eball Posted April 4, 2012 Posted April 4, 2012 Nope. We made some great moves in free agency, but we are still the Bills. The Bills of old would reach for a LT at #10. If Nix takes one, I'll believe it's because he thinks he's worth it. That's definitely not the same old Bills. Based upon what Nix has said recently, though, I think he believes he can get some good LT prospects in the 2nd or 3rd. Which is still a high draft pick.
Tipster19 Posted April 4, 2012 Posted April 4, 2012 made more for doing less? Yes Bell is getting paid based on the potential they think he has IF he can stay healthy Buddy is playing moneyball and rightfully so. We're a small market team and at this point we need to pay for production, not potential. I guess you can say we're playing "BuddyBall". Hey. I think that I like that term!
LynchMob23 Posted April 4, 2012 Posted April 4, 2012 Buddy is playing moneyball and rightfully so. We're a small market team and at this point we need to pay for production, not potential. I guess you can say we're playing "BuddyBall". Hey. I think that I like that term! Well done Tipster, now copyright it before someone does! Also, Bill - if it were the Bills of old, reaching for a LT who eventually becomes a mediocre player just to say "we got one" would occur. Like others have said, if Buddy's down with a player, I see him doing an 8 second pick as he typically does. If they take a guy in round 2 or 3 and gives the Bills the quality protection a McNeil did for SD, I will have no complaints. Heck, a year in strength and conditioning and a true off-season would be great for Hairston too!
K-9 Posted April 4, 2012 Posted April 4, 2012 I wish the kid well. Sounds like he got one helluva deal. Good for him. Hopefully, he'll stay healthy and have a chance to fulfill his promise. I fully understand the Bills' reasoning in not going above their number. And if Bell goes on to have an HOF career, it won't be ANY reflection that the Bills made a mistake in not re-signing him NOW. GO BILLS!!!
Dan Posted April 4, 2012 Posted April 4, 2012 1333564245[/url]' post='2430169']Everything is negotiable after being tagged... If we wanted to part with a lower pick that's up to the FO. So you're suggesting we could have tagged Bell. He would have signed the offer. And then we could have traded him to the Eagles for a mid-round pick, and Bell gets the same contract from the Eagles... now taking a pay decrease for 2012. ?? If you can swing that deal, you most certainly need to be an NFL GM. Because that would be quite a feat!
PromoTheRobot Posted April 4, 2012 Posted April 4, 2012 I'm reminded to when we traded Peters to Philly. People were livid that we were going to go with some 7th round nobody to replace a pro bowler. Ironic. PTR
RealityCheck Posted April 4, 2012 Posted April 4, 2012 At this point the Eagles look to be 0 for 2 investing in a long term starter at LT. With Bell's new found money he should invest in a stunt double.
DefenseWinzChampionshipz Posted April 4, 2012 Posted April 4, 2012 (edited) So you're suggesting we could have tagged Bell. He would have signed the offer. And then we could have traded him to the Eagles for a mid-round pick, and Bell gets the same contract from the Eagles... now taking a pay decrease for 2012. ?? If you can swing that deal, you most certainly need to be an NFL GM. Because that would be quite a feat! Ok how about this scenario? How about let's forget about "tagging" Bell and how about if Buddy was going to offer him anything in the offseason (which he did), why not re-sign him before it got to this point? Right now we would have re-signed pretty much everyone we feel can contribute to the team and would have been heading into the draft with at least a good LT and a decent backup in Hairston and could have picked up a LT prospect in the 2nd to later rounds of the draft. I'm on the side of WR, CB or LB at the #10 slot because I personally don't like Martin Reiff or Adams the way some members do. But now that we've lost Bell to FA im hoping it doesn't force us to go LT with the 1st pick. The whole we should have at least tagged him talk is honestly me just ranting with frustration of the position we are (and have been) with the Tackle position... Edited April 4, 2012 by DefenseWinzChampionshipz
Jim in Anchorage Posted April 4, 2012 Posted April 4, 2012 When we see the contract I would bet that the Eagles can get out of it relatively cheap after one year, and if Bell becomes a solid starter, they get him relatively cheap over the next four. That was likely the best way to go on a contract for a team, especially when the Eagles do not know how Peters will return. If Peters comes back, they can release or even trade Bell. If he cannot, they have Bell. If he cannot and Bell tanks, they have to look for a new guy anyway, and they don't get killed on Bell's contract. The Eagles, because they have a playoff team, and because of the hole at LT that just propped up, were probably much more willing to throw a couple million more at Bell than others. I don't think it really has much of an affect on Peters future. He has to prove he can return at 100% regardless. They do?
Dan Posted April 4, 2012 Posted April 4, 2012 1333569036[/url]' post='2430281']Ok how about this scenario? How about let's forget about "tagging" Bell and how about if Buddy was going to offer him anything in the offseason (which he did), why not re-sign him before it got to this point? Right now we would have re-signed pretty much everyone we feel can contribute to the team and would have been heading into the draft with at least a good LT and a decent backup in Hairston and could have picked up a LT prospect in the 2nd to later rounds of the draft. I'm on the side of WR, CB or LB at the #10 slot because I personally don't like Martin Reiff or Adams the way some members do. But now that we've lost Bell to FA im hoping it doesn't force us to go LT with the 1st pick. The whole we should have at least tagged him talk is honestly me just ranting with frustration of the position we are (and have been) with the Tackle position... You're forgetting it takes 2people to sign a contract. Nix apparently did make an offer to Bell. But, he can't force him to sign. It would seem, because Bell is now an Eagle at roughly $7mill/yr, that Nix didn't feel he was worth that much money and most ctainly offered him less. So you're advocating that we sign players regardless of what we perceive their value to be? I agree wih you, it does suck that we lost, what appeared to be, a decent LT. But given his injury history, it seems the FO decided the price tag was too high. And, quite honestly, I'm not sure they're wrong. I suppose only time will tell. But, its a gamble either way. Signing Bell would not have guaranteed that LT was no longer a "need", just as using Hairston/draft pick is no guarantee. In the end, we just have to hope the FO has a better handle on Bell's health/ability than we fans do.
White Linen Posted April 4, 2012 Posted April 4, 2012 Would have been nice to have him back at a reasonable cost, but the guy just couldn't stay healthy. Its a great move for the Eagles if he can stay healthy and play cause he shows potential and ability. Its an even better deal for the Bills if he continues to get hurt after every couple of games........ Why is it a good deal for the Eagles? I think it's another boneheaded move by them. Now they are paying two tackles left tackle money. Who gets moved to right tackle next year, or Vicks blind side?
Mike in Horseheads Posted April 4, 2012 Posted April 4, 2012 I'm still not seeing why everyone thinks he's such a big loss?? Since now we know he couldn't spell his first name correct maybe it really has been Disabled Bell all these years. Thats his Bills legacy.
DefenseWinzChampionshipz Posted April 4, 2012 Posted April 4, 2012 You're forgetting it takes 2people to sign a contract. Nix apparently did make an offer to Bell. But, he can't force him to sign. It would seem, because Bell is now an Eagle at roughly $7mill/yr, that Nix didn't feel he was worth that much money and most ctainly offered him less. So you're advocating that we sign players regardless of what we perceive their value to be? I agree wih you, it does suck that we lost, what appeared to be, a decent LT. But given his injury history, it seems the FO decided the price tag was too high. And, quite honestly, I'm not sure they're wrong. I suppose only time will tell. But, its a gamble either way. Signing Bell would not have guaranteed that LT was no longer a "need", just as using Hairston/draft pick is no guarantee. In the end, we just have to hope the FO has a better handle on Bell's health/ability than we fans do. I still say "F" Bell and with that I move on...
Spiderweb Posted April 4, 2012 Posted April 4, 2012 Peters injury could spell the end of his career, and his pro bowl ability, for at least a couple years. Achilles injuries, even when successfully repaired and rehabilitated take a couple years. Spikes returned to be a good, though not a great of a player, and Cowart came back but was never anywhere near the same player he was before the injury. Sure, someone will cite a player who was more successful in returning to form, but the achilles is still a very bad injury. If Bell can stay healthy, the Eagles may have yet another very good LT, courtesy of the Bills. Admittedly, I was hoping Bell would return, but the Peters injury made the Eagles a bit desparate if you ask me and over paid for him a bit. Yet if he turns out to be healthy, they could have gotten a LT for 5 years at a very reasonable price. Like everything in life, they took the gamble the Bills appeared unwilling to take at the numbers being tossed around. I wish Demetress (hate the "new" spelling) well however. I liked him far more than what I've seen of Hairston to date. Bills to go LT in round one?
rstencel Posted April 4, 2012 Posted April 4, 2012 I got laughed at when I suggested we re-sign Bell to a 5 year $25 million deal, but 5 for 35? Come on!!! That's WAY too much. Its probably backloaded with roster bonus after first or 2nd year. If he stays healthly and gains some strength will be worth the money, If not, they probably have the roster bonus as a way to get out without giving him too much.
Heitz Posted April 4, 2012 Posted April 4, 2012 I haven't read anything but Tim and Pat on Sirius just said they're reading reports that the way the deal is structured, it's basically a one year deal that the Eagles can easily get out of... I'm sure someone will post a link before too long!
MyHorseAteTheKid Posted April 4, 2012 Posted April 4, 2012 I really thought he was going to end up in Pittsburgh.. Jonathan Scott was good enough to start for them for a few seasons and Bell was an upgrade.. I guess Philly offered him bigger money.. If he stays healthy we might be able to actually see what we let get away..
bourbonboy Posted April 4, 2012 Posted April 4, 2012 Will be interesting to see what the contract terms are....right now, Philly is bleeding money at OT. JP's cap hit is 8.25M this year, Iggles have 1.9M in 2012 dead money for Winston Justice, they resigned King Dunlap for 1.2M (with another 1M possible in incentives), and now signed Bell for what has to be starter money for 2012.
Kelly the Dog Posted April 4, 2012 Posted April 4, 2012 As i suspected, it's really only a risk for one season, and if he doesn't perform or gets hurt, they just get rid of Bell after one year and hope Peters comes back. If Bell does perform well and does not get hurt, they get a starting LT for four years cheap. If Peters comes back, they can trade Bell for something pretty good as he would be a healthy starting LT with a low 4 year deal. http://www.rotoworld.com/player/nfl/4958/demetress-bell
Recommended Posts