gobillsinytown Posted March 30, 2013 Share Posted March 30, 2013 Supply and demand. QB's have always been at a premium, but with the evolution to primarily a passing league, the going rate is probably the highest that it's ever been. That being said, the contract numbers are definitely inflated, because no QB is ever going to see the full amount. It's the upfront and guaranteed money that matters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dibs Posted March 30, 2013 Share Posted March 30, 2013 Supply and demand. QB's have always been at a premium, but with the evolution to primarily a passing league, the going rate is probably the highest that it's ever been. That being said, the contract numbers are definitely inflated, because no QB is ever going to see the full amount. It's the upfront and guaranteed money that matters. Well....according to http://www.spotrac.com/nfl/dallas-cowboys/tony-romo/..... .....his guaranteed money is 40m. 25m signing bonus plus his 2013/14 salaries(15m). (Plus his previous contract signing bonus money). His cap hits for 2013/14 are 11.8m/21.8m His cap hit for 2015 is a staggering 25.3m.....and if they want to cut him after 2014 they have a 19.9m dead cap hit. The Bills have done some very stupid things.....but Romo's contract is moronic IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gobillsinytown Posted March 30, 2013 Share Posted March 30, 2013 Well....according to http://www.spotrac.c...boys/tony-romo/..... .....his guaranteed money is 40m. 25m signing bonus plus his 2013/14 salaries(15m). (Plus his previous contract signing bonus money). His cap hits for 2013/14 are 11.8m/21.8m His cap hit for 2015 is a staggering 25.3m.....and if they want to cut him after 2014 they have a 19.9m dead cap hit. The Bills have done some very stupid things.....but Romo's contract is moronic IMO. I think the numbers are pretty stupid too, but putting myself in their shoes, I'm not sure what else they could have done. There definitely isn't any other QB in free agency that could compete with Romo for the starting job, and this year's draft is weak at QB. Jerrah also seems to be pretty loyal to the players he likes, plus Romo is very marketable. And since Jerrah's got plenty of money, the numbers don't mean all that much to him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RuntheDamnBall Posted March 30, 2013 Share Posted March 30, 2013 Romo's favorite targets on the Redskins and Eagles are excited by this move. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuffaloBillsForever Posted March 30, 2013 Share Posted March 30, 2013 (edited) Wow! Jerry, Jerry, Jerry. Stop it! You have gone senile. This is as bad as the Fitzpatrick contract on what he is getting with his team as opposed to his worth in the open market. I'd probably peg Romo as 12-13/year. Vastly over hyped quarterback and NFL players think so too. Dallas just made the worst mistake to lock him up for six years...they should be moving on. Jerry will regret this. What is the tone around Dallas about this deal? This is like the Palmer/Raiders trade a while back and you can just assume will end badly. Edited March 30, 2013 by BuffaloBillsForever Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tcali Posted March 30, 2013 Share Posted March 30, 2013 (edited) Romo is an accident waiting to happen. Money is no object to Jerry though. This proves that having billions hardly makes one smart in all things.--Apparently Phillip Rivers wasnt available. Edited March 30, 2013 by Tcali Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Voice of Truth Posted March 30, 2013 Share Posted March 30, 2013 I think Jerry looked at the Bills and said, "Wow that's how bad it can get if you have no semblance of a QB." Then he locked up Romo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orton's Arm Posted March 30, 2013 Share Posted March 30, 2013 To me this highlights why I think that having a decent QB is worse for your team than having a bad QB. A decent QB like Romo will get your team to the playoffs more times than the average.......but will eat up a large piece of the cap & have very little chance to win the SB. It is also extremely difficult for a team to let them go......and very rare for a team with a decent QB to try to acquire a good QB(via high draft pick) while they are still on the roster. Subsequently, when you have one, you are usually stuck with them for most(all) of their NFL life. A bad QB is usually gone before 3 years have past......giving the team at least a chance to find a good QB every 3 years......and thus a chance to win the SB. Good post! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnC Posted March 30, 2013 Share Posted March 30, 2013 To me this highlights why I think that having a decent QB is worse for your team than having a bad QB. A decent QB like Romo will get your team to the playoffs more times than the average.......but will eat up a large piece of the cap & have very little chance to win the SB. It is also extremely difficult for a team to let them go......and very rare for a team with a decent QB to try to acquire a good QB(via high draft pick) while they are still on the roster. Subsequently, when you have one, you are usually stuck with them for most(all) of their NFL life. A bad QB is usually gone before 3 years have past......giving the team at least a chance to find a good QB every 3 years......and thus a chance to win the SB. What the Bills have clearly demonstrated is that if you don't have a legitimate franchise qb you can't compete let alone dream about the playoffs. When it gets to the point that a franchise goes without a credible starting qb for more than a genertion then I will be the last person to scoff at a team that over pays for a solid to good qb. How does a franchise in a system designed for parity not make the playoffs in 13 years? How does a team in a system designed for parity have a losing record in nine out of the last ten years? The most important reason among many reasons is that they don't have a credible qb. Odds are that the slow GM is going to draft a qb in the first or second round. And odds are that the selected qb will not develop into an elite qb. But that's alright. If the qb turns out to be a solid franchise qb then that is a dramatic upgrade that will allow this franchise an opportunity to be a credible team instead of an afterhought team. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted March 30, 2013 Share Posted March 30, 2013 (edited) What the Bills have clearly demonstrated is that if you don't have a legitimate franchise qb you can't compete let alone dream about the playoffs. When it gets to the point that a franchise goes without a credible starting qb for more than a genertion then I will be the last person to scoff at a team that over pays for a solid to good qb. How does a franchise in a system designed for parity not make the playoffs in 13 years? How does a team in a system designed for parity have a losing record in nine out of the last ten years? The most important reason among many reasons is that they don't have a credible qb. Odds are that the slow GM is going to draft a qb in the first or second round. And odds are that the selected qb will not develop into an elite qb. But that's alright. If the qb turns out to be a solid franchise qb then that is a dramatic upgrade that will allow this franchise an opportunity to be a credible team instead of an afterhought team. Perhaps the question is, in the last 13 years, if Romo had been the Bills QB, how many times would we have made the playoffs? IMO, it would be about two, if that, although it's impossible to say. He doesn't seem to be the kind of guy to put a team on his back. He does appear to be the kind of guy who needs a lot of help around him on offense and defense. And I think if relied upon to get the ball in the endzone all the time, with average WR, no TE and a defense that stops no one, he just wouldn't be any good. Edited March 30, 2013 by Kelly the Dog Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnC Posted March 30, 2013 Share Posted March 30, 2013 Perhaps the question is, in the last 13 years, if Romo had been the Bills QB, how many times would we have made the playoffs? IMO, it would be about two, if that, although it's impossible to say. He doesn't seem to be the kind of guy to put a team on his back. He does appear to be the kind of guy who needs a lot of help around him on offense and defense. And I think if relied upon to get the ball in the endzone all the time, with average WR, no TE and a defense that stops no one, he just wouldn't be any good. Romo is not the type of qb that will carry a team. Only an elite qb, such as Rodgers, can do that. Romo is far from being elite. I would rate Romo in the solid to good caliber qb. Surrounding that caliber of a qb with a solid roster on both sides of the ball will at least give your team a chance to consistently compete and possibly make it to the playoffs, not necessarily on a regular basis. The Bills have been a wretched team for a very long time. Their roster has had major deficiencies on both sides of the ball for a very long time. The roster has been in a state of decrepitude for a very long time because the organization is well recognized for its instability and incompetence. There is no magic to success in the league. You need a legitimate franchise qb and also a decent lineup on both sides of the ball to be a serious team. If you can't acquire an elite qb you don't bypass a quality qb that will at least make your product watcheable. In my view adding a Romo type performer to this roster will dramatically elevate the competiveness of this non-competing team. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orton's Arm Posted March 31, 2013 Share Posted March 31, 2013 Romo is not the type of qb that will carry a team. Only an elite qb, such as Rodgers, can do that. Romo is far from being elite. I would rate Romo in the solid to good caliber qb. Surrounding that caliber of a qb with a solid roster on both sides of the ball will at least give your team a chance to consistently compete and possibly make it to the playoffs, not necessarily on a regular basis. The Bills have been a wretched team for a very long time. Their roster has had major deficiencies on both sides of the ball for a very long time. The roster has been in a state of decrepitude for a very long time because the organization is well recognized for its instability and incompetence. There is no magic to success in the league. You need a legitimate franchise qb and also a decent lineup on both sides of the ball to be a serious team. If you can't acquire an elite qb you don't bypass a quality qb that will at least make your product watcheable. In my view adding a Romo type performer to this roster will dramatically elevate the competiveness of this non-competing team. > If you can't acquire an elite qb you don't bypass a quality qb that will at least make your product watcheable. I strongly agree with all of your post except for the above sentence. If you want to win the Super Bowl--if you want it so bad you can taste it--one approach is to go all or nothing at QB. Either you have The Guy at QB, or you don't. If you don't, you need to do whatever it takes to get The Guy. Until you do, you're just spinning your wheels as far as a Super Bowl win is concerned. Sometimes, the best QBs are chosen at the top of the draft. Peyton Manning and Andrew Luck come to mind. If you have a QB who's good enough to be credible but not good enough to be The Guy, odds are very strong you won't be picking early enough in the draft to get one of the small handful of QBs that everyone wants. You don't have to have a top-5 pick to get The Guy. The Green Bay Packers showed us this when they took Aaron Rodgers after about 20 other teams had passed him over. But you are much more likely to get The Guy if you're picking first overall than if you're constantly going 6-10 or 7-9. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnC Posted March 31, 2013 Share Posted March 31, 2013 > If you can't acquire an elite qb you don't bypass a quality qb that will at least make your product watcheable. I strongly agree with all of your post except for the above sentence. If you want to win the Super Bowl--if you want it so bad you can taste it--one approach is to go all or nothing at QB. Either you have The Guy at QB, or you don't. If you don't, you need to do whatever it takes to get The Guy. Until you do, you're just spinning your wheels as far as a Super Bowl win is concerned. Sometimes, the best QBs are chosen at the top of the draft. Peyton Manning and Andrew Luck come to mind. If you have a QB who's good enough to be credible but not good enough to be The Guy, odds are very strong you won't be picking early enough in the draft to get one of the small handful of QBs that everyone wants. You don't have to have a top-5 pick to get The Guy. The Green Bay Packers showed us this when they took Aaron Rodgers after about 20 other teams had passed him over. But you are much more likely to get The Guy if you're picking first overall than if you're constantly going 6-10 or 7-9. We are discussing the Buffalo Bills here not some wishful dream desire. When you have a franchise that has become so irrelevant that it is worse than being mocked---it is an ignored franchise in the most popular professional sport in America. You don't instantly become a SB contender from the bottom of the pit. It is a process where you build up the roster on both sides of the ball and go from there. You have to string together a few high quality drafts and make smart free agent decisions during that same period of time. An Adrew Luck and RGIII type of qbs are once in a decade type players. Even when that caliber of qb is in the draft that doesn't mean that you will be in position to draft those gems. If you have astute talent evaluators, which the Bills don't currently have, you find another path to acquiring impactful qbs. You find a Kaepernick in the second round or a Russell Wilson in the third round when they are available. There are no guarantees that any quarterback that you take (with the exception of the golden prospects) is going to turn out to be good. So what do you do? You don't do what this stupid organization has done. Not bothering to draft a qb prospect unless you are absolutely sure about the unknown result is not going to advance the team at all. Sometimes you get lucky; most times you don't. But you shouldn't stop trying. Who ever thought that Kurt Warner would some day be a HOF candidate with two SB rings? Who ever thought that Russell Wilson would be matching Luck and RGIII in his rookie year? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orton's Arm Posted March 31, 2013 Share Posted March 31, 2013 We are discussing the Buffalo Bills here not some wishful dream desire. When you have a franchise that has become so irrelevant that it is worse than being mocked---it is an ignored franchise in the most popular professional sport in America. You don't instantly become a SB contender from the bottom of the pit. It is a process where you build up the roster on both sides of the ball and go from there. You have to string together a few high quality drafts and make smart free agent decisions during that same period of time. An Adrew Luck and RGIII type of qbs are once in a decade type players. Even when that caliber of qb is in the draft that doesn't mean that you will be in position to draft those gems. If you have