Final thoughts on the Stevie Johnson situation

[OpIv37]

The Good:

We all know the Bills aren't big players in FA. We all know the Bills suck early in the draft. So, they basically depend on finding the diamond in the rough late in the draft or in UDFA. In the rare cases when they do succeed early in the draft or find that diamond in the rough, all too often they let the player walk after the rookie contract.

Well, for once, the strategy worked. They found a very good WR in the 7th round in the draft, and they signed him to a follow-on contract.

On top of that, the contract averages $7.5MM a year, which is less than the franchise tag for top receivers and less than many people speculated Stevie would get. And the contract is front-loaded, which means we can put a big chunk on this year's cap with the "rollover" space.

The Bad

Stevie has his limitations. He has shown very little improvement on the maturity issues. More importantly, while he puts up numbers, those numbers haven't translated to wins. The team STILL needs another WR threat to compliment him, but I still fear the team will use the "well we signed Stevie" excuse to avoid upgrading the WR position.

In addition, this signing does cut into our available cap space for this off-season, and we still have glaring needs at DE, LB and #2 WR, not to mention room for improvement at OT, TE, CB and S.

Conclusion: this is a good signing, as long as they are serious about being "aggressive" in FA and don't use it as an excuse to cheap out.

[BertSquirtgum]

Apparently one of the things in his contract is that Johnson is to curtail his end zone celebrations. In his press conference he says himself that with the new contract he is all done with the celebrations.

[OpIv37]

Apparently one of the things in his contract is that Johnson is to curtail his end zone celebrations. In his press conference he says himself that with the new contract he is all done with the celebrations.

That's good to hear.

I really don't mind celebrations, just as long as they don't draw penalties and hurt the team.

[Mr. Pink]

That's good to hear.

I really don't mind celebrations, just as long as they don't draw penalties and hurt the team.


Right.

He doesn't need to turn into a choir boy out there, he can still have his fun but do so without making the team kick off from the 20 yard line.

I, like you, think this is a good signing. It's also something that is a turn in a good direction for the franchise. Drafting someone, developing them, then locking them up long term. I thought that strategy was something the franchise was against but it's good to see things are changing at OBD, at least a little.

[Dujek]

Just glad that the deal is done.

My jersey curse is broken, as every other player whose jersey I have bought in the last decade has left the team the instant they became a FA.

[Yasgur's Farm]

I just need 2 more things to happen...

1) Grab Mario Williams or any of the other proven pass rushers available (Big chunk of cap here). I need this to happen because we're not gonna get that type of impact guy from this draft.
2) Draft 1 each WR and OT rounds 1 and 2. The Bills need somebody other than Donald Jones opposite SJ13 (Blackmon or Floyd round 1... Or Stephen Hill round 2). They'll also need OT help mainly because I don't think they'll give a damaged Bell the kind of money another team will... And rightly so... I think his career is limited due to the need to have micro fracture surgery on his knee a couple years ago.

[psubills62]

Why is "cutting into our available cap space" a bad thing? That's what it's there for - to sign players. Not to mention we're still going to have more than enough to sign big contracts. That's kind of what happens if you want to improve the team - cap space gets used up.

[Yasgur's Farm]

But we're still under the cash to cap system. SJ13 has $19.5M guaranteed... That will take a huge chunk out of what we have left... It's gonna take that to ink, say, Mario Williams. That's about all that will get squeezed from our cash to cap 2012.

[stuckincincy]

BUF was 6 and 10 with him. Now he's bestowed with a considerable amount of ready cash. Handed over to a fellow who shows the maturity of a 14 year old.


Re-signing him is just status quo without other changes/improvements.

[Ickybaluky]

Stevie has his limitations.

This is kind of weak criticism. The guy is a good player, I don't think that is deniable. He has proven production over the last 2 years.

What you are saying, really, is he isn't Calvin Johnson, Larry Fitzgerald or Andre Johnson. Yeah, so? A lot of other guys aren't as well. Can you name me 20 guys who are better than him? I can't.

[Oaf]

But we're still under the cash to cap system. SJ13 has $19.5M guaranteed... That will take a huge chunk out of what we have left... It's gonna take that to ink, say, Mario Williams. That's about all that will get squeezed from our cash to cap 2012.
You're a good poster Yag, but signing Mario is a pipe dream, no pun intented.

[Yasgur's Farm]

BUF was 6 and 10 with him. Now he's bestowed with a considerable amount of ready cash. For a fellow who shows the maturity of a 14 year old.


Re-signing him is just status quo without other changes/improvements.You're right... It would be much better if we just curled up into the fetal position and waited for the end to arrive.

[Yasgur's Farm]

You're a good poster Yag, but signing Mario is a pipe dream, no pun intented.I understand completely... But as I said... FA is the only place we're gonna get our much needed pass rusher this year. We (fans) may as well look at the top of the heap and work our way down.

[Oaf]

All my ZBs say these are not the final thoughts on the Stevie Johnson situation from OpIv37.

[OpIv37]

Why is "cutting into our available cap space" a bad thing? That's what it's there for - to sign players. Not to mention we're still going to have more than enough to sign big contracts. That's kind of what happens if you want to improve the team - cap space gets used up.

Because
a) it limits our ability to sign other players. Remember, we already had Stevie Johnson on our team. This signing doesn't improve the team- it simply maintains the status quo. We still need to get better and we have less money to do it. The upside is that we avoided a hole, but there is an opportunity cost associated with doing that.

b) the FO can use it as an excuse to not sign other WR's or even to not sign players at all. Stevie's cap number is not going to be pretty. We'll still have cap space, but the FO had ~$20MM of cap space last year that they didn't use.

[OpIv37]

This is kind of weak criticism. The guy is a good player, I don't think that is deniable. He has proven production over the last 2 years.

What you are saying, really, is he isn't Calvin Johnson, Larry Fitzgerald or Andre Johnson. Yeah, so? A lot of other guys aren't as well. Can you name me 20 guys who are better than him? I can't.

He has two key drops that directly led to losses. He has two key penalties that contributed significantly to losses. And his "production" has not led to wins.

If you don't consider those "limitations," then you are not living in the real world.

This isn't New England. Guys don't give discounts to sign here. We don't have a coach who can plug any scrub into the system and still get results. If we are going to devote that much cap to a guy, he damn well better be top 10 at his position or else we are in a world of hurt.

[justasportsfan]

Dareus was a bust!

[ghz in pittsburgh]

I don't know how anyone can have a "The bad" part of this event.

The end game off season is to make the team better, at least on paper. To me, getting Stevie back maintain the level of offensive improvement the Bills achieved - no matter how you look at it, they improved from the previous year. I know Chandler and Bell are still FAs, but Stevie is the key part. You want to at least maintain the level you are at. This signing does it for me.

Now we all want them to sign FAs and draft well in April to further improve the team. That period has yet to happen. I'm just happy to see they didn't take a step backward and is positioned to add on to the team.

I agree with Yasgur that signing Mario is precisely what this team needs and I had to believe Nix & Co. know that. I just don't know if they can pull it off because so many teams can say the same thing. If you are Mario, if the Bills and the Pats both come calling, who do you consider first? Market, teams, exposure ... well forget it now.

[OpIv37]

I don't know how anyone can have a "The bad" part of this event.

The end game off season is to make the team better, at least on paper. To me, getting Stevie back maintain the level of offensive improvement the Bills achieved - no matter how you look at it, they improved from the previous year. I know Chandler and Bell are still FAs, but Stevie is the key part. You want to at least maintain the level you are at. This signing does it for me.

Now we all want them to sign FAs and draft well in April to further improve the team. That period has yet to happen. I'm just happy to see they didn't take a step backward and is positioned to add on to the team.

I agree with Yasgur that signing Mario is precisely what this team needs and I had to believe Nix & Co. know that. I just don't know if they can pull it off because so many teams can say the same thing. If you are Mario, if the Bills and the Pats both come calling, who do you consider first? Market, teams, exposure ... well forget it now.

Again, signing Stevie maintains the status quo. We avoided opening a new hole, but that comes at the opportunity cost of filling an existing hole. We also still need another WR, and this gives the FO their built-in excuse to not do it.

If you don't see how that's bad, then I don't know what to tell you.

[better days]

Because
a) it limits our ability to sign other players. Remember, we already had Stevie Johnson on our team. This signing doesn't improve the team- it simply maintains the status quo. We still need to get better and we have less money to do it. The upside is that we avoided a hole, but there is an opportunity cost associated with doing that.

b) the FO can use it as an excuse to not sign other WR's or even to not sign players at all. Stevie's cap number is not going to be pretty. We'll still have cap space, but the FO had ~$20MM of cap space last year that they didn't use.

If the Bills did not resign Stevie he would no longer be on the team. I doubt he would be willing to play for free. A team improves by keeping its GOOD players & adding to that. To let Stevie walk would have been another crater to fill.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think you have criticized the Bills in the past for letting good players get away. Well, they kept a GOOD player & still the criticism comes.

[OpIv37]

If the Bills did not resign Stevie he would no longer be on the team. I doubt he would be willing to play for free. A team improves by keeping its GOOD players & adding to that. To let Stevie walk would have been another crater to fill.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think you have criticized the Bills in the past for letting good players get away. Well, they kept a GOOD player & still the criticism comes.

I addressed this.

I gave the Bills credit for keeping a good player.

Spending money keeping a guy we already had means LESS money to add to the team, and even you admit we need to add to the team. If the Bills find a way to add to the team anyway, then so be it. But based on how they've acted in the past, I simply don't trust them to do it.

[justasportsfan]

This is kind of weak criticism. The guy is a good player, I don't think that is deniable. He has proven production over the last 2 years.

What you are saying, really, is he isn't Calvin Johnson, Larry Fitzgerald or Andre Johnson. Yeah, so? A lot of other guys aren't as well. Can you name me 20 guys who are better than him? I can't.

OP is once again trying to find fault with this GOOD signing. Nothing new to see here. Bills are damned if they do, damned if they don't.

[better days]

But we're still under the cash to cap system. SJ13 has $19.5M guaranteed... That will take a huge chunk out of what we have left... It's gonna take that to ink, say, Mario Williams. That's about all that will get squeezed from our cash to cap 2012.

Stevie & Mario would be all I need to make me HAPPY before the draft.

[Yasgur's Farm]

Stevie & Mario would be all I need to make me HAPPY before the draft.ABSO-F'N-LUTELY!

[OpIv37]

Bills are damned if they do, damned if they don't.

Exactly.

I've said this from the very beginning of the Johnson situation. Stevie isn't a true #1. We've proven that we can't win with him.

We are certainly worse without him than we are with him, but we aren't good enough even with him.

This situation is the FO's fault for poor decisions in the past.

The ONLY solution is to re-sign Stevie AND find another receiving threat, and I simply don't trust the FO to do it.

and BTW, why is everyone missing the part where I gave the Bills credit for finding a starter late in the draft and re-signing him?

[better days]

I addressed this.

I gave the Bills credit for keeping a good player.

Spending money keeping a guy we already had means LESS money to add to the team, and even you admit we need to add to the team. If the Bills find a way to add to the team anyway, then so be it. But based on how they've acted in the past, I simply don't trust them to do it.

Well, you gave the Bills credit on the one hand, then take the credit away with the other hand (with the criticism) you must be a bank.

I guarantee the Bills will add more players this off season, bank on it.

[OpIv37]

If the Bills did not resign Stevie he would no longer be on the team. I doubt he would be willing to play for free. A team improves by keeping its GOOD players & adding to that. To let Stevie walk would have been another crater to fill.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think you have criticized the Bills in the past for letting good players get away. Well, they kept a GOOD player & still the criticism comes.

and one more thing on this: this is the typical justasportsfan "can't see the forest from the trees" debating technique.

Not every situation is the same. Some players should be kept. Some should be allowed to walk. They may be headcases, too old, or simply want far more money than what they're worth. But just because I argued in favor of keeping a specific good player in the past doesn't mean I have to argue in favor of keeping every good player from now until the end of time. Each situation is unique.

And for the record, I DID say this was a good signing. I just had to point out the absurdity of this for future reference.

[OpIv37]

Well, you gave the Bills credit on the one hand, then take the credit away with the other hand (with the criticism) you must be a bank.

I guarantee the Bills will add more players this off season, bank on it.

I'll give them credit when they earn it. Results get respect, not title or position.

[better days]

Exactly.

I've said this from the very beginning of the Johnson situation. Stevie isn't a true #1. We've proven that we can't win with him.

We are certainly worse without him than we are with him, but we aren't good enough even with him.

This situation is the FO's fault for poor decisions in the past.

The ONLY solution is to re-sign Stevie AND find another receiving threat, and I simply don't trust the FO to do it.

and BTW, why is everyone missing the part where I gave the Bills credit for finding a starter late in the draft and re-signing him?

The Bills proved they can't win with the likes of Donald Jones playing opposite of Stevie. I doubt any other receiver the Bills could have signed would have been an improvement over Stevie.

[stuckincincy]

You're right... It would be much better if we just curled up into the fetal position and waited for the end to arrive.


Yep - pack some snacks.

[Captain gameboy]

I addressed this.

I gave the Bills credit for keeping a good player.

Spending money keeping a guy we already had means LESS money to add to the team, and even you admit we need to add to the team. If the Bills find a way to add to the team anyway, then so be it. But based on how they've acted in the past, I simply don't trust them to do it.

We didn't "already have" him.

He was going to be a free agent.

We drafted a guy late. We cultivated him. He has been productive far beyond expectations, drops and poor judgement acknowledged.
He chose to stay here. We signed him to a contract competitive with what he could have received else ware.
One less thing we "need" to get done in the draft.
One more positive message after a decade of negative messages.

In other words, a positive move that allows us to spend limited draft resources in other places, though I would still like to see Floyd in the first, unless someone unforeseen falls to us.

If Easley is OK, and we get some WR with speed, this signing puts another position in the "done" category, and we can get on to other things.

Well done. No doubt about it.

[ghz in pittsburgh]

Again, signing Stevie maintains the status quo. We avoided opening a new hole, but that comes at the opportunity cost of filling an existing hole. We also still need another WR, and this gives the FO their built-in excuse to not do it.

If you don't see how that's bad, then I don't know what to tell you.

So what do you want them to do? I only see two options here: signing him now or don't. So not signing him means there is no "The Bad" side?

FA period has not started. They are doing what they can under the current condition but it is bad anyway because something they may or may not do. What kind of logic is that?

[justasportsfan]

Exactly.

I've said this from the very beginning of the Johnson situation. Stevie isn't a true #1. We've proven that we can't win with him.


Fitzgerald couldn't win either in Arizona last year.

Bowe couldn't win either in KC last year.

Calvin Johnson couldn't win in Detroit last year.

THe 49'ers won without a wr who had better nos. then Stevie.

In case you missed it, it's a team sport. Stevie can't win it all by himself an NO ONE is expecting the bills to win with Stevie all by himself. No no.1 wr can. Players like Stevie are just a piece to a puzzle.

[Oaf]

Exactly.

I've said this from the very beginning of the Johnson situation. Stevie isn't a true #1. We've proven that we can't win with him.

We are certainly worse without him than we are with him, but we aren't good enough even with him.

This situation is the FO's fault for poor decisions in the past.

The ONLY solution is to re-sign Stevie AND find another receiving threat, and I simply don't trust the FO to do it.

and BTW, why is everyone missing the part where I gave the Bills credit for finding a starter late in the draft and re-signing him?
Don't count the Bills out from drafting Floyd at 10.

[ghz in pittsburgh]

I addressed this.

But based on how they've acted in the past, I simply don't trust them to do it.

That's it. based on what they did in the past, any move they made now is bad because it has bad consequence!!!!

[Skooby]

BUF was 6 and 10 with him. Now he's bestowed with a considerable amount of ready cash. Handed over to a fellow who shows the maturity of a 14 year old.


Re-signing him is just status quo without other changes/improvements.

This is how I feel, I would of rather tagged him & see him play the type of ball that deserves a long-term guarantee. On the other side of the coin, ~$7 Million a year is not bad for a 1 / 1A WR. Hopefully he follows his own words & grows up, even though now he has the money to do it his way.

[PTI]

If he has over 10 TDs I am fine with him doing stupid touchdown dances starting with number 11.

[better days]

This is how I feel, I would of rather tagged him & see him play the type of ball that deserves a long-term guarantee. On the other side of the coin, ~$7 Million a year is not bad for a 1 / 1A WR. Hopefully he follows his own words & grows up, even though now he has the money to do it his way.

I think this deal was good for both Stevie & the Bills. Stevie played good for TWO years already. Security for Stevie with the long contract & if Stevie has another year as good as the last two, I guarantee it would have cost much more to sign him to a contract next year than the $7.25M/yr this contract averages out to.

[OpIv37]

That's it. based on what they did in the past, any move they made now is bad because it has bad consequence!!!!

I didn't say that.

I said this was a GOOD move. Why are you people incapable of comprehending that?

But it's also a status quo move. They have to do more. And THIS FO went into last off-season $20MM under the cap. So I don't trust them to do it. Actions speak louder than words. They can say whatever they want about being "aggressive" in FA, but I won't believe a word of it until I see it. They haven't earned the benefit of the doubt.

[justasportsfan]

I didn't say that.

I said this was a GOOD move. Why are you people incapable of comprehending that?


it's because you can't just simply give credit an move on. You have find fault in something that is considered a positive move.

[OpIv37]

Fitzgerald couldn't win either in Arizona last year.

Bowe couldn't win either in KC last year.

Calvin Johnson couldn't win in Detroit last year.

THe 49'ers won without a wr who had better nos. then Stevie.

In case you missed it, it's a team sport. Stevie can't win it all by himself an NO ONE is expecting the bills to win with Stevie all by himself. No no.1 wr can. Players like Stevie are just a piece to a puzzle.

Ok, where are the other pieces? They haven't proven they can find them.

[OpIv37]

it's because you can't just simply give credit an move on. You have find fault in something that is considered a positive move.

Because I care about wins. A single good move doesn't mean there still aren't flaws. I'm not going to ignore that just because they did one thing right.

[better days]

I didn't say that.

I said this was a GOOD move. Why are you people incapable of comprehending that?

But it's also a status quo move. They have to do more. And THIS FO went into last off-season $20MM under the cap. So I don't trust them to do it. Actions speak louder than words. They can say whatever they want about being "aggressive" in FA, but I won't believe a word of it until I see it. They haven't earned the benefit of the doubt.

Well, since the day they came to Buffalo, both Nix & Gailey have been straight shooters. IMO they have earned the benefit of the doubt.

Nix said they may not get the top guys in FA that they want, but they are going after them. From day ONE. And he admitted the Bills did not do that last year.

I think they knew there were too many holes to fill last year for a big FA signing to make a big difference & it was not a good year for FA either.

[justasportsfan]

Ok, where are the other pieces? They haven't proven they can find them.

It takes time when you are trying to build via the draft. I am not going back to our old redskins arguments.

