2003Contenders

My only concern is that the Packers have tons of cap space, so we'd lose any bidding war.

One way or the other by the end of today TO will be a free agent. Dallas and Denver sound like his most likely destinations.

I'm not sure what all the crying in the beer is about Moulds. Receivers who average barely 10 yards per catch and rack up just a little over 800 yards and 4 TDs in a full season are a dime a dozen. In fact, a closer look shows that Moulds has not snagged more than 5 TDs in a season since 2002 -- and the whole offense was quite prolific that year. Of course, that's just because our QBs suck, right...

I think he's somewhat of an unknown commodity around the league, and those who do know about him probably feel that the Bills would match any offer anyway.

Until we are ready to make a definite decision on JP -- which I don't think we are after just 8 starts -- I wouldn't part with ANYTHING for another QB. If one is freely available on the cheap, I'm all for bringing him in, but I don't think we should give up anything.

I won't dismiss everything that TD said here. However, while Big Mike was at times very good, he was never consistent enough to merit his #4 selection -- and he certainly did not deserve the huge paycheck he was receiving. When it's all said and done -- and we look back on the cap space that he occupied each year, it is almost ironic that this highly touted offensive lineman was as big of a reason for the failure of the TD era as anything else. I say ironic because TD is comdemned for his lack of attention to the OL. Far be it for me to call any player a sissy, especially a lineman -- because I know these guys play through pain EVERY week. The problem is that being tough enough to do this goes with the territory, and one of the prerequisites to being an NFL OL is that you MUST be able to withstand an inordinate amount of pain. I think, when it is all said and done, Big Mike simply did not have this rare attribute.

To me the tell tale quote from Williams today was that he said he wanted to be the "dominant offensive tackle that I know I am". In other words, MW is satisfied with his current skills and grades himself at CURRENTLY being dominant -- not that he needs to work to GET to that point. This tells me that the Jags are buying the same bag of goods that we just unloaded.

My problem right now with Moulds is that it is clear that he simply wants to be released. If money were the only issue, then he could: 1. Work out a more cap-friendly deal that will still net him a similar amount of cash in 2006. 2. Hold fast with his current contract. That is, state that he and the Bills have a contract in place that he is willing to honor. If the Bills don't want to honor it, then the onus is on them to cut or trade him. Originally, #2 seemed to be Moulds' stance. However, he has recently changed his tune. My guess is that he was being disingenuous early on because he knew that the Bills were in some mild cap trouble if they didn't cut him. With the expansion of the CBA, there is no rush to free up his cap figure, and the team no longer HAS to cut him. They do, however, need to make a decision by the time his roster bonus is due.

Does anyone know when Moulds' roster bonus is due? That sets the timetable on what will happen and when...

It's funny... When Manning, Rivers, and Big Ben flew off the draft board prior to our first pick in 2004, I hoped that the Bills would manage to land Schaub in the 2nd -- or even 3rd round.

A couple questions about Wells... 1. Wasn't he hurt last year? 2. Isn't he a RESTRICTED Free Agent?

Probably means that Charles Rogers will be getting his walking papers soon.

The only thing that I can say is that if he had this reputation, MM naming him the starter last year without a fair competition probably didn't help.

Doh! Thanks for setting me straight.

At one time they were, but that was before all of the moves I mentioned and the expanded cap. I know that they reworked Mark Brunell's contract even prior to the Arrington release that reportedly saved about $2 M. The Arrington pay-back, freed up another $4 M. The released players I mentioned further freed up about $7 M. So, right there, that is: 2+4+7+7.5(cap expansion) = $20.5 M. I haven't heard the particulars on the negotiations with Jensen and Springs (among others), but if both players, say, converted their base pay and roster bonuses in 2006 to a single signing bonus that could be spread out, then the team could have saved as much as $3-4 M per player.

That must mean that Chester Taylor is available. He wouldn't be a bad backup for Willis. In fact, he would fit right in line with the young, up-and-comer types that the team has been signing in free agency thus far.

??? As the poster above said, Bentley was never truly available to us. Recall, that the hot rumor was that he was originally headed to Philly. He wanted to play for his hometown Cleveland Browns, so it doesn't sound like he was ever going to go anywhere else, once they presented him with a strong offer. I don't see Larry T as a "below average" player at all. Indeed, he appears to be an excellent fit, a quality individual, and a player who already knows the new defense. The other two guys are definitely role players -- but both are young and come with some upside. Maybe the team did overpay a bit for Royal, but we knew going into the off-season that this 5-11 team without a playoff appearance in this millenium would HAVE to overpay to get guys to come here. Recall that the Patriots thought so much of Davis last year that they gave up a draft pick to get him. Att he very least, if fully healthy, he should be an upgrade over Josh Reed. At this juncture, the best thing to do is NOT to take each FA acquisition on it own merit, but wait until the preseason is over and judge the entire collection. For example, if Pickett does come in today -- and winds up signing with us, then we can look back and say (on paper at least) that the front office did a nice job handling one of the real need positions (DT) of this team. That also frees us up to do more things in the draft. We all know that the OL is in major need of repair -- but let's wait until after free agency and the draft conclude before we start accusing Marv and co. of not having done enough.