astute talent evaluators, which the Bills don't currently have, you find another path to acquiring impactful qbs. You find a Kaepernick in the second round or a Russell Wilson in the third round when they are available. There are no guarantees that any quarterback that you take (with the exception of the golden prospects) is going to turn out to be good. So what do you do? You don't do what this stupid organization has done. Not bothering to draft a qb prospect unless you are absolutely sure about the unknown result is not going to advance the team at all. Sometimes you get lucky; most times you don't. But you shouldn't stop trying. Who ever thought that Kurt Warner would some day be a HOF candidate with two SB rings? Who ever thought that Russell Wilson would be matching Luck and RGIII in his rookie year? > You don't instantly become a SB contender from the bottom of the pit. It is a process where you build > up the roster on both sides of the ball and go from there. You have to string together a few high quality drafts . . . I'll agree with that up to a point. Just as I'm sure you'd agree that a franchise cannot add a franchise QB little by little. It's not like you can draft 1/3 of a franchise QB one year, 1/4 the next year, and so on, only to somehow combine the fractions at the end into a complete franchise QB. A franchise QB must be added in one big python lump--or not at all. > Even when that caliber of qb is in the draft that doesn't mean that you will be in position to draft those gems. If someone were to employ the all-or-nothing strategy I'd suggested earlier, the intention would be to gain the draft position necessary to take an Andrew Luck. If your starting QB is determined by a competition between Tyler Thigpen and Craig Nall, odds are that few if any teams will draft ahead of you. > So what do you do? You don't do what this stupid organization has done. Not bothering to draft a > qb prospect unless you are absolutely sure about the unknown result is not going to advance the team at all. I completely agree. This organization is very good at finding reasons to not draft QBs. Over the last 40 years, the Bills have used 25% of their first picks of the draft on RBs. During that same span, they've used only 3.5% of their first picks of the draft on QBs. Picking the wrong QB can hurt you doubly, if you let it. The first way it hurts you is the loss of the draft pick. Nothing you can do about that. But the second way is because it lulls you into thinking that you need not invest more resources at the QB position, until you've given your current QB of the future a chance. Back in 2006, the Bills eschewed Cutler at 8th overall, and went with Whitner instead! I think the reason they did this was because they didn't want to invest significant new resources into the QB position until they'd given Losman his chance. Losman's presence on the roster also prevented us from drafting Aaron Rodgers back in 2005; both because of Losman using up the pick which should have been used to take Rodgers, and because Losman's presence on the roster caused TD to believe the Bills were "set" at QB. Had Losman retired before the 2005 draft, TD might have tried trading into the first round for a QB like Rodgers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dibs Posted March 31, 2013 Share Posted March 31, 2013 I think the numbers are pretty stupid too, but putting myself in their shoes, I'm not sure what else they could have done. There definitely isn't any other QB in free agency that could compete with Romo for the starting job, and this year's draft is weak at QB. Jerrah also seems to be pretty loyal to the players he likes, plus Romo is very marketable. And since Jerrah's got plenty of money, the numbers don't mean all that much to him. I could be wrong but I'm pretty sure that Romo had the cowboys over a barrel on this. The 'Boys needed some cap room this season to be able to sign their rookies. The restructure of Romo freed up around 5m(guess from memory) which enables them to do this. Looks to me like Romo would only agree if he was given a substantial increase in pay. The Cowboys are now in the position where if the cap doesn't increase a lot over the next 2 seasons, they are in big trouble. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dibs Posted March 31, 2013 Share Posted March 31, 2013 Romo is not the type of qb that will carry a team. Only an elite qb, such as Rodgers, can do that. Romo is far from being elite. I would rate Romo in the solid to good caliber qb. Surrounding that caliber of a qb with a solid roster on both sides of the ball will at least give your team a chance to consistently compete and possibly make it to the playoffs, not necessarily on a regular basis. The Bills have been a wretched team for a very long time. Their roster has had major deficiencies on both sides of the ball for a very long time. The roster has been in a state of decrepitude for a very long time because the organization is well recognized for its instability and incompetence. There is no magic to success in the league. You need a legitimate franchise qb and also a decent lineup on both sides of the ball to be a serious