2003Contenders

Isn't Walker coming off a season ending knee injury?

Good point -- which is why I doubt that we will be quite the mover and shaker in free agency that many of us would like. I hate to say it, but we will probably be in the position of having to OVERPAY for some players. There's also going to be guys out there looking for a fresh start that may see a real opportunity by coming to a place like Buffalo where there will be so much competition for starting jobs. Some of these guys may be perceived as over-the-hill (Mawae), while others may be guys who have never lived up to their potential but may thrive in a new city -- guys like our very own Mike Williams and Josh Reed. This is where the pro scouts are going to have to earn their money.

Actually, if we brought Mawae in at a reasonable price, assuming that he is healthy and still has something left in the tank -- I wouldn't even be opposed to re-signing Teague, provided that he accepts a contract cosistent with what a backup would make. After all, he has experience playing OT as well as OC.

Part me also thinks that Ralph is tired of being patronized by Tagliabu and some of the owners. Folks should remember that without his bailout, the AFL would have folded.

With the CBA extension now in place, they have the luxury of waiting until June 1 to cut him and spread out his cap hit, depending on when his roster bonus is due.

He was to the Cleveland Browns what Mike Williams was to us -- only on the other side of the ball. If he comes cheap, he's worth a look. But I wouldn't shell out big money.

Ralph is being made fun of for his age -- and his age alone. He simply wanted to take some time to review the proposal in hand and did not want to make a rash decision that he and the other owners may have to live with for the next 6 years.

Not to mention that Synder can force people to pay $35 for parking and literally double the price of season tickets because he knows that people are actually PAYING to be on the waiting list to get season tickets. Oh, and under the new terms, I suppose all of that would count as revenue too.

It is too soon to call Upshaw either a moron or a genius. If no deal gets done, the players wind up losing portions of their 401K, have to wait 6 years to file for free agency rather than 4, and head into the 2008 season with no CBA in place, then Upshaw looks like a fool for being too combative. On the other hand, if the owners end up coming to an agreement and signing off on the deal that is on the table now, then Upshaw deserves all of the accolades he's getting.

I agree. I liked what all of the coaches had to say. Now let's see if they follow through.

Don't forget that Brandon Spoon was also part of that deal, as we traded down a few spots and picked up a second from Tampa Bay. Then we traded that new second down a few spots and picked up a 4th from Denver. That 4th rounder wound up being Brandon Spoon. I know he only lasted a couple of years, but he did start at LB as a rookie and had some promising moments. For me, considering the premium on good CBs versus good OGs, I would say that we made out better with Nate over Hutch, even discounting Henry and Spoon being added to the equation. Taking a CB in the first round is a crapshoot, but when you take a guard that high he had BETTER be a Pro Bowl caliber player. For all the criticism that anyone may have of TD, in retrospect his decisions in the 2001 draft have to be looked upon with great fondness. Considering the way that the team was gutted with cap cuts, it was very important that he strike paydirt in that first draft, and for the most part he did: 1. Nate Clements (Starter and has gone to the Pro Bowl) 2. A Schobel (Starter and Pro Bowl caliber) 3. Travis Henry (Starter, 1300+ rusher twice) 4. Jonas Jennings (Starter, lost him to higher bidder in FA) 5. Ron Edwards (Spot starter who has battled injuries) 6. Brandon Spoon (Starter who also battled injuries after rookie season) And that was just rounds 1-4. Ironically, it was the one draft during his tenure in which Modrak did NOT take part.

I see your point. But there are two things at play here: 1. The $10.8 M cap hit that Moulds currently occupies, which accounts for over 11% of the total team cap. Not only is that too much for a player with his particular skillset, but it also hinders our ability to improve the team in numerous other important areas. 2. There is also the matter of the "real" $7.1 M that he's due this year. That's a lot of cash for Ralph to be coughing up for a guy who isn't even a guaranteed 1,000-yard receiver. The key is going to be how many viable WRs are out there in free agency, and what it would cost to bring one in of Moulds' stature. At his best, Moulds is a top 10-15 WR. When he's not playing at his highest level, I'd be hard pressed to put him in the top 25. I would imagine that we could find someone with similar production that would cost less than $10.8 M against the cap (including the escalation of Moulds' SB). Hopefully Moulds and his agent change their tune, becaue my first choice would be for him to come back at a reduced salary. If they remain firm in their stance, then it's adios.

I give Upshaw some kudos for driving such a hard bargain -- but the end result could be that he overstates his position to the point where no deal gets done, which is bad for EVERYBODY, considering how great things have been under the existing CBA. We all know that the owners are going to flat turn this 59.5% proposal down too. The only reason it got to this point was that Tagliabu and the NFLPA wanted to reach SOME form of closure and at least present the owners with SOMETHING to vote on. Over the next couple of days, the owners are likely going to work together to come up with their own new counter-offer. The last we heard was that they had gone up to 56.5% from their original 56% offer. Meanwhile, Upshaw has been willing to go down to 59.5% from his original 60%. Thus, to date both sides have only budged by .5%. If the owners come back with just another .5%, bringing it up to 57% for their counter-offer, then things could go back and forth for another couple weeks. The longer this goes on, the more tiresome it will become -- and the more PR damage it will cause. I'm still optimistic that something will get done, but I wonder what kind of a bad taste it will leave when it's all said and done.

Going back to the Willis pick, whether you agree with his selection or not, one of the things that you have to like about it was the strategy involved. Recall that our greatest need that year was a defensive lineman; however, the draft board was loaded with them early, so by the time we picked several of them had already come off the board. The scouts had 2 or 3 guys very closely ranked that they viewed as decent value with that first round pick. However, they looked at the teams picking after us, realized that many of them had already filled that DL need and rationalized that one of the guys we were looking at would still be there for us in the second round. Thus, they decided to roll the dice and gamble on greatness with McGahee -- and wound up getting one of those DL, Kelsay, they were looking at in the second round, just as they planned. With TD gone, it is hard to gauge what the new regime will do -- and much depends on free agency and what players we acquire there. Currently, the reality is that we have so many needs in so many positions that you could make a strong argument for a DL (Ngata), DB (Huff/Williams), or a TE (Davis). We also obviously need OL help, but there is no player likely to be there at OT or OG worthy of the #8 pick if Ferguson is gone as expected. I'd like for the war room to stick closely to their player ratings -- but I also hope our scouts and front office keep in mind the projection of what other teams are likely to do between the #9 pick and our second round choice, assuming there is no chance for a trade up/down. They should then draft the position player that has the greatest upside OVER the highest ranked player at the same position, who is likely to still be on the board in the next round. Scouts seem to think that, while Ngata is the best DT prospect, there is little that separates him from, say, the 3rd or 4th best, who are likely to still be around when we pick in the second round. Meanwhile, Huff and Davis appear to be head and shoulders above other propects at their respective positions. Depending upon how our scouts have them graded, based on my own observations, I'd be inclined to draft Davis or Huff in the first round -- and hold off for better value at the DT position in the second. Of course, with Adams gone and no bona fide starter at either DT position, the front office could panic, if they do not address the need in free agency. That could lead to the "safe" pick of Ngata in the first round. While I would not be mortified if that were to happen, I just wonder what kind of a rippling effect that will have on the quality of our picks in the later rounds.

Yea, Mayock's obsession with Cutler has caused him to lose some credibility in my eyes. Not in the sense that he's necessarily wrong about the kid, but he is so dead set on ranking him at the top that he's developed a predisposition about him. Personally, I didn't think he looked all that great in the Senior Bowl, and he did not stand head and shoulders above the other QBs in the combine's passing drills, despite Mayock's insistence otherwise. I think when the smoke settles, Cutler probably falls back toward the middle of the 1st round where he was originally projected a few weeks ago. Any team drafting him in the top 7 can only helps the Bills' cause.

Ah, but it isn't the pot itself that has increased -- but the DEFINITION of the pot. Under the old CBA the pot was defined as Defined Gross Revenue (DGR), which consisted of national television, ticket sales, and NFL merchandise. The new system would call for a share of TOTAL revenue. The latest estimate that I heard was that the DGR was somewhere in the neighborhood of 75% of the total league-wide revenue. Thus, Upshaw is talking apples and oranges when he compares the old 64.5% of DGR to, say, 58% of total revenue. We've already seen where even the owners' low 56% of total revenue means about $7 to $8 M more than the 64.5% under the existing DGR system. Of course, kudos go to Upshaw for driving a hard bargain.

