Panda Oddity

by labill on Mar 18, 2008 1:13 PM EDT Comment 26 comments

I realize this is now a dead topic, but I just wanted to vent for the last time on the Panda issue. The news that Bryant Johnson signed a 1-year $2 million contract with SF instead of Buffalo is an odd one, if reports are to be believed that Johnson really preferred to sign with the Bills for a 1-year deal. All reports are that Buffalo was offering a long-term deal instead (maybe 5-years, $16 million?). Johnson's agent must have offered a 1-year deal similar to that of SF that Buffalo rejected. How could the Bills reject this? Usually, it is the player that wants a long-term deal (I recognize that he wanted a bigger contract and is hoping for one after this 1-year tryout). Buffalo, even if it preferred a long-term deal, obviously wanted Johnson (enough to offer a long-term deal) and should have been ok with a 1-year deal ($2 million, instead of a $4-$5 million long-term average). A 1-year deal would have allowed for the Bills to draft a WR in round 1 or 2 and develop him for a year, while trying out Johnson -- and with minimal money committed on Johnson ($2 million is really low for a No.2 WR), the Bills could easily extend Evans and draft a WR. Frankly, a 1-year deal at $2 million (other than the notion of locking a WR we really like for cheap) would have worked out great for the Bills. It certainly would not have made a dent in our cash-to-cap, nor the salary cap (even if you divide the salary cap by the number of players, it is greater than $2 million).

This FanPost was written by a registered user of Buffalo Rumblings. Its views do not necessarily reflect the views of Rumblings' editorial staff, but are just as valued as our own.

0 recs | Comment 26 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

It's all Mike Martz's fault

I think Mike Martz was the real draw for Panda, Obviously he feels that a year in Martz's offense will help him put up big numbers, which he can then transition into a big payday next year. The 49ers used that to their advantage, and knew that Johnson was willing to take the gamble. Panda and his agent most likely wouldn't have taken the same offer from the Bills.

Man do I miss #78

by sireric on Mar 18, 2008 1:25 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Martz

What? He wasn't salivating at the chance to play for Turk Schonert? That's ridiculous considering the fact that Schonert's so good that interviewing Mike Martz or anyone else was deemed unnecessary by Coach Jauron and we all know what a wonderful judge of offensive talent Jauron is given his track record in Chicago and Buffalo. I think Johnson missed his chance to be a star.

Nick (Bensalem, PA)

by Nick BensalemPA on Mar 18, 2008 1:35 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Your sarcasm is showing

I think if Mike Martz and Dick Jauron were on the same coaching staff, they would kill each other before week 1 was over.

Man do I miss #78

by sireric on Mar 18, 2008 1:43 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

You mean we'd need a new head coach?

That would be terribly unfortunate.

Nick (Bensalem, PA)

by Nick BensalemPA on Mar 18, 2008 1:47 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I'm not saying that now

But if this team goes 7-9 again, I think you'll need to make some room on your bandwagon. I'll still let you drive though, seeing how you've been on it for so long.

Man do I miss #78

by sireric on Mar 18, 2008 1:52 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Nah

I bet Jauron would give up and let Martz pound him senseless.

by Kurupt on Mar 18, 2008 1:47 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

No way

Dick's scrappy, he would be biting Martz's ankle till he blacked out.

Man do I miss #78

by sireric on Mar 18, 2008 1:51 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Yeah

I can hear Dick Jauron's pre-fight interview with Rich Gannon already. "I don't match up very well with Mike Martz." "I'll need to fight the perfect fight to even compete with Mike Martz."

Nick (Bensalem, PA)

by Nick BensalemPA on Mar 18, 2008 1:53 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

The perennial recipe for 7-9

How good do you want the Bills to be?

by Fort Worth on Mar 18, 2008 2:01 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

LOL!!!

That's hilarious. I can see it happening...

How good do you want the Bills to be?

by Fort Worth on Mar 18, 2008 1:57 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Jauron

The worst part of my weekend during the football season is when CBS goes live to the field early and they give you that shot of Dick Jauron in that turtleneck and skin-tight jacket walking down the sideline, clapping to himself. It's at this point that a lifelong tradition of a whole week's worth of anticipation and excitement about a Bills game is replaced with a sinking feeling of hopelessness and despair...Ladies and gentlemen, the Dick Jauron era of Buffalo Bills football!

Nick (Bensalem, PA)

by Nick BensalemPA on Mar 18, 2008 2:08 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

All Right,

At the risk of you travelling through the phones lines, popping out through my monitor, and subsequently decapitating me where I sit - what do you think Jauron's attitude should have been when we lined up against a team that won more consecutive games than any team in history? Granted he's too much of a realist and lacks passion but he's not that awful.

by jj24 on Mar 18, 2008 2:17 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Fear not

If Nick had those abilities I'm sure we would have heard about Tom Brady's untimely demise by now.

Man do I miss #78

by sireric on Mar 18, 2008 2:29 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Martz

I realize you aren't a fan of the bills coaching staff, but would you actually want Mike Martz anywhere near your team? The Lions had plenty of weapons on offense and still had the 2nd worst third down conversion percentage and the 2nd worst time of possesion in the league. They threw the 3rd most INTs in the league and fumbled the ball 31 times which was the most in the league (they only lost 13 of those fumbles). They also gave up 54 sacks which was one sack away from the most in the league.

by kaisertown on Mar 18, 2008 2:27 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Not awful, just very 7-9

When you tell your players that they can't win a game, they play like it. Getting squashed by that team to the east becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. Just weeks after our second slaughtering, Philly and Baltimore took New England to the mat with teams that are equal to Buffalo's talent level. The difference with those teams? They had coaches who have won playoff games and see games as win/loss situations, regardless of the opponent. Jauron didn't even try to win those games and the team responded accordingly as a direct result. Jauron should have 56-10 posted all over the locker room until we beat New England. Chalking up two games a year to a division rival as losses is unacceptable for the head coach of an NFL team.

Nick (Bensalem, PA)

by Nick BensalemPA on Mar 18, 2008 2:29 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

I agree it's not very optimistic or spirited

But I watched the Philly game and they were playing close to perfect and still lost. Not only that, but A.J. was pulling passes out his place that rhymes with pass. Never the less, they still lost. I do like your "perfect fight" comment though. Funny stuff

by jj24 on Mar 18, 2008 2:45 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

New England

I have to say I disagree with your thought that it was coaching that kept Philly and Balt in those games against NE. Those two teams had a chance to beat NE because they were more physical, and they have been built like that for sometime. Buffalo was not a physical defense last year. Look at their roster - how could they have been?

The lack of nastiness on defense is why I'm also scoffing at some of the mock drafts I've been seeing lately. It seems like all everyone can think of is getting guys who make the pretty plays on SportsCenter. WRs, CBs, and speedrushing DEs seem to be all the rage. It the fantasy football mentality taking over. No one sees the value in building interior dominate lines on both sides of the ball.

by krytime on Mar 18, 2008 4:06 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

ridiculous

We could have the best O-line in the league and we will not win with our wideouts. Nobody wants the highlight reel players or the fantasy number guys just because. Football is a team game that requires talent at every position to be successful. Our interior lines may not be the strongest units we have but they are not that bad. Especially the defensive side with McCargo, Stroud, and Johnson. Could Dockery use help on the interior, of course! But our skill positions on offense are atrocious! To say that the call for a wideout is based on getting dreary eyed watching sportscenter is absurd. Obviously, you have bought into the philosophy that has left us out of the playoffs for the better part of a decade and that is that we don't need weapons to win. Come on! Football requires talent spread out, and we are horribly, horribly thin on weapons!!

Trade J.P. for a pick, or a pick and J.P. for a receiver

by poz on Mar 19, 2008 1:01 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Are we really horrible on the weapons front?

I'd say Lynch isn't so bad, and Fred Jackson seems like he might just very well make for a nice back-up/spot player. And then there is another RB that OBD thought high of last year as well in Dwayne Wright.

And then there is Lee Evans. While I'm not cracy about him, he certainly is an above average to god football player. How about two 2nd round draft picks in Parrish and Reed, who are both making more money than Panda or Hackett (who just got hurt again).

Royal is a decent blocker, and OBD seems to like Schoumann.

Am I saying we don't need a couple of more skill guys? No, we certainly do, but not as bad as some would think.

People are forgetting how absolutely atrocious the coaching was by our OC last year. Couple that with the QB controversy (which we won't have this year), and the fact that Edwards should improve by leaps and bounds this year.

We weren't that short of playmakers - it's just that they never put those guys in a position to make plays.

If you don't beleive that, please answer these questions for me: Why did we not see Lynch catch the ball out of the backfield last year? What was up with all of those "bunched up" formations? Why was Roscoe Parrish never put in space? Why did Lee Evans run the same route, over, and over?

by krytime on Mar 19, 2008 2:43 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I kinda agree

The Bills do have some weapons. I would say though that they are desperate for either a starting wideout who can actually be a presence outside and who doesn't need the slot to excel OR a big bodied tight end who can be a reliable target over the middle and occasionally stretch the field 15 or 20 yards by finding the seams in the D. I don't think we need All-stars at both for Edwards and this offense to be successful.

Schouman was a 7th round pick and will probably spend the entire year on the practice squad. That might even be an optimistic place for him to end up.

by kaisertown on Mar 19, 2008 2:56 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Schouman

First - thanks for agreeing that they do have some talent, and that the sky is not falling. I thought for sure I was/is going to get killed for that statement.

They brought Schoumann off of the practive squad at the end of last year, and then he got hurt right away. I'm gonna hold out some hope for him though. If he doesn't make the roster this year from the get go, he's probably a goner.

by krytime on Mar 19, 2008 3:23 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

20 TDs

The sky isn't falling; it fell. It's ridiculous and overly convenient to simply blame Steve Fairchild for 20 TDs in 16 games. I'll say it again; either Edwards sucks and was unable to unleash the powerful weapons at his disposal last year or he didn't have close to an acceptable amount of talent around him to get things done. Something has to give considering how truly historic the ineptitude on offense was lasty season. I'm so confident in Trent Edwards (keep saying it until it's true), that I'm taking the latter approach...and if you don't see how useless Reed and Royal are given the ample playing time they've received in their extended NFL careers, I really don't know what to tell you. Good players make for points on offense, bad players make for 20 TDs in 16 games. Someone was at fault last season and people like Josh Reed and Robert Royal need to move over and let someone else get the job done ASAP. That's where the 2008 draft comes in.

Nick (Bensalem, PA)

by Nick BensalemPA on Mar 19, 2008 3:41 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

thank you

that is exactly where the draft comes in. Every skill player on the offense who is not a running back and not Lee Evans needs to be replaced. I love Roscoe but he is the kind of player that succeeds on offense only when there is other offensive talent around. I totally disagree with the statement that we have a good pair of #2 receivers in Reed and Parrish. Reed is awful, I have never understood why Nick gets hell for hating on him. Parrish is a #3. Our TEs are useless. I believe in this team, I think we'll make a run at the playoffs. But the sky has indeed fallen on offense and with the moves we made for the D in FA we need to address O in the draft

Trade J.P. for a pick, or a pick and J.P. for a receiver

by poz on Mar 19, 2008 3:54 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

and by O

I meant weapons

Trade J.P. for a pick, or a pick and J.P. for a receiver

by poz on Mar 19, 2008 3:54 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Well

"I totally disagree with the statement that we have a good pair of #2 receivers in Reed and Parrish"

Who on this blog has ever said anything like that?

I think it is just a glass half full/half empty argument here because NOBODY on this blog thinks that Reed/Parrish is a viable #2 receiver and NOBODY thinks that Royal should be the starting tight end.

Nick doesn't just hate Josh Reed he really hates him. I think if you move him into the slot he can still catch 35+ passes for you which makes him one of the better slot receivers in the league. He is a better slot guy than Parrish in my opinion. You have to design plays that get Parrish the ball while Reed should do just fine on little curls and outs. Royal is bad, but not that bad. He would make for a great #2 blocking tight end.

by kaisertown on Mar 19, 2008 4:14 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs