RI Bills Fan Posted August 3, 2010 Posted August 3, 2010 well...ralph actually is cheap. However, I don't think that had to do with not picking a qb. I think they rightly or wrongly wanted the best player available, were presented with the best player available who might actually be the best running back in the draft and decided the hell with other needs we'll go for him. I can live with that but would have expected them to go heavy on OT's and Defensive linemen (because of their totally restructuring the defense). after that, or to have addressed the OT/QB needs in free agency or trade. Spiller was a gutsy against the grain decision and one that discounts the gaping holes at tackle, and would be fine if we had addressed the tackle issue some other way or with the remaining draft choices. So Wang and Greene (draft choice and free agent) don't count?
C.Biscuit97 Posted August 3, 2010 Posted August 3, 2010 So Wang and Greene (draft choice and free agent) don't count? FACT: the only place to find good players is in the 1st round.
SteamRoller67 Posted August 3, 2010 Posted August 3, 2010 We all know that drafting a QB in the top 10 costs a team a ton of money, especially upfront money. We know that are owner isn't the most free-spending owner in the world. We also know that there will be a new CBA come hell or high water, that will adjust rookie salaries. Could it be that the Bills are waiting for the new rookie cap in order to go get their QB? Just a thought I had, knowing what we know. BTW 5-11 this year... oh well. I don't think this is the case at all. If Jake Locker was available in the '10 draft your theory would go right out the window. Next years draft is a better Qb draft, hands down.
PromoTheRobot Posted August 3, 2010 Posted August 3, 2010 We all know that drafting a QB in the top 10 costs a team a ton of money, especially upfront money. We know that are owner isn't the most free-spending owner in the world. We also know that there will be a new CBA come hell or high water, that will adjust rookie salaries. Could it be that the Bills are waiting for the new rookie cap in order to go get their QB? Just a thought I had, knowing what we know. BTW 5-11 this year... oh well Which top 10 QB are you referring to? Jimmy Clausen who went #48??? You seem to be overlooking the fact that in order to draft a top 10 QB, one must be available. After Bradford there were no QBs worth drafting at #9, so Nix took the best offensive weapon on the board: Spiller. DUH! PTR
Thurman#1 Posted August 3, 2010 Posted August 3, 2010 Or, just maybe, there wasn't a QB available that was worthy of a #9 selection. Freakin trolls. Yeah, he has a different opinion, so he must be a troll.
C.Biscuit97 Posted August 3, 2010 Posted August 3, 2010 Yeah, he has a different opinion, so he must be a troll. I won't call him a troll but saying the Bills won't draft a QB because of meny seems pretty dumb. And several posters illustrated why after the QBs in this draft, it is a pretty silly point.
Thurman#1 Posted August 3, 2010 Posted August 3, 2010 Let's see. The logic in the post is the Bills didn't take a QB in the top 10 due to contract considerations. In other words. "Ralph is cheap!" If the poster was something other than a troll, he/she just might have noticed the only QB picked in the top half of the first round was Bradford at #1. The only other QB picked in the 1st round was Tebow, and that was a surprise to most and is being roundly criticized by many. So, maybe it isn't a troll post. Maybe it's just a post from a moron. The only QBs picked in the first round were Bradford and Tebow, so Ralph isn't cheap for not picking someone else, or Tebow for that matter, in the first? Doesn't follow. I don't think for a minute that financial considerations had anything to do with not drafting a QB early, but your argument doesn't follow from your facts.
Beebe's Kid Posted August 3, 2010 Posted August 3, 2010 Ralph is so cheap that he spends more money than a lot of other owners to cover it up. These genius conspiracy theorists are amazing...from deep within the confines of their mother's basement they concoct these theories of Ralph's penny-pinching, right before they go did their mom's change jar, for a little coin to go buy a Slushee at he Circle K. Then hurry back to continue bashing RW for not just giving Spiller, who's agents are said to be over-slotting his guaranteed money, whatever they ask for. Everybody acts like the contract is so simple. You don't think that the writing was on the wall when Spiller made his comments last week? Players want guaranteed money, in case no CBA is reached, and the owners don't, for the same reason. It is not rocket science. CJ's agents are trying to earn a little scratch for themselves, and if they get the guaranteed money, agent and player win. Everybody goes off of the "slotting," which is a point of contention, and may be gone come the time the next draft class signs. Slotting is easy if everybody plays along, if Spiller's agents want him to be "over-slotted" I would be disappointed if the Bills just signed on the dotted line. That is setting dangerous precedent. I know, I know that stuff doesn't matter when you just want to argue the debunked myth that Ralph is cheap...as you were.
CodeMonkey Posted August 3, 2010 Posted August 3, 2010 Everybody acts like the contract is so simple. I agree with you. Both sides are trying to do the best for themselves. What a lot of people don't remember (or choose to forget) is that this is first and foremost a business to Spiller and the Bills. To the fans it is what they are passionate about. The Bills want to pay as little as possible, while Spiller wants to maximize his earnings ... particularly guaranteed earnings. When your business is running around while other strong fast violent guys try to rip your head off or break you in half, I'd be pushing for guaranteed money as well!
HurlyBurly51 Posted August 3, 2010 Posted August 3, 2010 So, maybe it isn't a troll post. Maybe it's just a post from a moron. TSW official welcoming committee. All views welcome!
keepthefaith Posted August 3, 2010 Posted August 3, 2010 Let's see. The logic in the post is the Bills didn't take a QB in the top 10 due to contract considerations. In other words. "Ralph is cheap!" If the poster was something other than a troll, he/she just might have noticed the only QB picked in the top half of the first round was Bradford at #1. The only other QB picked in the 1st round was Tebow, and that was a surprise to most and is being roundly criticized by many. So, maybe it isn't a troll post. Maybe it's just a post from a moron. A little cranky today?
John from Riverside Posted August 3, 2010 Posted August 3, 2010 I am just wondering if it might be a combonation of the two? - Not necessarily that Ralph is cheap......but he didn't think that any of the QB's in this draft were worth the kind of money (and cap room) that Sam Bradford was going to get? I think Bradford could well end up being a good QB....but is he going to be an ELITE QB? Hard to know that answer. - Maybe the team full well knows that we aren't going to contend this year....and that along with a cap to make a franchise QB more signable perhaps it is a better crop as well? - Perhaps the team is biulding the foundation first? Installing a 3-4 defense and we have used a lot of top picks to get big uglies up front on both sides of the ball. THEN you go get your QB? JMO.....
tennesseeboy Posted August 3, 2010 Posted August 3, 2010 Didn't OJ and Kelly received the highest contracts in NFL history when they signed them? Drew Bledsoe once had the highest contract in NFL history and the Bills traded for him. But Ralph is cheap I guess. And 2 QBs went in the 1st - a guy #1, who was far and away the top guy, and another guy who is completely changing how he throws a football. Another guy who was suppose to be a top 10 guy went #48. Here's a shocking thought: the Bills didn't pick a QB at #9 because the QBs in this draft sucked. I agree that the qb crop this year was quite weak. I'd have done that in free agency or trade (Donovan McNabb or Jake DelHomme) and gone for the tackles, Baluga or Davis. Mark my word, when the season starts they will both be starting. When the season starts Spiller will be at best aspot player. When you get a high number one pick you either pay the highest contract (OJ) (Bruce) or you lose the pick (Cousineau) The talent that drains away in free agency year after year and the lack of effort to sign or resolve disputes is where Ralph is cheap.
PromoTheRobot Posted August 3, 2010 Posted August 3, 2010 Ralph is so cheap that he spends more money than a lot of other owners to cover it up. These genius conspiracy theorists are amazing...from deep within the confines of their mother's basement they concoct these theories of Ralph's penny-pinching, right before they go did their mom's change jar, for a little coin to go buy a Slushee at he Circle K. Then hurry back to continue bashing RW for not just giving Spiller, who's agents are said to be over-slotting his guaranteed money, whatever they ask for. Everybody acts like the contract is so simple. You don't think that the writing was on the wall when Spiller made his comments last week? Players want guaranteed money, in case no CBA is reached, and the owners don't, for the same reason. It is not rocket science. CJ's agents are trying to earn a little scratch for themselves, and if they get the guaranteed money, agent and player win. Everybody goes off of the "slotting," which is a point of contention, and may be gone come the time the next draft class signs. Slotting is easy if everybody plays along, if Spiller's agents want him to be "over-slotted" I would be disappointed if the Bills just signed on the dotted line. That is setting dangerous precedent. I know, I know that stuff doesn't matter when you just want to argue the debunked myth that Ralph is cheap...as you were. Also note that the "bad" teams always have a harder time signing picks. These players figure they can hold these teams hostage by asking for way more money, or in some cases, try to make the team give up and trade them somewhere they'd rather play. PTR
dave mcbride Posted August 3, 2010 Posted August 3, 2010 Let's see. The logic in the post is the Bills didn't take a QB in the top 10 due to contract considerations. In other words. "Ralph is cheap!" If the poster was something other than a troll, he/she just might have noticed the only QB picked in the top half of the first round was Bradford at #1. The only other QB picked in the 1st round was Tebow, and that was a surprise to most and is being roundly criticized by many. So, maybe it isn't a troll post. Maybe it's just a post from a moron. No need for this, Dean. The rookie salary cap possibility is interesting, although I don't buy it myself.
purple haze Posted August 3, 2010 Posted August 3, 2010 Yeah I don't get it either. Wasn't the original post essentially saying the same thing...that there wasn't a QB worthy of the guaranteed money of a #9 pick, given the 50/50 nature of drafting QBs? Perhaps the Bills are waiting until there's less financial risk. Granted, they could've taken Clausen in the 2nd round or McCoy in the 2nd or 3rd round, so The Dean is correct in saying that they just weren't in love with any of this year's crop of QBs. McCoy doesn't have that strong an arm. Folks here complain about Trent's arm and he has a stronger one than McCoy. And teams passed on Clausen A LOT. No sure things at QB this year. I'm glad they focused on the lines and players who have big play ability. It also tells you that they feel they can better coach the talent that is already here in comparison to the previous regime.
Rayzer32 Posted August 3, 2010 Posted August 3, 2010 Is Levi Brown NOT a QB that we drafted this year??? Hey, the Patriots weren't looking for a QB the year they took Brady in the 6th rd either. Apparently it's been decided Levi's future as an NFL QB isn't gonna happen.
Alphadawg7 Posted August 3, 2010 Posted August 3, 2010 We all know that drafting a QB in the top 10 costs a team a ton of money, especially upfront money. We know that are owner isn't the most free-spending owner in the world. We also know that there will be a new CBA come hell or high water, that will adjust rookie salaries. Could it be that the Bills are waiting for the new rookie cap in order to go get their QB? Just a thought I had, knowing what we know. BTW 5-11 this year... oh well If some of you with posts like this would stop and use a little common sense and think about what you are about to post you would realize how rediculous it is and not post it. There is 100% definitive proof that what you just posted is not remotely true. Do you even realize that? Did you watch the draft past the#9 pick? The ONLY QB who seiously had a chance to go top 10 was Cluassen. Buffalo chose not to take Claussen and go with who they viewed as the best player in the entire draft, especially on offense (our weakest unit). Then we chose NOT to draft Claussen AGAIN in the 2nd round where we could have had a price that would still be MUCH cheaper than what a first round QB would cost next year no matter what happens with the CBA. So there you have it...definitive proof that passing on Claussen at 9 was not a financial move. However, there is even MORE definitive proof...we also know that we had offers to trade DOWN which Nix and Chan both said they were not interested in. So, if it was REALLY about money then we would have moved down and grabbed someone else. The bottom line is this...At QB, we already had a highly regarded prospect just 2 years removed from college in Brohm and another QB that the staff was intrigued by in Trent. You cant fill every hole on a team like this in one offseason. So they decided to bring guys in at other spots first and see what we have in our QB crops when a real offense is installed. Why is this such a hard concept to understand, I mean its even been publicly stated numerous times by Chan, Nix, etc.
Trader Posted August 3, 2010 Posted August 3, 2010 We all know that drafting a QB in the top 10 costs a team a ton of money, especially upfront money. We know that are owner isn't the most free-spending owner in the world. We also know that there will be a new CBA come hell or high water, that will adjust rookie salaries. Could it be that the Bills are waiting for the new rookie cap in order to go get their QB? Just a thought I had, knowing what we know. BTW 5-11 this year... oh well I was going to start a similar themed thread on this but you beat me to it. I do not think the Bills will draft a QB in the top five next year even if they have the opportunity. The reasons are: They will not pay huge dollars for an unproven rookie QB. Even if they do draft one the Bills track record is that they would not sign him until training camp is almost over making his rookie year a total waste. The Bills with a top five pick = complete nightmare.
Recommended Posts