One thing that I find amusing is the fussing and fighting over this percentage. This number is actually the MAXIMUM. It is not the guaranteed amount that the players will get. For example, under the current CBA, the cap is set at 64.5%, which breaks down to a little over $94.5 M per team. Yet, there are still several teams that are WAY under the cap. The Cardinals and Browns, for example, have a payroll that doesn't even come close to matching the cap. This same principle leads me to wonder why the smaller market teams are so worried. Take the Bills, for example, one of the lower revenue generating teams in the league. Until recently, our cap number was right up against the $94.5 M figure. When you look at the "cash over cap" numbers, then you can be rest assured that the Bills total player salaries this year was right in line with most other competative teams. The real key, the way I see it, is what kind of minimum salary we would be looking at. With the old (er, existing as of now) system, it was set at 56% of the DGR. If that number suddenly becomes wildly inflated, then I can see where the Arizona Cardinals and Cleveland Browns would start crying a fit.

Not sure if he is any good or not -- but by the end of the year Miami was on a roll. Gus, who is not the most fleet of foot, actually managed to post some decent numbers and the RB combo of Ricky and Ronnie were effective too. Again, I don't know what this means about McIntosh, but he could be worth a look, considering our need at LT.

Maybe the team's desicion to relase Adams, Milloy, and Campbell all at once was to get other teams guessing who we'd take at #8 as Ngata, Huff, and Davis could all represent respective replacements... Ha!

I know where Pyrite Gal is coming from. If all of this moves forward and the NFLPA winds up with any amount over the 56% that the owners were originally offering, then Upshaw will have done an excellent job at driving his bargain. Remember, when it all comes down to it, the owners hold all of the cards. The flip side of the coin is that the sport has thrived under the current system and the players are already set to make an incredible amount of money under the owners' original proposal. If no extension is worked out, then Upshaw will look like a fool, having pushed too far with no ability to compromise -- and, consequently, everyone loses.

While I do not like BA as a starter, he would make for a solid backup. One thing that the line has lacked, in addition to quality, is depth. Maybe the $800 K savings do not merit his exodus. Also, note that with so many cuts coming in the next few days, perhaps the team will find an improvement over him -- which would then lead to his being released.

The escalation associated with the release of Lavar would have reportedly been in the $12.9 M range, while his cap hit for being on the team was a little over $12 M. By repaying over $4 M of his signing bonus, he allowed the Redskins to brace that against his SB proration. Thus, his release counted less that $9 M against the cap, which means that the Redskins saved over $3 M in cap space by this move. If I were the league I would investigate this VERY closely. Either... 1. There was no love lost between Lavar and the Redskins, and he was SO anxious to move on that he willfully provided the Redskins with so change to release him... Which makes no sense because he held all of the cards given Washington's dire cap situation -- and the fact that he was due a $6+ M roster bonus in the coming weeks. 2. The two sides parted happily with Lavar already knowing that he has a suitor willing to pay him top dollar. Even though it would appear to be a violation of league rules for LA to engage in talks with another team, the Redskins undoubtedly would have had no problem given the circumstances. Still, even if this is true I find it mighty fishy that LA, who was close to filing a lawsuit against the 'Skins a year ago over supposed promised money, would be willing to give ANYTHING back to them without getting SOMETHING in return. Given the current labor situation and Snyder obviously hoping to zap the cap for once and for all, the last thing that the small market teams need is for his Redskins to come into cap compliance this year with minimal effort.

EM and his agent(s) aren't being smart here. This is NOT the off-season to be pulling this, as he is NOT going to make even as much money elsewhere. Of course, we don't know how much the Bills may be trying to low-ball him, but if he is saying that taking any kind of paycut whatsoever is out of the question... well, then he needs to be out of town.

We did OK in the late 80s and early 90s BEFORE the cap played a significant role in dismantling some pretty good teams.

The funny thing also is that the 56-60% number we keep hearing about represents the CAP. That is the maximum that the players would get from any given team. Every year there are teams that spend nowhere near what the cap allows. Under the existing CBA, the players are guaranteed 56% of the DGR as a minimum, while the cap is set at 64.5%. A more interesting measure, then, would be to see what the minimum % would be. We keep hearing the 56-60% number thrown out, but I have yet to hear what the low-end % would be.