The write-up appears to be from a fantasy football perspective. And for that standpoint, it is a fair assessment that he is a below average fantasy prospect, as aside from one or two years, his numbers have ALWAYS been subpar for a #1 WR. Of course, there is more to being a good receiver than simply catching the ball and putting up numbers. His mere presence on the field means that he will draw attention, which means that Evans, Parrish, and now Davis should have some decent looks. Without Moulds on the field, the other guys' production all drops, which is the inverse of what you would logically think. Still, if I am Moulds, then I see no reason to take a paycut. Seeing what Randle El just got -- and the lack of other top notch WRs on the open market, you have to expect that Moulds believes he will get some decent change. In fact, he probably becomes the consolation prize for whatever team does NOT wind up with TO (possibly Dallas, where he can be reunited with Drew) -- or to Philly as TO's replacement. Thus, the front office must decide whether they can live with his large cap number this year -- or prepare for entering the 2006 season without him. And, for the reasons I just cited, the prospects aren't good about a quality replacement if Moulds leaves. In my mind, Moulds' departure could make it more likely that the team will draft Davis.

That is a good point about Royal possibly playing an H-Back role. Also, let's not forget about the offense that Fairchild ran in St Louis for a clue about what this signing could mean. If the Bills had serious considerations about drafting Davis, I do not think that the signing of Royal will impact that decision in the slightest, since the two players would essentially play two different positions with Royal representing a 6th blocker in most situations and Davis representing an extra WR. The decision about whether or not to explore Davis will tell us more about what the new regime thinks about the prognosis of Everett, as that is the position that Davis would conceivably be upgrading.

1. Lavar gave them about $4 M in cap relief 2. They cut Matt Bowen (freed $2 M), Walt Harris (freed $2 M), Cory Raymer (freed about $950 K), Brandon Noble (freed about $1.5M), and Tom Tupa (freed $600 K). All told, that freed up about $7 M. The above moves, coupled with the expansion of the cap by $7.5 M was enough to get them under the new cap in time. On top of that, they also approached a number of players, inlcuding Jon Jenson and Shawn Springs about restucturing their contracts to free up more cap space. Between those two players alone, they could have freed up several million dollars. So, I have no doubts that what they've done is legit. Of course, you can question the intelligence of giving guys like Randle El and Archuletta so much cash.

Randle El can thank Lavar for paying the Skins over $4 M to release him.

...Which means that we may be able to bring him back in for the league minimum.

The bottom line is that one hand feeds the other. If ownership is willing to pay the money to put a quality team out there on the field -- and the team wins, then it will in turn help generate extra revenue. Yes, the Patriots play in a larger market, but their recent rise toward the top in revenue, I think, has more to do with their success in recent years. Washington's situation is so unique because the area is so affluent -- and because the owner is always trying to find new ways to make extra cash. For example, how much more annual revenue could Ralph generate if he were to sell the naming rights to RWS? There are many who despise SNyder for his anything-for-a-buck mind-set, but the other owners in the league, including Ralph, that want a piece of his action aren't complaining, are they? My intent isn't to beat up on Ralph here. I think his "No" vote was more of a protest vote, because he did not like the way that the owners were pressured into having to digest a great deal of information in a short period of time -- and then make a unilateral business decision that affects the economic climate for the next 6 years and beyond. I actually see where he was coming from with that. His latest responses come off as his being a bit stubborn about the vote itself, rather than what he was actually voting on. I just hope that he doesn't continue to be stubborn about this to the point of refusing to shell out the necessary money that we need for free agents just to try to further prove his point.

And correct me if I'm wrong -- but that 59.5% that we keep hearing tossed about is the CAP, not the minimum. So if the smaller market teams don't want to spend that much, they don't have to. For what it's worth, those Bills teams in the late 80s and early 90s did pretty well with no cap in place -- and, in fact, the cap paid a significant role in dismantling them years later.

Anyone else think that Kim's psychiatrist boyfriend was planted by Robocop? He keeps going on and on to Jack about how much he's looked into taking care of Kim during Jack's hiatus. I also think that they've done a good job of showing us how tough Robocop is to the point where even drugs won't make him talk. That was set up to show us that the grieving Tony -- who blames RoboCop for what he did to Michelle -- will get some measure of revenge in MAKING him talk. That could also provide us with some dramatic moment when Tony realizes that he was "inadevertantly" invlolved by spilling the beans to the wrong person that Jack was still alive.