your world, the FO can't lose. They re-sign Poz- good, they kept the player you wanted. They don't re-sign Poz- good, they didn't overpay. After all, we know how infallible OBD is....

[mysticsoto]

Only if the person pointing out the supposed "flaw" continues to use the exception as a point. We know how this FO does business. On very rare occasions, they deviate from that plan, but that does not change how they typically do business no matter what you say. You have not challenged or refuted my point at all- you just found a few rare exceptions where it didn't hold true in contrast to the dozens or hundreds of times where it did hold true.

And as far as the Poz deal, it's completely irrelevant to this conversation. My criticism in that case had nothing to do with whether the Bills try to re-sign players. It had to do with the fact that they wanted to re-sign a player and failed to do so.

You are twisting my words and logic to make them fit into this bizarre fantasy world you have where doing something (almost) right once negates the dozens of times it was wrong.

Once again you are incorrect and in several places. #1, this FO has only been in charge for 2 yrs or so. To be criticizing them for decisions they were not involved in is very poor. I have no problems w/you criticizing Ralph, but when you say FO, that includes alot of other people. #2 You still fail to understand after all this time that they wanted to re-sign a player AT A CERTAIN PRICE. This isn't fantasy football where you just get to pick any player you want. There are other considerations and $$$ is a big part of it. So your continual ignoring of it just makes you seem stubborn, thick headed and idealistic in knowing how things really work in the real world.

[OpIv37]

Once again you are incorrect and in several places. #1, this FO has only been in charge for 2 yrs or so. To be criticizing them for decisions they were not involved in is very poor. I have no problems w/you criticizing Ralph, but when you say FO, that includes alot of other people. #2 You still fail to understand after all this time that they wanted to re-sign a player AT A CERTAIN PRICE. This isn't fantasy football where you just get to pick any player you want. There are other considerations and $$$ is a big part of it. So your continual ignoring of it just makes you seem stubborn, thick headed and idealistic in knowing how things really work in the real world.

1. Most of the decisions that this FO has been involved with follow the same patterns as the ones that happened before they got here because it all comes down to Ralph. He's the one writing the checks and calling the shots, and things will not change no matter who else is in the FO.

2. You still fail to understand that AT A CERTAIN PRICE is irrelevant when you're $20 million under the cap. Money considerations are a big part of it when you are at or near the cap. The only money consideration in this case was Ralph's bottom line. So, your continual ignoring of the fact that money was not a concern for this team and your continued belief that this FO did not fail to sign a player is stubborn, thick-headed, and provides far too idealistic a view of how this team operates.

[mysticsoto]

1. Most of the decisions that this FO has been involved with follow the same patterns as the ones that happened before they got here because it all comes down to Ralph. He's the one writing the checks and calling the shots, and things will not change no matter who else is in the FO.

2. You still fail to understand that AT A CERTAIN PRICE is irrelevant when you're $20 million under the cap. Money considerations are a big part of it when you are at or near the cap. The only money consideration in this case was Ralph's bottom line. So, your continual ignoring of the fact that money was not a concern for this team and your continued belief that this FO did not fail to sign a player is stubborn, thick-headed, and provides far too idealistic a view of how this team operates.

1. Oh please...They've only had 2 yrs...don't tell me most involve the same pattern when that's not even close to the truth. Chan pulled and then got rid of Trent immediately - not something we used to do. Chan left FJ in despite Spiller making the big $$$ and they themselves having drafted him to be their #1 back. This FO has paid much more attention to the O/D Lines than previous administrations. The FAs they've brought in (Chandler, Pears, Barnett, etc) have played well and far exceed the few that haven't panned out as expected (Merriman).

2. You're full of crap. You never throw too much money out over somebody who is mediocre or worse - even if you still have alot of money under the cap. What if an opportunity were to present itself where you then needed alot of that cash? Then you'd be stuck. Again, this is arm chair I-could-be-GM-in-a-madden-game type thinking...they weren't desperate for him and they did the right thing. We had Moats, Batten, White & Sheppard.

[OpIv37]

1. Oh please...They've only had 2 yrs...don't tell me most involve the same pattern when that's not even close to the truth. Chan pulled and then got rid of Trent immediately - not something we used to do. Chan left FJ in despite Spiller making the big $$$ and they themselves having drafted him to be their #1 back. This FO has paid much more attention to the O/D Lines than previous administrations. The FAs they've brought in (Chandler, Pears, Barnett, etc) have played well and far exceed the few that haven't panned out as expected (Merriman).

2. You're full of crap. You never throw too much money out over somebody who is mediocre or worse - even if you still have alot of money under the cap. What if an opportunity were to present itself where you then needed alot of that cash? Then you'd be stuck. Again, this is arm chair I-could-be-GM-in-a-madden-game type thinking...they weren't desperate for him and they did the right thing. We had Moats, Batten, White & Sheppard.

1. They've paid much more attention to the lines with the same mediocre results. The FA's have been slightly better but still haven't been what we need to win. And it's a little early to completely judge, but the early returns on their drafts are not promising.

2. The FO wanted to re-sign him. They had plenty of money and still failed to re-sign him. Anything else is just spin to defend the FO. Seriously, what opportunity is going to come up that costs $20 million in cap space, and what makes you think the Bills would take it if one did?

We've been through this drill before.

It comes down to this: it's much easier to label me a "pessimist" or a "whiner" or an "idealist" or as someone who *****es just to ***** than it is to face the reality. This FO has made mistakes and, in many ways, they look disturbingly similar to our past failed FO's.

[jimbohastle51]

i wrote an article for a site about resigning pears about a month ago. this guy is our bets tackle. he has very little penalties and has held up extremely well against top pass rushing talent. at his age if we gave him 4 or 5 years it would be a really good signing because i am almost positive that he gave the bills a discount for giving him the opportunity. i am not going to be one of the guys that claims sources but when the terms are released look at his deal compared to that of clabo and you will see that he worked with the bills to get a fair deal that helps the team lock up another player soon.

http://rotoworld.com/player/nfl/3837/erik-pears

to add to my post from the other day... Pears contract details are in. It is a 3 year extension worth 9.3 million with only 3.85 guaranteed. As i stated he wanted to be hear and he gave the bills very reasonable demands. 3 million a year for a starting right tackle who is playing at close to a pro bowl level is a steal. Have a idea that Chandler not Lindell is next. Stevie will after Chandler. Have a feeling Lindell's injury hurt his chance of him being a priority to resign quickly.

[mysticsoto]

1. They've paid much more attention to the lines with the same mediocre results. The FA's have been slightly better but still haven't been what we need to win. And it's a little early to completely judge, but the early returns on their drafts are not promising.

2. The FO wanted to re-sign him. They had plenty of money and still failed to re-sign him. Anything else is just spin to defend the FO. Seriously, what opportunity is going to come up that costs $20 million in cap space, and what makes you think the Bills would take it if one did?

We've been through this drill before.

It comes down to this: it's much easier to label me a "pessimist" or a "whiner" or an "idealist" or as someone who *****es just to ***** than it is to face the reality. This FO has made mistakes and, in many ways, they look disturbingly similar to our past failed FO's.

1. Injuries are something you cannot control. But you ignore the fact that we don't have any Pucillo's on the line anymore. That's the big difference. But you can't acknowledge things like that b'cse your whining would have to decrease.

2. The FO wanted to re-sign him at a price. You can keep leaving that 2nd piece out all you want, but reality shows that it is the truth. They wanted to re-sign him and had the money to beat out the competition...so why didn't they? Can you find a logical answer to that other than they wanted him at a certain price and when that price was exceeded, they said, "Good luck". Anything else you mention here is irrelevant.

[OpIv37]

1. Injuries are something you cannot control. But you ignore the fact that we don't have any Pucillo's on the line anymore. That's the big difference. But you can't acknowledge things like that b'cse your whining would have to decrease.

2. The FO wanted to re-sign him at a price. You can keep leaving that 2nd piece out all you want, but reality shows that it is the truth. They wanted to re-sign him and had the money to beat out the competition...so why didn't they? Can you find a logical answer to that other than they wanted him at a certain price and when that price was exceeded, they said, "Good luck". Anything else you mention here is irrelevant.

1. My "whining" is, and has always been, because the team isn't winning. No Pucillo's on the line? Wow... Same ****ty results. But hey, if you've accepted mediocrity, then having no Pucillo's is a pretty good benchmark, right? Who needs wins? This isn't about me "whining." It's about you lowering the bar and defending a FO that still isn't getting results. And you're doing exactly what the FO wants- "we have no Pucillo's and we re-signed Pears- as long as we don't have injuries, there is no need to do anything else with the OL!" You've written their excuses for inaction for them.

