Kelly the Dog Posted August 20, 2012 Share Posted August 20, 2012 http://blogs.buffalo...e-merriman.html How the Bills spent 9.77 mill on Merriman This is where is gets strange. The last sentence of that blog is: Merriman would've been due a base salary of $4 million for this season, with $3 million of that guaranteed if he had been released before the season began because of injury or salary-cap reasons. That clears up some of it for me, but raises even more questions. It seems to me that he was released before the season began for both injury and salary cap reasons. I supposed the team could argue that it was neither, because he wasn't on the sidelines injured, or they were not up against the cap. But in reality, that's exactly what happened. And it seems to me it would be very strange wording in a contract to make it guaranteed IF he got hurt. It's possible, because of that angle, that they didn't want to risk the 4 million. It seems a bit strange. Does anyone remember a contract signed like that? I'm not saying he did, but perhaps Tim got it wrong and it should have said the 3 mil was guaranteed if he wasn't released because of injury or cap reasons. Interesting... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuffBill Posted August 20, 2012 Share Posted August 20, 2012 Probably wanted to release him on the rare occasion that he was healthy and passed a physical so they didn't owe him any money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nick in* england Posted August 20, 2012 Share Posted August 20, 2012 So all this tells you is that the talking is just that: talking. Merriman could be whatever the talkers wanted him to be - but in the end, you looked at him on the field and he really didn't get it done. I watched for him in the first preseason game on the sidelines and he seemed to be lacking the energy/intensity he is known for. Just looked like a man who was trying hard but had lost whatever it was that made him before - be it the ankle, the attitude, the passion. I don't know. I thought then maybe he'll be a victim of the cuts. Given the numbers for him - you have to think this is a purely football move. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ALLEN1QB Posted August 20, 2012 Share Posted August 20, 2012 Bills suck calling DTV to cancel package!!! LOL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hondo in seattle Posted August 20, 2012 Share Posted August 20, 2012 I had heard Kyle Moore has looked good but thought it unlikely he'd beat our Merriman, especially this early. Shocking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoSaint Posted August 20, 2012 Share Posted August 20, 2012 (edited) This is where is gets strange. The last sentence of that blog is: That clears up some of it for me, but raises even more questions. It seems to me that he was released before the season began for both injury and salary cap reasons. I supposed the team could argue that it was neither, because he wasn't on the sidelines injured, or they were not up against the cap. But in reality, that's exactly what happened. And it seems to me it would be very strange wording in a contract to make it guaranteed IF he got hurt. It's possible, because of that angle, that they didn't want to risk the 4 million. It seems a bit strange. Does anyone remember a contract signed like that? I'm not saying he did, but perhaps Tim got it wrong and it should have said the 3 mil was guaranteed if he wasn't released because of injury or cap reasons. Interesting... to be guaranteed for injury but not skill is a common practice. it assures the player if he gets blown up with a career ending hit hes not screwed but protects the team in case he starts slacking once he gets the pay day... Edited August 20, 2012 by NoSaint Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
todd Posted August 20, 2012 Share Posted August 20, 2012 See: David Boston Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
QCity Posted August 20, 2012 Share Posted August 20, 2012 On the bright side, we no longer have to explain to people why he is not a LB in a 4-3 defense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luxy312 Posted August 20, 2012 Share Posted August 20, 2012 Let's face facts. Merriman is not the same player now that he was before his ACL troubles. He's a bit slow and getting outplayed by other younger healthy guys. You don't pay a guy $4 million (which they would have had to do) for the possibility that he suddenly might be able to stay healthy after 2 years of injuries. While I wanted him to be that "lights out" guy he used to be, that simply won't make it a reality. Hopefully, Kyle Moore continues to play at a high level and can spell Mark Anderson as needed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillsVet Posted August 20, 2012 Share Posted August 20, 2012 Merriman was a lottery ticket. Sometimes you win...most times you don't. It only cost them 10M to find out and 2 defenses to figure it out. You pay a price changing players from 5 tech DE's into DT's, 34OLB's into 43 DE's, 34ILB's into MLB's, etc. Merriman was a casualty of changing defenses and simply not playing the RDE position. For all the Buddy love going on here, it's interesting to note that during his tenure as GM, Buffalo is 10-22, now on their second defense (and DC) not to mention some very questionable draft picks and free agent signings. Every GM makes mistakes, but some make more of them. Merriman is a microcosm of how football management is struggling to build this team 3 offseasons into their latest rebuilding. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dorkington Posted August 20, 2012 Share Posted August 20, 2012 If this was purely a money move, I'm incredibly confused. Why keep him around when he was hobbled for two years, and then cut him when he was looking pretty spry? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HOUSE Posted August 20, 2012 Share Posted August 20, 2012 (edited) BUMP, BANG, TWEAK, GONE Edited August 20, 2012 by HOUSE Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DukeyBomb Posted August 20, 2012 Share Posted August 20, 2012 I think this move throws a big wrench in to Chan Gailey's 53 man roster philosophy. Now this should really send a message to all of us that nobody is safe. It's almost hypocritical of Gailey to talk Merriman up, put him ahead of Eddins, Moore and Ferguson on the depth chart and then go ahead and cut him? This truly doesn't make sense and I can't wait to hear from Gailey/Nix today about this. WE NEED ANSWERS MISTERS! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoSaint Posted August 20, 2012 Share Posted August 20, 2012 On the bright side, we no longer have to explain to people why he is not a LB in a 4-3 defense. that will only stop when someone steps up and solidifies the OLB position. it will be "why didnt we keep merriman?!?!?!" if we struggle there at all. in fact, it may be worse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevestojan Posted August 20, 2012 Share Posted August 20, 2012 That is just not true. He had his best season after he was caught. And he had another full year with 10+ sacks after that. And he only failed one test. Whoa, whoa, whoa. Settle down with all these "facts." Implications and the word Steroids make for a much better story. There's no room for truth in this discussion - especially since we can go and say "only CAUGHT once." You and your voice of reason. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted August 20, 2012 Share Posted August 20, 2012 to be guaranteed for injury but not skill is a common practice. it assures the player if he gets blown up with a career ending hit hes not screwed but protects the team in case he starts slacking once he gets the pay day... That makes sense. But two things: 1] This is Shawne Merriman we're talking about. The most likely scenario was that he was going to be injured. That is what everyone expected. 2] As a vested veteran, as soon as the first game started, his 4 million was for all intents and purposes guaranteed anyway. But I guess if the Bills cut him and can get away with saying it wasnt because of injury, it wasn't because of salary cap (which of course it really was) and they save 4 million this year, this makes a lot more sense. To me, as stated, they like Kyle Moore. They would almost have to cut him if they kept Merriman, because of the great need to carry more players than they want to at other positions. And the fact that if Merriman was on the roster, there is no way to dress Moore for the games as strictly a pass rusher because he would never get in the game (between Mario, Anderson, and Merriman, and Kelsay). So by getting rid of Merriman, they can keep and develop Moore, and play him some as a rusher. Then between Mario, who won't want to come out, Anderson, who will be in most of the nickel and dime packages, and Moore for a few plays a game, we have our rotation. And save 4 million. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inkman Posted August 20, 2012 Share Posted August 20, 2012 I agree that Moore is the reason. Robert Eddins is ahead of Moore on the depth chart. Both have played better than Merriman this preseason. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Poojer Posted August 20, 2012 Share Posted August 20, 2012 Maybe talking him up was for merrimans benefit knowing he'd be cut and the good reports were recommendations for other teams...it is being said he was being released now so he could land with another team...perhaps the youngsters are being under praised I think this move throws a big wrench in to Chan Gailey's 53 man roster philosophy. Now this should really send a message to all of us that nobody is safe. It's almost hypocritical of Gailey to talk Merriman up, put him ahead of Eddins, Moore and Ferguson on the depth chart and then go ahead and cut him? This truly doesn't make sense and I can't wait to hear from Gailey/Nix today about this. WE NEED ANSWERS MISTERS! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dopey Posted August 20, 2012 Share Posted August 20, 2012 Or maybe he really wasn't that good and between not being able to take PEDs and injuries couldn't be very good. He's only 28, mid prime, so if he had a thing left, then I'm sure they'd have kept him for this season's big playoff run. Or maybe, as was quoted, he is better suited as a 3-4 lb. That is why we signed him. Now that we are a 4-3 d, he's out of place. Geez dude!!! Listen Brian Billick, we know you hate the front office and coaches because they passed you over, but you don't have to keep bringing it up in every thread. Glad I'm not the only one who wanted to reply to this. Thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LynchMob23 Posted August 20, 2012 Share Posted August 20, 2012 This is where is gets strange. The last sentence of that blog is: That clears up some of it for me, but raises even more questions. It seems to me that he was released before the season began for both injury and salary cap reasons. I supposed the team could argue that it was neither, because he wasn't on the sidelines injured, or they were not up against the cap. But in reality, that's exactly what happened. And it seems to me it would be very strange wording in a contract to make it guaranteed IF he got hurt. It's possible, because of that angle, that they didn't want to risk the 4 million. It seems a bit strange. Does anyone remember a contract signed like that? I'm not saying he did, but perhaps Tim got it wrong and it should have said the 3 mil was guaranteed if he wasn't released because of injury or cap reasons. Interesting... The release you're thinking about Kelly is like the first guy that they put in IR then waived/injured. Since he passed the physical and isn't hurt at time of cut it's not for injury. And since the Bills are under the cap and aren't cutting him to stay under (after say an extension) then it's not for cap purposes - or the old school June 1st cut designation. Because it's for skill nothing's owed. I think. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts