View Full Version : Maybe TD knows what he's doing after all....
Dozerdog
02-09-2003, 08:54 AM
From a snippet in the Cleveland Morning Journal
Speaking of coaches, the Bengals lost a good one in Tim Krumrie, once a star for them. When the Bengals fired Dick LeBeau they let his whole staff go. But they really had hoped their new coach, Marvin Lewis, would keep him. He didn't get the chance. The Buffalo Bills, figuring there would be Bengals coaching changes, had been actually ''scouting'' Krumrie. They secretly were taping him on the Bengals sidelines to see how he handled the players on the defensive line. They saw a bond and chemistry. As soon as Krumrie became free they snatched him. How about that for a new twist in scouting?
TypicalBill
02-09-2003, 08:59 AM
nice find dozer :up:
4thAndLong
02-09-2003, 09:24 AM
We have the best front office in the league. :up:
shelby
02-09-2003, 09:24 AM
TD is an evil frickin genious.:10:
ublinkwescore
02-09-2003, 10:12 AM
Originally posted by 4thAndLong
We have the best front office in the league. :up:
Which is exactly why it's only a matter of time before we win the SuperBowl!
This year we'll at least be in the playoffs.
Dozerdog
02-09-2003, 10:13 AM
So the moral of the story is........
Never pick your nose or scratch your ass on the sidelines- you never know what job you are going to lose....:D
clumping platelets
02-09-2003, 10:15 AM
But sometimes you just can't help it :chuckle:
Captain gameboy
02-09-2003, 10:33 AM
Do you suppose he's tapping Wys's phone?
shelby
02-09-2003, 10:37 AM
:lol:
don137
02-09-2003, 11:26 AM
Do you think he will be scouting the sidelines for head coaches this season if the Bills don't make the playoffs? If yes, I advise him to bypass scouting Miami's coaching staff. Anyone that can have a top 5 kicker, a top 5 defense and the leagues leading rusher and still not make the playoffs is a coaching staff I do not want on my team.
With the exception of Krumrie, who will take over for the great and now retired Jon Levra, the other coaches represent HUGE upgrades over the coaches they replaced. Hearing this about Krumrie is music to my ears, and while it will be hard to replace Levra, Donahoe did well here IMHO. The icing on the cake will be LeBeau, who will join shortly after the 49'ers announce Ted Cottrell as their new head coach.
Originally posted by gameboy
Do you suppose he's tapping Wys's phone?
I LOVE having Krumrie here! He's got some good background.
I also have no particular aversion to bringing LeBeau here, I just have to scratch my head when some say that's he's spectacular and much better than another coach when his record indicates mediocrity almost throughout his entire career with only an occasional hint of success speckled in there. And mediocrity is probably understating things.
I've always thought the the Bills had one of, if not the best, FO in the league and I still think that's true. For the most part, I think the moves we've made have been solid ones. You must remember that last year we were in a weird cap situation that had to be negotiated. Nevertheless, in hind sight, and to some extent in foresight, we got less for more. We could have had Naole in here to play C/G for less than Teague and he's much better than Teague. We didn't even bring him in for an interview! He's 30 lbs. heavier than Teague and is the same age, and signed w/ the Jags for about $1/2 M less. We also paid Jenkins quite a bit when he really had no history of doing anything special while simultaneously releasing Carpenter whom I thought was better, certainly faster, and who had a better season down in Atlanta.
This offseason will bear out how good Donahoe and the FO is. If we don't end up with any marquee defenders while signing Price to a huge dollar contract, then I think a lot of people will be scratching their heads. In any case, we can't afford to wait, and wait, and wait like we did last year while all the good value players and all the marquee players get grabbed up by other teams. We'll need to move to sign an OLB and DT. Waiting for other teams' cuts is not the preferred means of filling those spots unless we know for sure that the one or two players who will be cut on June 1st will actually want to sign and play here.
Dozerdog
02-09-2003, 12:41 PM
When he has a Super Bowl defense, you argument is that he "Inherited it" and it's not a product of him.
When he coached the Bengals, it was his problems and he did not inherit loser players.
Like I stated earlier, thank god he knows what he's doing.