2. I keep leaving out "at a price" because AT A PRICE IS MEANINGLESS BULL**** WHEN YOU ARE $20 MILLION BELOW THE CAP. You are simply accepting Russ Brandon's marketing propaganda and defending the FO for a failure if you can't see that. There is no reason to set an "at a price" point when you are $20 million below the cap, except to put more money in Ralph's pocket. That's the logical reason why they let him walk and that's why they failed.

[mysticsoto]

1. My "whining" is, and has always been, because the team isn't winning. No Pucillo's on the line? Wow... Same ****ty results. But hey, if you've accepted mediocrity, then having no Pucillo's is a pretty good benchmark, right? Who needs wins? This isn't about me "whining." It's about you lowering the bar and defending a FO that still isn't getting results. And you're doing exactly what the FO wants- "we have no Pucillo's and we re-signed Pears- as long as we don't have injuries, there is no need to do anything else with the OL!" You've written their excuses for inaction for them.

2. I keep leaving out "at a price" because AT A PRICE IS MEANINGLESS BULL**** WHEN YOU ARE $20 MILLION BELOW THE CAP. You are simply accepting Russ Brandon's marketing propaganda and defending the FO for a failure if you can't see that. There is no reason to set an "at a price" point when you are $20 million below the cap, except to put more money in Ralph's pocket. That's the logical reason why they let him walk and that's why they failed.

1. The team not winning has nothing to do with Pears. He has done his job. This is why I've taken exception to your *****ing about this latest move. This is you whining b'cse it's in your nature. Nobody is saying nothing else should be done on the Oline - except you.

2. Yeah right! If they had signed Poz for a higher price than he got, you'd be *****ing about that too, about poor cash mgmt and about accepting mediocrity at the position. You just can't win with you. Like Justa said. No matter what the Bills do, you ***** - even when it's a good move.

[justasportsfan]

lmao.

This is the kind of twisted logic that happens on this board that drives me nuts.

The Bills wanted to re-sign a player. He signed elsewhere. Instead of criticizing the FO for failing to re-sign a player that YOU wanted to keep, you buy into Russ Brandon's propaganda that paying players is always bad and compliment the FO for not overpaying.

In your world, the FO can't lose. They re-sign Poz- good, they kept the player you wanted. They don't re-sign Poz- good, they didn't overpay. After all, we know how infallible OBD is....


What? I have blamed the FO for trading Evans for nothing for one. Stop putting words in my mouth just because your logic blows.

[OpIv37]

1. The team not winning has nothing to do with Pears. He has done his job. This is why I've taken exception to your *****ing about this latest move. This is you whining b'cse it's in your nature. Nobody is saying nothing else should be done on the Oline - except you.

2. Yeah right! If they had signed Poz for a higher price than he got, you'd be *****ing about that too, about poor cash mgmt and about accepting mediocrity at the position. You just can't win with you. Like Justa said. No matter what the Bills do, you ***** - even when it's a good move.

1. He has done an OK job. That's it. We need to do better than OK and that's why what I'm doing is commenting on reality and NOT whining. But hey- once again, it's easier to call me a whiner than to accept that reality. And the point you're missing is that it's not about what I said- it's about how this FO operates. They have the injury excuse and the Pears signing. Therefore, it's highly unlikely that they will do anything else with the OL. Whether they should or not is irrelevant- they won't.

2. I would have been *****ing if they signed Poz period because I didn't want him. But once again, you are losing the argument so you are making it about me and basing an argument on your guess of how I would have reacted to a situation that never actually occurred. What I want or didn't want is irrelevant. The FO wanted to re-sign him, they failed to do so. That's a failure regardless of anything I say or do.

You accuse me of whining about a "good" move because you refuse to accept that the move isn't actually good.

And yes, you can win with me. All they have to do is win on the field.

[mysticsoto]

1. He has done an OK job. That's it. We need to do better than OK and that's why what I'm doing is commenting on reality and NOT whining. But hey- once again, it's easier to call me a whiner than to accept that reality. And the point you're missing is that it's not about what I said- it's about how this FO operates. They have the injury excuse and the Pears signing. Therefore, it's highly unlikely that they will do anything else with the OL. Whether they should or not is irrelevant- they won't.

2. I would have been *****ing if they signed Poz period because I didn't want him. But once again, you are losing the argument so you are making it about me and basing an argument on your guess of how I would have reacted to a situation that never actually occurred. What I want or didn't want is irrelevant. The FO wanted to re-sign him, they failed to do so. That's a failure regardless of anything I say or do.

You accuse me of whining about a "good" move because you refuse to accept that the move isn't actually good.

And yes, you can win with me. All they have to do is win on the field.

Once again you make no sense whatsoever.

1) So if he is doing an OK job, doesn't it make sense to focus on the positions that aren't doing OK? There is a finite amt of cash, draft picks and FAs available. This is the problem with arm chair GMs like you who think every position can be upgraded all the time easily with no other repercussions elsewhere. Let's get into more details here. Since you are *****ing about resigning Pears...what should the FO do? Let him go and create yet another hole? Ok, let's say they do that. Now what? Are you going after a FA? Which one? How much are you going to offer them? Getting a draft pick instead? Who? Which round? What's the backup plan if the FA doesn't want to come here? What's the backup plan if the draft pick you want is gone by the time you want to pick them?

Let's see your plan? Put your money where your mouth is...

2) Well looks like I guessed correct b'cse you admit that you would have been *****ing if we had kept him. He's not here and you're still *****ing, so looks like Justa and I are right...you ***** if they do, you ***** if they don't. You just admitted it...thanks for playing. You lose again...the vultures are feeding on your dry carcass...next?

[OpIv37]

Once again you make no sense whatsoever.

1) So if he is doing an OK job, doesn't it make sense to focus on the positions that aren't doing OK? There is a finite amt of cash, draft picks and FAs available. This is the problem with arm chair GMs like you who think every position can be upgraded all the time easily with no other repercussions elsewhere. Let's get into more details here. Since you are *****ing about resigning Pears...what should the FO do? Let him go and create yet another hole? Ok, let's say they do that. Now what? Are you going after a FA? Which one? How much are you going to offer them? Getting a draft pick instead? Who? Which round? What's the backup plan if the FA doesn't want to come here? What's the backup plan if the draft pick you want is gone by the time you want to pick them?

Let's see your plan? Put your money where your mouth is...

2) Well looks like I guessed correct b'cse you admit that you would have been *****ing if we had kept him. He's not here and you're still *****ing, so looks like Justa and I are right...you ***** if they do, you ***** if they don't. You just admitted it...thanks for playing. You lose again...the vultures are feeding on your dry carcass...next?

1. That's the problem- Pears is doing an OK job, and we're stuck with OK because the FO has to concentrate on other areas. That's why you've accepted mediocrity. This isn't a "good" signing. At best, it's the "least bad" signing. And I don't know who else is out there or what the FO should do, but I don't get paid millions of dollars to figure it out like they do. Once again, you are making it about me. The FO is responsible for finding a better alternative, not me. But hey, if you can turn this around on me, then you don't have to put the criticism where it belongs: on the FO.

2. Again, it's not about whether or not I would have *****ed. It's about the FO trying to sign a player and failing. They wanted him, they didn't get him. You and justa fail to see that because you just want to make it about me "*****ing."

[mysticsoto]

1. That's the problem- Pears is doing an OK job, and we're stuck with OK because the FO has to concentrate on other areas. That's why you've accepted mediocrity. This isn't a "good" signing. At best, it's the "least bad" signing. And I don't know who else is out there or what the FO should do, but I don't get paid millions of dollars to figure it out like they do. Once again, you are making it about me. The FO is responsible for finding a better alternative, not me. But hey, if you can turn this around on me, then you don't have to put the criticism where it belongs: on the FO.

2. Again, it's not about whether or not I would have *****ed. It's about the FO trying to sign a player and failing. They wanted him, they didn't get him. You and justa fail to see that because you just want to make it about me "*****ing."

1. Show me a team, *ANY TEAM* - especially the good ones...who have great players at EVERY position. Pears played well. Period. Nothing else really needs to be said. And it's like I expected. You have no plan, no idea of all that it entails and the problems creating another hole does for your team - but *****ing...yeah, that you can do. Come back when you develop a real plan.

2. They wanted him at a certain price. Period. They had the money and could have overpaid for him. They didn't want to. It was entirely their choice that he's not here on the team right now. Period. There was no failure. Period. You just have to ***** about something. It's who you are. Take some Pamprin and move on...

[OpIv37]

1. Show me a team, *ANY TEAM* - especially the good ones...who have great players at EVERY position. Pears played well. Period. Nothing else really needs to be said. And it's like I expected. You have no plan, no idea of all that it entails and the problems creating another hole does for your team - but *****ing...yeah, that you can do. Come back when you develop a real plan.

2. They wanted him at a certain price. Period. They had the money and could have overpaid for him. They didn't want to. It was entirely their choice that he's not here on the team right now. Period. There was no failure. Period. You just have to ***** about something. It's who you are. Take some Pamprin and move on...

1. Show me ONE great player on our team. Fred Jackson, arguably Kyle Williams, maybe Wood or Levitre.... that's it. That's always the excuse- "no team has great players at every position." Let's start with great players at ONE position. It's a mediocre signing for a mediocre team with a mediocre plan. Everyone always wants to re-sign all of our guys, but our guys aren't getting the job done. Doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results is the definition of insanity. And once again, you are still trying to make it about me. I'm not the one who gets paid millions to come up with their plan. The FO is, and with the Pears signing, their plan is "eh, good enough."

2. THEY DID NOTHING ELSE WITH THE MONEY THEY DIDN"T SPEND ON POZ. I'd buy your argument IF they did something to improve the team with it, but they didn't. They wanted Poz, which means they thought the team would be better with him. They didn't get him. Instead of taking that money and putting it back into the team, it went right into Ralph's pocket. They failed to get a player they wanted, used the money as an excuse when they didn't get him, and then they failed to put the money back into the team. You can use the "at a price" bull**** all you want- it's nothing but an excuse. It's Russ Brandon's "keep the fans happy" propaganda and you bought it hook, line and sinker. You just have to defend the FO at all costs because it's easier to accuse me of whining than to deal with the fact that they don't know what the **** they're doing.

[mysticsoto]

1. Show me ONE great player on our team. Fred Jackson, arguably Kyle Williams, maybe Wood or Levitre.... that's it. That's always the excuse- "no team has great players at every position." Let's start with great players at ONE position. It's a mediocre signing for a mediocre team with a mediocre plan. Everyone always wants to re-sign all of our guys, but our guys aren't getting the job done. Doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results is the definition of insanity. And once again, you are still trying to make it about me. I'm not the one who gets paid millions to come up with their plan. The FO is, and with the Pears signing, their plan is "eh, good enough."

2. THEY DID NOTHING ELSE WITH THE MONEY THEY DIDN"T SPEND ON POZ. I'd buy your argument IF they did something to improve the team with it, but they didn't. They wanted Poz, which means they thought the team would be better with him. They didn't get him. Instead of taking that money and putting it back into the team, it went right into Ralph's pocket. They failed to get a player they wanted, used the money as an excuse when they didn't get him, and then they failed to put the money back into the team. You can use the "at a price" bull**** all you want- it's nothing but an excuse. It's Russ Brandon's "keep the fans happy" propaganda and you bought it hook, line and sinker. You just have to defend the FO at all costs because it's easier to accuse me of whining than to deal with the fact that they don't know what the **** they're doing.

1. EXACTLY. Which is why we don't need to be going about creating more holes than we already have? Do you honestly listen to your logic and think it is sound??? "We hardly have any great players so we should create more holes for ourselves and have even lower caliber players." If we dump Pears, how are we going to fill that hole? Oh, I forgot, you can ***** about something, but you can't come up with a sound plan to fill the hole you've just created.

2. The money issue is irrelevant. They didn't want to spend more if he wasn't worth it. They figured to bring in someone else then - and they did and he's better. Period. They did the right thing. Spin it any way you like, the conclusion will always be the same. They did the right thing!

[OpIv37]

1. EXACTLY. Which is why we don't need to be going about creating more holes than we already have? Do you honestly listen to your logic and think it is sound??? "We hardly have any great players so we should create more holes for ourselves and have even lower caliber players." If we dump Pears, how are we going to fill that hole? Oh, I forgot, you can ***** about something, but you can't come up with a sound plan to fill the hole you've just created.

2. The money issue is irrelevant. They didn't want to spend more if he wasn't worth it. They figured to bring in someone else then - and they did and he's better. Period. They did the right thing. Spin it any way you like, the conclusion will always be the same. They did the right thing!

1. It's this simple: we will never get ahead by re-signing the same mediocre players. Your logic is this "Pears is average but it's a good signing because the rest of our team sucks worse and needs more attention." So, because the rest of the team sucks worse, we have to accept average at RT? That's the reality we're faced with because of the incompetence of this FO.

2. It's this simple: They thought he was worth signing. They had tons of money available. They didn't get him signed. They did the right thing by pure dumb luck- they had to look elsewhere when they failed to pay him. Spin it any way you like, but they still tried to re-sign their own player and he ended up signing elsewhere. The conclusion will always be the same: they failed to sign the guy they wanted.

[mysticsoto]

1. It's this simple: we will never get ahead by re-signing the same mediocre players. Your logic is this "Pears is average but it's a good signing because the rest of our team sucks worse and needs more attention." So, because the rest of the team sucks worse, we have to accept average at RT? That's the reality we're faced with because of the incompetence of this FO.

2. It's this simple: They thought he was worth signing. They had tons of money available. They didn't get him signed. They did the right thing by pure dumb luck- they had to look elsewhere when they failed to pay him. Spin it any way you like, but they still tried to re-sign their own player and he ended up signing elsewhere. The conclusion will always be the same: they failed to sign the guy they wanted.

1. If we have great players everywhere else and had an average RT, I could live with that. That being said, I disagree with your assessment that's he's plain avg. He's pretty good. And again, you keep ignoring the fact that creating a new hole means there's less of a chance of having a great player elsewhere where they are desperately needed. You can ignore that all you want, but I'll keep bringing it up b'cse it's reality and not something you are apparently dealing with.

2. LOL! They did the right thing by pure dumb luck...you just admitted they did the right thing. But still you feel the need to criticize. And somehow that doesn't tell you that you have a problem and a need to criticize them. That's the funniest part of all...

[justasportsfan]

We're not paying Pears what Poz got and we didn't even give up any draft pick for Pears. The bills resigned someone (to a modest contract I might add) they wanted who happens to be an upgrade over what we had last year yet it's a problem.

give it up mystic , some people are *****ing just to *****.

[Goobylal]

Pears played pretty well for us this season.

Profootballweekly had him rated as the 3rd highest right tackle in terms of pass pro and run block.

I agree there are better tackles, but at least we know we will not be drafting a RT early.

I am hoping Bell plays well these last three games and earns one more year in BLO, so we do not have to draft a OT early.

I want us to go defense hard and early and get another interior OL and late OT to compete with Sam Young for the 4th tackle spot.
True, there are better tackles. The ones rated #1 and #2. ;)

Good re-sign, great contract, and a good player who is the best RT the Bills have had in a decade.

[OpIv37]

1. If we have great players everywhere else and had an average RT, I could live with that. That being said, I disagree with your assessment that's he's plain avg. He's pretty good. And again, you keep ignoring the fact that creating a new hole means there's less of a chance of having a great player elsewhere where they are desperately needed. You can ignore that all you want, but I'll keep bringing it up b'cse it's reality and not something you are apparently dealing with.

2. LOL! They did the right thing by pure dumb luck...you just admitted they did the right thing. But still you feel the need to criticize. And somehow that doesn't tell you that you have a problem and a need to criticize them. That's the funniest part of all...

1. It may be reality but it's a reality created by the incompetence of this FO.

2. They did the right thing after they tried to do the wrong thing and failed. If I **** up at work and we lose a $1 million contract, but then I win a $1.1 million contract, I don't get to say I made the company $1.1 million. They wanted to sign Poz. They didn't get it done. But you have to put a spin on it to make it seem like it's not a failure.

[OpIv37]

We're not paying Pears what Poz got and we didn't even give up any draft pick for Pears. The bills resigned someone (to a modest contract I might add) they wanted who happens to be an upgrade over what we had last year yet it's a problem.

give it up mystic , some people are *****ing just to *****.

We had absolute garbage last year.

The piece that you are forgetting is that it's entirely possible to upgrade over last year and still not be good enough to win.