team. If you can't acquire an elite qb you don't bypass a quality qb that will at least make your product watcheable. In my view adding a Romo type performer to this roster will dramatically elevate the competiveness of this non-competing team. I fully agree.......though paying a non-legitimate franchise QB as if he was a legitimate franchise QB defeats the purpose IMO. To me it comes down to two totally legitimate but different views.....based upon a final goal. The two views pretty much hinge upon the calibre of the QB. 1. Some believe it is better to aim towards becoming a solid team that will be regularly in the playoffs. (A good but not great QB). This keeps everyone relatively happy due to consistent successes.....but becomes more difficult to find a great QB....or build an awesome team around them(due to cap issues) that they will need to win the SB 2. Some believe it is better to aim towards becoming a team that can have a realistic chance of winning the SB. (A great QB). This means that it could be many years of struggling while trying to find said great QB. Years without success while constantly drafting and changing QBs.......until you finally land the right guy. I personally prefer the 2nd option......but I don't begrudge anybody who puts a higher value in the 1st one. The Bills have obviously continually failed in their attempts for both strategies over the past 20 years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnC Posted March 31, 2013 Share Posted March 31, 2013 > You don't instantly become a SB contender from the bottom of the pit. It is a process where you build > up the roster on both sides of the ball and go from there. You have to string together a few high quality drafts . . . I'll agree with that up to a point. Just as I'm sure you'd agree that a franchise cannot add a franchise QB little by little. It's not like you can draft 1/3 of a franchise QB one year, 1/4 the next year, and so on, only to somehow combine the fractions at the end into a complete franchise QB. A franchise QB must be added in one big python lump--or not at all. > Even when that caliber of qb is in the draft that doesn't mean that you will be in position to draft those gems. If someone were to employ the all-or-nothing strategy I'd suggested earlier, the intention would be to gain the draft position necessary to take an Andrew Luck. If your starting QB is determined by a competition between Tyler Thigpen and Craig Nall, odds are that few if any teams will draft ahead of you. > So what do you do? You don't do what this stupid organization has done. Not bothering to draft a > qb prospect unless you are absolutely sure about the unknown result is not going to advance the team at all. I completely agree. This organization is very good at finding reasons to not draft QBs. Over the last 40 years, the Bills have used 25% of their first picks of the draft on RBs. During that same span, they've used only 3.5% of their first picks of the draft on QBs. Picking the wrong QB can hurt you doubly, if you let it. The first way it hurts you is the loss of the draft pick. Nothing you can do about that. But the second way is because it lulls you into thinking that you need not invest more resources at the QB position, until you've given your current QB of the future a chance. Back in 2006, the Bills eschewed Cutler at 8th overall, and went with Whitner instead! I think the reason they did this was because they didn't want to invest significant new resources into the QB position until they'd given Losman his chance. Losman's presence on the roster also prevented us from drafting Aaron Rodgers back in 2005; both because of Losman using up the pick which should have been used to take Rodgers, and because Losman's presence on the roster caused TD to believe the Bills were "set" at QB. Had Losman retired before the 2005 draft, TD might have tried trading into the first round for a QB like Rodgers. The mistake you are making in your do or die pursuit of the dream qb prospect is that you are making it seem that there are no other options other than the dream boat prospect. That is where I strenuously disargree with you. Both Kaepernick and Wilson were not considered elite prospects except by the few astute unconventional evaluators. They are just as capable, if not more, to lead their respective teams to the SB as Luck and RGIII are, the golden prospects. My general point on this topic is you can't be stymied because you are not in position to secure your coveted prospect. You have to be flexible and be willing to use a little creativityto find a solution when your first option has been closed to you. Nix has had opportunities outside of the first round to secure a scintillating qb prospect that without a doubt would have changed the trajectory of this flagging franchise. Being slow and inflexible in a fast paced business that requires creativity and flexibility is a recipe for mediocrtiy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnC Posted March 31, 2013 Share Posted March 31, 2013 I fully agree.......though paying a non-legitimate franchise QB as if he was a legitimate franchise QB defeats the purpose IMO. To me it comes down to