PA Season Ticket Holder
02-09-2003, 01:21 PM
TD is a :angry:ing animal. Next he's gonna be scouting bathroom attendants for RWS.
The question is, even if you think LeBeau isn't all that good, is there anybody on the Bills' defensive coaching staff than whom he's worse? IMHO he's a great defensive mind and would be a huge addition to the Bills in whatever capacity.
Originally posted by Dozerdog
When he has a Super Bowl defense, you argument is that he "Inherited it" and it's not a product of him.
When he coached the Bengals, it was his problems and he did not inherit loser players.
Like I stated earlier, thank god he knows what he's doing.
Then name just one major player on that incredible defense over the 2 whopping seasons in Pittsburgh that the Steelers acquired due to him or his influence?
Do you think that if Jerry Gray went to Tampa right now that he'd have a decent D next year? Or do you think that with all the talent it would drop to the bottom 1/4 of the league simply b/c of him! Or dead last or close to it as LeBeau was more often than not?
Come on, you're getting ridiculous. :rolleyes:
Likewise, he was in Cincy for what, 14 seasons in one capacity or another with only a minor sabatical while he went to Pittsburgh. Yet there wasn't even a steady improvement in the D while he was there. In fact, a better argument could be made that it got worse, significantly.
In Pittsburgh, the year before he got there, the Steelers were 12-4 and had th 2nd ranked scoring D with 234 PA. In '95 when LeBeau got there, they slipped to 11-5 and the 9th ranked scoring D with 327 PA. In '96 they fell again to 10-6 yet improved to the 4th ranked scoring D allowing 257 PA, still more than LeBeau's having arrived. In '97 after DL's departure, the team rebounded to 11-5 and still had the 7th ranked scoring D.
In '98 the Steeler scoring D was 7th. In '93, two years prior to his arrival they were 2nd. So prior to his getting there they were a #2 scoring D and they went to 7th after he left. While he was there they fell to 9th and 4th from 2nd, and then stayed about there after he was gone. I fail to see how any of that was his influence. Meanwhile, and excuse it if you will, but I won't; his track record with Cincy certainly isn't anything to excite one's self over. I hope not at least.
Just look at last year. He had some talent on his defense with a very solid LBing corps led by Spikes, at least one good CB, a DE better than any we had in Smith, and still he finished the year dead last in scoring D. Not the first time by-the-way. His offenses certainly were nothing to rave about finishing 28th this past season, 31st the year prior, both after finishing 30th the year that he took over. So what, we're supposed to get excited b/c he improved his team by 2 spots offensively and from 21st in '00 when he was handed the team midway thru the season, to 14th last year, and then a big step up to dead last at 32nd this past season? Is this supposed to excite us? Maybe it is. I'm a little more skeptical under those circumstances.
You can keep pushin' him for "defensive mind/head coach of the decade" or for as good as you make him out to be as you've been virtually reiterating, but his "achievements" as a H.C. or D.C. should tell at least part of the picture. Yet, you discount them almost entirely in exchange for a laundry list of why his defenses/teams' plight had everything to do except for his coaching. That's a little bit too much for me to completely turn my head to.
Like I said, I'm not averse to bringing him here as long as his signing doesn't impede any team chemistry that has been built to date, so I'm not arguing that he shouldn't be brought here. Especially if they are going to create a "special" position for him. I only think it's a little odd and I do question his abilities in terms of translating a team into a winner. So unless you're gonna credit him for the entire success of the Steelers during the very bried two-year tenure he had with them even though he was about the most transient piece of that team, I don't see much else that indicates, other than pure opinions and excuses vindicating him from the reasons for how poor [i]his[i/] teams have been over the past two decades.
Bring him here. I really don't care. I'm just saying that I don't expect his presence to make an enormous impact. I could be wrong. But it's JMO.
Kelly The Dog
02-09-2003, 07:56 PM
wys, jenkins and carpenter play different positions that are not interchangeable, particularly with those two. jenkins can only play ss and carpenter can only play fs.
Understood. Prioleau took Carpenter's spot I know.
My point was simply that we signed Jenkins and I'm not sure he was worth the cash we paid him. Over $1M if I'm not mistaken on a 2 year deal where we may cut him this year.
Also, I remember when we signed Teague, a tackle weighing in at only 290 or so at 6'5" while we let guys like Naeole, a 4 year starter at 6'3" 315 get away to a team like Jax for less than we spent on Teague, a one year starter. IMO we waited too long and let some really good guys, better than Teague, get away. Teague was a former 1st rounder I think, and he only started one season in Denver. What does that tell you? Other than Sullivan, a 2nd year 5th rounder, Teague was the weak link on our OL and undersized IMO. He had difficulty with most guys larger than he was.
As well, w/ Carpenter, we cut him in favor of two Ss who didn't have an INT between them while Carpenter had 4 this year and a much better year than either Wire or PP.
I'm not mocking TDs moves, but I am suggesting that there was room for improvement.
I mean would you have:
A. Signed Jenkins? I wouldn't have.
B. Signed Teague to play C for $2.5M/yr when Naeole was available who could also play C for less? I would have at least brought Naeole in. I never heard that he wasn't interested.
I realize that TD signed Teague to play LT, but come on, at 285?
I simply think we could have done better, that's all.
I recall that Naeole was only interested in the 49'ers and Jags, so he put restrictions on where he wanted to play. Lots of teams would have loved to sign him for what he did (about $1.2M a year), but they couldn't because he only negotiated with 2 teams. As for Jenkins, like with Robinson they were probably looking mostly for leadership/teaching and hoping to get production as well. Nobodies perfect.
Oh yeah, nobody's perfect is right. You gotta do the best with what you're dealt. I just seem to remember us watching as other teams signed both OL-men and DL-men while we didn't bring too many of those guys in for interviews.
I didn't hear that Naeole only wanted to play for S.F. or the Jags. I can't imagine why anyone would want to play in Jax, especially last year. Not saying you're wrong, but I kept a pretty close eye on Naeole thinking we would move to sign him and never read a peep about any links to or away from Buffalo.
Perhaps if there had been some more speculations here, he may have "made himself interested" for twice the cash or so.
In any event, I'm curious to see what TD does this offseason. Last year's was precarious since he had tight cap constraints to work under. This year however is a different story. We are one of the teams better poised to strike well in FAcy.
Three guys I'd be very satisfied with are:
Thornton at DT
Scioli at DE if Indy doesn't sign him.
Peterson, Simmons at OLB. I'd love to get Spikes, but I don't think that's gonna happen.
I'd settle for Russell Davis at DT and Lance Johnstone at DE. Presumably they wouldn't cost a bundle and I think they're sleepers, low profile types who've played well on poor teams.
TigerJ
02-09-2003, 10:26 PM
Wys Guy's point is well taken. TD is not infallable. I think we can all agree he's very good and has made more good decisions than bad ones since coming to Buffalo. His drafting has been phenomenol. I think his best virtue is thoroughness. He leaves no stone unturned. This snippet about Krumrie only underscores this.
Tatonka
02-09-2003, 10:30 PM
dont forget about Olin Kruetz.. the pro bowl center who miami almost got, then he went back with Chicago.. we could have had him.. he is better than teague and naeole.. but such is life i guess.
i did really bum me out watching us wait all that time and letting free agents get scooped up while we just stood around.
hope this year is different.
Me too. Yeah T, I forgot about Kreutz too. No sense crying over spilled milk though.
It should be. Our cap situation isn't nearly as dire and we aren't in a hurt to make a ticket-selling decision again like we were last year. We can now focus on making the D better.
Kreutz signed a 6-year, $23M contract that included a $7M signing bonus. That's a hell of a lot more than Teague got. As for Naeole, I did a Yahoo search and the only 2 teams that Naeole interviewed with were the Jags and 49'ers. There would obviously be a load of interest league-wide for a guy like him, but only 2 teams visited with him. That means that 29 other teams either didn't want him or he didn't want them, take your pick. Now last year I could see you complaining that the Bills should have signed a DL in FA, but I think they were hoping Edwards or Robertson would step-up last year, but they didn't.
Halbert
02-10-2003, 08:35 PM
TD has been right far more often than wrong so I'm likely to overlook the few misses.
BTW - we didn't exactly stand by in free agency. I thought Fletcher and Hollis were excellent additions. Teague, Price, and Ahanotu were very solid in their roles. Jenkins and Johnson provided leadership. I'm sure I'm missing somebody but the point is TD made the moves that he could and keep us under the cap. As it was we were a serious playoff threat in the toughest division right up to the end and TDs moves probably made the difference.
Doc, Kreutz is lobster while Teague is Scrod.
As well, please tell me you wouldn't have taken Naeole in a heartbeat over Teague had you known he would play C or G? Also, you have to look at the entire contract. It's very common for teams to sign contracts w/ absolutely no intention of honoring the last year or two or three. If you look at Kreutz's contract, the cost last year was only marginally more than Teague's, yet his level of play is in a whole other category.
As if there were any teams scrambling to get Teague? :rolleyes: Come on now, let's at least look at things realistically. Teague was a former 1st rounder who only started in his 4th year. You really think he was that good? If he were, the Broncos would have resigned him.
Halbert,
As to TD, sure, he's been good, but to says he's been perfect may be stretchin' it too. I have nothing against TD, especially b/c last year I'm sure he was busy in the deal for Bledsoe so that he really didn't know up front how much money he had to work with.
Fletcher was an OK addition, but for $16M/5 years, again, we could have done better, especially last year. There were a lot of "ifs" on his end to make that deal worthwhile that IMO just didn't happen. We'll see how he plays this season. If it's like last year and no better, then it won't be good.
This year is different though. TD knows exactly what his situation is going into FAcy, so let's see how he does this year. I'm expecting much bigger things and the signing of some defensive players.
kgun12
02-10-2003, 09:57 PM
Fletcher OK, didn't he have something like 200 tackles, this with really only P. Williams in front of him? If they get DL help Fletcher might have 300 tackles.
Tatonka
02-10-2003, 10:04 PM
i really cant complain about fletch at all.. he started slow, but by mid season he was a tackle machine.
Like Naeole, Kreutz only wanted to play for 2 teams: the Bears and Miami (since Wannstedt drafted him). He wasn't an option. As for Naeole, I was hoping the Bills would sign him, but again he wasn't an option either. Who knows the reason players have for choosing certain teams? As for Fletcher, his was a good pickup. With a hopefully upgraded DL, I think we'll see his true value.
Indeed. There's lots of stuff "behind the scenes" that we never hear about I'm sure.
As to Fletcher's tackles, it's often difficult to evaluate a MLB solely on something like that. Any MLB would have had a ton of tackles behind our DL last season. Heck, Cowart was on pace to blow out a team record the year he got hurt. We weren't good then either.
On a D that is good, having a ton of tackles as a MLB means a whole lot more. That's why Ray Lewis is an animal even though I can't stand the guy. He's clearly in a LBing class by himself, at least in the middle.
In any case, I'm not so sure that Fletcher is as good as many think, and if he is, it certainly isn't b/c of his tackle totals. If he has that many tackles again this season, assuming we address our DT needs, then that means he's hustling to make plays/tackles vice simply having guys break through the DL with regularity plopping RBs and other players right into his lap.
IMO this is a big year for Fletcher even though he's only in a 2nd year of a 4 year contract. Some say he wasn't that great while others say he played very well. I'm in the first camp. I thought he was slow. Then again, he'll have a D around him this year, so this season will have more meaning from that standpoint.
Earthquake Enyart
02-11-2003, 06:35 AM
BTW Kreutz turned down more money from Miami to stay with da Bears.
Yeah, and after this year you now know why! ;)
BTW, would you have signed Teague, a 1 year starter and former 1st round pick to a 4 year, $10M, w/ a $3.5M SB contract EE?
Just curious...
THATHURMANATOR
02-11-2003, 11:03 AM
What now you have a problem with TD WYS? I will agree that they signed teague for a bit too much, especially at center, but since Teague played fairly well it isn't a huge deal to me. Now if he signed teague for LT money then moved him to center and he was absolutly horrible it might be a different story.
Ebenezer
02-11-2003, 11:08 AM
Best to guage a MLB is not so much in the number of tackles. It is hard to break down but you need to look at tackles for a loss...tackles for no gain...tackles for gains less than 3, etc...Somebody had that breakdown for Zach Thomas over the last few years and it was evident that even though his number of tackles did not change the amount of yards gained by the ball carrier did. ZT is making tackles further downfield than ever before...an indication that he is not the prime MLB he used to be.
Earthquake Enyart
02-11-2003, 01:40 PM
Originally posted by Wys Guy
Yeah, and after this year you now know why! ;)
BTW, would you have signed Teague, a 1 year starter and former 1st round pick to a 4 year, $10M, w/ a $3.5M SB contract EE?
Just curious...
At the time, it didn't bother me. You seem to forget how horrible the line was 2 years ago. The guy started for Denver, which is a good team.
I was (and still am) confused about his move to C. I would like to know if that was the plan all along, or if they just fell into that.
Tatonka
02-11-2003, 01:56 PM
i think the plan was to keep him at LT or RT until we actually drafted MWilliams.. remember, TD thought that we would be getting harrington.. we ended up with a RT.. so up until that point. i think he was intended to be a LT, but the draft changed that.
Halbert
02-11-2003, 08:22 PM
Originally posted by Earthquake Enyart
I would like to know if that was the plan all along, or if they just fell into that.
It appears to me that it came down to wanting to start the five best guys they had. Reuben is a fixture; Williams had to start but they didn't want him protecting Drew's blind side so they put him at RT; Jennings played so great at RT they didn't want to bench him so they put him at LT.
That left only C and RG. The two best guys left were Teague and Sullivan, and since Teague is the veteran they chose him to make the complex line calls. Plus Teague played C in college and Sullivan is more of a natural guard.
Dozerdog
02-11-2003, 08:33 PM
I thinkthe line is set- And I don't think as a unit we overpaid for it. Get a decent line coach in there, and run the ball down their throats.
Halbert
02-11-2003, 08:59 PM
The unit certainly looks like it could be dominant for the foreseeable future.
I'm a little concerned about depth. Conaty and Price are the only veterans with more than a single year of experience. If any of the starters go down for an extended period we are very thin. I wonder if they'll add another veteran backup?
Donahoe is like a pack of hounds.
we continue to grow in leaps and bounds.
We were bound to grow from where the team was when Donahoe got here. There was little place for anything to go but up!
Originally posted by Earthquake Enyart
At the time, it didn't bother me. You seem to forget how horrible the line was 2 years ago. The guy started for Denver, which is a good team.
I was (and still am) confused about his move to C. I would like to know if that was the plan all along, or if they just fell into that.
Teague started one season in Denver. And as a former 1st round pick, that's not saying much. Especially since Denver had no problem releasing him. Now we know why, he wasn't worth the money he was getting. Frankly, he's not worth the money he's getting paid at C either. We'll see how he is this year.
Originally posted by Dozerdog
I thinkthe line is set- And I don't think as a unit we overpaid for it. Get a decent line coach in there, and run the ball down their throats.
Oh, overpaid or not, it's set alright! There will be no starting changes, especially if Price stays. We won't have money to make any. We still need a backup or two though.
As to how good Donahoe is, most of this hoopla is based on the Bledsoe trade. Other than that, there really haven't been any blockbuster moves. Fletcher is equitable at best. Teague is either overpaid or equitable at best as well. No one has said he was a great deal for $10M/4-years and a $4M SB. Jenkins was a veritable bust.
Only 4 players in last year's draft were great picks, two of them were gimmes: Williams and Reed. The only reason we had a shot at Reed was b/c other teams passed on him, so TD's taking Reed was a no brainer. The team even said so. After that it's Wire who was a good pick but not great so far, and the real steal IMO in Thomas in the 6th. Denney appears to have been a bust, especially as high as they selected him. I know I was scratchin' my head when they took him. Bannan in the 5th certainly hasn't shown a thing.
So far, say what you will, but TD's been average+ IMO. I realize that his hands were tied from the Butler years so that's why I think this draft/FAcy period will be key in determining how good he really is. So far he's risking the defensive development of this team by slapping the F tag on Price. Now it's a poker game to see who will come out on top of this thing!
Novacane
02-27-2003, 08:12 AM
I don't think Teagues SB was as big as your are reporting Wys.
It was $4M or so. It may have been $3.92M, IDK. It prevents us from cutting him, that much I know. Even after this season it'd be a $2M hit whether over 1 year or 2.
From Bills Daily:
"The Bills made a big free agent signing this week by adding Trey Teague to the roster. He will be penciled in at left tackle after agreeing to a 4 year, $10 Million deal that has a two tiered signing bonus. He will get $1.5 Million of his signing bonus immediately and $2 Million next spring if he's still on the team."
So it sounds like he's getting the rest of a combined $3.5M SB this spring. That's a lot for him. JMO. Anyway, it was TD who brought him here to play OT. Why? B/c we waited, and waited, and waited, and that's about all that was left if you remember correctly. Everyone here was screaming that Mike Pearson, the rookie last year out of Florida at 290 lbs. was too small to play LT. But they then turn around and say that Donahoe is some sort of genious b/c he signs a 285 lb. LT. Doesn't make sense to me. Teague was far short of the caliber to play LT, especially for Drew, Mr. brick feet.
justasportsfan
02-27-2003, 10:22 AM
Summarizing wys' sentiments in a rhyme:
TD is as bad as Charles Manson
because he let go of Rob Johnson
:chuckle:
Look, all I know is that I want a championship caliber team on the field this fall and we need some massive improvements on D to do it. What we're seeing instead is risking HUGE bucks to keep the O the same as it was and at the same time reduce our options for fixing the D from outstanding ones to only marginal ones.
You all see this as some team offering us the farm to get Price, and I see it unfolding such that we tie up a lot of our FA bucks on Price and the uncertainty of his signing, at best, or us paying a WR $5M for one season and losing the options to spend that on our D altogether. Instead of teams racing to see who can land Price, I see only lip service by those teams as they'll wait out the FAcy market to see what happens, thereby tying up those bucks should Price not sign the offer.
We'll see. But last year we were observers early in the FAcy process, and I don't want to do that again. I don't want to sign more Jenkins and Teagues. I want to sign some Petersons and Sciolis and Simmons. I also don't want to have to sign a bunch of mediocre and questionable starters at OLB, DT, and DE only to find out later that we deal Price and we could have been much more efficient w/ our cap dollars in acquiring better players all around. That would make little sense.
Mr. Miyagi
02-27-2003, 10:29 AM
Originally posted by Wys Guy
But last year we were observers early in the FAcy process, and I don't want to do that again. I don't want to sign more Jenkins and Teagues. I want to sign some Petersons and Sciolis and Simmons. I also don't want to have to sign a bunch of mediocre and questionable starters at OLB, DT, and DE only to find out later that we deal Price and we could have been much more efficient w/ our cap dollars in acquiring better players all around. That would make little sense.
Holy doodoo. Mark the date. This is the first time that I wholeheartedly and completely agree with Wys. Well said man. :up:
It won't be the last... :D
Thanks Miyagi!
Actually, under a "different name", I seem to remember you in agreement on at least one other occasion! ;)
The kiss of death! LOL
I just can't wait for FAcy to start. This "on hold" stuff is for the birds. Time to get movin'! Let's see some cuts, let's see some acquisitions, let's see Butler sign Price for Moss like money! :D
Just a couple more days. Will there be much activity on the weekend you think?
LtBillsFan66
02-27-2003, 10:40 AM
Here is a list of cuts so far:
http://espn.go.com/nfl/columns/clayton_john/1515252.html
Interesting. Shane Dronett is the type of player that we'll be lucky to get if Price ties up that $5M. He's on the downside of his career at 32, pushin' 33, and he'll go for the top end of what we can afford. He wouldn't exactly be a value pick, that's for sure. I also don't think he would be an enormous upgrade although he's a bonafide starter.
Novacane
02-27-2003, 11:09 AM
Originally posted by Wys Guy
"The Bills made a big free agent signing this week by adding Trey Teague to the roster. He will be penciled in at left tackle after agreeing to a 4 year, $10 Million deal that has a two tiered signing bonus. He will get $1.5 Million of his signing bonus immediately and $2 Million next spring if he's still on the team."
That makes sense. I thought I remembered that if we cut him this spring it would not have been a very big cap hit.
IDK. All I know is that he got a sizeable bonus overall out of a "too-high" $10M 4-year deal.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.0 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.