Logical Reasoning Posted January 27, 2013 Posted January 27, 2013 The Bills can save an additional 20 million by cutting Kelsay, McGee, Smith, Wilson, Barnett, and Fitz before March. There is simply no excuse for losing Levitre or Byrd to free agency.
Dr. Trooth Posted January 27, 2013 Posted January 27, 2013 We don't know if Bills have lost Levitre yet. Several options. Glenn to LG, draft G or LT, re-sign Rhinehart. We know the Bills will field an aggressive and physical front. That may not be the best fit for Levitre. The chips fall where they fall. If it's a matter of cap space, Bills can clear enough space by dispatching Kelsay, McGee and restructuring a contract or two.
jcbillsfan Posted January 27, 2013 Posted January 27, 2013 They have plenty of money to sign Levite. I think the real question is what is their limit. Let's say they go 6 for 36 and he waits to hit the open market and somebody offers an over market contract like nicks got. It might make more sense to sign Reinhardt at a reasonable rate and maybe a veteran like brandon Moore. If there is money for one major free agent buy i would like to bring in a veteran corner ( smith) or a de/lb(Spencer,Kruger,bar win)
White Linen Posted January 27, 2013 Posted January 27, 2013 There would be no way to prove this, but I bet over 90% of us don't even know how good Levitre is especially in comparison. Maybe we've noticed him when he came into the view of a play and we certainly know he doesn't miss games. But most of us have no idea what we would even be loosing or gaining by signing Levitre if we're honest. Like the guy that says "we can't afford to just keep losing top players". Someone told you he was a top player, but you really don't know.
Malazan Posted January 27, 2013 Posted January 27, 2013 This thing that hasn't happened yet is because of this other thing! I WANT TO YELL! AHHHHH!
BrooklynBills Posted January 27, 2013 Posted January 27, 2013 Levitre isn't worth elite G money. I'll wait to see the contract details if re-signs or goes somewhere else. He is a good player but that doesn't mean you have to re-sign him if the money doesn't make sense.
NoSaint Posted January 27, 2013 Posted January 27, 2013 There would be no way to prove this, but I bet over 90% of us don't even know how good Levitre is especially in comparison. Maybe we've noticed him when he came into the view of a play and we certainly know he doesn't miss games. But most of us have no idea what we would even be loosing or gaining by signing Levitre if we're honest. Like the guy that says "we can't afford to just keep losing top players". Someone told you he was a top player, but you really don't know. He's noticeably very reliable. Nicks was noticeably a playmaker. Levitre will get second tier money. Grubbs is much more similar a player than nicks.
PromoTheRobot Posted January 27, 2013 Posted January 27, 2013 I don't understand why the panic over Byrd and Levitre. Oh wait...I'm on TBD. PTR
Max997 Posted January 27, 2013 Posted January 27, 2013 (edited) What does one have to do with the other? You don't think the Bills are going to pay Levitre what it would take to sign him mentioning what free agent guards got last year and you didn't like the Mark Anderson signing. Where is the connection between the two? You even mention that you think Anderson gets cut which I don't agree with especially with the change in defense but where is the connection? The Bills have room under the cap and can always make more room if needed. They can also cut a player like Fitz and save real money not cap money which a lot of people on here don't understand The Mark Anderson signing will have zero impact on whether the Bills do or don't resign Levitre or Byrd Edited January 27, 2013 by Max997
ganesh Posted January 27, 2013 Posted January 27, 2013 Levitre will not make Nicks money. He has never sniffed a Pro Bowl. I know that doesn't mean anything, but I don't think the demand for him will be as great as you think. Yet... I really hope the Bills pony up whatever money he wants, because we need him more. The Bears have definitely expressed interest in Levitre and also have the Cap space. Levitre will become one of the highest paid Guards in the NFL this offseason.
White Linen Posted January 27, 2013 Posted January 27, 2013 He's noticeably very reliable. 10 percenter huh?
Astrobot Posted January 27, 2013 Posted January 27, 2013 Number of Anderson sacks for Bills-----1 Number of Anderson knee surgeries---2 Keep the OL strong. This is a good year to replace DE in the draft or FA.
papazoid Posted January 27, 2013 Posted January 27, 2013 the bills are losing NEITHER of them.... byrd will be signed long term first...... levitre's deal will take longer and the bills will Franchise tag him......then sign him long term...... i believe Levitre is more valuable and will be harder to replace compared to byrd.
White Linen Posted January 27, 2013 Posted January 27, 2013 i believe Levitre is more valuable and will be harder to replace compared to byrd. Now that's a bold statement.
NoSaint Posted January 27, 2013 Posted January 27, 2013 Now that's a bold statement. I think their pay will reflect that they are very close, and I wouldn't be surprised if levitre got a little extra.
Rob's House Posted January 27, 2013 Posted January 27, 2013 I had reservations about Anderson because on one hand he's had two very productive seasons, on the other he's had several not so productive seasons in between, and his 10 sacks with the Pats* could be attributed to scheming moreso than his ability to win 1-on-1 match ups. That said, I don't see any reason to cut him this year. Unless I'm wrong it wouldn't save much cap space this year, and if we're running a D similar to what the Jets have been running we're likely to get a lot more production out of a situational pass rusher like him. If he doesn't work out we can cut him during the season or next season when the cap #s fall more into our favor. As far as Levitre goes, the money sunk into Anderson shouldn't have much impact. The decision should really come down to how objectively valuable he is. His skill and production levels are good, but certainly not elite. The fact that he's stayed on the field makes him more valuable, b/c an elite player is only elite when he's on the field, but overpaying for a position is rarely good policy. It's all fine and good now, but the salary cap is real, and while it may not seem that big of a concern now, what about a few years down the road. When we look at each player in a vaccuum and say "hey what's another $1-2 million/yr" it seems reasonable, but when you take that stance with every player you want to keep or bring off the street it adds up and pretty soon your talent level is inferior to the payroll and you're stuck. Part of the secret to the Pats* ability to stay competetive every year w/o salary cap issues is they don't pay $10 mil/yr for a guy who's only 10% better than a guy making $4 mil/yr. They'll pay Brady $18 mil/yr, b/c he actually brings that value, but they'll let a Mark Anderson walk and plug in the next guy.
jcbillsfan Posted January 27, 2013 Posted January 27, 2013 the bills are losing NEITHER of them.... byrd will be signed long term first...... levitre's deal will take longer and the bills will Franchise tag him......then sign him long term...... i believe Levitre is more valuable and will be harder to replace compared to byrd. NowAy he gets franchised at 11 million per year. Bryd will if necessary his tag is around 6 million
Hapless Bills Fan Posted January 27, 2013 Posted January 27, 2013 What's done is done though so there is no sense on basking the move now, but my thought is that the squandered $$$ spent on Mark will make it very difficult for us to resigning Andy Levitre. The 2 premier guards that hit FA last offseason (Nicks and Grubbs) signed deals in the $7.2 - $9.5 million range, respectively. So, given inflation and the ever increasing contracts of players, we can fully expect LeVitre to be looking for Carl Nicks money and I don't see the Bills paying a G that type of money. What say you? I say that I don't understand the premise of the article. A team's salary cap is just that - a team salary cap. A team's willingness to pay for a player at a specific position is just that - a team's willingness. What on earth does Mark Anderson have to do with whether or not the Bills can sign Byrd or Levitre? That question has three components: 1) whether or not Byrd and Levitre want to stay, or whether they'd like to go to a better team 2) if they're willing to stay or want to stay, whether there's a match between the player's perception of his worth and what the team is willing to pay for him 3) whether the team has, or can free up enough, cap space to accomodate 2) You state that you don't see the Bills being willing to pay Levitre $7.2-9.5 million Nicks/Grubbs type money. That may be true and may cause "irreconcilable differences" to factor 2) above If it is true, what does it have to do with Mark Anderson? If the Bills are willing to pay Levitre whatever he wants to keep him here, we get to factor 3) above and I must ask: what does it have to do with Mark Anderson? Last I looked, the Bills had substantial salary cap room available - $20.6 million. And that's without any "salary cap casualties". Judicious cuts of some of the higher-paid players who aren't performing up to their contract could easily free up additional cap space.
JPS Posted January 27, 2013 Posted January 27, 2013 the bills are losing NEITHER of them.... byrd will be signed long term first...... levitre's deal will take longer and the bills will Franchise tag him......then sign him long term...... i believe Levitre is more valuable and will be harder to replace compared to byrd. I agree with this completely. Levitre isn't going anywhere.
Mark Vader Posted January 27, 2013 Posted January 27, 2013 I don't understand why the panic over Byrd and Levitre. Oh wait...I'm on TBD. PTR I don't understand how some people on this board think Levitre is expendable.
Recommended Posts