Buddy Nix Approval Poll: August 2011
At the start of every month, we're going to poll the readers of Buffalo Rumblings on their state of mind regarding the chief decision-makers of the Buffalo Bills. This is your poll to state your pleasure, or lack thereof, with GM Buddy Nix. Here are some stories Nix has been heavily involved with over the last month.
- Added the following new players via free agency and waivers: QB Tyler Thigpen (terms undisclosed), QB/WR Brad Smith (four years, $15 million), ILB Nick Barnett (three years, $12 million), and DE Lionel Dotson (waivers).
- Re-signed CB Drayton Florence to a three-year, $15 million deal.
- Signed all nine draft picks. That includes a fully guaranteed $20.4 million deal with No. 3 overall pick DE Marcell Dareus. The only rookie to miss a practice was third-round pick ILB Kelvin Sheppard.
- Signed 20 undrafted free agents, and has currently bolstered his total roster head count to 89.
- Lost out on the following free agent targets: ILB Paul Posluszny (story), OT Tyson Clabo, OT Willie Colon, DE Jason Babin and ILB Kevin Burnett (story).
Previous Five Approval Polls
73% approval February 2011 (9% disapproval)
76% approval March 2011 (7% disapproval)
79% approval April 2011 (5% disapproval)
92% approval May 2011 (2% disapproval)
92% approval June 2011 (2% disapproval)
175 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
On the fence about Buddy Nix, but when I heard the Bills had approximately $26M left to spend, and the fact that we lost on a handful of players that would have helped us out, I went with disprove. Though I do approve of the signing Nix has made, with the money still left over he should have made more moves. Hopefully though, he will spend the remaining money on re-signing some core players like Stevie and Kyle.
you don’t overpay for a, player because you can thats how you set your franchise back.
"This is a chance to shine some light on the city, They say it’s too cold. I’m going to bring some warmth to it." Marcell Dareus
by matthew62 on Aug 2, 2011 11:33 AM EDT via mobile up reply actions 3 recs
I agree to a point
when you are in the gutter sometimes you do overspend for a player who can help uplift the team in its effort to make itself more competitive and thus more attractive for future free agent and for its own players to want to stay, for more reasonable prices.
If I were GM I would have been willing to give a Clabo or a Free a significant pay raise to come here and help shore up some areas that – in conjunction with our excellent drafting this year – could have gotten us competitive faster and stayed here for a career.
But for the most part, yes you dont overpay. Sometimes to get back up on your feet, you have to take a risk though
The bandwagon will be full and fast and drunk and exciting - Undee
by poz on Aug 2, 2011 11:57 AM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
last time we overpaid....
See Langston Walker and the dude who came from the Redskins. I forgot his name. Those moves did nothing.
by SpiderWeb Sleeves on Aug 2, 2011 12:18 PM EDT via mobile up reply actions
different regime, different decision makers
you can’t quit at something because you failed once
The bandwagon will be full and fast and drunk and exciting - Undee
by poz on Aug 2, 2011 3:48 PM EDT up reply actions
is that where were at
when you are in the gutter
and your resume for this comment is???? We may not be overly stacked but we are not in the gutter, nor are we worse off than last season. Were there opportunities that we missed out on, absolutely, but what does buddy have on his plate, we will never know.
YOU ARE OUT of you kuku fufu mine craker laker Flaber baber FUNKI chunki brain. WE want to winn every year -- abayarde
My resume
I think finishing worst or second worst in the AFC East in 10 of the last 11 seasons should fill out that resume nicely.
Van, Buddy Nix was brought in PRECISELY because we are in the gutter. Dont tell me he got us out in one season?
Come on man, not every comment I make is attacking Buddy Nix. The franchise is in the gutter, its Buddy’s job to get us out. Thats why he was brought in.
The bandwagon will be full and fast and drunk and exciting - Undee
by poz on Aug 2, 2011 3:51 PM EDT up reply actions
not every comment I make is attacking Buddy Nix.
although, I did write this in a Buddy Nix poll thread so I can see where you might have thought that. Im talking about the state of the franchise, not about Buddy Nix’s doing in one year
The bandwagon will be full and fast and drunk and exciting - Undee
by poz on Aug 2, 2011 3:58 PM EDT up reply actions
I'm in the same boat
You " overpay " for your NEEDS you do not overpay for depth.
It’s only overpaying because you have to distance yourself from your competitor in negotiations, when you have money to spend you can afford the luxury to overspend on something you NEED. Some would say we overpaid for Merriman to stay, I would say we overpaid for Brad Smith.
Its 1 thing to go throw money at guys that have done it for a year ala The Carolina guy its another thing to go throw money at a proven commodity like Clabo.
If we gave Malcolm Floyd a 8 Million a year deal, people around here would go bannanas because why do we need Malcolm Floyd and why are we paying him 8 Mill, If we gave Clabo 8 Mill a year people would say well better spent on him then on Malcolm Floyd.
"Big Gulps Eh, Well See ya later" - Lloyd Christmas
" You Gus ready To Let The Dogs Out" "What?" " you Know, Who Let the dogs out rough rough rogh rough" - Zack Galifinakis - The Hangover
by PaullyPforPrez on Aug 2, 2011 12:28 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
You " overpay " for your NEEDS you do not overpay for depth.
Personally – I think you overpay for your needs when you’re very close to contending – doing so before will most likely end up with those players moving elsewhere instead of contending for many years instead of 1 or 2 years
When you innovate, you've got to be prepared for everyone telling you you're nuts.
by J2 on Aug 2, 2011 12:32 PM EDT up reply actions 2 recs
Ok
But what if your overpay for a guy that will help you for 5 years.
I hate to keep going back to Malcolm Floyb but, lkets say the Bills really needed WR help badly, would paying Floyd, whos 26; 8 mill a year not drastically help your team, you’ve overpaid but you’ve overpaid for a guy thats going to help your team for the next 5 years.
"Big Gulps Eh, Well See ya later" - Lloyd Christmas
" You Gus ready To Let The Dogs Out" "What?" " you Know, Who Let the dogs out rough rough rogh rough" - Zack Galifinakis - The Hangover
by PaullyPforPrez on Aug 2, 2011 12:44 PM EDT up reply actions
you’ve overpaid but you’ve overpaid for a guy thats going to help your team for the next 5 years.
to do what though? continue to suck as a team?
get your core roster under control then when you have depth and good core talent you go overpay for free agents. What good is overpaying 1 or 2 free agents if the rest of your roster is in a massive state of flux?
When you innovate, you've got to be prepared for everyone telling you you're nuts.
by J2 on Aug 2, 2011 12:46 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
But your roster
will continue to suck until you fill your needs, you have now filled a need, now you can move onto other needs. so while 1 need is filled for 5 years you can concentrater on other needs for 5 years. teams will always have needs I get that, but if you a legitmate talent there for 5 years you don’t have to worry about it anymore.
If we filled 3 needs this offseason, we head into next years draft needing to get better at 3 or 4 position not 8 or 9, you can focus your drafting around it you can focus your fa signings around it filling needs is never a bad thing regardless if you overpay or not.
"Big Gulps Eh, Well See ya later" - Lloyd Christmas
" You Gus ready To Let The Dogs Out" "What?" " you Know, Who Let the dogs out rough rough rogh rough" - Zack Galifinakis - The Hangover
by PaullyPforPrez on Aug 2, 2011 12:55 PM EDT up reply actions
but then when you are close to contending those 3 or 4 holes open back up. That’s the point – to hit a “stride” all at the same time so you aren’t “peaking” for 1 or 2 years. The point is to peak for 5 and 6 years instead of all your talent leaving around the same time that your roster is coming into it’s own
When you innovate, you've got to be prepared for everyone telling you you're nuts.
by J2 on Aug 2, 2011 12:59 PM EDT up reply actions
I guess what I'm saying is
If you suck, like are 2-14, your goal for the next year should be to win more games then last and to that you have to better your roster, so you do it via the draft and you do it via FA.
So if you have a team thats 2-14 with like 3 or 4 really good players you should try to add more really good players no matter what it takes, you should always want to get better thats what professional sports are all about. So if you have to overpay fopr really good players you do it regardless of where your team is in the standings
"Big Gulps Eh, Well See ya later" - Lloyd Christmas
" You Gus ready To Let The Dogs Out" "What?" " you Know, Who Let the dogs out rough rough rogh rough" - Zack Galifinakis - The Hangover
by PaullyPforPrez on Aug 2, 2011 1:02 PM EDT up reply actions
I get what you’re saying – i’m just stating my counterpoint to your argument – because I don’t think Nix is going to overpay for free agents and my comments are why.
When you innovate, you've got to be prepared for everyone telling you you're nuts.
by J2 on Aug 2, 2011 1:04 PM EDT up reply actions
here's an age old philosophy
the best deals are made when both parties are unsatisfied… held true for CBA negotiations…
if you overpay for a guy like walker, dockery or even peters in philadelphia, the guy made more money than he deserves…
he knows that because you paid out of desparation than his true value…
if the team feels it overpayed slightly and the player feels he agreed to a lower deal then both parties are motivated … chances of success are high
by statcruncher on Aug 2, 2011 1:15 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
Stevie & Meatball
Kyle Williams needs a new contract this year! No question. He now has a few years of solid production in different defensive schemes and has proven he can do it all…he is an asset, period.
Stevie – my gut says to wait and see…give him one more year. Is he the talent we all hope he is, or did he have a real nice season due to constant double coverage on Lee? Obviously I hope he’s the real deal
I agree with Kyle Williams
he has outplayed his contract and has shown that he is the real deal. Pay the man!
With Stevie I’m torn a bit because if we don’t lock him up this year he will be a UFA next year.
by billsfan4life on Aug 2, 2011 12:52 PM EDT up reply actions
Agree on a contract extension with K. Williams. With Stevie, maybe the Bills can work out a contract mid-season if he continues where he left off last year.
Beyond that, the Bills can look to extend Wood and Levitre. There’s also Demetrius Bell to consider if he has a breakout year this year.
One really big salary committment going forward from this year will be Fitzy. He will be a UFA after this season, so the 2011 season will be a big referendum on the Fitzpatrick era.
At any rate, I think it’s good the Bills have kept their hands free for internal signings over the next year or two. The only missed signing that stung a bit was Clabo, but paying $5 mil+ per year for a RT with a reputation as an average pass protector might have been a stretch.
I say
Welcome back approval poll.
It’s really the little things about football that I missed the most.
Same old, same old
Same holes on the roster, same weakness, same vote….
I don’t think the roster is noticeably better than when he took over other than maybe DL, nor is there any indication that the future will be much better. Until this franchise has a franchise QB, an impact pass rusher or three, and OT’s that aren’t described as journeymen or average, I simply cannot approve of the job he is doing. The rebuilding may be slow and the plan may be to take more than a few years to build the roster, but I don’t think this team is very close to being a legitimate contender any time soon. Hopefully, by this time next year, the picture will be a lot clearer.
~K
"As the governor of Louisiana once said, the only way Chris Kelsay can lose his job is if he got caught in bed with a dead girl or a live boy."
by Kurupt on Aug 2, 2011 11:32 AM EDT reply actions 6 recs
it’s year two of a five year rebuild. Then being a contender year in and out depends on qb play and how far along his progression is. Therefore it takes 5 years to rebuild from nothing and if you get your qb year five. Being a contender could take seven years.
"This is a chance to shine some light on the city, They say it’s too cold. I’m going to bring some warmth to it." Marcell Dareus
by matthew62 on Aug 2, 2011 11:40 AM EDT via mobile up reply actions
Rebuilds dont take that long in the league. You either rebuild In 3 years are you don’t and most likely a new regime takes over.
by Xaviermw on Aug 2, 2011 11:45 AM EDT via mobile up reply actions 1 recs
See the rebuilds in Indy and SD under Polian and Nix. What you are saying is just blatantly not true.
"Slowly all the roles we act out become our identity. And in the end we are what we pretend to be." - Jerry Cantrell.
The Colts?
The Colts were a playoff team in 1995 and 1996, had a terrible 1997 season and lucked into the first pick in the ’98 draft as a result. They got Peyton Manning, struggled with him in his rookie year, then finished 13-3 in his second season and away they went. That most definitely was not a 5 year rebuild.
I’m pretty sure the Chargers were rebuilt and on their way to being a contender after year 3 of Butler/Smith.
This so-called 5 year plan has not been seen in the NFL in a long time, maybe ever?
~K
"As the governor of Louisiana once said, the only way Chris Kelsay can lose his job is if he got caught in bed with a dead girl or a live boy."
by Kurupt on Aug 2, 2011 11:55 AM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
I disagree about SD. Butler came in to SD in 2001. You may say that they were “on their way” in 2004, but that was obviously not the end of the rebuild. They didn’t become year-in year-out competitive until at least 2005.
Also, who said Buffalo wouldn’t be on their way to being competitive in year 3? I believe they will be. That doesn’t mean the rebuild will be done.
"Slowly all the roles we act out become our identity. And in the end we are what we pretend to be." - Jerry Cantrell.
I don't get it
They didn’t become year-in year-out competitive until at least 2005.
They were 12-4 in 2004 and haven’t had a losing season since. How were they not competitive prior to 2005?
~K
"As the governor of Louisiana once said, the only way Chris Kelsay can lose his job is if he got caught in bed with a dead girl or a live boy."
I meant more that they weren’t finished with the rebuild. They drafted a new QB in 2005, it’s not like they were set.
Yes, they have been competitive since, you are right. But I don’t think they were done rebuilding in 3 years, it took at least 4, and I think that fifth year was critical to the long term success of the team.
"Slowly all the roles we act out become our identity. And in the end we are what we pretend to be." - Jerry Cantrell.
My fault, Rivers was drafted in 2004, but he rode the bench for two years.
"Slowly all the roles we act out become our identity. And in the end we are what we pretend to be." - Jerry Cantrell.
Yes. Because they had Drew Brees, who was coming into his own. The Bills don’t have anyone NEARLY as good as either of those guys, as much as I like Fitzpatrick.
I agree, but they still hadn’t found their guy yet in year 4, even as they were winning the division. It leads me to believe that the rebuild wasn’t done yet, and I think that Rivers was the final piece, and they’ve been competitive year in and year out since.
"Slowly all the roles we act out become our identity. And in the end we are what we pretend to be." - Jerry Cantrell.
So in summation, you just called out someone for posting something ‘blatantly untrue’ because 12-4 doesn’t fit your definition of rebuilt.
They can kill you, but the legalities of eating you are quite a bit dicier.
Well, if you want to lose all nuance of the discussion, I suppose that’s true. I said it’s blatantly untrue because it’s not true…there are long term rebuilding projects in the league. I was citing one example I believe to be true. You can look at the Lions who’ve been rebuilding for years. You can look at expansion teams that are, by definition, rebuilding from the get go. How long have the Texans been building now? Are they annual contenders yet? Does that mean that they won’t ever be? The Colts were a bad example, I grant, but the Chargers weren’t.
"Slowly all the roles we act out become our identity. And in the end we are what we pretend to be." - Jerry Cantrell.
Well, if you want to lose all nuance of the discussion, I suppose that’s true.
I’m just saying I don’t understand why you failed to realize said nuance when responding to xaviermw, who had a very reasonable point.
They can kill you, but the legalities of eating you are quite a bit dicier.
Because he spoke in absolute terms.
Rebuilds dont take that long in the league.
What nuance in that did I fail to realize, exactly?
"Slowly all the roles we act out become our identity. And in the end we are what we pretend to be." - Jerry Cantrell.
You said nuance of the discussion, not of the original post.
But for fun, let’s break it down. The full post read:
Rebuilds dont take that long in the league. You either rebuild In 3 years are you don’t and most likely a new regime takes over.
For the first sentence, he made a statement. You make the argument that he spoke in absolutes. In a strictly tautological interpretation, you are correct. However, from a modern usage perspective, things change a bit.
Usually, if the speaker means their statement to be absolute, they’ll use terms like ‘always,’ ‘never,’ etc, which are absent. Conversely, if the speaker wants to hedge the comment against being absolute, they will with ‘sometimes,’ ‘usually,’ etc. Granted, none of these exist, so the intent figures to be somewhere in between the two.
That is, unless you consider context. In the very next sentence, he qualifies the premise with ‘most likely.’ So, by looking at the syntax of the entire comment, one would probably conclude that the speaker did in fact not intend for the statement to be taken as an absolute. The same cannot be said for your ‘blatantly untrue’ comment.
They can kill you, but the legalities of eating you are quite a bit dicier.
by cjf4 on Aug 2, 2011 5:14 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
This discussion has veered into academic nonsense, arguing about semantics, which is silly and this is not the proper forum for it. I was originally arguing the point that 5-year rebuilds do not happen, which is what was said originally.
If you want to argue semantics, then fine, breaking down the second sentence, he said that a team is either rebuilt in 3 years or a new regime most likely takes over. Does a new regime mark the start of a new rebuild? Usually, yes, but a new rebuild can start with the same regime, as well, so even in context I’m not sure this means anything.
The term “blatantly untrue” is an absolute about a single statement, not a blanket idea such as “5 year rebuilds don’t happen”, and so I don’t believe that any nuance was ignored since there was none to begin with.
All of this is irrelevant, though. The idea that 5 year rebuilds are nonexistent is wrong, in my opinion. I don’t believe that teams like KC and Detroit, who are currently in the third and fourth year of what I would consider their rebuild period, are done yet. Yes, they will be competitive this year, but can you say they’re finished rebuilding, and will be competitive year in and year out from now on? No, I don’t think so…at least not yet.
"Slowly all the roles we act out become our identity. And in the end we are what we pretend to be." - Jerry Cantrell.
The term "blatantly untrue" is an absolute about a single statement, not a blanket idea such as "5 year rebuilds don’t happen"
Which, if you had read and not dismissed my post before this as ‘academic nonsense,’ you’d realize is where you’re incorrect. It wasn’t a blanket idea (qv my post before this).
And as an aside, I don’t understand why we can’t talk about things like language and usage without being scolded in the way described above. Language is the primary tool for communication, and one of the few experiences that’s common to nearly everyone in some form. Yet if you ever want to take a closer look at it’s workings in an effort to improve clarity or effectiveness, you get skewered.
They can kill you, but the legalities of eating you are quite a bit dicier.
First, no one skewered you. I was saying that arguing semantics is nonsense and never leads anywhere, which it doesn’t. Also, I did not dismiss your post, I was dismissing the discussion, my part included. I’m sorry if you decided to take it as an attack, it wasn’t intended to be one.
I did read it and did not dismiss it, and I don’t agree about my being incorrect. Not agreeing with your point is not the same thing as dismissing your point. I explained very clearly why I thought that his “most likely” did not put his first sentence into the context of not being a blanket absolute statement. It seems like you’ve dismissed my argument, not the other way around.
"Slowly all the roles we act out become our identity. And in the end we are what we pretend to be." - Jerry Cantrell.
I think using “academic nonsense” in your earlier post is the type of thing that needs to be avoided. Very dismissive term. I wasn’t in this discussion, but when I read that I didn’t like it.
Year two is upon us.
by Buffalo for Eternity on Aug 2, 2011 6:22 PM EDT up reply actions
Why? I am of the opinion that arguing over semantics is academic nonsense. I am an academic, and have been in school my entire life. I am close friends with many people who study semantics for a living. I think it’s all nonsensical. Sorry if you were offended, but I don’t find anything wrong with the opinion.
"Slowly all the roles we act out become our identity. And in the end we are what we pretend to be." - Jerry Cantrell.
You don’t find anything wrong with using it, but at least two people did.
Year two is upon us.
by Buffalo for Eternity on Aug 2, 2011 7:11 PM EDT up reply actions
I am not sure how not to sound like an ass when responding to posts like this. Of course two people found it wrong. I’m sure more people did. You have yet to explain to me why it was not alright to express my opinion over the validity of arguing semantics on a football forum.
"Slowly all the roles we act out become our identity. And in the end we are what we pretend to be." - Jerry Cantrell.
Well here goes. Using the word nonsense, in many forms, implies, well you are an academic, so I’ll leave it at that. As I said above “very dismissive term”. It sounds, or comes across as sounding, like a putdown. My guess is in a face to face conversation it may not have this effect. I thought cjf4 used multiple sentences in an attempt to understand the persons’ point. Your post came across to him, and me, as a putdown of that process.
If this does not explain my view of using “nonsense” in a post then maybe someone else can chime in.
Year two is upon us.
by Buffalo for Eternity on Aug 2, 2011 8:03 PM EDT up reply actions
Well, I strongly disagree. But I will leave it at this: I apologize to you and anyone else that felt put down by my response.
"Slowly all the roles we act out become our identity. And in the end we are what we pretend to be." - Jerry Cantrell.
- offended, not put down
"Slowly all the roles we act out become our identity. And in the end we are what we pretend to be." - Jerry Cantrell.
No worries.
Year two is upon us.
by Buffalo for Eternity on Aug 2, 2011 8:12 PM EDT up reply actions
Im of the belief
if we’re competitive and winning we are rebuilt. From there you are trying to hone the team into a champion
The bandwagon will be full and fast and drunk and exciting - Undee
So just for clarification poz if we went 10-6 and missed the playoffs we are rebuilt in your eyes.
"This is a chance to shine some light on the city, They say it’s too cold. I’m going to bring some warmth to it." Marcell Dareus
by matthew62 on Aug 2, 2011 1:44 PM EDT via mobile up reply actions
absolutely
The bandwagon will be full and fast and drunk and exciting - Undee
by poz on Aug 2, 2011 3:54 PM EDT up reply actions
I define rebuilt as being a contender year in and year out. Cinci won the division two years ago, sweeping teams that were arguably much better than them. KC won their division last year, as well. Is their rebuild finished?
"Slowly all the roles we act out become our identity. And in the end we are what we pretend to be." - Jerry Cantrell.
thats what I mean though
I said I think we’re rebuilt if we are “competitive and winning”. Look at the New York Giants. They missed the playoffs finishing 10-6 last year but are competitive and winning almost every season. That is not a rebuilding team. That is a built team trying to hone itself for a championship. Thats where I think a rebuild ends. To say rebuilding is going on until you are a Super Bowl caliber team defeats the purpose of the label rebuild.
The label exists to define and single out teams that are restructuring to become competitive, respected clubs again. We are not that yet. We are rebuilding. The Giants are competitive and respected year and year out under Coughlin, even when they miss the playoffs at 10-6.
The bandwagon will be full and fast and drunk and exciting - Undee
by poz on Aug 2, 2011 4:00 PM EDT up reply actions
I absolutely agree with that. I took matt’s question to mean, if we happen to go 10-6 this year, are we rebuilt? In that very unlikely scenario, I definitely don’t think we’re rebuilt yet. Just like above I didn’t think that the 12-4 Chargers were fully rebuilt, either, and I stand by that. Being rebuilt means going 10-6 (or better) and being competitive every year.
"Slowly all the roles we act out become our identity. And in the end we are what we pretend to be." - Jerry Cantrell.
This so-called 5 year plan has not been seen in the NFL in a long time, maybe ever?
5 years until SB winner K
When you innovate, you've got to be prepared for everyone telling you you're nuts.
by J2 on Aug 2, 2011 12:14 PM EDT up reply actions
I meant as being competitive or a legit contender
Most teams that go through a successful rebuild are definitely well on their way by year 3. How many teams took 5 seasons before they were at that level?
Maybe the Bills will be consistent playoff contenders by next year, but with the specific holes they have, I find that hard to believe. We’ll see though.
~K
"As the governor of Louisiana once said, the only way Chris Kelsay can lose his job is if he got caught in bed with a dead girl or a live boy."
Most teams that go through a successful rebuild are definitely well on their way by year 3.
can we play season 2 before we make the claim that they won’t be “well on their way” in year 3?
When you innovate, you've got to be prepared for everyone telling you you're nuts.
by J2 on Aug 2, 2011 12:24 PM EDT up reply actions 2 recs
Well yeah
But I’m not someone who keeps calling this a 5 year rebuilding plan before this team is a legit playoff contender. That’s the problem I have. If the Bills were to somehow be a winner this year, great! I just disagree every time I see someone proclaim that it’s ok where the current team is at because it’s going to take 5 years to rebuild. I think it’s borderline ridiculous even.
~K
"As the governor of Louisiana once said, the only way Chris Kelsay can lose his job is if he got caught in bed with a dead girl or a live boy."
by Kurupt on Aug 2, 2011 12:56 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
I just disagree every time I see someone proclaim that it’s ok where the current team is at because it’s going to take 5 years to rebuild. I think it’s borderline ridiculous even.
wow – really? then i’m certainly a borderline ridiculous person then because that’s exactly why i’m content where this team is at.
I’ve seen crap turned into gold and it certainly doesn’t take a year – it takes many years.
When you innovate, you've got to be prepared for everyone telling you you're nuts.
by J2 on Aug 2, 2011 1:01 PM EDT up reply actions
We will know if the Bills rebuild has positive momentum by about 4-6 weeks into the season. All really successful rebuilds hinge on having that franchise QB. Is Fitzy that guy? We should know sometime between the first quarter and first half of the season. Even if we are 2-4, if Fitzpatrick is showing he can lead the team then that’s progress. If Fitzy ain’t it, the rebuild will be stuck in 2nd gear until we find that guy. The lack of a franchise quarterback is what has kept the Bills in rebuild mode for over a decade.
Theres plenty of evidence that says your wrong. Lots of rebuilds take more than three years to completely rebuild the team. Three years we should be winning more than losing.
"This is a chance to shine some light on the city, They say it’s too cold. I’m going to bring some warmth to it." Marcell Dareus
by matthew62 on Aug 2, 2011 12:00 PM EDT via mobile up reply actions
give me an example
that a team took more than 4 years to become a winning team going on to win a superbowl…
my theory is nix started in 2010… i give him till 2012 to suck (3 years)… 2013 i want playoffs… and that doesnt mean fire nix… it might be that nix is good but gailey is not good enough
by statcruncher on Aug 2, 2011 12:07 PM EDT up reply actions
The problem is my thought of rebuilt and others is diffrent. To me a contender is.a.superbowl contender year in and out. Packers steelers patriots colts. Where they winning year three yes. But I want a superbowl contender thats when I’m rebuilt. Making the playoffs every year but not making a run for it is not rebuilt.
