uncle flap Posted May 31, 2013 Posted May 31, 2013 Just to play devil's advocate; Spiller will be 29 in 2016 when his deal is up. Do we/the Bills want to re-sign a player who will likely be past his prime for the majority of that contact extension? I love Spiller and he might even be my favorite Bill right now. But if I'm Whaley, I'm drafting an RB in the first few rounds each of the next few years in hopes that the prospect of letting Spiller walk wouldn't be devastating to the future of the team.
Cotton Fitzsimmons Posted May 31, 2013 Posted May 31, 2013 I just looked at a few of your most recent posts based on what really good posters have said about you in this thread. Welcome to my ignore list. This is the same joker who was critical of YE OLE's Bills parody to the tune of Gilligan's Island over in the Good Bills names for a boat thread. Imagine being critical of a masterpiece that includes the lyrics "No Byrd, no guards, no cornerbacks. Not a single luxury. Like a Dave Wannstedt gameplan... as primative as can be."
Chandler#81 Posted May 31, 2013 Posted May 31, 2013 I just looked at a few of your most recent posts based on what really good posters have said about you in this thread. Welcome to my ignore list. No need for the ignore list..
ChanOverChin Posted May 31, 2013 Posted May 31, 2013 The Bills have real needs this year. They need to sign some vet FAs to fill at least the CB and OG positions. TE might also be a definite need if Chandler can't get to 100%. Sign Byrd for $6M. Sign Manuel for 5 yrs at about $1.75M per year or whatever the going rate is and then snap up some of the vets that will inevitably be released after June 1st.
Malazan Posted May 31, 2013 Posted May 31, 2013 The Bills have real needs this year. They need to sign some vet FAs to fill at least the CB and OG positions. TE might also be a definite need if Chandler can't get to 100%. Sign Byrd for $6M. Sign Manuel for 5 yrs at about $1.75M per year or whatever the going rate is and then snap up some of the vets that will inevitably be released after June 1st. Sign Byrd at 6 million? Easier said than done. Byrd apparently wants to be the highest paid safety in the game. No need for the ignore list.. Thank you.
San Jose Bills Fan Posted May 31, 2013 Posted May 31, 2013 The Bills have real needs this year. They need to sign some vet FAs to fill at least the CB and OG positions. TE might also be a definite need if Chandler can't get to 100%. Sign Byrd for $6M. Sign Manuel for 5 yrs at about $1.75M per year or whatever the going rate is and then snap up some of the vets that will inevitably be released after June 1st. I'm not sure I fully agree. I can see a scenario where the team knows that this is the rebuilding year and chooses to evaluate the players to see what they have rather than sign veterans who might make the difference of 1-2 virtually meaningless wins.
Malazan Posted May 31, 2013 Posted May 31, 2013 I'm not sure I fully agree. I can see a scenario where the team knows that this is the rebuilding year and chooses to evaluate the players to see what they have rather than sign veterans who might make the difference of 1-2 virtually meaningless wins. The off-season screams that to me. New staff wants to see what they have before making commitments. The contracts they did give are short term and team friendly.
NoSaint Posted May 31, 2013 Posted May 31, 2013 I'm not sure I fully agree. I can see a scenario where the team knows that this is the rebuilding year and chooses to evaluate the players to see what they have rather than sign veterans who might make the difference of 1-2 virtually meaningless wins. It's easier said than done. A) the gap between say 6 and 8 wins is big for a new coach building credibility B) evaluating players and helping them grow us a lot easier without big holes. For instance, it'd be nice to trust your LG if you want to develop a rookie qb. You can take a few risks but generally it'd be nice to have a few spots solidified instead of tossing guys to sink or swim
San Jose Bills Fan Posted May 31, 2013 Posted May 31, 2013 It's easier said than done. A) the gap between say 6 and 8 wins is big for a new coach building credibility B) evaluating players and helping them grow us a lot easier without big holes. For instance, it'd be nice to trust your LG if you want to develop a rookie qb. You can take a few risks but generally it'd be nice to have a few spots solidified instead of tossing guys to sink or swim I agree with B if the team believes they have big roster holes. I don't really agree with A so much. I think a team can go from 6 wins to 10 wins about as easily as it can go from 8 wins to 10 wins. JMO.
NoSaint Posted May 31, 2013 Posted May 31, 2013 I agree with B if the team believes they have big roster holes. I don't really agree with A so much. I think a team can go from 6 wins to 10 wins about as easily as it can go from 8 wins to 10 wins. JMO. When you only get 3 years (sometimes less) to establish your reputation, which ties close to your record I don't know how many coaches and gms are willing to say "meh, lets treat this as a throwaway year to evaluate talent" In hindsight some years might turn into that, but if we're chalking it up to that this early I don't like it (even if its likely a fair assessment of our talent). You turn a 6 win roster into an 8 win roster this year and all it takes is one or two lucky plays and suddenly our rookie qb and coach are in the playoffs instead of a top 5 pick and questions if they are the right guys. But I'm a big believer in picking up momentum out of the gate if you are going to effectively change culture. Nothing gets guys buying in more than wins, even if they might mean nothing come January. Likewise, just an opinion though and it won't be the end of the world if we sputter some this year.
Malazan Posted May 31, 2013 Posted May 31, 2013 When you only get 3 years (sometimes less) to establish your reputation, which ties close to your record I don't know how many coaches and gms are willing to say "meh, lets treat this as a throwaway year to evaluate talent" You're under the assumption that the staff believes there are holes that can be filled with available veterans that would be worthwhile. It's not like they look at a guy and say, we'll take a shot. It's not a choice between rolling the dice and a sure thing. It's about rolling two dies and one them having more possibilities.
NoSaint Posted June 1, 2013 Posted June 1, 2013 (edited) You're under the assumption that the staff believes there are holes that can be filled with available veterans that would be worthwhile. It's not like they look at a guy and say, we'll take a shot. It's not a choice between rolling the dice and a sure thing. It's about rolling two dies and one them having more possibilities. This I understand. There's no such thing as a sure thing ever. My point is I don't think we end the year in a position to roll over extra cap space (minimal at best) meaning rolling over last years was pointless and pushing fitzs hit to next year leaves us far underspending what we could over a 2 year period but making a few moves that stick in people's heads as "see they will spend" without actually spending. We have money to make the roster better and I venture there are players on the street that would make our 53 better. Edited June 1, 2013 by NoSaint
ALF Posted June 1, 2013 Posted June 1, 2013 Extend players 1 year before there contract is up or trade them. I hate to see good players walk away free agents.
billsfan89 Posted June 1, 2013 Posted June 1, 2013 There is also about 5-7 million the Bills could unload this season, there are also a couple of future releases that could ease cap space going forward. I don't see the cap being an issue going forward.
mrags Posted June 1, 2013 Posted June 1, 2013 Wah!!! I think I just figured it out. Rags, like wet rags, like as fun as a wet rag! who are you again?
Leelee Phoenix Posted June 2, 2013 Posted June 2, 2013 Just to play devil's advocate; Spiller will be 29 in 2016 when his deal is up. True, that was a really shrewd contract at the time. Of course, Spiller could hold out/get an unnecessary extension early on, but the last few years of his deal were a big steal if he ended up any good. I think Spiller genuinely likes his role and would prefer to stay here. Dareus and Gilmore will be a challenge to keep.
Kirby Jackson Posted June 2, 2013 Posted June 2, 2013 You're under the assumption that the staff believes there are holes that can be filled with available veterans that would be worthwhile. It's not like they look at a guy and say, we'll take a shot. It's not a choice between rolling the dice and a sure thing. It's about rolling two dies and one them having more possibilities. I know that Brandon Moore gets thrown out a lot but he would seem to for this. I am not saying that he is still a pro bowl player but I would think that the staff would be more confident in him at this point than some of the experiments goin on at LG.
....lybob Posted June 2, 2013 Posted June 2, 2013 While it's a good thing not to over pay for players, it is not a good thing by it self but only if that money saved is reused for players of a better value,the non-signing of Levitre should be judged by who the Bills retain or acquire in his stead.
Recommended Posts