[better days]

Ok, where are the other pieces? They haven't proven they can find them.

Well, they can't do anything but resign their own players until March 13. As I have told people before, have a little patience.

[PTI]

Had to sign him, if not there are even more built in excuses if they actually consider going forward with Fitz by mid season (when he hopefully no longer sees the field).

[ghz in pittsburgh]

I didn't say that.

I said this was a GOOD move. Why are you people incapable of comprehending that?

But it's also a status quo move. They have to do more. And THIS FO went into last off-season $20MM under the cap. So I don't trust them to do it. Actions speak louder than words. They can say whatever they want about being "aggressive" in FA, but I won't believe a word of it until I see it. They haven't earned the benefit of the doubt.

You are judging their move RIGHT NOW. What else can they do better than signing Stevie today? You added "The Bad" part based on history about their future move on Stevie's signing event. I still don't get it!

If you, like so many other on this board, had said based on history, you don't think they will improve themselves through free agency. That's fine and legit. But to link that to Stevie's signing, that's completely off board.

[OpIv37]

It takes time when you are trying to build via the draft. I am not going back to our old redskins arguments.

stupid argument.

Just because the Redskins blew it in FA doesn't mean no team should sign FA's ever.

[OpIv37]

Well, they can't do anything but resign their own players until March 13. As I have told people before, have a little patience.

Patience isn't the problem.

It's their track record in FA.

[better days]

stupid argument.

Just because the Redskins blew it in FA doesn't mean no team should sign FA's ever.

Ops right. Just look how good the Eagles did with their FA signings last year. Dream Team.

[justasportsfan]

I'm not going to ignore that just because they did one thing right.

Sheez! No one is saying the holes are all filled OP!

READ THE TITLE TO YOUR OWN THREAD. It's supposed to be about Stevie bit you have turned it into a whine fest about every other hole on this team which even I agree with.



and BTW, why is everyone missing the part where I gave the Bills credit for finding a starter late in the draft and re-signing him?.



this is the typical OpIv37 "can't see the forest from the trees" debating technique..


you're just using Stevie to try to mask another *****ing thread.

Once again, we know there are still holes to fill .

[OpIv37]

You are judging their move RIGHT NOW. What else can they do better than signing Stevie today? You added "The Bad" part based on history about their future move on Stevie's signing event. I still don't get it!

If you, like so many other on this board, had said based on history, you don't think they will improve themselves through free agency. That's fine and legit. But to link that to Stevie's signing, that's completely off board.

You still don't get it?

The goal is to IMPROVE the team. Signing Stevie simply MAINTAINS the team and actually TAKES available cap space that could be used to improve the team.

If they find a way to improve the team despite signing Stevie, good. But until they do it, there is a down side to this move.

[OpIv37]

Ops right. Just look how good the Eagles did with their FA signings last year. Dream Team.

Yeah, I mean, look at how bad the Pats ****ed up by adding Wes Welker.

They really got burned there.

[justasportsfan]

stupid argument.

Just because the Redskins blew it in FA doesn't mean no team should sign FA's ever.


that was just an example that filling all the holes at once doesn't work. The bills with Drew, Spikes, Milloy, Fletcher,etc. didn't work either. Thats why we are in this mess to begin with because Donahoe didn't build via the draft.

[justasportsfan]

You still don't get it?

The goal is to IMPROVE the team. Signing Stevie simply MAINTAINS the team and actually TAKES available cap space that could be used to improve the team.

If they find a way to improve the team despite signing Stevie, good. But until they do it, there is a down side to this move.


LOL! Just like the POZ argument. OP was happy that the bills didn't sign POZ but the FO screwed up anyways. Now that FO signs the most productive player on the roster the last 2 years but the FO screwed up anyways. Bi polar.

[OpIv37]

LOL! Just like the POZ argument. OP was happy that the bills didn't sign POZ but the FO screwed up anyways. Now that FO signs the most productive player on the roster the last 2 years but the FO screwed up anyways. Bi polar.

See, the problem with the Poz argument is that you think what I said changes the fact that the FO wanted to sign him and failed to do so. What I wanted has no bearing on the FO's failure.

I already said that the FO put themselves in a situation where they were damned if they do, damned if they don't with Stevie. I've said it many times and I've already stated the reasons why. We've seen the results with Stevie on the field. Numbers but few wins. We need to do better.

[OpIv37]

that was just an example that filling all the holes at once doesn't work. The bills with Drew, Spikes, Milloy, Fletcher,etc. didn't work either. Thats why we are in this mess to begin with because Donahoe didn't build via the draft.

Actually, Drew didn't work out but filling all those holes at once on the D worked wonders. We had the #2 D in the league for two consecutive years.

And Drew was a trade, not a FA.

nice try, though.

[justasportsfan]

See, the problem with the Poz argument is that you think what I said changes the fact that the FO wanted to sign him and failed to do so. What I wanted has no bearing on the FO's failure. .
Ah no. The only thing they failed to do in that situation was to OVERPAY HIM , but being the whiner that you are you are trying to turn it into something else.


I already said that the FO put themselves in a situation where they were damned if they do, damned if they don't with Stevie. I've said it many times and I've already stated the reasons why. We've seen the results with Stevie on the field. Numbers but few wins. We need to do better.

we need to do better on other areas of the team but signing your most productive player is not a mistake.

[tatersalad]

Yeah, I mean, look at how bad the Pats ****ed up by adding Wes Welker.

They really got burned there.

Wes Welker was traded to the Patriots for a second round pick

[ghz in pittsburgh]

The goal is to IMPROVE the team. Signing Stevie simply MAINTAINS the team and actually TAKES available cap space that could be used to improve the team.


So if you are the GM, what is your way to IMPROVE the team without downside today? Not signing Stevie to maximize available cap space?

[OpIv37]

Ah no. The only thing they failed to do in that situation was to OVERPAY HIM , but being the whiner that you are you are trying to turn it into something else.
there is no such thing as overpaying when you are $20 million below the cap.

Failure. End of Story.



we need to do better on other areas of the team but signing your most productive player is not a mistake.

I didn't say it was. I said it was a GOOD signing.

[justasportsfan]

Actually, Drew didn't work out but filling all those holes at once on the D worked wonders. We had the #2 D in the league for two consecutive years.

And Drew was a trade, not a FA.

nice try, though.


holy crap. #2? What did that translate to in wins?


We've seen the results with DREW on the field. Numbers but few wins..

[justasportsfan]

Failure. End of Story. .
translation: They didn't overpay him but I had to find something to ***** about. End of story.




I said it was a GOOD signing.

Yes you did but your negativity seems to outdo that post.

[OpIv37]

translation: They didn't overpay him but I had to find something to ***** about. End of story.



I don't know why this is still up for debate over a year later.

The FO said they wanted to re-sign him. They failed to do so. It's a FAILURE.

It's nothing but homer spin that stems from a pathological need to defend the FO to say "well they didn't overpay him," especially when they were sitting on $20 million of cap space.

Either that, or you just like getting me going. Or both.

[SquishDaFish]

Poz wasnt worth that money plain and simple. End of story

[OpIv37]

Poz wasnt worth that money plain and simple. End of story

The FO wanted him and they didn't get him, plain and simple.

Personally I never thought he was any good and I'm glad they didn't get him at any price. But my opinion doesn't change the fact that the FO failed to get the player they wanted.

[stuckincincy]

Poz wasnt worth that money plain and simple. End of story


Maybe, maybe not. Poz may not be a superman, but he's a decent pro player - 61 career games so far, 61 stars.

If he's a bum, probably better to say that BUF and JAX are doofus franchises...

http://www.nfl.com/player/paulposluszny/2495712/profile

[ghz in pittsburgh]

The FO wanted him and they didn't get him, plain and simple.

Personally I never thought he was any good and I'm glad they didn't get him at any price. But my opinion doesn't change the fact that the FO failed to get the player they wanted.

I thought you live in DC and know a thing or two on political talk.

If the Bills really wanted Poz, they'd slapped a tag on him. There are must-have and nice-to-have etc. I think Poz falls into nice-to-have list.

Stevie, by all acounts, is a must-have from what we hear. Mario Williams, on the other hand, must-have is not an option because they have no means to secure it.

[OpIv37]

I thought you live in DC and know a thing or two on political talk.

If the Bills really wanted Poz, they'd slapped a tag on him. There are must-have and nice-to-have etc. I think Poz falls into nice-to-have list.

Stevie, by all acounts, is a must-have from what we hear. Mario Williams, on the other hand, must-have is not an option because they have no means to secure it.

Not true.

If he hits the open market, the Bills will have the means to secure him, at least in terms of cap space. They won't do it though, and honestly, I'm not even sure if I'd blame them on this one. He'll probably go for an absurd amount, and if we signed him we wouldn't be able to sign anyone else.

And anyone who watched this team last year knows that we're more than a DE away from being a contender.

[justasportsfan]

But my opinion doesn't change the fact that the FO failed to get the player they wanted
.......at a cheaper price than what he was paid. In other words, the FO blows for not OVERValuing Poz.

[better days]

Not true.

If he hits the open market, the Bills will have the means to secure him, at least in terms of cap space. They won't do it though, and honestly, I'm not even sure if I'd blame them on this one. He'll probably go for an absurd amount, and if we signed him we wouldn't be able to sign anyone else.

And anyone who watched this team last year knows that we're more than a DE away from being a contender.

Well, if Mario williams can still play like he has, adding him Stevie & the draft would put the Bills in the playoffs IMO.

[OpIv37]

.......at a cheaper price than what he was paid. In other words, the FO blows for not OVERValuing Poz.

The FO blows it for not getting the player they wanted. Sorry, but I'm not going to sit there and let the team that's $20 million under the cap whine about money.

If they took that money and somehow reinvested it into the team, I'd see your point. Why overpay for Poz when we could find talent elsewhere. But they didn't. Ralph just pocketed the cash.

And that's exactly why people call Ralph "cheap" and come up with conspiracy theories about us being Major League'd.

[OpIv37]

Well, if Mario williams can still play like he has, adding him Stevie & the draft would put the Bills in the playoffs IMO.

we didn't add Stevie. We kept Stevie. It's status quo as far as talent is concerned.

And the draft? Really? You guys do know that we're not the only team allowed to improve in the draft, right? Our opponents can do it too. Getting Williams would be huge but this team needs more help than that before they're going to be in the playoffs.

[Oaf]

Well, if Mario williams can still play like he has, adding him Stevie & the draft would put the Bills in the playoffs IMO.
Like Op said, it shouldn't be considered "adding" Stevie.

BB.com is acting like is Christmas, with all this media and ALL CAPS and stuff. It's a great resigning, but that's just maintaining the status quo, which is a 5-11 team (avg) under CHIX. We need a #2, we need a DE, we need a SLB.

[SquishDaFish]

The FO wanted him and they didn't get him, plain and simple.

Personally I never thought he was any good and I'm glad they didn't get him at any price. But my opinion doesn't change the fact that the FO failed to get the player they wanted.

FO wanted him at a good price NOT OVERPAY!!

[better days]

there is no such thing as overpaying when you are $20 million below the cap.

Failure. End of Story.



I didn't say it was. I said it was a GOOD signing.

So you don't think the Bills OVERPAID for Derrick Dockery?

[OpIv37]

FO wanted him at a good price NOT OVERPAY!!


The FO blows it for not getting the player they wanted. Sorry, but I'm not going to sit there and let the team that's $20 million under the cap whine about money.

If they took that money and somehow reinvested it into the team, I'd see your point. Why overpay for Poz when we could find talent elsewhere. But they didn't. Ralph just pocketed the cash.

And that's exactly why people call Ralph "cheap" and come up with conspiracy theories about us being Major League'd.

[SquishDaFish]

Im not disagreeing with you about sending the cash. Yea they could of spent that cash somewhere sure. But the FO didnt fail by not keeping POZ because we obviously overvalue him like JAX

[OpIv37]

they said they wanted him, they didn't get him, and then they hid behind "well he was too expensive." That's a failure.

[Historian]

1) Grab Mario Williams or any of the other proven pass rushers available (Big chunk of cap here). I need this to happen because we're not gonna get that type of impact guy from this draft.


He sure would make the secondary better.

[psubills62]

Because
a) it limits our ability to sign other players. Remember, we already had Stevie Johnson on our team. This signing doesn't improve the team- it simply maintains the status quo. We still need to get better and we have less money to do it. The upside is that we avoided a hole, but there is an opportunity cost associated with doing that.

b) the FO can use it as an excuse to not sign other WR's or even to not sign players at all. Stevie's cap number is not going to be pretty. We'll still have cap space, but the FO had ~$20MM of cap space last year that they didn't use.
a) It's not that limiting. We've still got plenty of cap space available, and can sign most anyone. Saying we have "less money to do it" is a very relative thing. We could have 120 million available and if we sign Porky Pig for 1 million, then yes, we'd technically have "less money to sign others." Just because we have less does not mean we're lacking sufficient funds to do it.

And of course there's an "opportunity cost" for keeping talent. That's how the NFL works. That in itself is not a negative, sorry. "Oh my gosh, it's great that we kept this player, but we actually had to SPEND MONEY to do it!! That's ridiculous and I'm forced to dock the Bills ten points for it!"

b)The FO being able to use it as an excuse is a negative? Who cares? If they need excuses to not sign guys, they'll find them. This isn't a negative on signing Stevie, that's a negative on the FO in general. And considering Nix said they were going to be aggressive (I know, you don't believe him), maybe we should wait to see for sure if they're going to need an excuse before knocking them for it. If they do need excuses and aren't aggressive, by all means, knock them.

[SquishDaFish]

they said they wanted him, they didn't get him, and then they hid behind "well he was too expensive." That's a failure.

I disagree. They tried to keep him and werent going to OVERPAY plain and simple. I agree with you sometimes but now your being negative just to be negative and get a rise out of people

[psubills62]

they said they wanted him, they didn't get him, and then they hid behind "well he was too expensive." That's a failure.
Did you want him at that amount of money? Or would you have been complaining that they signed a mediocre player for X amount of money?

They want players, but at realistic and reasonable prices. They weren't going to pay Stevie 9m per year, and they weren't going to pay Poz 7-8m per year.

[OpIv37]

a) It's not that limiting. We've still got plenty of cap space available, and can sign most anyone. Saying we have "less money to do it" is a very relative thing. We could have 120 million available and if we sign Porky Pig for 1 million, then yes, we'd technically have "less money to sign others." Just because we have less does not mean we're lacking sufficient funds to do it.

And of course there's an "opportunity cost" for keeping talent. That's how the NFL works. That in itself is not a negative, sorry. "Oh my gosh, it's great that we kept this player, but we actually had to SPEND MONEY to do it!! That's ridiculous and I'm forced to dock the Bills ten points for it!"

b)The FO being able to use it as an excuse is a negative? Who cares? If they need excuses to not sign guys, they'll find them. This isn't a negative on signing Stevie, that's a negative on the FO in general. And considering Nix said they were going to be aggressive (I know, you don't believe him), maybe we should wait to see for sure if they're going to need an excuse before knocking them for it. If they do need excuses and aren't aggressive, by all means, knock them.

They haven't earned the benefit of the doubt. Last year they went into the season $20 million below the cap. Talk is cheap. The onus is on them to DO something, not just say the right things. Until they show that they can behave differently, the criticism is well-warranted.

And seriously, if you don't see how spending a big chunk of cap space to simply maintain what we have when we were 5-11 is a potential problem, I just don't know what to tell you. It really doesn't get any clearer than that.

[justasportsfan]

And seriously, if you don't see how spending a big chunk of cap space to simply maintain what we have when we were 5-11 is a potential problem, I just don't know what to tell you. It really doesn't get any clearer than that.


this is idiotic. Stevie is an asset. Other parts of the team were the reasons why we only won 5 games. Once again, we didn't OVERPAY for Stevie like we didn't OVERPAY for Poz. If you can't see how idiotic your post is, just don't know what to tell you.

[OpIv37]

Did you want him at that amount of money? Or would you have been complaining that they signed a mediocre player for X amount of money?

They want players, but at realistic and reasonable prices. They weren't going to pay Stevie 9m per year, and they weren't going to pay Poz 7-8m per year.

Again, what I wanted is IRRELEVANT.

They wanted him, they didn't get him done, and they complained about "reasonable" prices while going into the season $20 million under the cap.

That is a failure. Period.

[OpIv37]

this is idiotic. Stevie is an asset. Other parts of the team were the reasons why we only won 5 games. Once again, we didn't OVERPAY for Stevie like we didn't OVERPAY for Poz. If you can't see how idiotic your post is, just don't know what to tell you.

You clearly don't understand the concept of an "opportunity cost." And you can't seem to understand that I said the Johnson signing was a GOOD signing at a GOOD price.

That doesn't mean there isn't also a down side.

[psubills62]

They haven't earned the benefit of the doubt. Last year they went into the season $20 million below the cap. Talk is cheap. The onus is on them to DO something, not just say the right things. Until they show that they can behave differently, the criticism is well-warranted.

And seriously, if you don't see how spending a big chunk of cap space to simply maintain what we have when we were 5-11 is a potential problem, I just don't know what to tell you. It really doesn't get any clearer than that.
Waiting to see what happens is not giving them the benefit of the doubt...it's simply called "waiting." You don't have to believe, just wait and see. It's only a week or so away.

It's only clear to you because you argue in circles.

Maybe I'm mistaken, but I thought "status quo" was letting our talent leave? This doesn't look like status quo to me.

What you don't seem to understand is that signing the best does not mean maintaining status quo, especially when those players were going to leave. If we re-signed all of the mediocre players and did NOTHING to try to get better, that's maintaining status quo.

But here you are *****ing about all the holes...when they haven't even had a chance to make improvements yet. Maybe you should focus on the Stevie signing, like you said, and then address any other changes they make later, you know, when they can actually make changes.

[Buddo]

There's a fundamental issue here about the $. When the current Bills FO, Nix et al, say they would like a player back, they would like the player back on their terms.
Just being able to afford something, doesn't mean you should buy it at any given price.
I'm pretty sure the Bills would like both Chandler and Bell back also, but if the price isn't right, then it isn't going to happen, no matter how much cap space there is.
Opportunity cost is an interesting concept. Last year, the opportunity cost of overpaying for Poz (and avoiding OP's idea of being a failure), may well have been the inability to go after Clabo.
That sort of thing is the reasoning behind wanting to sign/re-sign players on your terms, so that you can actually try and do other things you want to achieve.
The inability to land Clabo, might have been a reason why the Bills were under the cap by so much, or it might not. If you want a 'failure', that's probably one to look at, but not re-signing Poz for stupid money, isn't, as it wasn't what they wanted to do.

[psubills62]

Again, what I wanted is IRRELEVANT.

They wanted him, they didn't get him done, and they complained about "reasonable" prices while going into the season $20 million under the cap.

That is a failure. Period.
You don't seem to get that they want players for the right price. It's not about how much money is available, it's about how much money a player is worth. They didn't get him because he was paid more than they wanted to. It's not a failure.