"This is a chance to shine some light on the city, They say it’s too cold. I’m going to bring some warmth to it." Marcell Dareus
by matthew62 on Aug 2, 2011 12:53 PM EDT via mobile up reply actions
Teams miss the playoffs
The Steelers have in the last 5 years so have the Pats and so have the Pack, its what you do in the year you miss them that counts, when you consitently lose like the Bills have for the last 11 yearsn’t hel;p anything and continuing to lose while claiming your rebuilding is assanine. Every teams goal should be to win, nothing short of winning.
"Big Gulps Eh, Well See ya later" - Lloyd Christmas
" You Gus ready To Let The Dogs Out" "What?" " you Know, Who Let the dogs out rough rough rogh rough" - Zack Galifinakis - The Hangover
by PaullyPforPrez on Aug 2, 2011 12:59 PM EDT up reply actions
Huh. As I recall GB missed the playoffs in 2008 and didnt do much about it. Pittsburgh in 2009, also didn’t do much about it. They bounced back because they were off years. But they didn’t go and fill a bunch of holes with high-priced free agents.
exactly
they took that opportunity to draft well not get over-payed free agents…
packers got b j raji and clay mathews in their “down” year… how lucky is that
Isn't making the playoffs every year making a run for it??
You get in the playoffs, anything can happen, especially if a team is consistently getting there. Teams like the Chargers, Jets, Eagles, Falcons, etc all seem like the consistent playoff teams that never get over the top. But aren’t they SB contenders simply because we know they are good and are in the “tourney” most years??
~K
"As the governor of Louisiana once said, the only way Chris Kelsay can lose his job is if he got caught in bed with a dead girl or a live boy."
Not .really . Those are two diffrent things. I would include falcons but their problem is defense and they didn’t do much in that regards. Charges we will. See but they need to improve.special teams. Eagles are because of. Vick and their off season. jets should be also. I don’t consider tampa ravens superbowl conteders but I consider them play off contender s. Doesn’t mean they can’t win but not teams I teams with the best chance to win it all.
"This is a chance to shine some light on the city, They say it’s too cold. I’m going to bring some warmth to it." Marcell Dareus
by matthew62 on Aug 2, 2011 1:12 PM EDT via mobile up reply actions
what you say doesnt make sense
you are saying give a coach/gm 5+ years to be below 500 then boom… win super-bowl
obviously you have to go through a stretch of winning years before you win a superbowl… every winning team does unless it is st. louis rams of 1999…
the point everyone is saying is it doesnt take more than 3-4 years to reach that winning/ playoff stretch… once you start winning obviously you will give the coach more time like the chargers… not when it is 5-6 years of below 500
No I did not say that. So.don’t put words in my mouth so to speak. Part of the perceived disagreememt is how my thought of rebuilt and others is diffrent which I have stated. To me winning is not rebuilt because it doesnt.stop there for me.
"This is a chance to shine some light on the city, They say it’s too cold. I’m going to bring some warmth to it." Marcell Dareus
by matthew62 on Aug 2, 2011 1:36 PM EDT via mobile up reply actions
Also how many teams do we have as an example that sucked as long as we did. Not many which is why they took 3 years. You got the colts but they got the peyton lottery.
"This is a chance to shine some light on the city, They say it’s too cold. I’m going to bring some warmth to it." Marcell Dareus
by matthew62 on Aug 2, 2011 12:58 PM EDT via mobile up reply actions
I still approve - Go Buddy!
He got us a decent backup QB which we sorely needed. He got all the rookies signed and into camp quickly. He went out and grabbed Brad Smith which was a sick move. Got a deal done with Drayton Florence to keep him around. Got Nick Barnett signed which IMO totally cancels out losing Poz and missing out on Burnett.
He missed out on a couple of guys, I definitely would have liked to see him snag Clabo or Colon, but you can’t win em all. Overall though, what he’s done that is good for our team totally outweighs anything bad.
We’re winning 9 games this year. Buddy’s getting us out of the gutter. One more season of improvement and one more offseason of moves and the Bills will be a team to fear.
Voted Disapprove
While I do approve of the moves he has made, there needs to be more. I was really upset to see that they were unsuccessful in addressing the offensive line with “proven” talent. With the weapons we have (and have gained) on offense, this team should be dangerous. But, it won’t happen if there are no running lanes, time for plays to develop, constant pressure on Fitz, etc.
While I understand “building through the draft” and going with youth, building for the long-term…you need talented veterans to (1) make your team respectable, (2) help develop rookies, (3) establish proven talent in positions.
Also, I have a tough time giving Buddy a lot of credit for Dareus. It was the no brainer choice at three. I think any GM looking at anything less than a stellar DL would have made that choice.
But – I hope this season changes my mind about Buddy. GO BILLS!
And...
I am not trying to be a negative cry baby on here as I hate reading whiny posts in these threads…I just want to see him develop the OL like he’s done the DL
Have to disagree
Nix prioritized the DL as the biggest need on the team (near bottom of the league in run defense ring a bell?). Signing Edwards, drafting Carrington, Troup, and Dareus, and even going after Babin shows that he’s committed to stopping the run first so that he can at least give our O a chance to have the ball for more than 20 min. per game.
Our O-line, though not impressive by any means, was obviously the lesser of the team’s needs to be addressed. At least the O could move the ball with some amount of success last season. Pursuing Clabo shows that he hasn’t forgotten about the O-line and trying to locate obvious upgrades rather than simply going after any warm body that comes available. I think it’ll happen when the right opportunity shows itself.
Good Moves
LB talent has improved. CB shelf has been restocked. D-Line was made a priority in the draft. Signed a capable backup QB and a potential multiple threat play maker. Chose an RB that was the best on the team, and made him the lead RB.
They were all modest moves, and I wish we’d have addressed OT. But we’re under budget, and there’s certainly nothing to disapprove of here.
Approve
I see the plan. I see the similarities to the rebuilds in SD and Indy. I see the roster as improved. I see the overall feeling and attitude of the team as improved. I like the players a lot more than I did under Levy and Jauron. I am truly optimistic for the first time in years about this team.
I don’t approve of everything, obviously. I would have wanted to get at least an established veteran RT to come in and compete with Pears for the job. I would have loved to grab a TE, even if Chan doesn’t see a need for one in his offense. And I would have loved to pick up six or seven LBers, because I think it’s the weakest position on our team. However, this is year 2 of a 5 year rebuild, and I realize that Nix will not go overpay for FAs and will build through the draft, and I’m fine with that. I have no problem with that philosophy, and am patient. Until he does something drastically stupid, I’ll probably continue to approve.
"Slowly all the roles we act out become our identity. And in the end we are what we pretend to be." - Jerry Cantrell.
How is this even remotely similar to the Colts???
The Colts had a terrible year, ended up with the #1 pick, got Peyton Manning and that was pretty much that.
~K
"As the governor of Louisiana once said, the only way Chris Kelsay can lose his job is if he got caught in bed with a dead girl or a live boy."
I agree. 90% of the Colt’s rebuild was drafting Peyton Manning.
by Dr. Brackish Okun on Aug 2, 2011 12:16 PM EDT up reply actions
Voted Approve
I honestly think that Buddy is working a plan to make us competitive on a consistent basis for the long haul and not trying to placate an anxious media or fan base. I know Buddy is going to take a lot of flack for what many believe to be inactivity based on “cheapness” during this past free agency period but if you really look at it, there are far more Langston Walker/Derrick Dockery/Scott Mitchell/Emmit Smith (remember his time with the Cardinals?)/Andre Rison free agency failures at great expense than there are “home runs”. Trying to upgrade is one thing, but spending foolishly for spending’s sake is disastrous to a team that is truly rebuilding, not plugging in a few final pieces to make a Super Bowl run. Time will ultimately tell, and yes, we need o-line help and a QB of the future(perhaps) but I think it’s kinda silly to expect to obtain everything immediately on a team that MUST BE REBUILT ENTIRELY thanks to many years of terrible front office decision decision.
THAT WE GOING TO RUN OVER EVERBODY THAT STEPS IN FRONT OF THE WHAGONBLASTER - Abayarde
by Jax Bills Fan on Aug 2, 2011 11:47 AM EDT reply actions 2 recs
understated improvement.
our linebackers look like linebackers.
Not quite fair
I don’t see how one can vote disapprove on Nix,due to him not getting some of the FA’s available. Offer is made and the player says.." Ummm,me in Buffalo?..No thanks!"…Not Nix’s fault.
Arrive...Raise Hell...Leave
by billzfan34 on Aug 2, 2011 11:51 AM EDT reply actions 1 recs
Disapprove buddy
Hit the approval button all but once(1 not sure-kelsay) on the new gm & coach as I appreciate football people w/a plan being in charge again,, however..
Unless there is an underlining factor (injury, team chemistry, other) that you did not sign your most productive player(which you claimed to be the top priority)- 150 tackles (SOLO) w/another 50 assists, that = 200 buddy; at the most important position on D, which also happens to be the weakest position, playing behind a poor line; when the player is about to enter his prime(accumulate rising stars in year 3-5, not discard buddy)- its just a very bad sign for success.
Thats 3 buddy- 1) Saddling the coach w/a broken #5 & disgruntled #23 to start yr 1 was bad 2) Kelsay extension/raise was the 2nd (whats his position & there are no coverage responsibilities right?) 3)Letting your most productive player on D walk entering his prime w/out a equal or improved replacement is crazy.
I’m done. Wait, SS needs to be addressed and how many OT’s are available that would give us an upgrade which you keep talking about??
by Blood, sweat & Win on Aug 2, 2011 11:52 AM EDT reply actions
A factor why they didn’t sign poz was that he was damn expensive.
by Xaviermw on Aug 2, 2011 11:59 AM EDT via mobile up reply actions
Im sure cost was a factor. Going to pay for 200 tackles per year regardless, might as well do it w/1 player entering his prime who you drafted.
by Blood, sweat & Win on Aug 3, 2011 9:19 AM EDT up reply actions
wrong on point 1 & 3
the way they went about the qb situation in buffalo was perfect… they way they went about handling lynch was perfect… you tell me a year back that we lose lynch and will still sit nicely at the RB position… infact, tell me did you ever see a qb season like last year happening without drafting a qb at #1?
barnett is easily an upgrade over poz… 7 million a year, psst…!!
by statcruncher on Aug 2, 2011 12:13 PM EDT up reply actions
It’s pretty easy to solve the RB problem of losing Lynch when you ignore the offensive line, pass rushers and QB situation and draft a running back in the first round.
I get that Fitz had a really solid season and made the team exciting to watch, but he finished with a worse QB rating than Jason Campbell had in Oakland. Kerry Collins, Alex Smith and Shaun Hill had comparable seasons. Unless Fitz improves his efficiency or continues to defy statistics by throwing as many TDs as he did last year, despite poor efficiency stats, he’s going to continue to be a QB that’s on par with guys like Campbell or Hill.
"You mean @TWHITNER. It’s how he prefers to be referenced." - Jon Harrington
by kaisertown on Aug 2, 2011 12:53 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
QB rating is junk, everyone knows that
check out espn’s new qb rating which makes more sense..
http://espn.go.com/blog/nfcwest/post/_/id/41811/how-to-identify-nfls-best-quarterbacks
everyone you mentioned is below average except collins.. and fitz is average… this is going to be his first season as starter going into the year… i bet fitz still got more potential left…
QB rating is four equal parts completion percentage, yards per pass attempt and TD and INT percentages. So, unless you think those stats are junk, then I don’t see how anybody can be that critical of QB rating. And how can you know that ESPN’s new rating makes more sense when you don’t even know what the formula is?
Like the article says, QB rating is just a statistic. It’s a stat that shows how inefficient Fitz is. It’s far from perfect because it doesn’t take into account so many different things. But to steal a line from the article “I’ve actually defended Smith’s rating system because the quarterbacks with the highest ratings … usually are the best quarterbacks.”
If you look at the recent history of QB stats, you will see that it’s very rare for somebody to throw TDs at the rate Fitz does while maintaining his low comp% and ypa numbers. Fitz may rank slightly higher than guys like Hill or Campbell in ESPN’s new system, but unless he improves his efficiency stats this season, his TD numbers will come back down to Earth and he’ll end up in the same tier as those types of QBs after this season, like his entire career path to this point suggests.
"You mean @TWHITNER. It’s how he prefers to be referenced." - Jon Harrington
Lynch & Edwards were played perfectly???
well that made my morning. Yes, for a 4-12 team, played perfectly.
barnett upgrade over poz?? ahhh a 236 lb 4-3 backer who struggled in a 3-4 entering the twilight of his career coming off injury over the 200 tackling machine just entering his prime?? Even better.
Barnett is a good addition. Lynch can be a great back elsewhere.
by Blood, sweat & Win on Aug 3, 2011 9:27 AM EDT up reply actions
we seem bigger
hopefully it translates to being more competitive, our biggest problem last year was the opposing QB having all day to pick us apart, htis year we may actually look like we can run a 3-4
voted approve
not for something he did now… but the risk on merriman is looking better by the day… that is till he ends up in IR… but i am sure merriman has already helped our youth a lot …
plus, i love the barnett over poz deal… less money for a better player…
i dont like the brad smith deal though
Voted not sure
Like some of the moves, but lack of attention to our O-line, not upgrading the TE position, SS is a huge question mark in my opinion. The addition of Brad Smith was a nice luxury item, Thigpen is a huge upgrade over Brohm, loved this years draft, not so much last years philosophy of small school talent. Do like how Nix isn’t mortgaging the future by over paying players. Guess I’m on the fence.
"Sit down and watch my Buffalo Bills destroy your Kingdome" - Abayarde
If this 70% rating holds, it’ll be a massive 22% drop since the last poll. We shall call it the Paul Posluszny Effect.
Editor-in-Chief, BUFFALO RUMBLINGS®
@BrianGalliford
by Brian Galliford on Aug 2, 2011 12:22 PM EDT reply actions
Or it follows what appears to be a good draft. Post-draft re-adjustment. Numbers are back to the pre-draft levels.
Year two is upon us.
by Buffalo for Eternity on Aug 2, 2011 1:09 PM EDT up reply actions
I think it’s more of the, “I wanted this player and you didn’t get him so you must be a bad GM” effect.
by Xaviermw on Aug 2, 2011 2:50 PM EDT via mobile up reply actions
so far
there seems to be a backslide to Feb. approval levels. This debate continues with little new ground being covered.
IMO, I cannot approve when the vast majority of the focus has been on one side of the ball. Just like children, you don’t raise one to an adult while leaving the other to pine away in his room with little to no nourishment and attention. You cannot hope to have a well-adjusted, family unit, and more likely, such action will foster a dysfunctional, maladjusted weak family.
Y'all- There's a "D" in rebuild, but no "O"- The gospel according to Buddy Nix 4:12
There has been
much disappointed since the last poll. I had to go not sure. I am sure they did what they did for reasons I cant understand, that is why i went unsure instead of disapprove.
"Opportunity is missed by most people because it comes dressed in overalls and looks like work." Thomas Edison
Mark Gaughan said it best this morning. Would you rather have spent $42M and have Paul Posluszny or spent $42M and have Florence, Smith, and Barnett? That’s what they did. Sure Clabo would have been a great upgrade, too, but he obviously wanted to stay in Atlanta and we have no idea what terms were discussed.
by MattRichWarren on Aug 2, 2011 12:28 PM EDT reply actions 4 recs
I have no problem with Poz leaving in regards to this poll. Yes sucks he left…but I don’t blame Nix. Guess I could since he didn’t wrap him up to an extension last year… but Poz had no bearing on my “not sure vote”
"Sit down and watch my Buffalo Bills destroy your Kingdome" - Abayarde
They couldn’t wrap him up last year. They could only raise his salary by 30% from year to year because of the old CBA. They would have either had to give him a HUGE signing bonus (like, 90% of the contract) or sign him after the new CBA was ratified.
by MattRichWarren on Aug 2, 2011 12:33 PM EDT up reply actions
rec'd best way to look at what Buddy is doing. Short Term.
YOU ARE OUT of you kuku fufu mine craker laker Flaber baber FUNKI chunki brain. WE want to winn every year -- abayarde
Thats all well and fine
I agree with that statement completley, and to be honest as you all know I love Poz but with the 42 Mill we spent we did well, but that still doesn’t make up for what we havent done. All our eggs don’t have to be in one basket, we can’t afford it to be, we can’t spend everything on 1 player, but we can afford to get more Nick Barnetts can we not?
Guys that fill needs and come we decent price tags. I was all for throwing huge money at Clabo; and if we did get him I think Buddy’s approval poll goes way up, if we get Clabo we still have around 15 Mill to play with thats more then enough to grab a few more " Nick Barnetts" and have enough money to Re-up our guys ala Williams and Johnson – If he proves he can do it again
"Big Gulps Eh, Well See ya later" - Lloyd Christmas
" You Gus ready To Let The Dogs Out" "What?" " you Know, Who Let the dogs out rough rough rogh rough" - Zack Galifinakis - The Hangover
by PaullyPforPrez on Aug 2, 2011 12:36 PM EDT up reply actions
I would rather have Kevin Burnett than Nick Barnett...
I also didn’t want Brad Smith any more than I wanted CJ Spiller. For those reasons, in addition to the failure to strengthen the OL, I disapprove and am shocked that so many people are suddenly happy with the front office. The Jets, Patriots and Dolphins all got better. We didn’t. We swapped a few parts around.
@sawyervanhorn
by Sawyer in Boston on Aug 2, 2011 2:51 PM EDT up reply actions
I voted disapprove, but it’s for the same reasons I’ve always disapproved and it has nothing to do with the latest FA period. I’ve got no problems with how free agency went.
I disapprove because of the Spiller pick. The Merriman and Kelsay contracts were bad ideas, IMO.
My real problem is that I don’t see what the long term plan is. To me, it looks like the team is just trying to do as well as they can short term while believing that drafting well will alone take care of the long term. I don’t like the way that the team is transferring over to the 3-4. It seems like the emphasis is on run stopping and not pass rushing, which is a big problem to me. I like that Gailey wants to throw the ball around and attack out of the spread, but after two offseasons, all this team has done for a long term QB is Levi Brown. I’m also concerned about how Nix and his big mauling OL that he wants to build will mesh with the shotgun and the way the NFL is headed with pass heavy attacks and with teams using the blitz and aggressively trying to acquire pass rushers.
"You mean @TWHITNER. It’s how he prefers to be referenced." - Jon Harrington
by kaisertown on Aug 2, 2011 12:36 PM EDT reply actions 2 recs
Pass-rush won’t matter a whole lot if teams never have to pass on us because they can avg 12 yds/carry on us. Not coming at you, just sayin’.
yup – we were run on 571 times last year as opposed to being passed on 473 times. That’s 98 more run plays than pass plays.
Whether people want to believe it or not – stopping the run is crazy important.
When you innovate, you've got to be prepared for everyone telling you you're nuts.
by J2 on Aug 2, 2011 12:52 PM EDT up reply actions
Teams averaged 4.8 ypc against the Bills last year. The Packers gave up 4.7 and won the SB. Nobody runs on GB because they actually score points and have an efficient offense. Teams run in the NFL to manipulate the clock.
More importantly, that’s a short term problem. You need to stop the run to not be terrible. You need to stop the pass to win a Super Bowl. Worry about the Super Bowl and you have plenty of time to improve a bad run D. Buffalo didn’t need to commit an entire offseason to improving the least important thing in football.
"You mean @TWHITNER. It’s how he prefers to be referenced." - Jon Harrington
by kaisertown on Aug 2, 2011 1:04 PM EDT up reply actions 4 recs
I feel much the same about defending the run.
In the year two thousaaaaaaand.
In the year two thousAAAAAAND!
by TheAfghanTwilight on Aug 2, 2011 1:07 PM EDT via mobile up reply actions
Buffalo didn’t need to commit an entire offseason to improving the least important thing in football.
but what did they need to commit to? As far as i’m concerned it’s QB – unless you thought that Gabbert, Locker, Ponder, McCoy, Clausen, Tebow are going to be franchise guys then what’s the problem?
Not to mention that the Bills are set at WR and DB – they took Dareus who may have been the cleanest prospect in the draft, a CB and some linebackers because our linebacking core is completely terrible and some solid depth options.
They went out and got a pass rusher in Merriman but didn’t do anything in Free Agency to stop the run did they?
When you innovate, you've got to be prepared for everyone telling you you're nuts.
by J2 on Aug 2, 2011 1:07 PM EDT up reply actions
I’ve got zero faith in Shawne Merriman, so IMO, the Bills have done next to nothing to address the team’s pass offense and defense over the last couple seasons. They’ve added a couple nice WR pieces, a 4th round RT, a top five pick who will be more useful against the run than pass, a 6th round OLB who missed all of last year with injury and a CB who plays the run better than the pass relative to others at his position. To me, that’s not nearly good enough in a league where running the ball becomes less important every year and efficiency at QB seems like it’s everything.
"You mean @TWHITNER. It’s how he prefers to be referenced." - Jon Harrington
I’ve got zero faith in Shawne Merriman,
which is fine because no one knows if he’ll be healthy or if he’ll come back to his sacking ways – but that doesn’t mean that guys like Coleman and Moats (provided Merriman gets injured/sucks – he’d move outside one would think) can’t grow – which is part of the building through the draft philosophy – draft guys at positions and see what they can do – instead of drafting guys then taking FA’s to replace those positions at a premium cost.
For pass offense – you and I both know that it all rests on Fitz – we have more than enough weapons on offense – you have an argument on RG and RT – but save that – it’s on Fitz and we both know that.
by J2 on Aug 3, 2011 8:23 AM EDT up reply actions
I’m extremely confident that Shawne Merriman will not return to his sacking ways. Hopefully I’m wrong on that. But either way, Merriman isn’t a long term plan considering his health. Is he supposed to suddenly be consistently healthy and productive over the next five seasons? He’s had three straight lost seasons due to a variety of lower body injuries.
I believe the Bills have planned on Moats playing inside all along. They tried him their first last year. They’ve got better depth inside than out right now, but are currently playing him there. Recently Nix or Gailey (can’t remember which one) talking about him being a better fit inside because he isn’t protoypical outside and something along the lines of “he was always going to fit better inside”.
For pass offense – you and I both know that it all rests on Fitz
And that’s my exact problem.
"You mean @TWHITNER. It’s how he prefers to be referenced." - Jon Harrington
I get that’s your problem and even though that’s the biggest and most important aspect of the team – what do you think about the drafting and the FA pickups sans the QB position? because they haven’t dropped the ball in regards to a lot of things as far as I can tell
by J2 on Aug 3, 2011 12:17 PM EDT up reply actions
so you think the monster we’ve been seeing in practice will either get hurt again or it’s just our guys that are so bad it makes him look good? Maybe i’m desperate but I think he can come back to his former self, he’s had enough time to heal properly and he’s very motivated to prove people wrong + he’s still very young.
BTW dude, is the FF league defunct?
Rebuilding a team properly takes time and patience
I used to get so sick of Levy's run and stop the run philosophy
Where where you then ! Ha Ha
It was Cookie's turn to lead the "easiest exercise" during the Monday practice after a game-- he said-- "we're going to do deep breathing--everybody inhale--dehale "---As told by Jack Kemp at my high school sports banquet circa 1966.
Teams averaged 4.8 ypc against the Bills last year. The Packers gave up 4.7 and won the SB. Nobody runs on GB because they actually score points and have an efficient offense. Teams run in the NFL to manipulate the clock
sorry kaiser – but I have to come back to this – I think it’s completely worthless information here. The Packers have the best QB in football and got ran on 395 times as opposed to passed on 527 times because, as you said, because of Rodgers and their efficient offense.
The Packers gave up 6.5 yards per catch while the Bills gave up 6.9 yards per catch – does that mean that the Bills secondary is good at stopping the pass? The Packers faced 527 pass plays while the Bills faced 473 pass plays – so you’re only talking about a difference of 54 pass plays or about 4 more pass plays a game.
So how are the Bills any different in that regard?
by J2 on Aug 2, 2011 2:38 PM EDT up reply actions
So how are the Bills any different in that regard?
Sacks and turnovers. Accounting for sacks as pass plays and adding in the negative yardage, the difference ends up being 4.7 vs. 5.8, so we’re talking over a yard per play. Add in that the Packers create a turnover far more often than Buffalo (maybe more than 2% more pass plays?), then it becomes a really big gap in performance.
TDs are another way to look at things, but I’ve never thought they were particularly telling, especially compared to yards per attempt. My logic being that if a team is giving up too many rushing TDs inside the 10 or passing TDs inside the red zone, then that’s more than a rush or pass D problem. That’s about the entire defense as well as the offense because the other team is simply in the red zone too often. If a team is giving up too many long TDs, then it will show in the yards per attempt anyways.
"You mean @TWHITNER. It’s how he prefers to be referenced." - Jon Harrington
for sacks – again even if you don’t think it – Moats, Coleman and Merriman are the guys they are hinging that on.
What would you have done differently?
by J2 on Aug 3, 2011 8:25 AM EDT up reply actions
What would you have done differently?
For starters, not draft CJ Spiller. The Bills had plenty of good options there, but choose a running back.
Putting faith in Merriman seems nuts to me.
I also would have never switched over to the 3-4, but I get why Nix did that.
There’s little things too. Like even toying with the idea of playing Moats inside given the team’s current pass rush. Drafting Kelvin Sheppard over Martez Wilson and Justin Houston, considering that Sheppard is a tweener ILB who profiles as a two down run stuffer if he stays on the weakside.
The way I see things, it all adds up to a GM who is more concerned with stopping the run than the pass. Which to me, either says that Nix has the wrong strategy and doesn’t understand how to beat elite teams or that he’s thinking short term and trying to make the team more competitive by fixing it’s biggest weaknesses first and worrying about the future in the future.
"You mean @TWHITNER. It’s how he prefers to be referenced." - Jon Harrington
on Sheppard – the Bills didn’t think there was a chance he’d last until their 3rd round pick.
by J2 on Aug 3, 2011 12:19 PM EDT up reply actions
My real problem is that I don’t see what the long term plan is.
easy – to build a 3-4 while drafting the best players available to you in the draft while you are picking.
I think the reason you don’t see a plan kaiser is becuase they are taking the best players on their draft boards and forgoing needs – you may disagree with the philosophy – but that’s what happening isn’t it?
When you innovate, you've got to be prepared for everyone telling you you're nuts.
by J2 on Aug 2, 2011 12:53 PM EDT up reply actions 2 recs
Best in BPA is a relative term. What’s best for a 3-4 isn’t best for a 4-3 team. The BPA for a Chan Gailey offense isn’t the BPA for the Oakland Raiders run heavy and deep pass attack. So, IMO, it’s impossible for a player like CJ Spiller to be the BPA at any point in the top 20 picks for a team like the Bills. It’s impossible for a pure run stuffer like Torell Troup to be the BPA in the early 2nd round. I think the exact opposite of the trust in Nix crowd and I think those were need picks to improve the team as quickly as they could. I think they just screwed up because Spiller wasn’t an instant impact guy and because they underestimated Kyle Williams.
I think they’re drafting who the BPA would have been in 1980. But running backs don’t have the value they used to. Neither does stopping the run. And neither does a CB like Williams (unless they really did just make a great pick by projecting instead of by using college performance) because Williams is a big jamming corner who tackles well, but struggled on the outside in Texas. He played almost exclusively out of the slot and didn’t pick off a pass last year. I think the Bills are drafting like it’s pre-QB/WR friendly passing rules era.
"You mean @TWHITNER. It’s how he prefers to be referenced." - Jon Harrington
by kaisertown on Aug 3, 2011 8:02 AM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
To add:
Of course the Bills are taking the BPA off their board. Every team adjusts their board for need. It’s not a plan, it’s how every team in the league drafts. If the Bills have a long term plan, then I’m not seeing it. Like I said in my original comment, I think they’re plan is to address the short term, while hoping that drafting well will set them up long term. IMO, that’s not a long term plan. That’s a short term plan with optimism for the long haul.
"You mean @TWHITNER. It’s how he prefers to be referenced." - Jon Harrington
With the first picks in Dareus and Spiller I might agree with you – but from all accounts Williams, Troup, Carrington, Sheppard all need a year or 2 and are clearly not “instant impact” guys – but guys that need an NFL season or 2 to adjust and become great football players because they are motivated hard working football players.
What would your plan have been? I believe i’ve asked you this before and it all comes down to QB – like I said above – unless you think that some of the QBs we’ve passed on the past 2 years are an elite talent then I can’t disagree with how they’ve gone about things.
by J2 on Aug 3, 2011 8:35 AM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
geez man
i haven’t been active for a while and didn’t realize how much you were upset with OBD!
Doesn’t seem like there’s much you like about CHIX !
I don’t agree with you because I think stopping the run is important, especially for a consistently bad team like our – one whose ranked in the bottom 3 against the run for more years than I can remember. It’s hard to score points against your opponent when they can milk the clock every time they touch the ball. I’ll admit that I was never a fan of the Spiller pick but if he comes alive this year i will soon forget and forgive them. Besides the fact that I didn’t like any of the players drafted after him except for maybe Jason Pierre-Paul but he was more of a boom/bust project.
Rebuilding a team properly takes time and patience
I'm on the fence
Truly not happy he doesn’t seem more concerned with getting RT sorted out, and the TE issue. Sure, some good things may have happened, but I think they need to pay for talent that can help them win and create a buzz for future free agents.
Oh and as cool as Brad Smith is (he is a cool dude) I would hope he doesn’t become the headline signing this summer.
In the year two thousaaaaaaand.
In the year two thousAAAAAAND!
by TheAfghanTwilight on Aug 2, 2011 1:05 PM EDT via mobile reply actions 1 recs
Overall I think you have to approve
I have been overly critical of the front office at one Bills drive, but think that overall Nix is trying to do the best he can to a point. I don’t think that you are going to get good players to come in here without overpaying a little bit. Buffalo has got to be a hard sale. This team and it’s front office has been in disarray for over a decade. I do feel that this team is close to becoming a contender, and “overspending” on a couple of players could make the team significantly better. Yes they missed out on Clabo, I doubt he was ever serious about coming here unless Nix et al. threw stupid money at him. Is Clabo really that good? Poz. just not worth 7.5 mil. It is too bad they lost out on Burnett, but once again, Miami or Buffalo, if the price is the same where are you going? I doubt Babin had Buffalo high on his priority list, but would have been nice to have at the right price. Thigpen makes sense, just as much as Vince Young to Philly makes sense. Thigpen has very similar skill sets to Fitzpatrick and can function in a Gailey offense. Brad Smith, not sold on yet, but time will tell. Barnett will be a steal if he stays healthy and goes a long way in helping shore up the linebackers. I’ll take a healthy Barnett any day over Poz.
I am more concerned that with some of the good players still left out there that Buffalo has not made any further moves for. I would think that spending a little to bring in a couple of upgrades could mean 3 or 4 more wins this year and maybe even a playoff push in the next couple of years.
I have no idea what the cap hit would be to let Maybin and some other busts go, but cut the ties and bring in a couple of players that can make a difference. Not much left for Tackles at this point, but still an obvious need with no true starter or depth there. A good TE would be nice as would another strong ILB. As I look at he remaining players available, please tell me that some of them are not an upgrade over what the Bills have right now. There must be an OLB that could be had that would be an upgrade over Maybin.
I give Buddy Nix credit to a point for doing what he is doing with a few questions, like Spiller as your number one last year. There were more needs last year than now and Spiller was a luxury pick. I am not saying he may be good, he has a lot to prove, but could other needs been addressed at that time? Let’s hope Marriman and Barnett can stay healthy as they will make a big difference, but if they don’t it will be another long season.
by popey on Aug 2, 2011 1:32 PM EDT reply actions 1 recs
Disapprove
Too many FA failures. He simply was unable to get the deals done (circumstances not withstanding).
•Lost out on the following free agent targets: ILB Paul Posluszny (story), OT Tyson Clabo, OT Willie Colon, DE Jason Babin and ILB Kevin Burnett (story).
"...You play to win the game. Hello? You play to win the game. You don't play it to just play it. That's the great thing about sports: you play to win, and I don't care if you don't have any wins. You go play to win. When you start tellin' me it doesn't matter, then retire. Get out! 'Cause it matters." ~ Herm Edwards
"Talk's cheap. We all know that. It's like I've always said: 'Don't tell me about the labor pains, just show me the baby.' " ~ Buddy Nix
by Jason from OH-IO on Aug 2, 2011 1:44 PM EDT reply actions
I think Nix takes too much heat for this situation.
Does anyone think if Nix worked for Pegula under the same circumstances we wouldn’t have signed Clabo and Burnett ? I don’t. Does anyone think Pegula would care that the Bills don’t have to be at 89% of the cap minimum tl 2013 ? No way. Our problem is at the top !
It was Cookie's turn to lead the "easiest exercise" during the Monday practice after a game-- he said-- "we're going to do deep breathing--everybody inhale--dehale "---As told by Jack Kemp at my high school sports banquet circa 1966.
Approval (Conditional)
I’d like to see a couple more solid FA signings (OL, LB) but on the whole, I still think this team is headed in the right direciton.
Just not enough...
I voted disapprove. Signing our draft picks was no horrible task. The new rookie wage scale made it easy to get them signed. Signing the UDFA’s was a no brainer as well. 98% of them are just to fill up the roster demands. The loss of Poz IMO is ok. He is a very likeable and hard nosed player but not fit for a 4-3 def. The signing of Barnett filled the spot but yet to be determined. Signing back up qbs. were a need so I’ll give him that. Signing Flo was also a good move. I just do see how Buddy or OBD can be approved upon by these few actions. Don’t get me wrong though…Our draft was a good one. I just don’t see enough effort. Its frustrating because we are soooo close. I just love my Bills and I want them to WIN,WIN, WIN!
The more I think about it the more I think if they WERE able to get Clabo or another above-average tackle, this would have been a fantastic offseason. They’d have made major additions to both lines, areas that are of the utmost importance to football teams and which last season were major issues. Well, they didn’t. That’s my only problem with what Nix has done since the draft. Despite that, I still approve.
OT
If Nix gets one of the remaining top OTs for a short (1-3 yrs), cheap contract (3-4 mil per yr), I’ll say that he took exactly the right approach in FA. Those would be Gaither (his injury, if he can over come it, would be worth the risk for this premier OT), Harris (I think he’s perfect for our RT) and Locklear (and maybe Trueblood).
Those would be Gaither (his injury, if he can over come it, would be worth the risk for this premier OT),
First off, Gathier was a LT before being displaced by a certain LT in Baltimore, the same LT we passed on to take Spiller. (You might have heard his name a few times.) He was not happy at RT when he was healthy. Secondly, although I agree if healthy he would be a great upgrade, how many significant contracts can the Bills give out to injured released players in the hopes that they get better. Still I have to agree that Tackle, either side, could still be upgraded and make this team more competitive.
the same LT we passed on to take Spiller
Do you mean Maybin?
by billsfan4life on Aug 2, 2011 3:51 PM EDT up reply actions
Approve
Isn’t it possible that Erik Pears IS the answer at RT? Chan says so, even ’though that might just be stating the company line. Jury is still out.
Isn’t it possible that Erik Pears IS the answer at RT?
simple answer – No!
If he was the answer and Chan and Nix beleived it, they wouldn’t have tried to sign a RT. They know we don’t have a legitimate starter at RT, Nix just struck out trying to get a deal completed… that simple. There is you reason to disapprove. Just like Nix had to back track to plan C after he was unable to retain Poz and sign Burnett.
"...You play to win the game. Hello? You play to win the game. You don't play it to just play it. That's the great thing about sports: you play to win, and I don't care if you don't have any wins. You go play to win. When you start tellin' me it doesn't matter, then retire. Get out! 'Cause it matters." ~ Herm Edwards
"Talk's cheap. We all know that. It's like I've always said: 'Don't tell me about the labor pains, just show me the baby.' " ~ Buddy Nix
by Jason from OH-IO on Aug 2, 2011 4:42 PM EDT up reply actions
Just like Nix had to back track to plan C after he was unable to retain Poz
so….are you suggesting that that the Bills should have paid Poz $7.5 million for his services?
by J2 on Aug 2, 2011 4:49 PM EDT up reply actions
Uh....fellas.....
The Vikings released LT Bryant McKinnie (you know, the LT we should have drafted instead of Mike Williams) because he was out of shape at camp.
Hes in the twilight of his career but is big and strong enough and experienced enough to man the right side (in my humble opinion).
Would votes in this poll shift towards more approval or disapproval if we kicked the tired on ole McKinnie??
The bandwagon will be full and fast and drunk and exciting - Undee
McKinnie is not the player he once was....most Vikes fans are happy to see him go
He is not the answer for use at LT. I would rather roll with Bell (man that hurt to type)
QB SMASHER KING KONG JASPER
Dareus will put you on you Dar-e-ass
If you ask a question you don't want an answer to, expect an answer you don't want to hear.
big and strong enough and experienced enough to man the right side
Poz was talking about playing him at RT.
"Slowly all the roles we act out become our identity. And in the end we are what we pretend to be." - Jerry Cantrell.
my bad...but my answer remains the same
The man is not motivated.
QB SMASHER KING KONG JASPER
Dareus will put you on you Dar-e-ass
If you ask a question you don't want an answer to, expect an answer you don't want to hear.
I don’t know much about it, but what I’ve heard as been mixed. I think I’m just desperate to see Erik Pears competing for playing time instead of just being handed the starting job.
"Slowly all the roles we act out become our identity. And in the end we are what we pretend to be." - Jerry Cantrell.
I would love to see the Bills bring in some competition for Pears...just not sure McKinnie is the man for the job
QB SMASHER KING KONG JASPER
Dareus will put you on you Dar-e-ass
If you ask a question you don't want an answer to, expect an answer you don't want to hear.
that’s where i’m at Joe – he might, could be a good RT – but he’s been lazy in Minny for a few years now – at least from what i’ve read….
by J2 on Aug 2, 2011 4:56 PM EDT up reply actions
it is true....I have seen it first hand
Would a change of scenery help? I don’t know, but signing a lazy vet at the end of his career seems like a poor gamble to take. I would rather take a chance on a hungry project that has been on someone’s practice squad at this point in our rebuild. We have a core group of hungry badass Olineman. Why would we want to mess with that by adding McKinnie?
QB SMASHER KING KONG JASPER
Dareus will put you on you Dar-e-ass
If you ask a question you don't want an answer to, expect an answer you don't want to hear.
understandable
Im not sure where I’d be with McKinnie except to believe that ANY competition for our OTs is a good thing.
I wonder if we were able to nab him for an incentive laden contract that could spike his motivation (money buys everything, right?) if it could work
The bandwagon will be full and fast and drunk and exciting - Undee
by poz on Aug 2, 2011 5:18 PM EDT up reply actions
If CHIX talked to the man and felt he wanted to prove something, then maybe
an incentive laden contract would be the way to go. But my read on him is that he doesn’t want to put in the work anymore.
QB SMASHER KING KONG JASPER
Dareus will put you on you Dar-e-ass
If you ask a question you don't want an answer to, expect an answer you don't want to hear.
which is such a shame
the guy has the body and the talent to keep being great
The bandwagon will be full and fast and drunk and exciting - Undee
by poz on Aug 2, 2011 5:28 PM EDT up reply actions
McKinnie would be well advised to not sign with anyone until the season begins and some team desperately needs LT help due to injury. Unless of course some team offers him a huge contract sooner.
Year two is upon us.
by Buffalo for Eternity on Aug 2, 2011 6:25 PM EDT up reply actions
yea Im thinking of him as a RT
I figure at his age, his athleticism might not be what it once was to handle all those AFC East edge rushers
The bandwagon will be full and fast and drunk and exciting - Undee
by poz on Aug 2, 2011 5:19 PM EDT up reply actions
I voted approve....Nix is doing all he can at this point
Some people have said they don’t see the plan. I see the plan. It isn’t how I would do it, but the plan is there none the less. Only time will tell if the plan will result in wins. Some people are upset about the players we have signed/not signed in free agency. I think Nix has signed the players he could. There is no way Manning, Clabo, Free, Poz etc. were going to sign here. Nothing Nix can do about it. Nix says we must build through the draft because that is what we HAVE to do to climb out of the basement. Once we show the league we can be competitive, then some of these top tier FAs might sign with the Bills.
QB SMASHER KING KONG JASPER
Dareus will put you on you Dar-e-ass
If you ask a question you don't want an answer to, expect an answer you don't want to hear.
This \/
http://m.bleacherreport.com/articles/788289-offseason-report-cards-for-all-32-nfl-teams/page/5
bills big board
1. patrick peterson
2. aj green
3. marcell dareus
by PrinceAli on Aug 2, 2011 5:08 PM EDT via mobile reply actions
I voted disapprove
Did that this morning based on what I regarded as a disappointing draft, followed by a lacklustre FA. Now that we have apparently lost Zach Miller to Seattle (he WAS available, it turns out) I am disapproving even more. I like Chan a lot, but have my doubts about Buddy.
I like what Buddy has done. I voted not sure because I want to see if he brings anyone else in from now until the start of the season. I am happy with what he has done though and I also see now reason why this team can not go 9-7 this year. I feel they are right at a 7-9 / 8-8 / 9-7 team right now. Anything below that would be a major disappointment and anything above that would be a welcoming shock.
Voted approve
The Brad Smith move was smart given the new 3rd qb roster rule
Nick Barnett is a solid replacement for Poz at a much cheaper salary (potential upgrade)
Shawne Merriman is turning heads at camp, could be the pass rusher we need
Top FAs aren’t going to a 4-12 team unless theyre severely overpaid so I’m not holding missing on Clabo and Colon against him
Biggest negative for me is the 2010 draft class mostly Spiller, however I’m optimistic that he’ll have a good season this year and justify Nixs pick.
Approved
I like what Nix has done. The moves smack of self confidence and moxie. The guy won’t be pressured by media and fans, regardless of how many approval polls are run:). I too see his vision. Stacking good draft after good draft, with smart money FA signings sprinkled in, seem to me to be the most sound strategy toward moving a small market franchise out of the gutter.
Now, can I say that his drafts were good? Still to early to tell. But not over paying for pos was huge in my book. I don’t think this can get enough credit. We got 3players for the price of Poz. And To think i would have been happy with Barnett for Paul straight up.
Keep it up Nix!
approve
I am to tired after reading all that to say much else.
Please base your arguments in provable facts instead of pulling stuff out of your rear. -CanadianBillsFan- This is why talk is cheap because the supply always exceeds the demand.

by 


































