Ricky Williams- The Fleeting Cost of Winning

[Dozerdog]

http://www.billszone.com/coppermine/albums/userpics/gameday2002/week12-billsdolphins/capt.1038774524.dolphins_bills_bfs101.jpg

Buffalo Bills GM Tom Donahoe has made some bold strokes at the helm of the franchise for four off-seasons. Straddled with a crushing cap he cleaned house in year one – laying the ground work for bold strokes the successive seasons. In 2002 he landed Pro-Bowl QB Drew Bledsoe for what turned out to be sliding 9 spots in the 2003 draft. In 2003 he landed the best free agent on the market, Pro-Bowl LB Takeo Spikes, along with one of the best defensive tackles in the game, Sam Adams. On top of that, in the weakest draft in ages, he gambled on getting a top back in Willis McGahee. Topping it off was the coup that landed Lawyer Milloy at the start of the season. This year he pulled another rabbit out of the hat- landing Lee Evans and outsmarting Green Bay and St. Louis for QB J.P. Losman.

Each move was well-planned and well executed. In retrospect- the moves were not done in haste or as a result of panic. If the moves did not make sense economically or based on talent, they were not made. Top cornerback Antoine Winfield was allowed to leave because of economics- and was eventually replaced with another perennial Pro-Bowl player at a fraction of the cost. Compared with some other professional organizations- Donahoe’s record for acquiring talent (and within the confines of the cap) isn’t to shabby.
...MORE... (http://www.billszone.com/YourSite/global/templates/view.php?action=YourSite_content&month=7&state=news&nid=10076)

[HenryRules]

The "...MORE..." link goes to the "new thread" page.

[Dozerdog]

Originally posted by HenryRules
The "...MORE..." link goes to the "new thread" page.

Doh! :homer:


Fixed

[HenryRules]

Overall the article is good ...

but as it always seems when evaluating the Bledsoe trade - there is a misrepresentation of what we gave up - we did not slide 5 spots in the draft in order to pick up Bledsoe.

Without the Bledsoe trade, we would have had 2 picks in the first round. With the Bledsoe trade, we had one. Thus, the Bledsoe deal cost us 1 whole first rounder - not just 5 first round spots.

[Dozerdog]

Originally posted by HenryRules
Overall the article is good ...

but as it always seems when judging the Bledsoe trade, we did not slide 5 spots in the draft in order to pick up Bledsoe.

Without the Bledsoe trade, we would have had 2 picks in the first round. With the Bledsoe trade, we had one. Thus, the Bledsoe deal cost us 1 first rounder - not 5 first round spots.

It's all how you want to parse it out.


If you look at the trade standing on it's own- sure- you have a point.

But I look at the overall picture. Because if you don't make the trade for Bledsoe, you have Jeff Blake , Chris Chandler , or AVP as your QB- which means you don't -in most likely terms- get a pair of 1,300 yard -12 TD WR's like you did in Moulds & Price- Which means Price's value in the FAcy market is diminished- or the Bills retain him at a much lower cost-

I my view- we moved the $10 bill out of our right pocket and put it in the left pocket. Net gain- we lost a few slots

[Dozerdog]

CORRECTION- 9 slots - not 5

[JJamezz]

Great stuff man :up::up:

[HenryRules]

Originally posted by Dozerdog
It's all how you want to parse it out.


If you look at the trade standing on it's own- sure- you have a point.

Buit I look at the overall picture. Because if you don't make the trade for Bledsoe, you have Jeff Blake , Chris Chandler , or AVP as your QB- which means you don't in most likely terms get a pair of 1,300 yard -12 TD WR's like you did in Moulds & Price- Which means Price's value in the FAcy market is diminished- or the Bills retain him at a much lower cost-

I my view- we moved the $10 bill out of our right pocket and put it in the left pocket. Net gain- we lost a few slots

You're still missing a step then, even if you follow your logic. You say that Price's value in FA would have been diminished if we didn't pick up Bledsoe - then we probably could have kept Peerless when he became a FA. You can't selectively choose the fallouts from your assumpmtion. The only reason we couldn't keep Price is because after his performance that year, he reasonably expected to be a #1 receiver on a team.

So then it becomes Price for Bledsoe and dropping 9 spots in the draft. Or a pro bowl alternate wide receiver for a pro bowl QB and a drop of 9 spots.

[Dozerdog]

But then you have to add into your model the fact we were able to Bledsoe for Price- and the extra year they played together.


On the flip side- we could have lost Price and received nothing- Just like the Bengals did with Spikes.

It's the context of the comparison- the mnain point is that TD managed to make such deals without gambling the future of the team -like some other clubs.

[Dozerdog]

Let's not forget the actual Value of a 2003 draft pick was much deflated. Lookat the Saints- the 2003 draft was so weak, they chose to peddle both of their 1st round picks to get into the top 10.

[HenryRules]

Originally posted by Dozerdog
But then you have to add into your model the fact we were able to Bledsoe for Price- and the extra year they played together.


On the flip side- we could have lost Price and received nothing- Just like the Bengals did with Spikes.

It's the context of the comparison- the mnain point is that TD managed to make such deals without gambling the future of the team -like some other clubs.

I guess it depends on what you consider gambling the future of the team ... committing 2 1st rounders, a 2nd rounder, and a 5th in 3 drafts to address the QB position is gambling the future IMO. That's what we've done with Donahoe.

[HenryRules]

Originally posted by Dozerdog
Let's not forget the actual Value of a 2003 draft pick was much deflated. Lookat the Saints- the 2003 draft was so weak, they chose to peddle both of their 1st round picks to get into the top 10.

Well, then let's not forget that Kyle Boller would have been available to us as a draft pick (or Byron Leftwich if we take your "without Bledsoe we would have sucked view") and both of them looked as good or better in their rookie year's than Bledsoe last season.

[Dozerdog]

Originally posted by HenryRules
Well, then let's not forget that Kyle Boller would have been available to us as a draft pick (or Byron Leftwich if we take your "without Bledsoe we would have sucked view") and both of them looked as good or better in their rookie year's than Bledsoe last season.

That's quite a lot of revisionist hindsight.

Rewind the clock to the 2002 offseason. Off of a 3-13 yaer- and the opportunity to get a top QB- you would prefer to suck at 3-13 again for a "possible" shot at Leftwich? That "Let's stink now for a top pick next year" mentality is what has driven the LA Clippers
for 2 decades.

I'd rather try to get better.

[HenryRules]

Originally posted by Dozerdog
That's quite a lot of revisionist hindsight.

Rewind the clock to the 2002 offseason. Off of a 3-13 yaer- and the opportunity to get a top QB- you would prefer to suck at 3-13 again for a "possible" shot at Leftwich? That "Let's stink now for a top pick next year" mentality is what has driven the LA Clippers
for 2 decades.

I'd rather try to get better.

Revisionist hindsight??? You mean like changing the actual cost of a trade to make Donahoe look better?

I thought we were talking about the cost of what it took to acquire Bledsoe? I was simply pointing out the flaws in your statement of the cost of the trade - I did not say which was the preferred alternative.

However, since <i>you</i> are bending the facts of the trade, I think that <i>you</i> don't think it was a justifiable move. If you like the move, then let it stand on its own, factual terms.

I do think it was the best alternative at the time ... however that doesn't alter the fact that it cost us a whole first rounder.

[BillyT92679]

Interesting article.

The elephant in the room for the Bills though is that, for all of Donahoe's moves, the team has only compiled a 17-31 record under his tenure. Even taking out the abysmal '01 season, they are only 14-18 the last two years, 9-7 at home, and only 5-11 on the road. I am hopeful that Buffalo can finally rebound this year. Otherwise, with all of TD's maneuvers, it's as if the Bills are the hamster on the wheel. (Pardon the animal metaphors LOL.)

[Dozerdog]

His first move was his worst move- Hiring Gregg Williams

[BillyT92679]

Originally posted by Dozerdog
His first move was his worst move- Hiring Gregg Williams

I just pray Mularky is a better move.

[Mr. Cynical]

Originally posted by BillyT92679
Interesting article.

The elephant in the room for the Bills though is that, for all of Donahoe's moves, the team has only compiled a 17-31 record under his tenure. Even taking out the abysmal '01 season, they are only 14-18 the last two years, 9-7 at home, and only 5-11 on the road. I am hopeful that Buffalo can finally rebound this year. Otherwise, with all of TD's maneuvers, it's as if the Bills are the hamster on the wheel. (Pardon the animal metaphors LOL.)

Well said. :up:

This is a business and the bottom line is production on the field. We can sit here all day and debate the value of this trade vs. that trade, but in the end this team has not produced in 3 years. Whether or not it is all directly TD's fault is irrelevant. As the "CEO" of this company called the Buffalo Bills, he is ultimately responsible for the company's success. It's that simple. It doesn't matter if the coach sucked or the QB sucked or anyone else sucked, because TD is at the top of the chain and has to make the right decisions. On paper those decisions might look great. But the games are not played on paper. It may not be fair all the time but that's the nature of the beast. So, if there is not a significant improvement this year, he should be fired. You don't get points by trying hard. You get points by winning.

P.S. Personally I thought the Bledsoe move was awesome when it happened, but in hindsight (which is always 20/20) I think it was a bad move. More specifically I think his contract could have been worked out alot better.

[Dozerdog]

Regardless of what worked or what didn't- the gist of the opening paragraphs was that the Bills under TD don't try to sell out and go for broke- they won't risk long term pain for short term gain. More often than not teams that gamble like that get burned.

Even if you are the gambling type and it works, Buffalo has proven to be a fickle ticket to sell. Even if they did win a Superbowl that way- at the cost of a couple of 2-14 seasons 2-3 years later- the team won't sell out those struggling year games. So the tact has to be to remain compeditive each year, not be great one or two, then rebuild the next 3-4.

[Mr. Cynical]

But that's just the point imo. You can't say "regardless" of what worked and what didn't because it all depends on what works. If it doesn't work, you make changes.

The past 3 years haven't worked and TD has made alot of changes to try and make it work. If we go through another year that doesn't work, TD should be the first to go as he is the one ultimately responsible.

[Dozerdog]

I agree that if this year is a dismal failure- we clean house.

But give GW and KG the all-madden team and it goes 8-8 at best.

[Halbert]

Nice job, Dozer! One of your best, imo.


Originally posted by BillyT92679
The elephant in the room for the Bills though is that, for all of Donahoe's moves, the team has only compiled a 17-31 record under his tenure.
Well to be perfectly fair, we really should throw out year 1 completely and put an asterisk next to year 2.

Despite the rhetoric coming out of Gregg Williams, in hindsight we know that there was no chance of having a good 2001 season. The house cleaning that fixed the dead cap money situation doomed the team to weak talent all over the roster. So that year doesn't count.

The next season was dedicate to fixing the offense at the expense of the defense. Even so, the Bills were in the hunt for a playoff spot right up until game 15. That’s pretty impressive for a club that was so young and still had plenty of holes.

But there’s no excuse for 2003. If you’re going to use a season to question TD’s performance, that is it. It was a terrible disappointment and he deserves criticism for what happened there. But he did what he had to do, got a new coach. Mularkey was a surprise and he’s put his neck out on that one, but he followed that up with nabbing some outstanding coaches for critical units, getting arguably the best Offensive Line coach in the game today, plus an incredibly overqualified QB coach in Wyche. Bobby April wasn’t quite as heralded, but he’s a big improvement over what they had there prior.

To me this team looks like it’s loaded at virtually every starting position on the field. Depth in most areas is also quite good, considering the handcuffs that the salary cap puts on every team.

I’m personally expecting a playoff season for the Bills and I honestly think that is realistic. If the Bills fall far short of that then I’ll be ready to label Donohoe a bust. But I don’t think that’s going to happen.

[Halbert]

Originally posted by Dozerdog
But give GW and KG the all-madden team and it goes 8-8 at best.
Well as much as those two infuriated me at the end, I think under different circumstances they might have been successful.

KG's big problem is that he's a one-trick pony. He built some great offenses in the past, but they were all the same. He was totally clueless what to do with what was in Buffalo at the time. He tried to put a pass-oriented attack in despite having a stone footed QB and a strong RB that doesn't catch many balls.

GW was just a little too green and put into a very tough situation. I still think GW will end up being a good head coach, but he's going to have to reestablish himself as an elite defensive coach, which I think he is. Tutoring under Gibbs is probably the best thing that could happen to him. He cut too many teeth with the Bills, as it obviously showed.

[Dozerdog]

Originally posted by Halbert
Nice job, Dozer! One of your best, imo.


Thanks- but I hardly agree.

My personal favorite over the years is Drew Henson- the Sports Anti-Christ (http://www.billszone.com/YourSite/global/templates/view.php?action=YourSite_content&month=2&state=newsarchive&nid=9066)

Controversial- but a lot of fun.

[HenryRules]

Originally posted by Halbert
To me this team looks like it’s loaded at virtually every starting position on the field. Depth in most areas is also quite good, considering the handcuffs that the salary cap puts on every team.


I don't think our depth is good at all.

A backup QB with what, 4 games of NFL experience.
A #2 RB recovering from knee surgery that has never played in the NFL and no one else that has more than 50 carries or so?
WR is good.
Our starting LG is hardly qualified to be a backup, let alone the person that loses out on the LG job.
Same with Center.
4th round pick bacukp at TE.
Schoebel getting injured would destroy our D.
DT is solid depth.
LB is solid depth.
Secondary is solid.

A team like NE is a team with depth:
Kevin Faulk is a solid 3rd down back and could take over as a starter short-term.
Their 3-5 receivers are almost all worth being a #2 or #3.
Ben Watson/Christian Fauria as <i>backup TE's</i> - and some here are excited about Peters as our 3rd TE?
Don't know enough about their OL to comment either way.
Ty Warren was solid for a rookie. Wilfork should be a solid backup TD.
McGinest will be depth at LB now with Colvin back - or if Colvin isn't 100%, he's solid LB depth on the outside and Johnson is good inside.
They've got like 6 DB's that are worthy of being a nickel back or better.

[Tatonka]

colvin will be on the PUP list to start the season..

[lordofgun]

Hal's always wrong. :D

[Mr. Cynical]

Originally posted by Halbert
Nice job, Dozer! One of your best, imo.


Well to be perfectly fair, we really should throw out year 1 completely and put an asterisk next to year 2.

Despite the rhetoric coming out of Gregg Williams, in hindsight we know that there was no chance of having a good 2001 season. The house cleaning that fixed the dead cap money situation doomed the team to weak talent all over the roster. So that year doesn't count.

The next season was dedicate to fixing the offense at the expense of the defense. Even so, the Bills were in the hunt for a playoff spot right up until game 15. That’s pretty impressive for a club that was so young and still had plenty of holes.

But there’s no excuse for 2003. If you’re going to use a season to question TD’s performance, that is it. It was a terrible disappointment and he deserves criticism for what happened there. But he did what he had to do, got a new coach. Mularkey was a surprise and he’s put his neck out on that one, but he followed that up with nabbing some outstanding coaches for critical units, getting arguably the best Offensive Line coach in the game today, plus an incredibly overqualified QB coach in Wyche. Bobby April wasn’t quite as heralded, but he’s a big improvement over what they had there prior.

To me this team looks like it’s loaded at virtually every starting position on the field. Depth in most areas is also quite good, considering the handcuffs that the salary cap puts on every team.

I’m personally expecting a playoff season for the Bills and I honestly think that is realistic. If the Bills fall far short of that then I’ll be ready to label Donohoe a bust. But I don’t think that’s going to happen.

I don't agree that year 1 "doesn't count". Just because you do some house cleaning doesn't mean you necessarily throw out the year. Granted you shouldn't expect a good season record, but if done right, you begin to lay a foundation to build upon. (*see Dallas Cowboys with Jimmy) Neither of those things happened, which is TD's fault...fair or not, he is the one responsible.

Consequently, years 2 and 3 are just the results of bad hiring or bad luck, take your pick. Still doesn't matter. TD is responsible no matter what. Doesn't matter if he made all the "right" choices along the way. Sometimes things just don't work out for a person, e.g., Belichick bombing with the Browns but succeeding with the Pats.

[Dozerdog]

Hey HenryRules-

Half empty or half full?


http://www.spokanefpc.org/images/half%20glass.jpg

[HenryRules]

Originally posted by Dozerdog
Hey HenryRules-

Half empty or half full?


http://www.spokanefpc.org/images/half%20glass.jpg

Regarding which of my recent posts?

I said I like the Bledsoe trade, I just didn't think it was accurately represented.

I don't think we have good depth, but I do think we have solid starters.

I think it's boring to post whenever I agree with something, so I just don't bother - if someone has already said something, why repeat it? (as far as what I agree with so far in this thread - I think Miami overpaid for RW - considering RB's don't get drafted in the top-20 now, why give up a single first rounder, let alone two -same goes for NO). Considering this is a Bills fan board, most ideas that have already been stated are usually positive.

Was my thread about RW retiring possibly raising the ransom we'll get for Henry/McGahee next year negative?


Dozer, I assume you'd say the glass is 3/4 full?

[Dozerdog]

I'd call it a half- glass of water.

Drew Bledsoe cost 1 pick.

The net effect of four years of TD drafting has been 5 first round picks AND drew Bledsoe over 4 drafts..... and all we lost was a Free Agent who said he would not play here again anyways.

I'll count next year's pick we gave up when next year gets here.

[lordofgun]

Great article, dozer!