So let me ask you this...if wanting Poz and him getting away (no matter what the cost) equals failure...then by the reverse definition, signing Stevie must be a success. Is that correct?

[Captain gameboy]

Don't run a business Op.

[Buddo]

Oh, and BTW, going back a little while just after the season ended, in his wrap up, Nix clearly stated they wanted to get another WR. He even made the comment that if they didn't re-sign Stevie, they would have to get 2.
My guess would be that it's a position that is high on their agenda.
While Nix may not have managed to do everything he's tried to do, if he says he intends to do something, I've found so far, he makes valid attempts to get things done.
I'd be very surprised if we don't either find a decent complimentary WR in FA, or failing that, draft one pretty high.
FA would be my first bet tbh, as there are a bunch of decent to good ones out there.

[stuckincincy]

Oh, and BTW, going back a little while just after the season ended, in his wrap up, Nix clearly stated they wanted to get another WR. He even made the comment that if they didn't re-sign Stevie, they would have to get 2.
My guess would be that it's a position that is high on their agenda.
While Nix may not have managed to do everything he's tried to do, if he says he intends to do something, I've found so far, he makes valid attempts to get things done.
I'd be very surprised if we don't either find a decent complimentary WR in FA, or failing that, draft one pretty high.
FA would be my first bet tbh, as there are a bunch of decent to good ones out there.

Yep - I think they will draft one in 4th - maybe 3rd. Not sure about the FA crop available at a resonable price. I guess they have to try to assess and predict Easely's (sp) health, and his potential, too.

[justasportsfan]

OP wanted us to pay Peters to think that Peters' production at his position was arguably not as consistent compared to Stevie. We weren't winning with Peters either yet he wanted Peters. "oppurtunity cost"

When Peters didn't perform in his first year w/ the eagles. "I was wrong,blah,blah,blah".

Now that peters is playing like an elite LT, I wonder what his thoughts are . Nevermind.

[OpIv37]

Waiting to see what happens is not giving them the benefit of the doubt...it's simply called "waiting." You don't have to believe, just wait and see. It's only a week or so away.

It's only clear to you because you argue in circles.

Maybe I'm mistaken, but I thought "status quo" was letting our talent leave? This doesn't look like status quo to me.

What you don't seem to understand is that signing the best does not mean maintaining status quo, especially when those players were going to leave. If we re-signed all of the mediocre players and did NOTHING to try to get better, that's maintaining status quo.

But here you are *****ing about all the holes...when they haven't even had a chance to make improvements yet. Maybe you should focus on the Stevie signing, like you said, and then address any other changes they make later, you know, when they can actually make changes.

"status quo" means keeping things the same. We had Stevie last year. Bringing him back is keeping the team at status quo- we didn't lose him, we didn't gain anything addition to him.

I don't argue in circles. I make the same point repeatedly because it never seems to get through to some of you.

And when you say that we should wait because Nix said we would be aggressive, then you aren't simply waiting. You are giving him the benefit of the doubt based on his words, not his actions.

[OpIv37]

OP wanted us to pay Peters to think that Peters' production at his position was arguably not as consistent compared to Stevie. We weren't winning with Peters either yet he wanted Peters. "oppurtunity cost"

When Peters didn't perform in his first year w/ the eagles. "I was wrong,blah,blah,blah".

Now that peters is playing like an elite LT, I wonder what his thoughts are . Nevermind.


We should have paid Peters. I was right the first time and shouldn't have let people like you goad me into saying I was wrong so quickly.

We went into last season with $20 million in cap space and a cluster**** at T. We would have been much better off with Peters and $11 million in unused cap.

And btw Peters has nothing to do with Stevie. Each situation is unique, but you've never understood that in the past so I don't expect you to understand it now.

[OpIv37]

Don't run a business Op.

Why do so many people insist on making this about me? It's not about me. It's about the Bills' FO and how they do business. From a business standpoint, they do a pretty damn good job- they make a LOT of money. From a football standpoint, the results are horrid.

[Philagape]

Bringing him back is keeping the team at status quo-

It's keeping his position at status quo.
There's still a draft, and yes, there's still FA. The team didn't field the status quo last year and they won't this year.

[OpIv37]

You don't seem to get that they want players for the right price. It's not about how much money is available, it's about how much money a player is worth. They didn't get him because he was paid more than they wanted to. It's not a failure.

So let me ask you this...if wanting Poz and him getting away (no matter what the cost) equals failure...then by the reverse definition, signing Stevie must be a success. Is that correct?

Seriously, are you people DAFT? I said Stevie was a GOOD signing.

That doesn't mean it doesn't have a downside or an opportunity cost. ****.

And I explained the Poz thing a dozen ****ing times too. They wanted him, they didn't get him, they hid behind the "at the right price" excuse, then went into the season without reinvesting that money into the team in any way, shape or form.

How many times do I have to say the same thing? It's like I'm talking to six year olds.

[OpIv37]

It's keeping his position at status quo.
There's still a draft, and yes, there's still FA. The team didn't field the status quo last year and they won't this year.

They won't keep it at status quo in the strictest sense of "no changes." The question is "will they make enough changes to make the team better?" They didn't do it two years ago and they didn't do it last year, so I'm not holding my breath on this year.

[psubills62]

Seriously, are you people DAFT? I said Stevie was a GOOD signing.

That doesn't mean it doesn't have a downside or an opportunity cost. ****.

And I explained the Poz thing a dozen ****ing times too. They wanted him, they didn't get him, they hid behind the "at the right price" excuse, then went into the season without reinvesting that money into the team in any way, shape or form.

How many times do I have to say the same thing? It's like I'm talking to six year olds.
You're repeating things because you aren't listening to anyone. If we're six year olds, you must be a four year old because you're just sticking your fingers in your ear and yelling at the top of your lungs.

They wanted him AT THE RIGHT PRICE. It's not a failure when he priced himself out of the appropriate range.

It's like if you asked me for gum and I told you to pay me $200 for it. The fact that you would obviously not pay that doesn't mean you failed in your quest for gum. You just need to find more reasonably priced gum elsewhere.

This is not a difficult concept.

[psubills62]

"status quo" means keeping things the same. We had Stevie last year. Bringing him back is keeping the team at status quo- we didn't lose him, we didn't gain anything addition to him.

I don't argue in circles. I make the same point repeatedly because it never seems to get through to some of you.

And when you say that we should wait because Nix said we would be aggressive, then you aren't simply waiting. You are giving him the benefit of the doubt based on his words, not his actions.
I realize what status quo means. What you don't seem to realize is all they can do right now is bring people back. Right at this moment, what can they do to get better than what they were last year? If you think they won't do anything in free agency and will pick horrible draft picks, that's a completely different issue than Steve Johnson's contract.

Oh and like I already said (which you didn't respond to) - isn't status quo supposed to be letting our talent leave? Is that not a change from what normally happens, and what you normally complain about?

No, you keep arguing because you don't pay any attention to our responses. That's what's not getting through.

You have a lot of equivalence issues. Waiting to see what Nix does DOES NOT EQUAL giving him the benefit of the doubt. "Benefit of the doubt" means you believe him. I'm waiting to see what he does. Doesn't mean I believe they'll be as aggressive as they say they will. Two very different things.

[OpIv37]

You're repeating things because you aren't listening to anyone. If we're six year olds, you must be a four year old because you're just sticking your fingers in your ear and yelling at the top of your lungs.

They wanted him AT THE RIGHT PRICE. It's not a failure when he priced himself out of the appropriate range.

It's like if you asked me for gum and I told you to pay me $200 for it. The fact that you would obviously not pay that doesn't mean you failed in your quest for gum. You just need to find more reasonably priced gum elsewhere.

This is not a difficult concept.
Its not that I'm not listening. Its that I'm not buying this epic bull****. Poz got more than he was worth, but not nearly as extreme as $200 for a pack of gum. That was the FO's excuse when they failed to land him.

Of course, it's hard to see that wearing red and blue colored glasses.

[OpIv37]

I realize what status quo means. What you don't seem to realize is all they can do right now is bring people back. Right at this moment, what can they do to get better than what they were last year? If you think they won't do anything in free agency and will pick horrible draft picks, that's a completely different issue than Steve Johnson's contract.

Oh and like I already said (which you didn't respond to) - isn't status quo supposed to be letting our talent leave? Is that not a change from what normally happens, and what you normally complain about?

No, you keep arguing because you don't pay any attention to our responses. That's what's not getting through.

You have a lot of equivalence issues. Waiting to see what Nix does DOES NOT EQUAL giving him the benefit of the doubt. "Benefit of the doubt" means you believe him. I'm waiting to see what he does. Doesn't mean I believe they'll be as aggressive as they say they will. Two very different things.

Equivelancy issues? Strange words from a guy whose actions don't match his words. Tell me this: if you don't think Buddy will be as aggressive as he says, why are you arguing with me and what difference do you think waiting will make?

[TigerJ]

Through most of the previous decade the Bills sucked early in the draft, but it doesn't necessarily follow that they will going forward. There is a new GM, a new assistant GM, and a number of changes/upgrades to the scouting staff from the decade of suckiness. I credit Nix with responsibility for the last two drafts. In 2010 Buffalo drafted CG Spiller. Overall, it was not a great draft for Nix. Besides Spiller, Troup and Easley have incomplete grades at this point due in part to injury and in Troup's case to the strong play of Kyle Williams in 2010. Wang, Brown, and Calloway are gone, and all Buffalo got out of the rest of the draft are role players at best. At least Spiller became a solid contributor last season and with Jackson on the wrong side of 30 looks to be an important part of Buffalo's near future and maybe more. In 2011, the draft potentially looks much better with three projected starters in 2012 from the first three rounds, a pretty good nickel corner in Justin Rogers and several other role players, some of whom might some day be starters. That's a pretty good draft in my book.

[psubills62]

Its not that I'm not listening. Its that I'm not buying this epic bull****. Poz got more than he was worth, but not nearly as extreme as $200 for a pack of gum. That was the FO's excuse when they failed to land him.

Of course, it's hard to see that wearing red and blue colored glasses.
Where in my posts am I wearing red and blue colored glasses?

I have no problem with people, including you, leveling legitimate criticisms against the Bills. Most of the ones you ***** about are about as far from legitimate as you can get. Just because you don't buy something doesn't make it BS. Believe it or not, many teams go through this. They want to sign or re-sign guys, but the money isn't right. Doesn't mean failure is on anyone.

[psubills62]

Equivelancy issues? Strange words from a guy whose actions don't match his words. Tell me this: if you don't think Buddy will be as aggressive as he says, why are you arguing with me and what difference do you think waiting will make?
Where don't my actions match my words? Like I said in the post above, I have no problem with people criticizing the Bills if they are using legitimate criticisms. Most of yours are so unbelievably dumb that it's hard to fathom. "It's good we signed Steve Johnson, but it's bad that we had to use cap room." Uh...what??

I'm arguing with you because you're not giving them a chance. I've seen Buffalo be aggressive in free agency before with Dockery, Walker, etc. Obviously the results were awful, but they were still aggressive.

And by the way, I never officially said I didn't think Buddy would be aggressive. I'm simply waiting to see what will happen. But the fact that I'm waiting doesn't mean I have a predilection one way or another. I'm cautiously pessimistic.

[YardRat]

I'd pay $200 for a pack of gum before I'd give you a nickel for the POS.

Jesus Christ...they were being politically correct when they publicly stated they wanted to keep him...they cut bait and simply found a nice way of helping the landing be a little softer.

As far as the original premise of the thread, I think it's a great signing...we kept one of our better players and paid a very reasonable price to do so. Kudos to both sides to getting a good deal worked out.

[OpIv37]

Where don't my actions match my words? Like I said in the post above, I have no problem with people criticizing the Bills if they are using legitimate criticisms. Most of yours are so unbelievably dumb that it's hard to fathom. "It's good we signed Steve Johnson, but it's bad that we had to use cap room." Uh...what??

I'm arguing with you because you're not giving them a chance. I've seen Buffalo be aggressive in free agency before with Dockery, Walker, etc. Obviously the results were awful, but they were still aggressive.

And by the way, I never officially said I didn't think Buddy would be aggressive. I'm simply waiting to see what will happen. But the fact that I'm waiting doesn't mean I have a predilection one way or another. I'm cautiously pessimistic.

That's not what I said.

I said it's bad that we now have LESS CAP ROOM TO ADDRESS OTHER POSITIONS. It's called an opportunity cost and it's a well-established concept in business and public policy. I didn't make it up.

The Bills (and every other team for that matter) are only allowed to spend so much on salary. The Bills chose to use a good chunk of that available money to avoid opening up a new hole rather than addressing an existing hole. We didn't get any worse but we didn't get any better as a result of the decision.

It's quite simple, really.

And I'm not giving them a chance because they haven't earned the benefit of the doubt.

[justasportsfan]

We should have paid Peters. I was right the first time and shouldn't have let people like you goad me into saying I was wrong so quickly.

We went into last season with $20 million in cap space and a cluster**** at T. We would have been much better off with Peters and $11 million in unused cap.

And btw Peters has nothing to do with Stevie. Each situation is unique, but you've never understood that in the past so I don't expect you to understand it now.


Flipflop. Thyoughts so.

[justasportsfan]

You're repeating things because you aren't listening to anyone. If we're six year olds, you must be a four year old because you're just sticking your fingers in your ear and yelling at the top of your lungs.


the only thing OP wants to listen to, is listen to himself whine all day.

[better days]

That's not what I said.

I said it's bad that we now have LESS CAP ROOM TO ADDRESS OTHER POSITIONS. It's called an opportunity cost and it's a well-established concept in business and public policy. I didn't make it up.

The Bills (and every other team for that matter) are only allowed to spend so much on salary. The Bills chose to use a good chunk of that available money to avoid opening up a new hole rather than addressing an existing hole. We didn't get any worse but we didn't get any better as a result of the decision.

It's quite simple, really.

And I'm not giving them a chance because they haven't earned the benefit of the doubt.

No this is a misconception. If the Bills did not resign Stevie, that WR position he used to occupy would have been an existing hole. Stevie was no longer a Bill. It was an existing hole until Stevie signed the contract.

[OpIv37]

No this is a misconception. If the Bills did not resign Stevie, that WR position he used to occupy would have been an existing hole. Stevie was no longer a Bill. It was an existing hole until Stevie signed the contract.


Semantics.

We had Stevie last year. We will have Stevie this year. It's talent neutral. We got no better or no worse as a result of the decision.

[Ickybaluky]

I said it's bad that we now have LESS CAP ROOM TO ADDRESS OTHER POSITIONS.

That is true for any contract. Is it a negative that the Packers signed Aaron Rodgers to an extension, leaving less money for other positions? Hardly, they locked up a good player.

It is only a negative if the player doesn't perform. If you pay good money to a player who isn't worth it, that gets you in cap trouble. You have to go out and use resources to find someone who can get that job done, because that bad contract is tied to a player. However, Johnson has been consistently productive, so it is a good deal.

In the end, the point of the whole deal is to win games, not to get the most cap room. There is no downside to locking up a good player to a good contract. It doesn't keep you from doing other things.

[OpIv37]

That is true for any contract. Is it a negative that the Packers signed Aaron Rodgers to an extension, leaving less money for other positions? Hardly, they locked up a good player.

It is only a negative if the player doesn't perform. If you pay good money to a player who isn't worth it, that gets you in cap trouble. You have to go out and use resources to find someone who can get that job done, because that bad contract is tied to a player. However, Johnson has been consistently productive, so it is a good deal.

In the end, the point of the whole deal is to win games, not to get the most cap room. There is no downside to locking up a good player to a good contract. It doesn't keep you from doing other things.

He's also been consistently immature and that immaturity has hurt the team on the field (drops, penalties). IF he can fix that, this is a good deal. If he doesn't, then we are looking at cap trouble.

And the Rodgers comparison is ridiculous because he plays QB- which is much harder to find than WR, and he's Top 5 in the NFL at his position, arguably top 3. It's MUCH easier to find a top 20 WR like Stevie than a top 5 QB like Rodgers.

In the end, the goal is to win games, and winning games is done by filling holes. Re-signing the same guys doesn't fill any holes, and it limits cap room to fill holes. It does keep you from doing other things because the NFL only allows teams to spend so much on salary.

[better days]

Semantics.

We had Stevie last year. We will have Stevie this year. It's talent neutral. We got no better or no worse as a result of the decision.

We HAD Stevie last year but unless the resigned him, they would not have had him this year. He was NOT a Bill until he signed the contract.

In any company, if a persons contract expires, he is no longer a part of that company until he signs a new contract.

The Bills are better for resigning Stevie because they could not have replaced him with anyone as good let alone better. And if Stevie just cuts out the immature crap, he may well be better than he was last year.

If it cost the Bills last penny they had to resign him, it would still have been a good signing, but at only $7.25Mill/yr, the Bills still have plenty of money left over to sign others.

[justasportsfan]

We HAD Stevie last year but unless the resigned him, they would not have had him this year. He was NOT a Bill until he signed the contract.

In any company, if a persons contract expires, he is no longer a part of that company until he signs a new contract.

The Bills are better for resigning Stevie because they could not have replaced him with anyone as good let alone better. And if Stevie just cuts out the immature crap, he may well be better than he was last year.

If it cost the Bills last penny they had to resign him, it would still have been a good signing, but at only $7.25Mill/yr, the Bills still have plenty of money left over to sign others.


I have a feeling OP will flipflop about this next year .

[OpIv37]

We HAD Stevie last year but unless the resigned him, they would not have had him this year. He was NOT a Bill until he signed the contract.

In any company, if a persons contract expires, he is no longer a part of that company until he signs a new contract.

The Bills are better for resigning Stevie because they could not have replaced him with anyone as good let alone better. And if Stevie just cuts out the immature crap, he may well be better than he was last year.

If it cost the Bills last penny they had to resign him, it would still have been a good signing, but at only $7.25Mill/yr, the Bills still have plenty of money left over to sign others.

Again, semantics.

We had Stevie on the field last year.

We will have Stevie on the field this year.

The talent on the field this year will be the same as last year.

You are using semantics to give the Bills' FO credit for "improving" the team by keeping the same player.

[mikemac2001]

Again, semantics.

We had Stevie on the field last year.

We will have Stevie on the field this year.

The talent on the field this year will be the same as last year.

You are using semantics to give the Bills' FO credit for "improving" the team by keeping the same player.


If losing a player is a negative
And keeping stevie a positive when him and fitz were healthy 5-2

then not losing him would be a positive because we didnt go backwords and can focus on other holes

Its a positive bc not creating another hole is huge

This is a classic ***** to ***** thread...why not just post this in another stevie threas

[psubills62]

That's not what I said.

I said it's bad that we now have LESS CAP ROOM TO ADDRESS OTHER POSITIONS. It's called an opportunity cost and it's a well-established concept in business and public policy. I didn't make it up.