two totally legitimate but different views.....based upon a final goal. The two views pretty much hinge upon the calibre of the QB. 1. Some believe it is better to aim towards becoming a solid team that will be regularly in the playoffs. (A good but not great QB). This keeps everyone relatively happy due to consistent successes.....but becomes more difficult to find a great QB....or build an awesome team around them(due to cap issues) that they will need to win the SB 2. Some believe it is better to aim towards becoming a team that can have a realistic chance of winning the SB. (A great QB). This means that it could be many years of struggling while trying to find said great QB. Years without success while constantly drafting and changing QBs.......until you finally land the right guy. I personally prefer the 2nd option......but I don't begrudge anybody who puts a higher value in the 1st one. The Bills have obviously continually failed in their attempts for both strategies over the past 20 years. The problem I have with your position is that you make it seem as if it is mutually exclusive in building up your roster while at the same time finding an elite qb prospect that will enable you to compete for the big prize. That is not the case if you have a GM who is competent----something the Bills don't have at this time. As I stated in another post this franchise has had multiple opportunities to secure elite prospects outside of the first round. While Nix was blind to the opportunities staring at him other smarter evaluators seized on his miscalculations and prospered. It seems that you are making the argument for delibertately tanking seasons in order to place yourself in a position to draft the golden goose qb prospect. Obiously the Bills are good at tanking a generation of seasons without intending to do so. My position is very different. How about respecting the abused fanbase with a product that is worthy of their support? No one disputes that having a good qb is a necessity to be a serious team. Organizations that are competent can find viable qb options that allow them to be a SB challenging franchise. Baltimore drafting Flacco lower in the first round after trading back into it is a clear example of what a little creativity and flexibility can do. If you come upon a roadblock you don't quit. You back up and go around the roadblock and take a different route to get to the same destination.Not doing anything to rectify a damaging qb deficiency is malfeasance and nonfeasance wrapped together. What has it gotten us? Waiting for the perfect solution is simply a continuation of the loser mentality that this laggard organization suffers from. If other teams can find ways to success then so can this bedraggled franchise. Excuses are fo losers. Time has run out for making lame excuses for a lame organization. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WhitewalkerInPhilly Posted March 31, 2013 Share Posted March 31, 2013 Look, for some perspective, if the Bills had gotten Romo for the same price that they just got Kolb, how stoked would everyone be right now? I would be pretty happy. Really happy. Tony Romo is a good quarterback, a damn good quarterback. What he isn't, is a good field marshal. How many times did we look at Flacco and go, "what the hell do the Ravens see in him". Remember when we looked at Eli Manning and said "Man, what a bust"? What these guys have is the ability to go up and over their limitations when it matters, as opposed to Romo who regresses. Romo is a good quarterback, but that's Super Bowl winning money. That's "Flacco has you by the short hairs after having the greatest playoff performance since Joe Montana and it's the last year of his contract" money. Tom Brady doesn't get that deal. Aaron Rodgers doesn't get that kind of deal. Romo doesn't deserve it, but I don't mind seeing the Cowboys overpay for him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dibs Posted March 31, 2013 Share Posted March 31, 2013 The problem I have with your position is that you make it seem as if it is mutually exclusive in building up your roster while at the same time finding an elite qb prospect that will enable you to compete for the big prize. I'm sorry....I didn't mean it to sound that way. .....I've reread what I wrote & I can't see where I might have given you that impression. It seems that you are making the argument for delibertately tanking seasons in order to place yourself in a position to draft the golden goose qb prospect. Obiously the Bills are good at tanking a generation of seasons without intending to do so. My position is very different. How about respecting the abused fanbase with a product that is worthy of their support? How could you possibly garner that from what I wrote? I know we are being somewhat peppered with ridiculous comments from people about deliberately tanking.....but I would never advocate that as a viable option. What I wrote was....."Years without success while constantly drafting and changing QBs.......until you finally land the right guy.". How do you read that as me implying that we should deliberately tank? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts