Bills let someone else pay, play Coles

By Anthony Bialy  |   Friday, March 06, 2009  |  Comments( 418 )

Buffalo Bills
Got something to say?

Log In above and share your thoughts on this topic with other fans!
Were the Buffalo Bills worried that Laveranues Coles would revert to hoodlum life? The Cincinnati Bengals’ newest wideout seems to have moved past his collegiate troublemaking phase, including pillaging a Dillard’s with Peter Warrick; even if Coles still occasionally acts disgruntled, character has faded as an issue. It comes down to the Bills not being fearful but rather cheap, as they threw away an opportunity to enhance their receiving corps with a player who has been, and isn’t done being, good.

Coles would’ve helped. He’s 31, but he's manning a position where players can maintain relatively long careers. Plus, aging isn’t the worst thing that could happen to a player who hasn’t leaned on speed exclusively to find success.

The now-Bengal has 631 receptions for 8,095 yards. That’s a fair 12.8 per catch, but Coles is a possession receiver in the best sense: He’s averaged 4.5 receptions per game while balancing that with a decent pickup each time. He’s also durable enough to have only missed seven games over his career, which is partially why he’s gotten over 1,000 yards in three of his nine seasons. But Coles won’t get to make it four out of 10 in Buffalo.

That fine single-season milestone is one that not many of Buffalo’s catchers have attained recently, especially not in pairs. The last season during which two Buffalo receivers got four-digit gains was 2002, when Eric Moulds and Peerless Price briefly concurrently thrived with Drew Bledsoe; at this rate, they’ll be lucky to get one player to 1,000 in 2009, as Lee Evans may once again be as lonely as a marathon runner.

The Bills still only have access to an assortment of underwhelming options to accompany Evans: A poor man’s Coles in Josh Reed, a special teams freak in Roscoe Parrish, a casually underwhelming youngster in James Hardy and an intriguing seventh-rounder in Steve Johnson who nonetheless can’t be considered a lock for stardom. The team must realize that there are numerous veteran wideouts available who would instantaneously jump to second on the depth chart.

The biggest thing to dislike about Coles was his big price, but genuine help always costs something. His Bengal deal is reportedly $28 million over four seasons; subtract a certain percentage of that as not guaranteed, and it’s at worst a vaguely high outlay for a consistently productive player. Buffalo has to accept that overpaying for free agents is both acceptable and necessary: Exceeding market value to acquire talent is justifiable when a team isn’t giving up a draft pick or another player in return.

But Coles’ ship has sailed. Now, Trent Edwards, a quarterback whose greatest strength is accurately delivering mid-range throws, won’t enjoy the luxury of a receiver renowned for fielding mid-range throws. The only thing worse than letting Coles leave without a deal is knowing that they were outmaneuvered by the same Cincinnati team that’s perpetually stocked with underachieving felons.

Not all is lost, though, as the Bills brought in Joey Galloway on Thursday, and they should also be looking to bring in the disgruntled Torry Holt of the St. Louis Rams. They’re both examples of non-Terrell Owens veteran wideouts who would inject adrenaline to an underwhelming offense.

But the Bills are under the burden of proof at this point. They need to remember that talented and expensive employees are usually the same thing, which is tough news for those few well-compensated players they already have.
Got something to say?

Log In above and share your thoughts on this topic with other fans! (418)

About Anthony Bialy

I'm just here to submit columns.
read more
Article Tools Share!   |  RSS  |  Bleacher Report About Bleacher Report