The Bills (and every other team for that matter) are only allowed to spend so much on salary. The Bills chose to use a good chunk of that available money to avoid opening up a new hole rather than addressing an existing hole. We didn't get any worse but we didn't get any better as a result of the decision.

It's quite simple, really.

And I'm not giving them a chance because they haven't earned the benefit of the doubt.
And as I said before...saying we have "LESS CAP ROOM" doesn't mean we don't have enough cap room, which we still do. Not to mention that you're simply arguing the wording...using cap room and having less cap room is the same thing.

They addressed a hole that would have been there if they hadn't done anything. Again, semantics. A hole that would be guaranteed to be there vs. a hole that's already there. Either way, they're addressing a hole.

And yet again, as I said before, waiting does not necessitate giving them the benefit of the doubt.

[justasportsfan]

You are using semantics to give the Bills' FO credit for "improving" the team by keeping the same player.
we should get rid of Kylke WIlliams and Dareus to open more cap so we can bring in more players who may or may not pan out .

Teams shouldn't be resigning their most productive players because their production only got them a certain amount of wins just like fins should just cut Brandon MArshall . They should cut Wake too since those 2 only got them 6 wins. Stupid logic.

[justasportsfan]

This is a classic ***** to ***** thread...why not just post this in another stevie threas
he should change the title to " another whine thread by OP"

[better days]

Again, semantics.

We had Stevie on the field last year.

We will have Stevie on the field this year.

The talent on the field this year will be the same as last year.

You are using semantics to give the Bills' FO credit for "improving" the team by keeping the same player.

Well if they did not resign Stevie, they would have had somebody worse on the team at WR. That is a fact. NOBODY they could have signed would have had the chemistry with Fitz that Stevie does, so even if the talent level were comparable, that new WR would not have been as good as keeping Stevie.

Also by keeping Stevie, the Bills can use their resources aka draft picks to ADD other good players to the team rather than filling a hole at WR they no longer have to worry about filling.

[OpIv37]

we should get rid of Kylke WIlliams and Dareus to open more cap so we can bring in more players who may or may not pan out .

Teams shouldn't be resigning their most productive players because their production only got them a certain amount of wins just like fins should just cut Brandon MArshall . They should cut Wake too since those 2 only got them 6 wins. Stupid logic.

no, that's not even close to what I said.

If we re-sign Dareus or Williams, it comes at the opportunity cost to upgrade another position, say DE. So, it's a cost/benefit analysis. What's better- keeping Dareus or Williams (or Johnson as the case may be) or getting a DE, because we can't do both.

There are a lot of factors and opinions that way inot the decision.

[better days]

he should change the title to " another whine thread by OP"

If the Bills did not resign Stevie, OP would have started a thread complaining the Bills will never improve because they don't keep good players.

They did resign Stevie, & Op is still *****ing, he is not happy unless he has something to ***** about.

[OpIv37]

If losing a player is a negative
And keeping stevie a positive when him and fitz were healthy 5-2

then not losing him would be a positive because we didnt go backwords and can focus on other holes

Its a positive bc not creating another hole is huge

This is a classic ***** to ***** thread...why not just post this in another stevie threas

Keeping Stevie isn't a positive in terms of talent on the field. It's neutral in terms of talent on the field.

Saying "well at least we didn't go backwards" and calling that a positive is the quintessential example of Bills fans accepting mediocrity. Not going backwards now counts as a positive instead of actual positives.

And if you say it's a classic "***** to *****" thread, clearly you either didn't read or didn't comprehend my first post.

[justasportsfan]

If the Bills did not resign Stevie, OP would have started a thread complaining the Bills will never improve because they don't keep good players.

They did resign Stevie, & Op is still *****ing, he is not happy unless he has something to ***** about.

OP "we should have resigned Peters. I was wrong, glad he's done., Oh wait, we should have kept Peters. "

If Peters fails this year, watch him flipflop again.

[OpIv37]

If the Bills did not resign Stevie, OP would have started a thread complaining the Bills will never improve because they don't keep good players.

They did resign Stevie, & Op is still *****ing, he is not happy unless he has something to ***** about.

So, you are basing your argument on your assumption of my reaction to hypothetical situation that never actually occurred?

Weak, really weak.

And FYI, I said a long time ago that the Bills were damned if they do, damned if they don't with Stevie, so my reaction would have been similar if they didn't resign him.

I'm not happy unless we're WINNING.

[OpIv37]

I don't have time for this.

I've said my piece. Stevie was a good signing, but it comes at an opportunity cost of filling other positions and the potential for the FO to use it as an excuse to not do anything else at WR or in FA in general.

I can't keep arguing semantics on this. If you disagree, fine- time will prove me right as it always does.

[better days]

Keeping Stevie isn't a positive in terms of talent on the field. It's neutral in terms of talent on the field.

Saying "well at least we didn't go backwards" and calling that a positive is the quintessential example of Bills fans accepting mediocrity. Not going backwards now counts as a positive instead of actual positives.

And if you say it's a classic "***** to *****" thread, clearly you either didn't read or didn't comprehend my first post.

OK, if the Bills did not keep Stevie who could the Bills replaced him with that would have been better? And wouldn't that have been using resources to sign that new player?

This is a ***** just to ***** thread, you are just too blind to your own *****ing to see it.

[OpIv37]

OK, if the Bills did not keep Stevie who could the Bills replaced him with that would have been better? And wouldn't that have been using resources to sign that new player?

This is a ***** just to ***** thread, you are just too blind to your own *****ing to see it.

lmao.

Everyone accuses me of "*****ing to *****." Then the game starts and all my "*****es" turn out to be actual problems and the team loses.

It's much easier to accuse me of "*****ing to *****" than to admit this team has problems. It's typical "shoot the messenger" syndrome to avoid accepting reality.
'

[better days]

lmao.

Everyone accuses me of "*****ing to *****." Then the game starts and all my "*****es" turn out to be actual problems and the team loses.

It's much easier to accuse me of "*****ing to *****" than to admit this team has problems. It's typical "shoot the messenger" syndrome to avoid accepting reality.
'

We all know the team has had problems for a LONG time. Nix & Gailey are fixing those problems. Keeping Stevie was a part of that. Nix said the Bills will pay to keep their good players & he made good on his word.

I saw you having fun, enjoying the Bills when they were on the win streak last year. I have no doubt you will have much more fun next year because the Bills resigned Stevie.

[Ickybaluky]

lmao.

Everyone accuses me of "*****ing to *****." Then the game starts and all my "*****es" turn out to be actual problems and the team loses.

It's much easier to accuse me of "*****ing to *****" than to admit this team has problems. It's typical "shoot the messenger" syndrome to avoid accepting reality.
'

But coming up with this whole "opportunity cost" thing makes no sense. That is true for any team trying to re-sign a player, is it not? The alternative is letting the player go. It isn't about the cap when you are re-signing a good player. As long as he performs, the cap isn't an issue because he is doing what he is paid to do. If the does not produce, then that is the downside because you are paying money for nothing.

Really, any good player comes at a cost. Eventually, you have to pay guys. As long as they produce, it is OK. The cap is only a problem when you are paying the money and not getting the production for it. Johnson is a productive player.

So the Johnson money is well spent. What they spend on other positions is a separate issue.

[justasportsfan]

lmao.

Everyone accuses me of "*****ing to *****." Then the game starts and all my "*****es" turn out to be actual problems and the team loses.

It's much easier to accuse me of "*****ing to *****" than to admit this team has problems. It's typical "shoot the messenger" syndrome to avoid accepting reality.
'

Part of those problems are letting our most productive players go. So either ways youre *****ing about something you're *****ing about.

[mikemac2001]

Part of those problems are letting our most productive players go. So either ways youre *****ing about something you're *****ing about.


If he didnt sign

there would be a post *****ing about how we let talented players go

its an endless cycle with this guy. it was a fair contract for both teams we keep a productive player and dont create another hole

but someone has to create a thread to draw all the attention on him

[OpIv37]

If he didnt sign

there would be a post *****ing about how we let talented players go

its an endless cycle with this guy. it was a fair contract for both teams we keep a productive player and dont create another hole

but someone has to create a thread to draw all the attention on him

actually I do the complete opposite.

I try to make it about the actions of the team and the implications of them.

But, people can't handle the reality, so they always try to put it back on me or my mentality, when it should be about the team.

[mikemac2001]

actually I do the complete opposite.

I try to make it about the actions of the team and the implications of them.

But, people can't handle the reality, so they always try to put it back on me or my mentality, when it should be about the team.


Ok ***** if they do ***** if they don't

the bottom line is all you do is *****,

so why don't you tell everyone what you want and if it comes true you will stfu and not make a post just to draw attention to yourself.

did you see any of the other stevie signing threads

[psubills62]

So let me get this straight...all those times the Bills let talented players walk, it was a positive that they then had more cap room to spend on other players? Why didn't you ever mention that before, Op?

[justasportsfan]

actually I do the complete opposite.

I try to make it about the actions of the team and the implications of them.

But, people can't handle the reality, so they always try to put it back on me or my mentality, when it should be about the team.


I thought you were done and didn't have time. Make up your mind for once.

[justasportsfan]

So let me get this straight...all those times the Bills let talented players walk, it was a positive that they then had more cap room to spend on other players? Why didn't you ever mention that before, Op?

NO. He wanted to keep Jason Peters. He was all for Peters before he was against Peters, before he was currently for Peters. :snicker:

[psubills62]

NO. He wanted to keep Jason Peters. He was all for Peters before he was against Peters, before he was currently for Peters. :snicker:
But signing Peters takes money away from other holes. It wouldn't have been a good thing to maintain the status quo. Peters' play never translated to wins anyway.

[justasportsfan]

But signing Peters takes money away from other holes. It wouldn't have been a good thing to maintain the status quo. Peters' play never translated to wins anyway.
now, now now. Don't take away OP's ability to argue with himself.

[OpIv37]

Ok ***** if they do ***** if they don't

the bottom line is all you do is *****,

so why don't you tell everyone what you want and if it comes true you will stfu and not make a post just to draw attention to yourself.

did you see any of the other stevie signing threads



I don't "***** to *****." I point out legitimate flaws in the team. People like you don't want to hear about the problems so you try to make it about me and accuse me of "*****ing to *****."

[Ickybaluky]

I don't "***** to *****." I point out legitimate flaws in the team. People like you don't want to hear about the problems so you try to make it about me and accuse me of "*****ing to *****."

How is re-signing Johnson a "problem", though. You said yourself it is a good signing. However, the idea that it takes up cap space seems to be your issue. All contracts take up cap space.

There are other "problems" to concern yourself with, this one seems pretty cut-and-dry to be a good move.

[OpIv37]

How is re-signing Johnson a "problem", though. You said yourself it is a good signing. However, the idea that it takes up cap space seems to be your issue. All contracts take up cap space.

There are other "problems" to concern yourself with, this one seems pretty cut-and-dry to be a good move.

I said it was a good signing and pointed out a legitimate downside to it.

People skipped the first part and jumped all over the downside of it and accused me of *****ing to ***** instead of accepting the reality that the Johnson signing simply maintains the status quo in terms of talent and comes at the opportunity cost of upgrading other positions.

Yes, all contracts take up space. All contracts come at an opportunity cost, and decisions have to be made because an NFL team can't do everything they want. All I did was point that out. Unfortunately, a good portion of this board either can't understand that simple concept or can't deal with the implications, so they make it about me.

[psubills62]

How is re-signing Johnson a "problem", though. You said yourself it is a good signing. However, the idea that it takes up cap space seems to be your issue. All contracts take up cap space.

There are other "problems" to concern yourself with, this one seems pretty cut-and-dry to be a good move.
This.

Op, we can all see that you called it a good signing. You just always need to add a "but..." to it. You can't just say "it was a good signing," and move on.

Nobody was disagreeing with you that there are flaws in the team. What you don't seem to realize is that they can't do anything about them yet. Re-signing players is all they can do.

[OpIv37]

This.

Op, we can all see that you called it a good signing. You just always need to add a "but..." to it. You can't just say "it was a good signing," and move on.

Nobody was disagreeing with you that there are flaws in the team. What you don't seem to realize is that they can't do anything about them yet. Re-signing players is all they can do.

It's not what I can and can't say- it's just the reality. There was an opportunity cost associated with this signing. You can deal with the reality or you can try to make it about me.

[Ickybaluky]

Yes, all contracts take up space. All contracts come at an opportunity cost

Stop there for a second. There is not "opportunity cost" with Johnson's contract. He is a good player that has been paid commensurate with his production.

Look at it this way, the Pats are going to pay Wes Welker a lot of money this year, whether he plays under the tag or signs an extension. However, Welker is a very productive player, so that doesn't hurt them against the cap. They are spending money, but they are getting production.

Conversely, the Pats spent $6M in cash last year on Chad Ochocinco, and he wasn't very productive. They spent money, but didn't receive production. That makes it a bad contract, which is why they are having him take a pay-cut this season.

In the example above, Welker's deal doesn't hurt against the cap because they are paying for production. Ochocinco's contract did hurt the cap because they are paying but not receiving production.

There is no "opportunity cost" for a good contract. There is still money to spend on other positions because they are getting what they pay for out of Johnson. It is about how well the money is spent when it comes to cap trouble.

[psubills62]

It's not what I can and can't say- it's just the reality. There was an opportunity cost associated with this signing. You can deal with the reality or you can try to make it about me.
:banghead:

Op, we know there's an opportunity cost. We understand. We also understand that the REALITY is that every contract involves an opportunity cost. Reality in the NFL says that every contract is going to take up cap space.

We filled a hole (whether it was one we had last year or not, it was still a hole) with a good player. It took cap room. It's not a downside, it's reality for every team.

And let me ask you question: do we now not have enough cap room to fill other holes? You keep saying we have "LESS CAP ROOM" - do we not have enough?

[OpIv37]

:banghead:

Op, we know there's an opportunity cost. We understand. We also understand that the REALITY is that every contract involves an opportunity cost. Reality in the NFL says that every contract is going to take up cap space.

We filled a hole (whether it was one we had last year or not, it was still a hole) with a good player. It took cap room. It's not a downside, it's reality for every team.

And let me ask you question: do we now not have enough cap room to fill other holes? You keep saying we have "LESS CAP ROOM" - do we not have enough?


If you understand there was an opportunity cost, then why are you arguing with me for pointing that out?

Yes, we have cap room to fill other holes, but not nearly enough to fill all the holes this team has.

[psubills62]

If you understand there was an opportunity cost, then why are you arguing with me for pointing that out?

Yes, we have cap room to fill other holes, but not nearly enough to fill all the holes this team has.
Because it's not a downside, it's simply how things work. It's impossible to get one without the other, so it's not something to complain about. It's like telling your boss, "Well, I printed out that report, but the downside is that I used up some paper." It's pointless to even say it.

We do if we can fill some of them through the draft. And FYI, no team is going to ever have "enough [cap room] to fill all the holes" they might have through free agency. If you seriously expect that and you think you're being realistic...I don't know what to say.

[OpIv37]

Because it's not a downside, it's simply how things work. It's impossible to get one without the other, so it's not something to complain about. It's like telling your boss, "Well, I printed out that report, but the downside is that I used up some paper." It's pointless to even say it.

We do if we can fill some of them through the draft. And FYI, no team is going to ever have "enough [cap room] to fill all the holes" they might have through free agency. If you seriously expect that and you think you're being realistic...I don't know what to say.

It is something to complain about, particularly given all the other holes this team has and Johnson's maturity issues. It's not as trivial as using paper.

Yes, I know no team will ever have the cap room to fill all the holes. I'm simply pointing out that because we re-signed Stevie, it may mean some holes go unaddressed. That's just how it is.

[Ickybaluky]

Yes, I know no team will ever have the cap room to fill all the holes. I'm simply pointing out that because we re-signed Stevie, it may mean some holes go unaddressed. That's just how it is.

No, the Johnson contract is independent of the other holes. The only way he hurts them is if he doesn't produce like he did in the 2 years prior to signing the new contract. As longs as he is giving them what they are paying for, they are getting what they should from the resources they allocated. If they have to go out and find another WR to give them what Johnson should be giving them, then it costs in other areas of the team. However, no reason to think that at this point.

If the Bills don't get what they are paying for when they look to fill those "other holes", that is the problem. It has nothing to do with Johnson.

[justasportsfan]

No, the Johnson contract is independent of the other holes. The only way he hurts them is if he doesn't produce like he did in the 2 years prior to signing the new contract. As longs as he is giving them what they are paying for, they are getting what they should from the resources they allocated. If they have to go out and find another WR to give them what Johnson should be giving them, then it costs in other areas of the team. However, no reason to think that at this point.

If the Bills don't get what they are paying for when they look to fill those "other holes", that is the problem. It has nothing to do with Johnson.


it's not simple enough for OP to just realize the positive of one situation without looking for a negative to whine about. If the Stevie situation is independent of the other holes, then he would have nothing to whine about.

[psubills62]

It is something to complain about, particularly given all the other holes this team has and Johnson's maturity issues. It's not as trivial as using paper.

Yes, I know no team will ever have the cap room to fill all the holes. I'm simply pointing out that because we re-signed Stevie, it may mean some holes go unaddressed. That's just how it is.
You tend to miss the point of analogies, don't you? I've been using extreme examples to make various points, but you just sit there saying "it's not as extreme as $200 for a piece of gum," or "it's not as trivial as paper," while completely missing the main point of what I'm saying. My examples are obviously hyperbole.

My point with the paper is that you can't separate the two - if you sign someone, it takes up cap room, period. It's not a downside, it's just how things work - it's reality. Reality that you can't seem to accept.

Here's why people turn it back on you and your attitude: because you're going to complain either way. Either we signed the guy and it takes up cap room, or we didn't sign the guy and thus we're getting worse or staying the same. You're never going to be happy no matter what they do, and it seems stupid to argue one way, then when they do what you wanted (according to that argument), you turn it around and complain that the signing took up cap money. Well, if you want to sign talent, that's the "COST" associated with it. If you want one, it requires the other. The whole idea of capitalism and all is getting a fair trade, which you seem to think we have gotten with Johnson. So there's nothing to complain about.

[TrEd FTW]

I expected Johnson to sign for free and thus take up zero cap room. This sucks.

[OpIv37]

You tend to miss the point of analogies, don't you? I've been using extreme examples to make various points, but you just sit there saying "it's not as extreme as $200 for a piece of gum," or "it's not as trivial as paper," while completely missing the main point of what I'm saying. My examples are obviously hyperbole.

My point with the paper is that you can't separate the two - if you sign someone, it takes up cap room, period. It's not a downside, it's just how things work - it's reality. Reality that you can't seem to accept.

Here's why people turn it back on you and your attitude: because you're going to complain either way. Either we signed the guy and it takes up cap room, or we didn't sign the guy and thus we're getting worse or staying the same. You're never going to be happy no matter what they do, and it seems stupid to argue one way, then when they do what you wanted (according to that argument), you turn it around and complain that the signing took up cap money. Well, if you want to sign talent, that's the "COST" associated with it. If you want one, it requires the other. The whole idea of capitalism and all is getting a fair trade, which you seem to think we have gotten with Johnson. So there's nothing to complain about.

