Slap The Tag on Peerless Price! [Archive] - BillsZone.com

RedEyE

01-08-2003, 10:18 PM

I'm still hopeful that TD and Price can come to an agreement, but I'm certain that TD won't tag Price. He stated last year that he doesn't chase players and I still don't think that Price has truly proven himself. Don't get me wrong, Price is a contributor and the Bills would stand to do well to sign him, but Pro Bowl recievers do not drop open field passes in important games. That botched pass in GB is a growing seed of doubt to Price's true abilities to take charge of a receiving corp. He had one great season and has to know that defenses doubled up on Moulds allowing him more one on one opportunities. Price has it good here. Both a QB and an offense that compliments his style of play. He'd be a fool not to stay.

The Bills will actually do fine without him. Reed should have great success finding holes across the middle and Moulds has always been Buffalo's real deep threat. The Bills also have other receiving threats that saw little playing time this season(if in Buffalo next season). Centers and Riemersma rarely saw the ball float their way and Henry proved that he too can catch the ball.

clumping platelets

01-08-2003, 10:28 PM

Mikey: it has been suggested. If Peerless was more like Moulds, it would be an excellent possibility.

Dozerdog

01-08-2003, 10:40 PM

Originally posted by Jaded 7
Obviously, we're in the minority on this one, Mike. I really don't know what the "tag" means, but I do think that the Bills should keep Peerless.

Jaded

What Mike is suggesting is this-

When you "Tag" a player (each team has been given a couple of these "Tags" to use) you are taking away that player's rights to become a free agent. In exchange, you are required to pay that player an average of the top 5 salaries for his position. Being a WR, you take the 5 highest paid WRs in the league and average their pay- that's what you will pay Peerless.

The Bills are going to have about 10 million to spend (maybe up to 13 if they cut some guys) to improve the team. If we Tag Peerless, we are forced to pay him somewhere in the neighborhood of 7 million dolars- eating up all the cap space we could use to pursue badly needed defensive help.

We can try the following-
1)Get peerless to sign for less than that (maybe 4- 5 million, TOPS!

2- Let Peerless go, promote Reed, and pay signigficantly less for a Free Agent WR to replace Price. If we did that, it leaves the Bills tons of $$$ to fill a number of holes.

Why spend the $$$ for two Ferraris in the driveway when the house needs a new roof and boiler? It's a sentmental move, but very foolish if we plan on improving the team significantly on defense.

Captain gameboy

01-08-2003, 10:41 PM

I think Price's top cost would put him, reasonably, in the top 12-15 WR's. That's all I'd pay. If he wants to be here he'll accept that kind of money. My feeling is he won't.

01-08-2003, 11:19 PM

Let somebody else sign his ass

Kelly The Dog

01-08-2003, 11:33 PM

Redeye: "Don't get me wrong, Price is a contributor and the Bills would stand to do well to sign him, but Pro Bowl recievers do not drop open field passes in important games. "

Both this year and last year, Moulds dropped far, far more passes right in his hands than Peerless did. And more percentage-wise, too, it wasn't just that Moulds had more passes thrown to him. It wasn't even close, especially last year.

justasportsfan

01-09-2003, 07:59 AM

TD saw this coming w/c is why he got Reed when we really didn't need a wr in this years draft. If we let Price go , watch for Drew throwing to the TE's more often. Moulds , Reed and a good catching TE with the option of going to Centers(if he stays) or Henry off the backfield. Sounds good to me.

Valerie

01-09-2003, 08:19 AM

Thanks for the explanation, Dozer!:peck: When you put it like that, you're right. That's a lot of money to pay him when it's obvious, even to me, that there are a few major holes that need to be filled on the team. That being said, I still like Peerless and I really think he's been an asset to the team. I hope that the Bills and Peerless are able to work something out so he can stay with the team at a reasonable price.

SABURZFAN

01-09-2003, 09:16 AM

i think we should let price go.let some other team overpay for him.for some reason,i don't see him as a go-to guy.he moped and pouted when he was snubbed for the PRO BOWL.we definitely don't need "ME" players.

Jeff1220

01-09-2003, 09:33 AM

When I saw the title of this thread, it reminded me of last year's "Put the tag on Bryson" thread. :snicker2:
At least this arguement has a shred of viability due to Price's season.

Earthquake Enyart

01-09-2003, 10:34 AM

Peerless must have signed Mikey's ball.

RedEyE

01-09-2003, 04:40 PM

Originally posted by Kelly The Dog
Redeye: "Don't get me wrong, Price is a contributor and the Bills would stand to do well to sign him, but Pro Bowl recievers do not drop open field passes in important games. "

Both this year and last year, Moulds dropped far, far more passes right in his hands than Peerless did. And more percentage-wise, too, it wasn't just that Moulds had more passes thrown to him. It wasn't even close, especially last year.

That's probably true, regardless, Moulds continues to produce while Price has just been introduced to high #s.

iceblizzard69

01-09-2003, 06:40 PM

I hope you franchise Price, but its unlikely. He is a product of the talent around him and the system you guys run.

THATHURMANATOR

01-09-2003, 06:46 PM

I agree. You can't say he doesn't have talent, but I doubt he would put up these type of numbers unless he was in a similar sitaution.

Kelly The Dog

01-09-2003, 10:46 PM

Originally posted by RedEyE

That's probably true, regardless, Moulds continues to produce while Price has just been introduced to high #s.

well I would argue that Peerless had similar or better numbers last year, too. He caught less passes but for the same amount of yards, with a lot less balls thrown to him (as Moulds dropped dozens). He averaged three yards more per catch than Moulds and also scored two or three more touchdowns. I think that he also had more catches and yards in both of his first two years than Moulds did in his first two.

Not saying that Peerless is as good or better than Moulds, I don't think he is at all, but he's very good and very productive and has always put up good numbers despite (until this year) abysmal quarterbacking and OL protection.

Kicker22705

01-09-2003, 11:10 PM

instead of the franchise tag, what about the transistion tag. i believe thats only worth the price of the average of the top 10 recievers. although we may not view him as a top 10 reciever, other teams do. Indeed we will pay end up paying him a million dollars or two over what he's worth if he stays, but look at what could happen.

1. Other teams may be willing to give up 1 first rounder in order to get Price which i believe is the price for a transition player. Some teams i can think of are the Chargers and the Falcons who both have later 1st round picks. I don't know how strong the WR draft class for 2003 is but, it will have a huge impact wheather they are willing to trade or not.

2. if we can't get a trade, it will give bledsoe and crew another run at the playoffs with the same explosive offense we had this year. who knows exactly what will happen losing Price, along with Riemersma who is almost certain to be gone and Centers who is 50/50. Granted Bledsoe didn't use them much this year, but he needs to throw to somebody if Price leaves other than moulds.

Also on top of this, with this extra year on the Bills team, we will have another year to better evaluate whether he's worth keeping on the team long term or not. If he has another year like this we know he's the real deal. weather he produces his number b/c of moulds or not, if he produces then thats all that matters.

One more thing is it will give the Reed time to really get into the offense. instead of rushing him in there, it allows him time to go in slowly. Most recievers need 3 years before breaking in, so he shouldn't be any different. It will still be large shoes for Reed to fill after the type of year Price had this season. give him time to adjust and give the OC time to prepare a scheme around Reed's talent.

The worst that will happen is we may overpay Price for ONE year but if he produces the type of numbers like this year, we won't be overpaying him all that much. Our defense will probably not be rebuilt completely w/ FA but, we will still have enough money to make the major adjustments neccessary to make our team competitive.

I think its a risk well worth taking.

Michael82

01-10-2003, 02:31 PM

Good idea Kicker! I was wondering about the Transition tag too.

By the way...long time no see! :up:

Novacane

01-10-2003, 02:34 PM

Originally posted by Kelly The Dog

(as Moulds dropped dozens).

That's a littel bit of an exageration

Novacane

01-10-2003, 02:43 PM

Not even 1 dozen drops! And 4 of his 10 were in 1 game.

http://sports.iwon.com/nfl/stats/league/passesdropped.html

DraftBoy

01-10-2003, 03:25 PM

I agree with Mike, Kicker, Kelly, and Jaded. Sign or Tag Peerless, hes worth too much to the offense to not get something in return. And the reason I think TD took Josh Reed is because we had no sure fire #3 guy. Germany was erratic, McDaniel blew.

Dozerdog

01-10-2003, 04:23 PM

So winfield- you would Rather keep a WR instead of getting 2-3 more players to help the D?

Well, if we do use a Tag on Peerless, and we don't have the resources available to sign a Spikes, Colvin, DE/DT- and we end up again 9-7 on the outside looking in because we have a 26th ranked defense in 2003, are you guys going to be complaining about the lousy D and how we didn't address it?

It is MUCH easier replacing a WR than it is to get ypur hands on a Corey Simon, Sam Adams, or Takeo Spikes when they come available. Even if that was Eric Mould's clone out there, you want the Bills to tie up 20% of the cap in 2 WRs? ( Moulds makes what, 7 million? Peerless will want the same)

DraftBoy

01-10-2003, 06:21 PM

To answer your question, yes our D is stil very young and have yet to even have a full season together to work. I think they will be much more improved last year and if we do as I think we should and draft an OLB to start where Robinson was then I think we have pretty much solidifeid our D except for a DT (Marcus Jones at DE via FA solves our DE problems). Secondly Im not as eager as the rest you of you to sure up one problem and possibly make porblems for another. The OL is not as solid as I would like pass blocking wise, and I think Drew needs the 2 sure goto guys to help him avoid some blitzes. Although I love Josh Reed I still see him as 1 season away from coming into a full blown #2 guy. I would hate to see him thrown in there now, see him struggle and then see us still at 9-7 next season due to a puttering offense. Im not gonna say make the D better by sacrificing the O. Peerless is worth way too much to Drew and Co. to let him go with nothing in return and I severely doubt that we can sign a Spikes or Colvin, Sam Adams and a guy to be our #2 and then still sign all our rookies. I dont think we have enough cap. Im sorry Dozer but I dont see what is so easy about finding a proven #2 WR who will work in our system.

Kicker22705

01-10-2003, 06:26 PM

Originally posted by Mike32282
Good idea Kicker! I was wondering about the Transition tag too.

By the way...long time no see! :up:

thanks for noticing, i'm in college now and haven't had a whole lot of time to say stuff. I've still been reading up on a lot of post tho, just haven't had time to say anything.

Dozerdog

if his market value is indeed as high or somewhere close to Moulds, some teams should be willing to give up a first rounder for him. Chargers, Falcons, and Redskins are all teams that have interest in Price, and they all have relatively late 1st rounders.

I don't know but i'm hoping if we put a Transition tag on Price (indirectly putting him on the trading block), the falcons who will have a very late 1st rounder will give up their pick to trade for Price. I don't know how strong the draft class is this year at WR this year, but there shouldn't be anyone there with the talent of Price late in the 1st round. On the FA boston is the only one better but he's recoverying from an injury. I think the Falcons are desperate for a WR and Price is young and meeting his potential. I think it can happen with the Falcons wanting Price, the Bills missing a 1st rounder.

MelK

01-10-2003, 07:09 PM

Originally posted by Winfield_26
To answer your question, yes our D is stil very young and have yet to even have a full season together to work. I think they will be much more improved last year and if we do as I think we should and draft an OLB to start where Robinson was then I think we have pretty much solidifeid our D except for a DT (Marcus Jones at DE via FA solves our DE problems). Secondly Im not as eager as the rest you of you to sure up one problem and possibly make porblems for another. The OL is not as solid as I would like pass blocking wise, and I think Drew needs the 2 sure goto guys to help him avoid some blitzes. Although I love Josh Reed I still see him as 1 season away from coming into a full blown #2 guy. I would hate to see him thrown in there now, see him struggle and then see us still at 9-7 next season due to a puttering offense. Im not gonna say make the D better by sacrificing the O. Peerless is worth way too much to Drew and Co. to let him go with nothing in return and I severely doubt that we can sign a Spikes or Colvin, Sam Adams and a guy to be our #2 and then still sign all our rookies. I dont think we have enough cap. Im sorry Dozer but I dont see what is so easy about finding a proven #2 WR who will work in our system.

I disagree- you make more points AGAINST signing Peerless than for signing him.

I think they will be much more improved last year and if we do as I think we should and draft an OLB to start where Robinson was then I think we have pretty much solidifeid our D except for a DT (Marcus Jones at DE via FA solves our DE problems).

Even if you have the opportunity to sign your boy Boss Bailey, he's still an unproven rookie. And you put a ton of stock in two guys- one who is a medical gamble who posted good numbers in an all star line up- another who was unemployed for the first 12 weeks of the season- to "Solidify" the line up.

Sounds shaky to me

The OL is not as solid as I would like pass blocking wise, and I think Drew needs the 2 sure goto guys to help him avoid some blitzes. -

Wouldn't it behoove you to use a portion of the 6-7 million we would give to retain Peerless to fix this issue on the O-Line? And if Blitz "Targets" are what you want, that would be an endorsement for Reed and Centers, two guys who can catch the short routs and dump offs.

I severely doubt that we can sign a Spikes or Colvin, Sam Adams and a guy to be our #2 and then still sign all our rookies. I dont think we have enough cap. Im sorry Dozer but I dont see what is so easy about finding a proven #2 WR who will work in our system.

Well, Peerless will eat up 6-7 Million if you tag him or outbid the opposition. That uses up a lot of cap space. The Bills got a lot of value last season for that kind of money, no reason why they can't this season-

And the Following WR's are available in FA- and in some instances- much Cheaper than Price

Laverneous Coles (RFA) (jets will probably retain)
Boston- (probably as expensive as Price- But a better receiver IMHO)
Oronde Gadsden WR (Mia)
Kevin Dyson WR (Ten)
Kevin Lockett WR (wash)
Shawn Jefferson WR(Atl) (Not a FA but on the cap bubble)
Frank Sanders WR (Az)
Darrell Jackson WR*(Sea)(RFA)

I'm not saying these guys are better, most are not. But you could get 2 of these guys for a fraction of the Price price:D, and that still leaves you overstocked at WR and gives you cap room.

The defensive solutions presented (Jones, Favors, a rookie LB) is waaayyy to shakey to rely on going in to 2003.

MelK

01-10-2003, 07:13 PM

Originally posted by Kicker22705

if his market value is indeed as high or somewhere close to Moulds, some teams should be willing to give up a first rounder for him. Chargers, Falcons, and Redskins are all teams that have interest in Price, and they all have relatively late 1st rounders.

If you were a GM,, would you give up 7-8 Million AND a 1st rd pick for Price?

I would never pay twice for a player. Everybody likes to point out the Carter trade between the Rams and the Titans, when they were the first to do this.

GMs also took lessons from the result- The Titans got burned badly in that deal.

MelK

01-10-2003, 07:16 PM

...And people have to realize something- You don't lose Price for NOTHING.

People always think a player leaving in FA means you have nothing in return. Well, you do... the Cap space! See who the Bills sign with that money before you judge if it is a bad deal.

Let's say this happened last season. And with the Cap space, the Bills picked up Fletcher, Hollis, Moore, & Teague with the 7 Million saved. Would it have been worth it?

Kelly The Dog

01-10-2003, 07:39 PM

Originally posted by BledsoeTOreedfor6
Not even 1 dozen drops! And 4 of his 10 were in 1 game.

http://sports.iwon.com/nfl/stats/league/passesdropped.html

In the post I was referring to both last year and this year. If that stat thing, which I'm sure is very official, says 10 this year I would bet he had at least 14+ last year. Hence the term "dozens".

DraftBoy

01-10-2003, 07:48 PM

Reed yet to prove in the pros that he can handle catching the short dumpoffs and the over the middle routes like he did in college. I prefer to take Price.

Dozerdog

01-10-2003, 08:08 PM

But you are sold on Jones and Favors on the defense....

Kicker22705

01-10-2003, 08:17 PM

Originally posted by MelK

If you were a GM,, would you give up 7-8 Million AND a 1st rd pick for Price?

I would never pay twice for a player. Everybody likes to point out the Carter trade between the Rams and the Titans, when they were the first to do this.

GMs also took lessons from the result- The Titans got burned badly in that deal.

Like i said in my article, its just my hope that has some things going for it that might make it work.

I certainly don't think Price is worth 7-8 million and a 1st round pick BUT a desperate team may be willing to part a late first rounder and restructure Price's contract. Price knows himself he's not worth 7-8 million, he'd probably retructure longterm to 4-5 million per year. You listed the receiver FA class yourself and no one there had a year like Price this year and has his type of potential. GMs may be willing to overpay to get him to get a reciever that can produce right away with the way the league is now. Teams need to win now and can't wait for long term.

By the way does the top 10 WR actully average 7-8 million year? That seems more like the top 5. Isn't the top ten around the ball park of 5-7 million?

if 5-7 is the case, with the tag we're not putting ourselve in the hole long term. he will only be here for 1 year under a 5-7 million contract. You guys seem to be happy to pay Price 4-5 mil a year so we will have 2 extra million tied up to Price. Granted that is a lot of money to tie up but with the weak WR market i think we can get more out of Price than just more cap space.

One more thing, with Spikes being very likey to be Tagged himself we can try both Pro Price and Anti Price scenero.

W/ the tag on Price we can see how he plays and get a better analysis. We will have another year to see what he's worth. With Price taking up 7 mil of the projected 13 mil of cap room, we still have 4 mil to look at FAs. If things don't work out we let Price walk next year and with even more cap space next year w/ less dead money we can pursue Spikes like people want on top of the defense we added from FA this year.

Bert102176

01-11-2003, 12:22 AM

Mike I'm with you man I think we need to keep him.

BillC

01-11-2003, 12:26 AM

Does anybody know if we even have a transition tag?

And if we had tags, wouldn't it be prudent to use on a guy we want to keep- like Henry?

DraftBoy

01-11-2003, 06:18 PM

Originally posted by Dozerdog
But you are sold on Jones and Favors on the defense....

Im sold on Jones and a Rookie OLB on Defense yes.

HenryRules

01-11-2003, 06:49 PM

Henry's not a free agent for a couple more years (I think) and workhorse running backs are a lot easier to come by right now than receivers who put up 90+ recepts.

01-11-2003, 10:05 PM

Huh?

Name one that's available this year that won't be tagged?

There are many WRs who can do that if the ball is thrown to them 150 times as it was to PP.

01-11-2003, 10:13 PM

BTW, Price is just like Terrence Mathis. Same build, same type of receiver/route runner. He'll post similar numbers over his career.

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/players/stats?statsId=915

This was Price's '94 year that Mathis had. He'll never have a better season in his career.

Price will go elsewhere and be puzzled as to why he doesn't have 1,200 yards again when he's on a team that only throws for a more normal 450-500 attempts. He'll also wonder why when he's the #1 guy that he has trouble when he constantly gets doubled.

HenryRules

01-11-2003, 11:00 PM

By right now, I did not mean this offseason, I meant in this era of the NFL (as we are not in danger of losing our workhorse back, whether or not we can replace him this offseason isn't really relevant).

Players who've had more than 90 rec's and 1200 yards in any of the past 3 years: 16

Players who've had more than 1200 yards rushing (my def'n of a workhorse) in any of the past 3 years: 23

That's almost 50% more in the workhorse back category than in the Peerless Price #'s category.

Therefore player's with Price's numbers are not as common in today's NFL as workhorse running backs.

In case you're curious the names are:

Receivers: Rod Smtih, Terrell Owens, Marvin Harrison, Joe Horn, Eric Moulds, Ed McCaffrey, Chris Carter, Jimmy Smith, Keenan McCardell, David Boston, Keyshawn Johnson, Randy Moss, Hines Ward, Torry Holt, Peerless Price, Jerry Rice

Running backs: Curtis Martin, Ricky Watters, Stephen Davis, Jerome Bettis, Marshall Faulk, Jamal Lewis, Fred Taylor, Corey Dillon, Mike Anderson, Eddie George, Robert Smith, Edgerrin James, Garrison Hearst, Ladainian Tomlinson, Ricky Williams, Shaun Alexander, Ahman Green, Priest Holmes, Michael Bennett, Tiki Barber, Deuce McAllister, Travis Henry, Clinton Portis

Bert102176

01-11-2003, 11:21 PM

well no matter what anyone says we need to keep Price, I believe he would take less money to stay here, but the 1,2,3 punch we have is very very good and if you bring in another WR you never know if he'll be a bust or be a good player I don't care if the free agent would be David Boston or who ever. I say we sign Price back bring in Spikes and a good DT resign Newman and put him at WLB with Spikes at SLB, try to find a kicker better than Hollis, if they can't then try to resign him, give Mooreman an extension, talk to Mikhael Ricks the TE, for DT I say Cletidus Hunt or Brandon Noble, and also try to get Rosevelt Colvin, and maybe try to get Bill Conaty back for depth then for whatever else we go through the draft.

HenryRules

01-11-2003, 11:28 PM

Also, wys, if you're looking at getting a running back, you don't need to get one in free agency, there's always a running back or two that will come out in his rookie year and be a dependable workhorse back. Guys this year that could do it are: Larry Johnson, Lee Suggs, and maybe Onterrio Smith or Chris Brown. And Willis McGahee would have definitely been a workhorse back if he didn't blow out his knee a week ago.

Tatonka

01-11-2003, 11:30 PM

you really dont know what price will do if you pay him a ton of money either. he could easily be an antonio freeman.

01-11-2003, 11:55 PM

I hear ya, but a couple of things. If you're gonna use that, then it should be 90 catches or 1,200 yards. If that's the case, then you can add in:

90:
Booker
Brown
Muhammed

1,200:
D. Alexander
Bruce
Robinson
Coles
Burress
Toomer

Also, and good analysis BTW, you need to consider that Price played on a team that put the ball in the air 612 times. (3rd in the league)

Why does that matter? B/c obviously the greater number of times that the ball gets thrown, obviously the propensity for yardage and # of catches goes up. That's why I've been harping on the uselessness of stats all by themselves like that apart from a complete team analysis. The average team puts the ball in the air an average of around 550 times +/- a little bit. That's 60 fewer tosses. If Price only had 80 catches for around 1,000 yards, would everyone still be screamin' to sign him at all costs? I sure hope not.

I consider that a WR who catches the ball for more yards on fewer catches as far more valuable than one who simply puts up lots of yards on a greater number of catches. Ie., who's worth more? Buress who had 78 catches for 1325 yards, or Price who had nearly 100 fewer yards on almost 20 more grabs?

On your point as a whole, where I also don't think you can count RBs like WRs is that many teams don't pass so much as passing isn't the key to playoff and ultimate Super Bowl winning success. I've been at odds w/ many on that during this season, but it's true. In fact, many teams that do have huge amounts of yards are not that great with that being the reason for much of their passing yards. Obviously teams that are not as good will be throwing more towards the ends of games. Another reason why yardage IMO is overrated outside of rushing where it is just about always advantageous to run the football one way or another as long as you are running it successfully which will be reflected in rushing stats.

Of the top 12 teams measured by rushing yards (as a team), 10 of the 12 were .500 or better and 6 of 12 made the playoffs with 3 of the teams not making the playoffs having top 8 offenses.

On the flip side, of the top 12 teams measured by passing yards (as a team), only 5 of the 12 went to the playoffs and 4 of those 5 have already exited them. There is only one team left and that is the Raiders who are going down tomorrow. :D

I just looked however, and I guess in all fairness, there are only 3 of the 6 rushing playoff teams as well.

01-12-2003, 12:15 AM

That last post was in response to HR's two-ago post.

Bert, but you hit the nail right on the head. If Reed is going to be good, and IMO he's going to be great, much better than Price will ever be, then we only need two WRs. The word is, and I'll believe it when I actually see it w/ the way the Bills and fans are in love w/ Drew, that we'll be passing less and rushing more next season. Drew didn't throw the ball to anyone but Price and Moulds. So this 1-2-3 punch was really a 1-2 punch. Price and Moulds had 194 catches combined. Reed had 37, our 4th WR only 3. So Drew didn't really spread the ball out that much. Reed, Centers, and Riemersma combined barely had more catches than Moulds alone.

We don't need 3 great WRs even if Price does turn out to be great. We only need 2, whether or not we pass less.

HR,

Yes, but you have to have a first round selection to get one of those RBs. They don't usually just happen into the 2nd and 3rd rounds. McGahee would have been a very early pick. If you don't have a top 10 or 15 pick, then likely you are out of the running for such backs, eh.

Besides, as you say, Henry's fine for a long while. The opportunity cost is simply too great to sign Price. We have other needs that outweigh the need for the money that we'd spend on Price. If this year showed nothing else, it showed that you can have a top passing attack and w/o good rushing and solid D, you're not going anywhere. We should spend the money there. There are plenty of WRs who can fill in nicely behind Moulds and Reed; Boston if you really want to spend the cash. He's much better than Price. Won't happen and we don't need him though. Darrell Jackson, Eddie Kennison, Frank Sanders, Darnay Scott, Derrius Thompson are some of the WRs that I'd look at.

HenryRules

01-12-2003, 08:09 AM

Here's a few names for you Wys: Clinton Portis, Anthony Thomas, and Travis Henry. All of whom were 2nd round picks in the last 2 years and have already had at least one big season, so no, you do not need a first-rounder to get a workhorse back and are not out of the running for one if you wait until the second round. And again, I was not talking about the need to replace Henry this offseason as there's no reason to do so, I was discussing the ease with which a workhorse back can be obtained.

Conversely, Chad Johnson is the only receiver taken in the 2nd round in the last 2 years to have over 1000 yards receiving once. So it all depends on what you consider when evaluating your opportunity cost ... if you're talking simply salary cap space, then perhaps keeping Price has too high of an opportunity cost. However, if you're considering what it will cost to replace him, the need for using a first-rounder in order to return our offensive weapons to the same level it was this year is probably higher.

As always, we seem to be getting off-topic ... I was saying that using a tag on Henry would not be intelligent and gave two reasons: one he's not a free agent (sort of ends the discussion right there) and two, finding a replacement workhorse back is not difficult versus finding a replacement receiver who has put up star #'s.

Also, the reasoning for why I have to use 90 catches or 1200 yards escapes me .... receptions are a good measure of a receiver's reliability and yards of his productivity, I was trying to show how few receivers match up with Price in both categories ... if someone only matches him in one category, then they're not completely replacing him.

justasportsfan

01-12-2003, 11:52 AM

Don't you guys think that we will be running the ball more often next year w/c may diminish the no. of pass attempts w/c in turn will lessen our wr's nos.?

This may be far fectched (for conversation sake) but was is Gadsen who miami replaced Carter with? He was good for the fins when healthy. He may not be a bad 3 wr behind Reed and will be cheap.

DraftBoy

01-12-2003, 12:08 PM

I like him, and he could be a sufficient fill in 2 or #3 depending on how Reed does in camp

Bert102176

01-12-2003, 12:37 PM

but Wys the only reason Reed got them receptions is cause the other teams were weary of Moulds and Price, I'm not saying Reed isn't gonna be good cause I'm hoping he is, but when you have two verry good WR's that are known throughout the league as Moulds and Price are and then you have a know name like Reed who will you put you're better coverage guys on.

Dozerdog

01-12-2003, 12:50 PM

It comes down to picking your poison-

1) Keep the WR corps in tact. Deadly, but expensive, at the cost of improving the defense

2) Let Price go- use the cap space to improve the defense. Better defense = less need to throw it, more opportunities to run Henry (we won't be playing catch up)

3) We could leverage the cap to do both. An improved defense means the need and reliance on 3 great wides will be reduced. If the Bills can cut 50-75 yards against them off, and reduce their points against average to about 20-24 points per game (nothing spectacular, but better than now) Price and Moulds won't need to catch 100 balls/1200 yards. Their numbers will fall as the Bills on a whole improve. So you pay Price all that much just to see the prduction fall anyway.

#2 seems to me to be the way to go. #1 option keeps us stuck in neutral and does not help improve the team significantly. #3 option just brings us back to 3-13 in 3 -5 more years.

DraftBoy

01-12-2003, 12:56 PM

your also assuming we can convince a big time d guy like Colvin or Spikes to join are team with #2, if we cant we are completely screwed.

HenryRules

01-12-2003, 01:33 PM

A lot of people are assuming that giving Henry more touches is advisable ... only 3 people in the league had more carries than Henry this year and I don't think its a good idea to have an RB with the most carries. Eddie George and Edgerrin James are both examples of RB's that seem to have burnt out after getting too many carries.

In order for us to run the ball more, we're going to first have to find a secondary RB option that Gilbride has faith in to give the ball to about 5 times a game. As I don't see too many free agents who'll fulfill this criteria, that would involve us using our 2nd or 3rd rounder to get this player.

mybills

01-15-2003, 07:12 AM

Originally posted by HenryRules
A lot of people are assuming that giving Henry more touches is advisable ... only 3 people in the league had more carries than Henry this year and I don't think its a good idea to have an RB with the most carries. Eddie George and Edgerrin James are both examples of RB's that seem to have burnt out after getting too many carries.

In order for us to run the ball more, we're going to first have to find a secondary RB option that Gilbride has faith in to give the ball to about 5 times a game. As I don't see too many free agents who'll fulfill this criteria, that would involve us using our 2nd or 3rd rounder to get this player.

And God forbid Henry gets hurt early in the year, let alone, at all. If we don't pick up someone to fill his shoes, wouldn't they go back to a passing game?