It doesn't completely miss the point of what you are saying. Your point is invalidated by the extremity of your examples. It simply makes no sense when you use an analogy that is far too extreme to be applicable to the situation.

And whether or not it's a fair trade is subjective. I'm simply pointing out what we gave up to keep Johnson.

And people ASSUME I'm going to complain either way without having any idea how I would have reacted if it went the other way because- get this- it's a problem.

I'm a fan who wants to win. I'll be complaining until the team wins. You want a board where no one complains? Go find a Giants board.

[OpIv37]

I expected Johnson to sign for free and thus take up zero cap room. This sucks.

this thought process is unbelievably simplistic.

[Ickybaluky]

It doesn't completely miss the point of what you are saying. Your point is invalidated by the extremity of your examples. It simply makes no sense when you use an analogy that is far too extreme to be applicable to the situation.

You are missing the boat about your "opportunity cost".

If the Bills didn't sign Johnson, they would have to replace his production. Doing so would cost just as much as they paid. Signing him doesn't cost in other areas, they are paying for what they get.

If they paid that kind of money and didn't get the production, then that would take away from other areas. Now they would have to spend other resources to replace the production they should be getting from Johnson.

Thus, there is no "opportunity cost" with Johnson's contract. There is only "cost". A bad contract would have an opportunity cost because they would need to pour additional resources into the position. However, you have already said you think it is a good contract.

[psubills62]

It doesn't completely miss the point of what you are saying. Your point is invalidated by the extremity of your examples. It simply makes no sense when you use an analogy that is far too extreme to be applicable to the situation.
Op, I know you're not this thick. But since you're acting that way, let me go ahead and explain analogies to you.

An analogy is NEVER PERFECT. Believe it or not, there's always little things in an analogy that are different to the situation it's trying to analogize. However, analogies still work just fine when you're trying to get a main point across. And yes, extreme examples do work. If you're trying to make a point to a particularly dense person, then using extreme examples to illustrate the point tend to be more illuminating. Being extreme only invalidates the example if the main point changes with extremity, which is not true for either example.

Let's take a look at the two analogies I used. First, the $200 piece of gum. In this case I took my point (that the price was too high) and blew it up to an extreme. The extremity of the example was in order to make the point - that you're only looking for something that's reasonably priced. The same example could be made if I asked for 50 cents instead. It's the same thing either way, and the extremity of the example in no way invalidates it.

The second analogy I used was with the paper. The point I was making was unrelated to the extremity. The point of that example was that printing is directly related to using paper (or other materials), which some people see as a downside. But it's pointless to mention that because if you want something printed, you're going to have to use that material. Just like if you want to sign someone, it requires cap space.

You're only arguing about the "extremity" because you don't have a legitimate response to the main point. You're deflecting. In neither case does the extremity affect the main points, which are perfectly legitimate.

[OpIv37]

You are missing the boat about your "opportunity cost".

If the Bills didn't sign Johnson, they would have to replace his production. Doing so would cost just as much as they paid. Signing him doesn't cost in other areas, they are paying for what they get.

If they paid that kind of money and didn't get the production, then that would take away from other areas. Now they would have to spend other resources to replace the production they should be getting from Johnson.

Thus, there is no "opportunity cost" with Johnson's contract. There is only "cost". A bad contract would have an opportunity cost because they would need to pour additional resources into the position. However, you have already said you think it is a good contract.

This post shows a complete lack of understanding of the concept of opportunity cost.

No matter how you slice it, the Bills can only spend so much on players. They chose to spend money on Johnson. That means they don't have to replace his production.

If they chose not to pay him, they would have to replace his production- that would be the opportunity cost. But they'd have more money to do it.

And yes, I said it was a good contract. Every decision has an opportunity cost. My post was very objective- I said it was a good contract, but I pointed out the trade-offs they chose to make in order to get it.

That's the problem around here. Try to be objective, and everyone accuses you of *****ing just to *****.

[OpIv37]

Op, I know you're not this thick. But since you're acting that way, let me go ahead and explain analogies to you.

An analogy is NEVER PERFECT. Believe it or not, there's always little things in an analogy that are different to the situation it's trying to analogize. However, analogies still work just fine when you're trying to get a main point across. And yes, extreme examples do work. If you're trying to make a point to a particularly dense person, then using extreme examples to illustrate the point tend to be more illuminating. Being extreme only invalidates the example if the main point changes with extremity, which is not true for either example.

Let's take a look at the two analogies I used. First, the $200 piece of gum. In this case I took my point (that the price was too high) and blew it up to an extreme. The extremity of the example was in order to make the point - that you're only looking for something that's reasonably priced. The same example could be made if I asked for 50 cents instead. It's the same thing either way, and the extremity of the example in no way invalidates it.

The second analogy I used was with the paper. The point I was making was unrelated to the extremity. The point of that example was that printing is directly related to using paper (or other materials), which some people see as a downside. But it's pointless to mention that because if you want something printed, you're going to have to use that material. Just like if you want to sign someone, it requires cap space.

You're only arguing about the "extremity" because you don't have a legitimate response to the main point. You're deflecting. In neither case does the extremity affect the main points, which are perfectly legitimate.

Analogies are never perfect, but some are apt and some aren't.

Hyperbole is not the same as an analogy.

And the main point in the Poz situation isn't legitimate at all. It's the FO's cover up.

[psubills62]

And whether or not it's a fair trade is subjective. I'm simply pointing out what we gave up to keep Johnson.

And people ASSUME I'm going to complain either way without having any idea how I would have reacted if it went the other way because- get this- it's a problem.

I'm a fan who wants to win. I'll be complaining until the team wins. You want a board where no one complains? Go find a Giants board.
Now that I've addressed the foolishness of your arguments about my analogies, I'll address the rest of it.

Yes, you pointed it out in the "Good" AND the "Bad." You said we got him for less than what people seemed to expect. The only thing that matters is if his pay is commensurate with his production.

It's fair to assume based on past evidence, isn't that right? That's exactly what you're doing when you expect the Bills to not do much in free agency. Based on past evidence of everything you've argued, the Bills did what you wanted - signed and kept their talent.

I'm a fan who wants to win too. Where did I say I wanted a board where no one complained? As I've said before, I have no problem with legitimate complaints. Your current complaints are not legitimate ones.

[Meathead]

porky pig would be an animal at defensive end

[OpIv37]

Now that I've addressed the foolishness of your arguments about my analogies, I'll address the rest of it.

Yes, you pointed it out in the "Good" AND the "Bad." You said we got him for less than what people seemed to expect. The only thing that matters is if his pay is commensurate with his production.

It's fair to assume based on past evidence, isn't that right? That's exactly what you're doing when you expect the Bills to not do much in free agency. Based on past evidence of everything you've argued, the Bills did what you wanted - signed and kept their talent.

I'm a fan who wants to win too. Where did I say I wanted a board where no one complained? As I've said before, I have no problem with legitimate complaints. Your current complaints are not legitimate ones.

My current complaints are VERY legitimate ones. Every decision comes with an opportunity cost whether you want to admit it or not.

And if you want to expect Stevie's production to continue, then you have to expect his foolish penalties and inopportune drops to continue as well.

[psubills62]

Analogies are never perfect, but some are apt and some aren't.

Hyperbole is not the same as an analogy.

And the main point in the Poz situation isn't legitimate at all. It's the FO's cover up.
Yes, and mine seem to be apt.

Don't think I said it was. Deflecting again, I see.

It's not a cover up. Believe it or not, but players pricing themselves out of a range is a legitimate reason not to sign someone. It happens every year for many teams. Do you think the Chargers want Vincent Jackson back? Of course...just not at the high price he's demanding. Do you think the Titans want Cortland Finnegan back? Of course...just not at the high price he's demanding. Do you think the Texans want Mario Williams back? Of course...just not at the high price he's demanding.

Do you see where this is going? You're pretending like this is something that our FO alone uses as an excuse to let someone go. You're blind if you can't see that it's a legitimate reason that all teams often use to let people go.

You're the one repeating "opportunity cost" over and over again. There's a certain point where a player's cost exceeds what they will contribute to a team, and you can find a more efficient (better bang per buck) use for the money elsewhere. Why is it so difficult for you to understand that it's why they didn't sign Poz?

[Ickybaluky]

This post shows a complete lack of understanding of the concept of opportunity cost.

I understand it perfectly, it isn't rocket science. However, my point is the way you use it is stupid, which is why I put it in quotes. It is an inane application of the concept.

The Bills aren't losing anything by paying a good player commensurate with his production, any more than any team is losing anything by paying for their good players. They are just paying the cost, that's it.

Paying Johnson to keep him under contract does not mean the Bills are sacrificing in other areas. They are building a team, and if they aren't paying Johnson to catch the football they are going to be paying someone else. The fact you stated it is a good contract means you agree with the cost. End of story.

Seriously, the reason everyone is jumping on you isn't because you are critical, it is because you are being critical about nothing. There are plenty of things to criticize, but you are just inventing negatives in this instance.

Really, why over-analyze. You said it is a good signing, that should be the end of it. The Bills are paying the going rate to Johnson to play receiver, when he has shown he does that productively.

It is not different than me having a budget for groceries. If I go to buy milk, it doesn't mean I won't be able to buy bread. The budget allows for both. The only way I lose out is if the milk is sour or the bread is stale. I just paid for what I need, which is what the Bills are doing.

[psubills62]

I understand it perfectly, it isn't rocket science. However, my point is the way you use it is stupid, which is why I put it in quotes. It is an inane application of the concept.

The Bills aren't losing anything by paying a good player commensurate with his production, any more than any team is losing anything by paying for their good players. They are just paying the cost, that's it.

Paying Johnson to keep him under contract does not mean the Bills are sacrificing in other areas. They are building a team, and if they aren't paying Johnson to catch the football they are going to be paying someone else. The fact you stated it is a good contract means you agree with the cost. End of story.

Seriously, the reason everyone is jumping on you isn't because you are critical, it is because you are being critical about nothing. There are plenty of things to criticize, but you are just inventing negatives in this instance.

Really, why over-analyze. You said it is a good signing, that should be the end of it. The Bills are paying the going rate to Johnson to play receiver, when he has shown he does that productively.

It is not different than me having a budget for groceries. If I go to buy milk, it doesn't mean I won't be able to buy bread. The budget allows for both. The only way I lose out is if the milk is sour or the bread is stale. I just paid for what I need, which is what the Bills are doing.
I'm just going to quote this and quit, since we're obviously going around in circles. Icky sums it up quite well.

[Ickybaluky]

And if you want to expect Stevie's production to continue, then you have to expect his foolish penalties and inopportune drops to continue as well.

Were you not the one who said it was a good signing, right? That means he is worth what they are paying him. Are you now changing your mind?

[OpIv37]

Yes, and mine seem to be apt.

Don't think I said it was. Deflecting again, I see.

It's not a cover up. Believe it or not, but players pricing themselves out of a range is a legitimate reason not to sign someone. It happens every year for many teams. Do you think the Chargers want Vincent Jackson back? Of course...just not at the high price he's demanding. Do you think the Titans want Cortland Finnegan back? Of course...just not at the high price he's demanding. Do you think the Texans want Mario Williams back? Of course...just not at the high price he's demanding.

Do you see where this is going? You're pretending like this is something that our FO alone uses as an excuse to let someone go. You're blind if you can't see that it's a legitimate reason that all teams often use to let people go.

You're the one repeating "opportunity cost" over and over again. There's a certain point where a player's cost exceeds what they will contribute to a team, and you can find a more efficient (better bang per buck) use for the money elsewhere. Why is it so difficult for you to understand that it's why they didn't sign Poz?


Oh really? What bang for their buck did the Bills get by not signing Poz? They went into the season $20 MILLION under the cap. Ralph just pocketed the extra money.

That's why the "he cost too much" excuse is a cop out.

[Philagape]

My current complaints are VERY legitimate ones. Every decision comes with an opportunity cost whether you want to admit it or not.

It's not something that needs to be admitted; it's a given that's not worth mentioning. Why state the obvious? Why point out something that's true of every signing by every team?

Say I have $25 to spend on lunch and dinner. I spend $10 on lunch, leaving $15 for dinner. Is the opportunity cost of not having more to spend on dinner something to complain about? I suppose I could have not spent on lunch and gotten a better dinner, but then I miss out on lunch.
Of course every decision has an opportunity cost; the issue is what's the most costly option? The Bills could have let Stevie go, but then what would the alternatives be? 1. Sign no replacement WR; 2. Sign a cheap, inferior replacement; or 3. Sign an expensive replacement, which would have taken even more money away from other positions. I think what they did, signing Stevie to a reasonable deal, had the lowest opportunity cost of all the options. That's the best-case scenario in any decision.
When there must be a cost, merely pointing that out is silly and petty, when the real issue is minimizing the cost.

[Ickybaluky]

Oh really? What bang for their buck did the Bills get by not signing Poz? They went into the season $20 MILLION under the cap. Ralph just pocketed the extra money.

That's why the "he cost too much" excuse is a cop out.

This isn't even the same argument. What does this have to do with Johnson?

[OpIv37]

I understand it perfectly, it isn't rocket science. However, my point is the way you use it is stupid, which is why I put it in quotes. It is an inane application of the concept.

The Bills aren't losing anything by paying a good player commensurate with his production, any more than any team is losing anything by paying for their good players. They are just paying the cost, that's it.

Paying Johnson to keep him under contract does not mean the Bills are sacrificing in other areas. They are building a team, and if they aren't paying Johnson to catch the football they are going to be paying someone else. The fact you stated it is a good contract means you agree with the cost. End of story.

Seriously, the reason everyone is jumping on you isn't because you are critical, it is because you are being critical about nothing. There are plenty of things to criticize, but you are just inventing negatives in this instance.

Really, why over-analyze. You said it is a good signing, that should be the end of it. The Bills are paying the going rate to Johnson to play receiver, when he has shown he does that productively.

It is not different than me having a budget for groceries. If I go to buy milk, it doesn't mean I won't be able to buy bread. The budget allows for both. The only way I lose out is if the milk is sour or the bread is stale. I just paid for what I need, which is what the Bills are doing.

You clearly DO NOT understand the concept.

There is only so much money to spend. If you spend the money in one area, it comes at the opportunity cost of spending it in another area. That's the definition of opportunity cost.

Now, there are costs and benefits to every action. If you pay Stevie, the benefits are that you get his production back and don't create another hole at WR. The costs are you don't have as much money to spend in FA and you don't have the opportunity to get a WR who may not have the drops/maturity issues.

You can argue that the benefits outweigh the costs- and I agree with that because I said it was a good signing. But that doesn't mean there aren't costs.

And again, your analogy is off. If you want to put that in terms of the Bills: the budget allows for milk and bread. But, they need milk, bread, butter, eggs, and chicken. They chose to buy milk and they'll still be able to get bread, but butter, eggs, and chicken are looking a lot less likely.

[OpIv37]

This isn't even the same argument. What does this have to do with Johnson?

Nothing.

justasportsfan just likes to re-invoke the Poz argument every chance he gets so we went down a rabbit hole.

[psubills62]

Oh really? What bang for their buck did the Bills get by not signing Poz? They went into the season $20 MILLION under the cap. Ralph just pocketed the extra money.

That's why the "he cost too much" excuse is a cop out.
And Poz would be tying up money in this year's cap (which you're already complaining about not having enough)...and next...and the next year, etc. Just because you have the money doesn't mean you need to overpay.

Look at my examples...As far as I know, the Texans are the only ones who won't be able to sign someone due to cap concerns, maybe the Chargers too. Everyone else has the money, they just feel it's not worth it to overpay. And this has happened every year to pretty much every team. That's why it's not a cop out.

[Skooby]

OP, some of us went to school & some didn't. To simplify things, opportunity cost is a variable that is undeterminable until after the event has occured. Since we have a body of work by Stevie that commands a current salary between $7 Million-$9 Million a season, you may or not be missing the monies necessary to acquire other players that would give you more production (Instead of paying Stevie). You also have to weigh in the fact that the salaries of wide receivers will continue to rise as the cap grows, so what might be a good deal now can be a great deal later given a common rate of production by Stevie.

I for one like the fact that we found a diamond in the rough & kept him after his rookie contract was up, it might set a precedent that business is not as usual in Buffalo (dump the player to another higher paying team after he proves himself).

[Skooby]

I understand it perfectly, it isn't rocket science. However, my point is the way you use it is stupid, which is why I put it in quotes. It is an inane application of the concept.

The Bills aren't losing anything by paying a good player commensurate with his production, any more than any team is losing anything by paying for their good players. They are just paying the cost, that's it.

Paying Johnson to keep him under contract does not mean the Bills are sacrificing in other areas. They are building a team, and if they aren't paying Johnson to catch the football they are going to be paying someone else. The fact you stated it is a good contract means you agree with the cost. End of story.

Seriously, the reason everyone is jumping on you isn't because you are critical, it is because you are being critical about nothing. There are plenty of things to criticize, but you are just inventing negatives in this instance.

Really, why over-analyze. You said it is a good signing, that should be the end of it. The Bills are paying the going rate to Johnson to play receiver, when he has shown he does that productively.

It is not different than me having a budget for groceries. If I go to buy milk, it doesn't mean I won't be able to buy bread. The budget allows for both. The only way I lose out is if the milk is sour or the bread is stale. I just paid for what I need, which is what the Bills are doing.

The grocery store (Sweet Bay) by me pays double the money back if I'm not completely satisified with their brand for any reason, think about that (LOL).

[OpIv37]

It's not something that needs to be admitted; it's a given that's not worth mentioning. Why state the obvious? Why point out something that's true of every signing by every team?

Say I have $25 to spend on lunch and dinner. I spend $10 on lunch, leaving $15 for dinner. Is the opportunity cost of not having more to spend on dinner something to complain about? I suppose I could have not spent on lunch and gotten a better dinner, but then I miss out on lunch.
Of course every decision has an opportunity cost; the issue is what's the most costly option? The Bills could have let Stevie go, but then what would the alternatives be? 1. Sign no replacement WR; 2. Sign a cheap, inferior replacement; or 3. Sign an expensive replacement, which would have taken even more money away from other positions. I think what they did, signing Stevie to a reasonable deal, had the lowest opportunity cost of all the options. That's the best-case scenario in any decision.
When there must be a cost, merely pointing that out is silly and petty, when the real issue is minimizing the cost.

It's not silly and petty because whether or not the Bills truly minimized the cost is up for debate. I was merely trying to be objective and throwing that out there for consideration.

[OpIv37]

And Poz would be tying up money in this year's cap (which you're already complaining about not having enough)...and next...and the next year, etc. Just because you have the money doesn't mean you need to overpay.

Look at my examples...As far as I know, the Texans are the only ones who won't be able to sign someone due to cap concerns, maybe the Chargers too. Everyone else has the money, they just feel it's not worth it to overpay. And this has happened every year to pretty much every team. That's why it's not a cop out.

Once again, not seeing the forest from the trees. Not every situation is the same. Just because there are situations where teams truly don't want to overpay doesn't mean the Bills didn't use it as a cop out in the Poz situation.

[Ickybaluky]

You clearly DO NOT understand the concept.

I understand it perfectly. This is a stupid situation to use it in. You said it was a good contract, right?


And again, your analogy is off. If you want to put that in terms of the Bills: the budget allows for milk and bread. But, they need milk, bread, butter, eggs, and chicken. They chose to buy milk and they'll still be able to get bread, but butter, eggs, and chicken are looking a lot less likely.

We are just talking about the milk here, though. The Bills have $120M to spend on groceries this year, and they just bought their milk for the going rate. That is all we are talking about. How they fill those other needs is a separate issue. The fact is they bought the milk and it was within budget. They got one they needed done at the right price.

You act like there is an un-ending series of options out there. There are only so many players as productive as Johnson, and they carry their own costs. You can't just whip up productive WR from thin air, there are only so many good players.

[Ickybaluky]

You did say you liked the signing, right?

[Philagape]

It's not silly and petty because whether or not the Bills truly minimized the cost is up for debate. I was merely trying to be objective and throwing that out there for consideration.

That first sentence does not follow. Whether they minimized the cost is a legit discussion, but what's silly is bemoaning the existence of a cost.

I listed the alternatives; do you favor any of them over what they did? Is there an option I missed?
The correctness of a decision is determined by the alternatives.

[OpIv37]

That first sentence does not follow. Whether they minimized the cost is a legit discussion, but what's silly is bemoaning the existence of a cost.

I listed the alternatives; do you favor any of them over what they did? Is there an option I missed?
The correctness of a decision is determined by the alternatives.

and as I've maintained from the beginning of this Stevie Johnson discussion, the Bills put themselves in a situation where there are few good alternatives.

The only good response in this situation is to re-sign Stevie AND find another receiving threat. They did step 1. I don't trust them to complete step 2.

[Skooby]

and as I've maintained from the beginning of this Stevie Johnson discussion, the Bills put themselves in a situation where there are few good alternatives.

The only good response in this situation is to re-sign Stevie AND find another receiving threat. They did step 1. I don't trust them to complete step 2.

Ok, so you like signing Stevie & you're not sure if the Bills can add to the WR fleet right? If that's the case, I'm on the same page.

[psubills62]

Once again, not seeing the forest from the trees. Not every situation is the same. Just because there are situations where teams truly don't want to overpay doesn't mean the Bills didn't use it as a cop out in the Poz situation.
I don't think you're seeing either the forest or the trees.

Where did I say every situation is the same? So wait...you're saying the Bills didn't "truly" want to avoid overpaying, so it's a cop out? Like I've been saying, this happens everywhere.

Talk about not seeing the forest from the trees. You're focused on details like "the situations aren't exactly the same everywhere." No, but the general principle is - teams don't want to overpay. It's only a cop out in your imagination because you like to invent reasons to criticize the Bills.

[Philagape]

and as I've maintained from the beginning of this Stevie Johnson discussion, the Bills put themselves in a situation where there are few good alternatives.

The only good response in this situation is to re-sign Stevie AND find another receiving threat. They did step 1. I don't trust them to complete step 2.

So the real issue is something that's apart from the Stevie contract itself. You're just using the Stevie contract to point it out. OK.
Personally I think a second new receiver is a lower priority; the offense was clicking pretty well when healthy, so IMO the opportunity cost would be too great unless it's really cheap.

[OpIv37]

I don't think you're seeing either the forest or the trees.

Where did I say every situation is the same? So wait...you're saying the Bills didn't "truly" want to avoid overpaying, so it's a cop out? Like I've been saying, this happens everywhere.

Talk about not seeing the forest from the trees. You're focused on details like "the situations aren't exactly the same everywhere." No, but the general principle is - teams don't want to overpay. It's only a cop out in your imagination because you like to invent reasons to criticize the Bills.

I'm saying the Bills' FO wanted to re-sign Poz. They didn't get it done.

Maybe they couldn't convince him to return because of the 3-4 or because he didn't like the situation here. Maybe Jax offered him more money and they were unwilling to match. I don't know the reason- I'm just speculating.

But the point is, he didn't sign here- the FO didn't get the guy they wanted- then they hid behind this "at the right price" garbage.

It's not that I want reasons to criticize the Bills. It's that people like you need reasons to defend them. They didn't get the guy they wanted. They failed. Period. Don't allow them to BS their way out of it.

[OpIv37]

So the real issue is something that's apart from the Stevie contract itself. You're just using the Stevie contract to point it out. OK.
Personally I think a second new receiver is a lower priority; the offense was clicking pretty well when healthy, so IMO the opportunity cost would be too great unless it's really cheap.

There are a lot of issues here, both related to the contract and unrelated to the contract.

[Bill Cody]

But the point is, he didn't sign here- the FO didn't get the guy they wanted- then they hid behind this "at the right price" garbage.



It's not garbage if it's true. Every single team in the league puts a value on their own and other teams free agents. If the player wants more money than they think he's worth he won't be signed. Not too complicated.

[better days]

Well, back to football, I just read on Profootballtalk.com that Stevies contract is only guaranteed for $11Mill & his cap # for this year is only $4.3Mill which leaves the Bills plenty of money to spend this year.

[OpIv37]

Well, back to football, I just read on Profootballtalk.com that Stevies contract is only guaranteed for $11Mill & his cap # for this year is only $4.3Mill which leaves the Bills plenty of money to spend this year.

if that's true Stevie should fire his agent.

[YardRat]

Keeping Stevie isn't a positive in terms of talent on the field. It's neutral in terms of talent on the field.

You're assuming Stevie doesn't improve. Epic fail.

[justasportsfan]

Nothing.

justasportsfan just likes to re-invoke the Poz argument every chance he gets so we went down a rabbit hole.

The POz argument was a reference of your stupid logic. Bills are damned if the do and damned if they don't.

[OpIv37]

The POz argument was a reference of your stupid logic. Bills are damned if the do and damned if they don't.

We've been over this.

The Bills said they wanted to re-sign Poz and they failed to do it.

My personal opinion as to whether or not they should have even tried to re-sign him has zero bearing on that.

But, it's easier to make it about me than to admit the FO ****ed up.

[OpIv37]

You're assuming Stevie doesn't improve. Epic fail.

Really?

I mean, seriously?

EVERY year since this board has been in existence, people tell me that the team will get better in the off season via "player improvement" and EVERY year it fails to happen.

This is is a ridiculous reach.

[YardRat]

Really?

I mean, seriously?

EVERY year since this board has been in existence, people tell me that the team will get better in the off season via "player improvement" and EVERY year it fails to happen.

This is is a ridiculous reach.

Really? Would you say Stevie was the same receiver that he was in any previous season or can you recognize a pattern of improvement?

[Bill Cody]

We've been over this.

The Bills said they wanted to re-sign Poz and they failed to do it.

My personal opinion as to whether or not they should have even tried to re-sign him has zero bearing on that.

But, it's easier to make it about me than to admit the FO ****ed up.

Justa owns you on this sillly silly line of "reasoning". Your best bet is to ignore threads that even mention the name "Poz".

[OpIv37]

Really? Would you say Stevie was the same receiver that he was in any previous season or can you recognize a pattern of improvement?

he's not going to get better ad infinitum. at some point he will peak.

Using that logic, we might as well lock him up for 15 years because he's bound to be better in 15 years than he is today.

[OpIv37]

Justa owns you on this sillly silly line of "reasoning". Your best bet is to ignore threads that even mention the name "Poz".

No, justa is flat out wrong.

The FO didn't get their man, failed, then hid behind the "at the right price" excuse.

justa thinks that the fact that I didn't want Poz back at all somehow changes that. It doesn't.

[YardRat]

he's not going to get better ad infinitum. at some point he will peak.

Using that logic, we might as well lock him up for 15 years because he's bound to be better in 15 years than he is today.

Nobody said he would get better ad infinitum, but for you to assume the signing is a lateral move at best is a wild assumption, especially considering the history of the player.

The 15 year example is just plain stupid, I don't know a nicer way of putting it.

[YardRat]

No, justa is flat out wrong.

The FO didn't get their man, failed, then hid behind the "at the right price" excuse.

justa thinks that the fact that I didn't want Poz back at all somehow changes that. It doesn't.

If you think the POS was 'their man' than you are sadly mistaken.

Just accept the coach-speak for what it was and move on.

Did you really expect Nix to say something more along the lines of "Yeah, we want him back, but we're certainly not going to throw a boatload of money at somebody that can be easily replaced, and, quite honestly, sucks moose balls and was over-drafted."

[Bill Cody]

No, justa is flat out wrong.

The FO didn't get their man, failed, then hid behind the "at the right price" excuse.

justa thinks that the fact that I didn't want Poz back at all somehow changes that. It doesn't.

Lol

Poz wasn't the Holy Grail. No chance in hell we pay him what he got from Jacksonville. They overpaid. Everyone on the planet knows this. But you call that a "fail". Not so much. The only thing failed is your logic.

[OpIv37]

Lol

Poz wasn't the Holy Grail. No chance in hell we pay him what he got from Jacksonville. They overpaid. Everyone on the planet knows this. But you call that a "fail". Not so much. The only thing failed is your logic.

Wrong.

If the FO was so concerned with overpaying Poz, what did they do with all that money they saved by not signing him. Absolutely NOTHING.

They said they wanted him, they didn't get him, they hid behind the money excuse. And then they proceeded to do absolutely NOTHING with all that money that they were so worried about spending on Poz.

This argument isn't going to go anywhere because you are looking at this through red-and-blue colored glasses. You can't just admit that the FO failed and move on. It's much easier to say my logic "failed" than it is to deal with the fact that the people running our team are making mistakes.

But, reality is what it is. I can show it to you but I can't force you to accept it.

[mikemac2001]

poz was not worth what he got

its a business they might have loved poz but they knew he wasnt worth it

i would have been fine with him at a normal price tag, perfect example of the stevie deal we didn't over pay and we got our guy good deal for the team and allows more room for FA

poz didnt want to play in a 3-4
poz got a buttload and wasnt worth it
nix might have wanted him but didnt want to handcuff other signings in the future

why are we even talking about the poz deal

if we dont spend anymore this year even though we saved on stevie then i agree the bills wont stop being cheap.
but the bills not spending while they were rebuilding didnt bother me they stated it was there plan the whole time

[psubills62]

I'm saying the Bills' FO wanted to re-sign Poz at the right price. They didn't get it done.

Maybe they couldn't convince him to return because of the 3-4 or because he didn't like the situation here. Maybe Jax offered him more money and they were unwilling to match. I don't know the reason- I'm just speculating.

But the point is, he didn't sign here- the FO didn't get the guy they wanted- then they hid behind this "at the right price" garbage.

It's not that I want reasons to criticize the Bills. It's that people like you need reasons to defend them. They didn't get the guy they wanted. They failed. Period. Don't allow them to BS their way out of it.
You were missing the bolded. I added it for you. You're welcome.

How is it BS when that's what happens all around the league?


We've been over this.

The Bills said they wanted to re-sign Poz and they failed to do it.

My personal opinion as to whether or not they should have even tried to re-sign him has zero bearing on that.

But, it's easier to make it about me than to admit the FO ****ed up.
You're absolutely wrong, because if they re-signed Poz, your opinion would suddenly be the only thing that mattered. And you'd criticize them for overspending for mediocre talent, yada yada.

You just try and find ways to criticize them, that's it. You'd have gone ballistic if they paid Poz even close to what Jax did. But since they didn't re-sign him, you criticize them for "not doing whatever it took to re-sign him," even though that's obviously not what they said. Again, saying you want something does NOT mean you want it regardless of price.

[psubills62]

Maybe this is an appropriate place to add this:


Johnson's salary-cap figures are $4.3 million for 2012, $5.65 million for 2013, $8.5 million for 2014, $8.85 million for 2015 and $8.95 million for 2016.

http://profootball.scout.com/a.z?s=127&p=9&c=2&cid=1164949&nid=6157231&fhn=1

[OpIv37]

You were missing the bolded. I added it for you. You're welcome.

How is it BS when that's what happens all around the league?


You're absolutely wrong, because if they re-signed Poz, your opinion would suddenly be the only thing that mattered. And you'd criticize them for overspending for mediocre talent, yada yada.

You just try and find ways to criticize them, that's it. You'd have gone ballistic if they paid Poz even close to what Jax did. But since they didn't re-sign him, you criticize them for "not doing whatever it took to re-sign him," even though that's obviously not what they said. Again, saying you want something does NOT mean you want it regardless of price.

You are STILL making it about me and there is an overwhelming flaw in your logic: it is possible for there to be more than one wrong course of action in many circumstances.

The right thing to do with Poz was to let him walk.

The wrong things to do were to re sign him, or say you wanted to resign him then fail to get your main.

Again, saying you want something, not getting it, then claiming it was too expensive after the fact does NOT mean it was really too expensive, especially when you have $20 million stuffed in a mattress.

[YardRat]

Wrong.

If the FO was so concerned with overpaying Poz, what did they do with all that money they saved by not signing him. Absolutely NOTHING.

They said they wanted him, they didn't get him, they hid behind the money excuse. And then they proceeded to do absolutely NOTHING with all that money that they were so worried about spending on Poz.

This argument isn't going to go anywhere because you are looking at this through red-and-blue colored glasses. You can't just admit that the FO failed and move on. It's much easier to say my logic "failed" than it is to deal with the fact that the people running our team are making mistakes.

But, reality is what it is. I can show it to you but I can't force you to accept it.

Fail, again.

Tyler Thigpen, Brad Smith, Nick Barnett, Kirk Morrison, Ruvell Martin were all FA signings after the POS raped Jax. Florence was re-signed. Fitz and Pears were extended.

Agree with any of the above moves or not, the fact remains that's something that was done with 'Poz's money', and to claim that nothing was done is just ignorant.

First you ***** about signing Stevie taking money away from spending it elsewhere on the team than refuse to recognize when they do take a 'savings' and spend it elsewhere.

Bow out or get your **** together, it's getting embarrassing.

[OpIv37]

Fail, again.

Tyler Thigpen, Brad Smith, Nick Barnett, Kirk Morrison, Ruvell Martin were all FA signings after the POS raped Jax. Florence was re-signed. Fitz and Pears were extended.

Agree with any of the above moves or not, the fact remains that's something that was done with 'Poz's money', and to claim that nothing was done is just ignorant.

First you ***** about signing Stevie taking money away from spending it elsewhere on the team than refuse to recognize when they do take a 'savings' and spend it elsewhere.

Bow out or get your **** together, it's getting embarrassing.

epic FAIL.

They went into the season $20 MILLION under the cap, which means after they did all that, they STILL had $20 million left. THAT was Poz's money, not the money they spent on those other guys.

THEY DIDN"T SPEND THE MONEY.

Nice try, though.

[YardRat]

epic FAIL.

They went into the season $20 MILLION under the cap, which means after they did all that, they STILL had $20 million left. THAT was Poz's money, not the money they spent on those other guys.

THEY DIDN"T SPEND THE MONEY.

Nice try, though.

:rofl: That's just ridiculous logic.

Obviously that money wasn't the POS's...it was Fitz's, and Florence's, and Pears', and even Stevie's considering they discussed resigning him early last preseason.

Boy, the POS is going to be PISSED when he finds out his agent turned down that 20mil Buffalo had set aside for him last season and screwed him into signing with Jax for a measly 7mil per.

:lmao:

[OpIv37]

:rofl: That's just ridiculous logic.

Obviously that money wasn't the POS's...it was Fitz's, and Florence's, and Pears', and even Stevie's considering they discussed resigning him early last preseason.

Boy, the POS is going to be PISSED when he finds out his agent turned down that 20mil Buffalo had set aside for him last season and screwed him into signing with Jax for a measly 7mil per.

:lmao:

The Fitz, Pears, Florence and Stevie contracts don't kick in until 2012 cap. We were STILL $20 million under the 2011 cap.

And no, not all of it was for Poz. That just proves my point- they had almost 3x what they needed to sign him left over that they didn't use.

[The Jokeman]

epic FAIL.

They went into the season $20 MILLION under the cap, which means after they did all that, they STILL had $20 million left. THAT was Poz's money, not the money they spent on those other guys.

THEY DIDN"T SPEND THE MONEY.

Nice try, though.
The question remains is/was Nick Barnett a better signing than Poz? If judge by stats you can say yes as Barnett beat Poz in every statistical category but pass defensed last year. Yet are we a beter team for it? I say yes. The free agent signing I'm still upset over from last season was Brad Smith. As sure we got a 3rd string QB that can also contribute as a depth WR and a 3rd down specialist but his strength as a return man was erased due to new kickoff rules etc. So more upset didn't use the money spent on him and remaining cap room to shore up other holes.

[Mahdi]

Maybe this is an appropriate place to add this:



http://profootball.scout.com/a.z?s=127&p=9&c=2&cid=1164949&nid=6157231&fhn=1
This tells me a few things...

First, Stevie really wanted to be here and took a hometown discount.

Second, the Bills backloaded a contract which might be a sign that they truly are preparing to spend heavily in this FA period.

[Mindbender]

This thread makes my head spin.

[OpIv37]

The question remains is/was Nick Barnett a better signing than Poz? If judge by stats you can say yes as Barnett beat Poz in every statistical category but pass defensed last year. Yet are we a beter team for it? I say yes. The free agent signing I'm still upset over from last season was Brad Smith. As sure we got a 3rd string QB that can also contribute as a depth WR and a 3rd down specialist but his strength as a return man was erased due to new kickoff rules etc. So more upset didn't use the money spent on him and remaining cap room to shore up other holes.

Nick Barnett was an upgrade but we were still hurting at LB. I don't believe Poz was the answer, but we definitely could have been used help at LB last year.

And if there were no LB's available, there were plenty of other areas where we needed help. Example: OL. We had no backup T's or G's, so every injury required a reshuffling of the whole OL. I find it hard to believe there were no depth OL's available with $20 million to spend.

[justasportsfan]

This thread makes my head spin.


turned out to be a whine thread.

[The Jokeman]

Nick Barnett was an upgrade but we were still hurting at LB. I don't believe Poz was the answer, but we definitely could have been used help at LB last year.

And if there were no LB's available, there were plenty of other areas where we needed help. Example: OL. We had no backup T's or G's, so every injury required a reshuffling of the whole OL. I find it hard to believe there were no depth OL's available with $20 million to spend.
I fully agree with you that there was depth to be found. Yet this is where the arguement of Ralph is cheap really hits home.

[justasportsfan]

The question remains is/was Nick Barnett a better signing than Poz?

No. Opportunity cost.

[Bill Cody]

Wrong.

If the FO was so concerned with overpaying Poz, what did they do with all that money they saved by not signing him. Absolutely NOTHING.

They said they wanted him, they didn't get him, they hid behind the money excuse. And then they proceeded to do absolutely NOTHING with all that money that they were so worried about spending on Poz.

This argument isn't going to go anywhere because you are looking at this through red-and-blue colored glasses. You can't just admit that the FO failed and move on. It's much easier to say my logic "failed" than it is to deal with the fact that the people running our team are making mistakes.

But, reality is what it is. I can show it to you but I can't force you to accept it.

Noone agrees with you. Your argument is dumb. You don't even believe it yourself. That's your "thing". Create a 2 sided argument that the Bills are wrong either way they go, then create a bunch of straw men when someone calls you on your nut bagery.

Here's what your argument boils down to:

Rich guy wants a cup of coffee and goes into the "Coffee Emporium". Give me a large regular he says. That will be $20 the clerk says. He says no way. Could he afford the $20? Sure. Did he want a coffee? Yes. But unless he goes to Dunkin Donuts, spends $3 on a coffee AND spends the remaining $17 on donuts in your mind he's FAILED. That about it? Let me know when the rocket takes off for your planet.

[OpIv37]

Noone agrees with you. Your argument is dumb. You don't even believe it yourself. That's your "thing". Create a 2 sided argument that the Bills are wrong either way they go, then create a bunch of straw men when someone calls you on your nut bagery.

Here's what your argument boils down to:

Rich guy wants a cup of coffee and goes into the "Coffee Emporium". Give me a large regular he says. That will be $20 the clerk says. He says no way. Could he afford the $20? Sure. Did he want a coffee? Yes. But unless he goes to Dunkin Donuts, spends $3 on a coffee AND spends the remaining $17 on donuts in your mind he's FAILED. That about it? Let me know when the rocket takes off for your planet.

Whether anyone agrees with me or not has no bearing on whether I'm right or wrong. Reality isn't subject to majority opinion.

I absolutely believe my argument and it's the absolute truth.

My argument boils down to this:

Rich guy wants a cup of coffee and goes into the "Coffee Emporium". Give me a large regular he says. That will be $3.75 the clerk says. He pulls out a $20 bill and says "Well, I only wanted to spend $3.25." Then he puts the $20 back in his pocket and doesn't buy any coffee or donuts at all. Now, he's hungry and thirsty and has the means to do something about it, but decides he'd rather just have the money. And he blames the fact that he's hungry and thirsty on the clerk at the Coffee Emporium for overcharging.

[justasportsfan]

Noone agrees with you. Your argument is dumb. You don't even believe it yourself. That's your "thing". Create a 2 sided argument that the Bills are wrong either way they go, then create a bunch of straw men when someone calls you on your nut bagery.

Here's what your argument boils down to:

Rich guy wants a cup of coffee and goes into the "Coffee Emporium". Give me a large regular he says. That will be $20 the clerk says. He says no way. Could he afford the $20? Sure. Did he want a coffee? Yes. But unless he goes to Dunkin Donuts, spends $3 on a coffee AND spends the remaining $17 on donuts in your mind he's FAILED. That about it? Let me know when the rocket takes off for your planet.


OP doesn't care if his logic is stupid and WRONG! Even if flipflops and contradicts himself ,he'll stick to them.

[psubills62]

Whether anyone agrees with me or not has no bearing on whether I'm right or wrong. Reality isn't subject to majority opinion.

I absolutely believe my argument and it's the absolute truth.

My argument boils down to this:

Rich guy wants a cup of coffee and goes into the "Coffee Emporium". Give me a large regular he says. That will be $3.75 the clerk says. He pulls out a $20 bill and says "Well, I only wanted to spend $3.25." Then he puts the $20 back in his pocket and doesn't buy any coffee or donuts at all. Now, he's hungry and thirsty and has the means to do something about it, but decides he'd rather just have the money.
But your argument is wrong because they did indeed buy coffee and donuts elsewhere. What you seem to be *****ing about is that they didn't spend the entire 20 dollar bill.

And by the way, it's true that majority opinion doesn't determine right or wrong. But you think someone would be a little less intractable and stop for a minute to actually think about the arguments when EVERYONE is disagreeing with them. You can call us sixth graders and repeat "opportunity cost" over and over again, but at some point you might want to sit down and think "why doesn't anyone agree with me?" If your arguments were that obvious and that "right," there would be someone out there who did agree with you. Not everyone on this board is a homer or wears red and blue glasses or is an idiot. Yet you're alone in this. Maybe think about it sometime.

And just to head your typical argument off at the pass...the fact that the Bills have sucked does not mean every complaint you have is legitimate. Some of them are legitimate. Some of them are not. This is the latter.

[OpIv37]

But your argument is wrong because they did indeed buy coffee and donuts elsewhere. What you seem to be *****ing about is that they didn't spend the entire 20 dollar bill.

And by the way, it's true that majority opinion doesn't determine right or wrong. But you think someone would be a little less intractable and stop for a minute to actually think about the arguments when EVERYONE is disagreeing with them. You can call us sixth graders and repeat "opportunity cost" over and over again, but at some point you might want to sit down and think "why doesn't anyone agree with me?" If your arguments were that obvious and that "right," there would be someone out there who did agree with you. Not everyone on this board is a homer or wears red and blue glasses or is an idiot. Yet you're alone in this. Maybe think about it sometime.

And just to head your typical argument off at the pass...the fact that the Bills have sucked does not mean every complaint you have is legitimate. Some of them are legitimate. Some of them are not. This is the latter.

No, he didn't buy coffee and donuts elsewhere. At least, not enough of them.

Of course I'm *****ing that he didn't spend the entire $20 bill. The team went into the season with a plethora of needs. You mean to tell me there was no backup OL's available that could have prevented us from reshuffling the whole line for a single injury? I don't buy that for a second. I honestly can't believe anyone who is a fan would defend the team for failing to take opportunities to improve. It's not even like they tried and failed. They didn't even try.

And I don't care if I'm the lone voice in the wilderness. I stand by my logic and my statements even if they are unpopular and the majority of the board- or even the entire board- is against me. It wouldn't be the first time I was the only one who was right.

[Bill Cody]

Whether anyone agrees with me or not has no bearing on whether I'm right or wrong. Reality isn't subject to majority opinion.

I absolutely believe my argument and it's the absolute truth.

My argument boils down to this:

Rich guy wants a cup of coffee and goes into the "Coffee Emporium". Give me a large regular he says. That will be $3.75 the clerk says. He pulls out a $20 bill and says "Well, I only wanted to spend $3.25." Then he puts the $20 back in his pocket and doesn't buy any coffee or donuts at all. Now, he's hungry and thirsty and has the means to do something about it, but decides he'd rather just have the money.

nah it wasn't $3.75 vs $3.25 not even close and you know it.

First of all Poz got more from Jacksonville than any other team would have paid and the Bills are not the only team that needs linebackers. Just because you have needs isn't a good reason for overpaying for a guy you yourself admit should not have been resigned. In fact you have many many times made the exact argument that overpaying for mediocrity is how you lock in mediocre results.

You're trying to tie two things together that are separate issues. Again that's you "thing". If you want to make the argument that the Bills failed to sign a suitable replacement that's an argument that can be made. But on the Poz piece of this your are dead wrong to say the Bills "failed". They made him an offer commensurate with what he would bring to the team. The fact that Jacksonville decided to overpay was out of our control. The Bills knew exactly what they had with Poz. He was simply not the kind of player you overpay to sign. Really not that complicated. And no I don't think you're that dumb to believe your argument, just stubborn and negative.

[psubills62]

No, he didn't buy coffee and donuts elsewhere. At least, not enough of them.

Of course I'm *****ing that he didn't spend the entire $20 bill. The team went into the season with a plethora of needs. You mean to tell me there was no backup OL's available that could have prevented us from reshuffling the whole line for a single injury? I don't buy that for a second. I honestly can't believe anyone who is a fan would defend the team for failing to take opportunities to improve. It's not even like they tried and failed. They didn't even try.

And I don't care if I'm the lone voice in the wilderness. I stand by my logic and my statements even if they are unpopular and the majority of the board- or even the entire board- is against me. It wouldn't be the first time I was the only one who was right.
Yes he did. Kirk Morrison, Kelvin Sheppard, Brad Smith, etc. How is that not buying coffee and donuts? What exactly qualifies as buying coffee and donuts then? Only people YOU approve of?

Actually, you're wrong again. They did try, not like you ever give them credit for doing so - remember a guy named Clabo? First name Tyson.

You're not right, that's the whole point, and the reason these arguments always go on forever is because you won't even consider the prospect that you're wrong. That's the only reason - your stubbornness. Everyone else can see these things plain as day. Like I said, take a minute to think about it sometime. I'm sure you're proud of being the "lone voice in the wilderness," but there's a good reason you're the lone voice.

Denial is hard to recognize if you're the one denying.

[OpIv37]

Yes he did. Kirk Morrison, Kelvin Sheppard, Brad Smith, etc. How is that not buying coffee and donuts? What exactly qualifies as buying coffee and donuts then? Only people YOU approve of?

Actually, you're wrong again. They did try, not like you ever give them credit for doing so - remember a guy named Clabo? First name Tyson.

You're not right, that's the whole point, and the reason these arguments always go on forever is because you won't even consider the prospect that you're wrong. That's the only reason - your stubbornness. Everyone else can see these things plain as day. Like I said, take a minute to think about it sometime. I'm sure you're proud of being the "lone voice in the wilderness," but there's a good reason you're the lone voice.

Denial is hard to recognize if you're the one denying.

Alright, if you insist on sticking with the coffee and donuts analogy: Signing Kirk Morrison, Kelvin Sheppard, Brad Smith, etc is like buying enough coffee and donuts for 10 people. The problem is there are 25 people in the office. And he still has $20 left for more coffee and donuts.

So, you're saying they tried and failed to sign Clabo just like they tried and failed to sign Poz? Thanks for bringing up yet another FO failure that I forgot about. Of course, I'm sure there will be another laundry list of excuses as to why failing to sign Clabo wasn't the FO's fault.

I won't consider the prospect that I'm wrong because I've thought through this and I am 100% sure that I am not wrong.

It cracks me up that you accuse me of denial as you go to great lengths to convince yourself that the FO didn't make a mistake.

[justasportsfan]

Alright, if you insist on sticking with the coffee and donuts analogy: Signing Kirk Morrison, Kelvin Sheppard, Brad Smith, etc is like buying enough coffee and donuts for 10 people. The problem is there are 25 people in the office. And he still has $20 left for more coffee and donuts.



:roflmao:

[Mahdi]

I wasn't involved in this argument from the beginning but if its about whether or not the Bills got it wrong last offseason when they did little in FA it can be looked at 2 ways. Both have a bad end result though.

1) The Bills intentionally stayed out of FA last year knowing 2012 was going to be a deep FA year and they had Stevie to re-sign. They therefore avoided spending money on depth players and potential stop gap starters and went with younger players to fill those spots knowing they could struggle if injuries hit. Result of course was bad because injuries did hit and we had low quality options to insert into the lineup.

2) The Bills thought they had their bases covered and assumed they were ok with the personnel they had and were too cheap to spend money to add quality starters and depth to the team. Result of course was bad.

At the end of the day, not being active in FA was a bad decision for 2011 and had a big hand in the derailment of the season. On the other hand it might have been done intentionally to create more flexibility in 2012. Either way, they should have at least known that 2011 was in danger of being a disaster.

[psubills62]

Alright, if you insist on sticking with the coffee and donuts analogy: Signing Kirk Morrison, Kelvin Sheppard, Brad Smith, etc is like buying enough coffee and donuts for 10 people. The problem is there are 25 people in the office. And he still has $20 left for more coffee and donuts.

So, you're saying they tried and failed to sign Clabo just like they tried and failed to sign Poz? Thanks for bringing up yet another FO failure that I forgot about. Of course, I'm sure there will be another laundry list of excuses as to why failing to sign Clabo wasn't the FO's fault.

I won't consider the prospect that I'm wrong because I've thought through this and I am 100% sure that I am not wrong.

It cracks me up that you accuse me of denial as you go to great lengths to convince yourself that the FO didn't make a mistake.
But now you're arguing quality, which is the same argument you'd make if they had indeed managed to sign Poz. You're changing the argument. You said, and I quote "Then he puts the $20 back in his pocket and doesn't buy any coffee or donuts at all. Now, he's hungry and thirsty and has the means to do something about it, but decides he'd rather just have the money." And by the way, your new argument is simply your opinion. And last I checked, this "wasn't about you," it's about the front office. So which is it - does your opinion matter or not?

So are you wrong or are you wrong? Because I'm seeing a lot of wrongness here that you just CANNOT seem to admit to.

Haha you've obviously not in any way thought this through. You just assume that any reason the FO might have for not signing someone must be an "excuse."

And yes, I'm saying you're deep in denial, and the fact that you think EVERYONE else is in denial...might be a sign. But of course, what's more likely? That one guy is correct and everyone else is wrong, or that one person is incorrect, deep in denial, and everyone else is correct? Gee, I wonder.

Let me ask you - is there any scenario with Poz that would be labeled a success? If the front office had signed Poz for 8 million per year, would you then consider that a success? Since obviously not signing him is a failure, that would indicate the converse would be a success.

[OpIv37]

But now you're arguing quality, which is the same argument you'd make if they had indeed managed to sign Poz. You're changing the argument. You said, and I quote "Then he puts the $20 back in his pocket and doesn't buy any coffee or donuts at all. Now, he's hungry and thirsty and has the means to do something about it, but decides he'd rather just have the money." And by the way, your new argument is simply your opinion. And last I checked, this "wasn't about you," it's about the front office. So which is it - does your opinion matter or not?

So are you wrong or are you wrong? Because I'm seeing a lot of wrongness here that you just CANNOT seem to admit to.

Haha you've obviously not in any way thought this through. You just assume that any reason the FO might have for not signing someone must be an "excuse."

And yes, I'm saying you're deep in denial, and the fact that you think EVERYONE else is in denial...might be a sign. But of course, what's more likely? That one guy is correct and everyone else is wrong, or that one person is incorrect, deep in denial, and everyone else is correct? Gee, I wonder.

Let me ask you - is there any scenario with Poz that would be labeled a success? If the front office had signed Poz for 8 million per year, would you then consider that a success? Since obviously not signing him is a failure, that would indicate the converse would be a success.

What? I never changed the argument to quality at all. I said the Bills had more holes to fill and had $20 million to do it. I never said anything about quality.

And whatever argument I would have made if they did sign Poz is irrelevant because they didn't sign Poz so I didn't make any arguments about it. You are REALLY grasping at straws now.

Once again, reality isn't subject to majority opinion. Everyone else IS wrong. It's been proven time and time again that people on this board don't want to admit the negative about this team until it slaps them in the face.

The ONLY correct response to the Poz situation would have been to just let him walk. They shouldn't have even tried to resign him. Trying to resign him and failing is a failure, as resigning him would have been as well. But, again, the fact that I didn't want him back has no bearing on the fact that the FO tried to sign him and failed- this is how this whole discussion started.

[The Jokeman]

I wasn't involved in this argument from the beginning but if its about whether or not the Bills got it wrong last offseason when they did little in FA it can be looked at 2 ways. Both have a bad end result though.

1) The Bills intentionally stayed out of FA last year knowing 2012 was going to be a deep FA year and they had Stevie to re-sign. They therefore avoided spending money on depth players and potential stop gap starters and went with younger players to fill those spots knowing they could struggle if injuries hit. Result of course was bad because injuries did hit and we had low quality options to insert into the lineup.

2) The Bills thought they had their bases covered and assumed they were ok with the personnel they had and were too cheap to spend money to add quality starters and depth to the team. Result of course was bad.

At the end of the day, not being active in FA was a bad decision for 2011 and had a big hand in the derailment of the season. On the other hand it might have been done intentionally to create more flexibility in 2012. Either way, they should have at least known that 2011 was in danger of being a disaster.
Or one coudl argue that the Bills wounds were self inflicted when we cut a spot starting O-lineman in Geoff Hangartner and traded Lee Evans. As Geoff went on to start 16 games at RG for the Panthers last year, you can't tell me it wouldn't have hurt to have him around when Wood was hurt. Toss in Lee as it's tough to say he wouldn't have gotten here too but at the same time would have given us a better player than any other WR outside of Stevie and David Nelson last year.

My biggest pet peeve with the Bills and free agency is we almost always go after depth guys and sign them to starting contracts and when they failed to produce we let them go and wonder why we didn't improve? Now sure there can be arguments made that some guys just need a chance to start but the truth is if the guys were better they'd be starting with their former team to begin with. Case in point we need a #2 WR. Nix said so in an earlier press conference. To me if you want to improve you sign Robert Meachem when you have the cap room we have not David Clowney and re-sign Derek Hagan and draft a guy in Round 3 or 4 of the draft. Yet the Bills are more likely to do the latter than the first and hence my and other's feeling that Ralph is cheap.

[psubills62]

What? I never changed the argument to quality at all. I said the Bills had more holes to fill and had $20 million to do it. I never said anything about quality.

And whatever argument I would have made if they did sign Poz is irrelevant because they didn't sign Poz so I didn't make any arguments about it. You are REALLY grasping at straws now.

Once again, reality isn't subject to majority opinion. Everyone else IS wrong. It's been proven time and time again that people on this board don't want to admit the negative about this team until it slaps them in the face.

The ONLY correct response to the Poz situation would have been to just let him walk. They shouldn't have even tried to resign him. Trying to resign him and failing is a failure, as resigning him would have been as well. But, again, the fact that I didn't want him back has no bearing on the fact that the FO tried to sign him and failed- this is how this whole discussion started.
That's changing the argument. You were arguing that they didn't use the money for Poz. That's what's indicated when you said that instead of paying a little extra for coffee they didn't buy any at all. They did buy something...they just didn't spend the rest of that $20 bill.

Oh come on now, get off your high horse. You're the only one calling Poz leaving a failure. It's not like it's hard reality, it's your opinion. But since you seem to deflect any time someone brings that FACT up, let me phrase it a different way and see if you can avoid the question yet again:

Since Poz leaving is labeled failure, period, would signing Poz be labeled a success, period?

This is where you seem to have issues. Plenty of people here, including myself, can admit the negatives about the team. And this is what I've been TRYING and TRYING to tell you - we're not homers. We're the realists here, who are arguing with you. Do you consider Icky a blind Bills homer? We can see the negatives. We can also see when a pessimist like yourself is creating negatives that are far, far from legitimate.

OK, let me ask you - why did the Bills not sign Poz? If you think money is a sham excuse, there must be some reason they didn't sign him.

[OpIv37]

That's changing the argument. You were arguing that they didn't use the money for Poz. That's what's indicated when you said that instead of paying a little extra for coffee they didn't buy any at all. They did buy something...they just didn't spend the rest of that $20 bill.

Oh come on now, get off your high horse. You're the only one calling Poz leaving a failure. It's not like it's hard reality, it's your opinion. But since you seem to deflect any time someone brings that FACT up, let me phrase it a different way and see if you can avoid the question yet again:

Since Poz leaving is labeled failure, period, would signing Poz be labeled a success, period?

This is where you seem to have issues. Plenty of people here, including myself, can admit the negatives about the team. And this is what I've been TRYING and TRYING to tell you - we're not homers. We're the realists here, who are arguing with you. Do you consider Icky a blind Bills homer? We can see the negatives. We can also see when a pessimist like yourself is creating negatives that are far, far from legitimate.

OK, let me ask you - why did the Bills not sign Poz? If you think money is a sham excuse, there must be some reason they didn't sign him.

I didn't change the argument at all. My contention was always that they didn't buy ENOUGH. Whether they bought something or nothing is irrelevant. They needed more, they had money to do more, they did nothing.

The FO wanted to resign Poz. The FO failed to resign Poz. It's a failure. If the rest of the board wants to buy into their "at the right price" spin, it still doesn't change reality. Buying spin doesn't make you a realist.

I don't know why the Bills didn't sign Poz. Maybe they couldn't convince him to return to the team. Maybe when Jax offered him more money, Ralph didn't match so he could pocket the extra cash. I wasn't privy to the negotiations so I don't know. But the fact remains: they wanted to re-sign Poz- they said it publicly and they made him an offer- but he's not on the team.

I didn't want them to resign Poz and I wouldn't have been happy if they did. But, if they had re-signed him, at least they would have accomplished what they set out to do and at least they would have used some of that available cap space. And who knows? Maybe he would have played well and proved me wrong. Once again, my opinion of the situation doesn't change the FACT that they tried to re-sign him and failed.

[psubills62]

I didn't change the argument at all. My contention was always that they didn't buy ENOUGH. Whether they bought something or nothing is irrelevant. They needed more, they had money to do more, they did nothing.

The FO wanted to resign Poz. The FO failed to resign Poz. It's a failure. If the rest of the board wants to buy into their "at the right price" spin, it still doesn't change reality. Buying spin doesn't make you a realist.

I don't know why the Bills didn't sign Poz. Maybe they couldn't convince him to return to the team. Maybe when Jax offered him more money, Ralph didn't match so he could pocket the extra cash. I wasn't privy to the negotiations so I don't know. But the fact remains: they wanted to re-sign Poz- they said it publicly and they made him an offer- but he's not on the team.

I didn't want them to resign Poz and I wouldn't have been happy if they did. But, if they had re-signed him, at least they would have accomplished what they set out to do and at least they would have used some of that available cap space. And who knows? Maybe he would have played well and proved me wrong. Once again, my opinion of the situation doesn't change the FACT that they tried to re-sign him and failed.
You specifically said in the analogy that they didn't buy ANYTHING, which is blatantly untrue.

That's not answering my question. I'll ask it again - are you going to deflect again or actually answer it? It's a simple enough question and simple enough concept:

Since Poz leaving is labeled failure, period, would signing Poz be labeled a success, period?

I even bolded it this time so you wouldn't "miss" it.

Oh, I see. So you've thought this through, and you KNOW for a fact that the "Poz cost too much" argument is BS, but you have no idea why they didn't sign him? Dots aren't connecting in your argument yet again. And I love how you're willing to speculate.

From what you're saying, it sounds to me like you think that if a team wants to re-sign someone, it's justifiable to spend ANY amount of money to re-sign that player. Otherwise, it's a failure. Is that correct?

So let me get this straight. You weren't privy to the negotiations. You don't know the motives. However, you assume that "what the Bills set out to do" contains all of the details in a public statement? Since you apparently have no inside information, why is it not possible that "what they set out to do" was sign Posluszny...for a reasonable price? Considering that's what every team looks to do...logic dictates that it's a legitimate reason for not re-signing a player.

[OpIv37]

You specifically said in the analogy that they didn't buy ANYTHING, which is blatantly untrue.

That's not answering my question. I'll ask it again - are you going to deflect again or actually answer it? It's a simple enough question and simple enough concept:

Since Poz leaving is labeled failure, period, would signing Poz be labeled a success, period?

I even bolded it this time so you wouldn't "miss" it.

Oh, I see. So you've thought this through, and you KNOW for a fact that the "Poz cost too much" argument is BS, but you have no idea why they didn't sign him? Dots aren't connecting in your argument yet again. And I love how you're willing to speculate.

From what you're saying, it sounds to me like you think that if a team wants to re-sign someone, it's justifiable to spend ANY amount of money to re-sign that player. Otherwise, it's a failure. Is that correct?

So let me get this straight. You weren't privy to the negotiations. You don't know the motives. However, you assume that "what the Bills set out to do" contains all of the details in a public statement? Since you apparently have no inside information, why is it not possible that "what they set out to do" was sign Posluszny...for a reasonable price? Considering that's what every team looks to do...logic dictates that it's a legitimate reason for not re-signing a player.

I didn't ignore your question. Your question creates a false dichotomy. There are more than two possible outcomes. Poz simply leaving would not have been a failure. Trying to re-sign Poz and failing is a failure.

I NEVER said that it's ok to spend ANY amount of money to resign a player. I said that squabbling over a million or two when you're $20 million under the cap is absurd, especially when they don't take that money and re-invest it in the team.

If what they wanted to do was resign Poz at a reasonable price, then their definition of "reasonable" sucks. See paragraph above: it's not reasonable to squabble over a million or two then go into the season $20 million under the cap without putting that money back into the team in any way shape or form.

In case you forgot, a good portion of this board wanted to re-sign Poz. When the FO didn't resign him and said "he cost too much," many of those same people immediately agreed. FO wants to re-sign Poz? Must be the right move. FO didn't resign Poz? Must have been the right move.

Hmmmm.....

[psubills62]

I didn't ignore your question. Your question creates a false dichotomy. There are more than two possible outcomes. Poz simply leaving would not have been a failure. Trying to re-sign Poz and failing is a failure.

I NEVER said that it's ok to spend ANY amount of money to resign a player. I said that squabbling over a million or two when you're $20 million under the cap is absurd, especially when they don't take that money and re-invest it in the team.

If what they wanted to do was resign Poz at a reasonable price, then their definition of "reasonable" sucks. See paragraph above: it's not reasonable to squabble over a million or two then go into the season $20 million under the cap without putting that money back into the team in any way shape or form.

In case you forgot, a good portion of this board wanted to re-sign Poz. When the FO didn't resign him and said "he cost too much," many of those same people immediately agreed. FO wants to re-sign Poz? Must be the right move. FO didn't resign Poz? Must have been the right move.

Hmmmm.....
You're deflecting yet again. Let me rephrase this: the FO wanted to sign him. We already know that, that's a given. Given that, there are two possibilities: we either sign him or we don't. Since one is labeled a failure, is the other labeled a success?

I'll ask yet again: Since Poz leaving is labeled failure, period, would signing Poz be labeled a success, period?

Oh good. It's obvious that you're now privy to information you didn't have two posts ago. So now you know for a FACT that they were only squabbling over a million or two?

I know you never said it was OK to spend anything. I said that's what your arguments were insinuating would lead to success if a team wanted to sign a player. And your argument about how much money we had under the cap is completely irrelevant. A player's worth is not determined by how much money a team has under the cap. That's not a factor and never will be, and it's stupid to even pretend that it is. Each player is going to have a value based on his production, period.

The reason everyone on here agreed that it was too much to spend on Poz...was because it was too much to spend on Poz! That's why it's perfectly reasonable for the FO to say that's the main reason they didn't sign Poz. If Poz had signed elsewhere for 3 million per year and the FO had tried to say it was too much, how many people here would have agreed with them? Yardie and that's about it.

When the facts (what Poz signed for) line up with the reason given for letting Poz walk, then it's accepted as perfectly reasonable by everyone (except apparently you).

And as a side note, you're completely ignoring the fact that it's not just last year's cap numbers that are affected by signing Poz to tons of money. It's this year's as well, which you complained about in the OP.

[OpIv37]

You're deflecting yet again. First of all, my question is NOT predicated on only two possible outcomes. You've been constantly saying that it was a failure that they didn't sign Poz since they had publicly said they wanted to do so. What I'm asking is simply if they had signed Poz, would that be labeled a success then? It's a simple yes or no question (of course the "no" answer requires more explanation, but I'm sure you'd deflect that as well). The reason this is narrowed down to two possibilities is because we're assuming the FO wanted to sign him (which they did). I don't think it's that unreasonable to say "they wanted to sign him. Since you deem the lack of signing him under that circumstance a failure, would signing him be a success?"

I'll ask yet again: Since Poz leaving is labeled failure, period, would signing Poz be labeled a success, period?

Oh good. It's obvious that you're now privy to information you didn't have two posts ago. So now you know for a FACT that they were only squabbling over a million or two?

I know you never said it was OK to spend anything. I said that's what your arguments were insinuating would lead to success if a team wanted to sign a player. And your argument about how much money we had under the cap is completely irrelevant. A player's worth is not determined by how much money a team has under the cap. That's not a factor and never will be, and it's stupid to even pretend that it is. Each player is going to have a value based on his production, period.

The reason everyone on here agreed that it was too much to spend on Poz...was because it was too much to spend on Poz! That's why it's perfectly reasonable for the FO to say that's the main reason they didn't sign Poz. If Poz had signed elsewhere for 3 million per year and the FO had tried to say it was too much, how many people here would have agreed with them? Yardie and that's about it.

When the facts (what Poz signed for) line up with the reason given for letting Poz walk, then it's accepted as perfectly reasonable by everyone (except apparently you).

I clearly answered your question in my last two posts. Go back and read them. Putting the question in bold doesn't mean that I didn't address it.

The only reason people believe it was too much to spend on Poz is because the FO said it was too much to spend on Poz.

[mikemac2001]

You're deflecting yet again. First of all, my question is NOT predicated on only two possible outcomes. You've been constantly saying that it was a failure that they didn't sign Poz since they had publicly said they wanted to do so. What I'm asking is simply if they had signed Poz, would that be labeled a success then? It's a simple yes or no question (of course the "no" answer requires more explanation, but I'm sure you'd deflect that as well). The reason this is narrowed down to two possibilities is because we're assuming the FO wanted to sign him (which they did). I don't think it's that unreasonable to say "they wanted to sign him. Since you deem the lack of signing him under that circumstance a failure, would signing him be a success?"

I'll ask yet again: Since Poz leaving is labeled failure, period, would signing Poz be labeled a success, period?

Oh good. It's obvious that you're now privy to information you didn't have two posts ago. So now you know for a FACT that they were only squabbling over a million or two?

I know you never said it was OK to spend anything. I said that's what your arguments were insinuating would lead to success if a team wanted to sign a player. And your argument about how much money we had under the cap is completely irrelevant. A player's worth is not determined by how much money a team has under the cap. That's not a factor and never will be, and it's stupid to even pretend that it is. Each player is going to have a value based on his production, period.

The reason everyone on here agreed that it was too much to spend on Poz...was because it was too much to spend on Poz! That's why it's perfectly reasonable for the FO to say that's the main reason they didn't sign Poz. If Poz had signed elsewhere for 3 million per year and the FO had tried to say it was too much, how many people here would have agreed with them? Yardie and that's about it.

When the facts (what Poz signed for) line up with the reason given for letting Poz walk, then it's accepted as perfectly reasonable by everyone (except apparently you).


Haha spot on lets wait and see how he deflects this Says the FO sucks and ralph is cheap.

Poz wasnt worth what he got paid its pretty clear. i saw the contract and laughed would never spend that on him, was he a solid player YES but not using that cap just to use it and overpay.

and this whole poz convo is a joke i like our team more without him (cool guy tho met him and was awesome)

[mikemac2001]

The only reason people believe it was too much to spend on Poz is because the FO said it was too much to spend on Poz.


Haha anyone knows the jags overpaid, you act like your so smart and we are all homers

jags overpaid

[OpIv37]

Haha anyone knows the jags overpaid, you act like your so smart and we are all homers

jags overpaid

The Bills tried to resign him and failed. Period. But if the FO says they overpaid, then they overpaid. All hail the Bills' FO- they can do no wrong!

[psubills62]

I clearly answered your question in my last two posts. Go back and read them. Putting the question in bold doesn't mean that I didn't address it.

The only reason people believe it was too much to spend on Poz is because the FO said it was too much to spend on Poz.
Oh you addressed it by deflecting and arguing semantics. You just haven't answered it. I'm still waiting for a "yes" or "no." But I'm not surprised since you don't like to give hard answers. One sign of denial.

No, actually, we have this thing called judgment that we use to think for ourselves. Kind of like if the Bills re-signed Stevie Johnson for 12 million per year, that's too much. 7.5 million per year is reasonable. And 7 million/yr for Posluszny was too much. Or do you not believe that? And yes, before you get defensive, this is where your opinion matters. Because judging whether the money is too much is a judgment call and depends on the person.

So since you're avoiding answering the other question, I'll ask this: do you consider Paul Posluszny overpaid under his current contract? And yes, your opinion matters here. Don't try to deflect.

[DraftBoy]

Whether anyone agrees with me or not has no bearing on whether I'm right or wrong. Reality isn't subject to majority opinion.

I absolutely believe my argument and it's the absolute truth.

My argument boils down to this:

Rich guy wants a cup of coffee and goes into the "Coffee Emporium". Give me a large regular he says. That will be $3.75 the clerk says. He pulls out a $20 bill and says "Well, I only wanted to spend $3.25." Then he puts the $20 back in his pocket and doesn't buy any coffee or donuts at all. Now, he's hungry and thirsty and has the means to do something about it, but decides he'd rather just have the money. And he blames the fact that he's hungry and thirsty on the clerk at the Coffee Emporium for overcharging.

You're forgetting the part when goes down to the 7-11 and grabs day old coffee for 1.75 and is happy with it.

[mikemac2001]

The Bills tried to resign him and failed. Period. But if the FO says we overpaid, then we overpaid. All hail the Bills' FO- they can do no wrong!


Poz wanted to play in a 4-3 we were running a 3-4
the bills wanted to resign him but they also didnt want to break the bank

so if the bills paid him 10 mill a year you would be happy, NO!

no one would be happy with signing a ****ty deal BC the FO wanted him.

Poz got a great deal and the bills didnt feel he was worth it, and neither do most fans.

[OpIv37]

Oh you addressed it by deflecting and arguing semantics. You just haven't answered it. I'm still waiting for a "yes" or "no." But I'm not surprised since you don't like to give hard answers. One sign of denial.

No, actually, we have this thing called judgment that we use to think for ourselves. Kind of like if the Bills re-signed Stevie Johnson for 12 million per year, that's too much. 7.5 million per year is reasonable. And 7 million/yr for Posluszny was too much. Or do you not believe that? And yes, before you get defensive, this is where your opinion matters. Because judging whether the money is too much is a judgment call and depends on the person.

So since you're avoiding answering the other question, I'll ask this: do you consider Paul Posluszny overpaid under his current contract? And yes, your opinion matters here. Don't try to deflect.

You are asking for a yes or no answer to a question that doesn't have a yes or no answer. You calling it semantics doesn't make it semantics. I gave a perfectly legitimate answer.

And I don't know why I should continue answering questions from you when you just ignore my answers anyway.

The FO wanted to resign Poz. They tried to do it and failed. Period.

[The Jokeman]

You're forgetting the part when goes down to the 7-11 and grabs day old coffee for 1.75 and is happy with it.
No Wilson will buy the coffee at the 7-11 then after a few sips find out how gross it is, dump the coffee out and then use the cup to fill with water from the water cooler. Yet because there's some remnant of coffee left in the cup he will pass it off as if he made some home made coffee that's better than buying it from some store.

[OpIv37]

Poz wanted to play in a 4-3 we were running a 3-4
the bills wanted to resign him but they also didnt want to break the bank

so if the bills paid him 10 mill a year you would be happy, NO!

no one would be happy with signing a ****ty deal BC the FO wanted him.

Poz got a great deal and the bills didnt feel he was worth it, and neither do most fans.

Yeah well, Marv Levy used to say that if you listen to the fans, you'll soon be sitting with them.

No one would be happy with a ****ty deal because the FO wanted him, but everyone is OK with going into the season $20 million under the cap?

And if the Bills couldn't sign Poz because he didn't want to play in a 3-4, why didn't they just SAY that? Instead, they made up this BS about "it wasn't the right price."

[mikemac2001]

Yeah well, Marv Levy used to say that if you listen to the fans, you'll soon be sitting with them.

No one would be happy with a ****ty deal because the FO wanted him, but everyone is OK with going into the season $20 million under the cap?

And if the Bills couldn't sign Poz because he didn't want to play in a 3-4, why didn't they just SAY that? Instead, they made up this BS about "it wasn't the right price."


i was happy with the moves that were and werent made you act like POZ would have led us to 4 more victories we replaced him with barnett who fit a 3-4 better and allowed rookies to also get experenice


if we paid 8 mill for poz and couldnt sign a DE or WR this FA you would ***** about them over paying and not using the cap correctly

[OpIv37]

i was happy with the moves that were and werent made you act like POZ would have led us to 4 more victories we replaced him with barnett who fit a 3-4 better and allowed rookies to also get experenice


if we paid 8 mill for poz and couldnt sign a DE or WR this FA you would ***** about them over paying and not using the cap correctly

Once again, someone basing an argument on their guess of how I would have reacted in a situation that never occurred. Weak, really weak.

And in order for that argument to even matter, first we'd have to sign a WR or DE. That's another huge assumption on your part.

[psubills62]

You are asking for a yes or no answer to a question that doesn't have a yes or no answer. You calling it semantics doesn't make it semantics. I gave a perfectly legitimate answer.

And I don't know why I should continue answering questions from you when you just ignore my answers anyway.

The FO wanted to resign Poz. They tried to do it and failed. Period.
And you claiming to have answered my question doesn't mean you did. All you did was repeat the assumption in the first part of the question, that not re-signing Poz is a failure. That's not answering the question. You never addressed whether re-signing Poz would have been labeled a success.

Yeah, about what I figured. Asking basic questions like this just points out the holes in your arguments. Refusing to answer just means you avoid addressing the holes. Denial. If you admit Poz was overpaid then the next logical step is admitting that the FO's reason for letting him walk is legitimate and not the BS you claim. But based on your arguments, you have no ground to say that Poz is not overpaid. Quite the quandary. I figured you wouldn't answer that question.

Just like my original question about if re-signing Poz is a success. You know that you saying "no" doesn't make any sense with how you've been repeating "failure" over and over. But saying "yes" without qualifiers means that the amount of money they pay him doesn't matter...just the re-signing matters. Which completely nullifies yet again your argument that the idea of a "reasonable price" is BS. Your "logic" doesn't compute either way, but refusing to admit it....

Denial.

[justasportsfan]

:comedy: