thebandit27 Posted March 9, 2014 Posted March 9, 2014 I guess Realists = Trolls now. Oh wait I forgot those who don't drink the kool aid = Trolls. It's been my observation that mosts "realists" are actually pessimists that don't want to feel like pessimists. And for the record, there's no reason for the Bills or any player they've contacted to report about it. I've noticed that Whaley prefers to be much more guarded about his plans than Nix...I'm not sure that's a bad thing. Many are speculating the Bills will not do anything with any of the pricier FAs until they know what the result is with Byrd. I don't expect any blockbuster signings; I do believe they'll be active early an very pointed in their approach.
bigK14094 Posted March 9, 2014 Posted March 9, 2014 I think that the Bills have set the tone that they are not waiting on Byrd. He knows what they are offering but I would bet that is subject to change depending on whom they sign. They are going to execute their plan regardless of Byrd's intentions. I believe the right term is "were offering", not "are offering". Circumstatnces change, Williams signs, other money gets spent......I believe the offer that was on the table is not necessarily there today.
Kirby Jackson Posted March 9, 2014 Posted March 9, 2014 I believe the right term is "were offering", not "are offering". Circumstatnces change, Williams signs, other money gets spent......I believe the offer that was on the table is not necessarily there today. Totally agree
Kirby Jackson Posted March 9, 2014 Posted March 9, 2014 this is not meant as anything against you or anyone individually, especially since I do it to. It is amazing how we draw so many straws, speculate so much and hold value in totally baseless information and speculation. Again, I am not disputing what you say, especially because I agree. But its amazing. There maybe three people who frequent this place that may actually know something. Hah I wasn't talking on any inside info here, just common sense. Each party is going to do what's best for them and if it ends up with them together in the end so be it. The Bills won't wait for Byrd to tour the country and make a decision before they begin free agency.
thebandit27 Posted March 9, 2014 Posted March 9, 2014 I wasn't talking on any inside info here, just common sense. Each party is going to do what's best for them and if it ends up with them together in the end so be it. The Bills won't wait for Byrd to tour the country and make a decision before they begin free agency. Agreed...as we've disused, I expect Buffalo's approach to FA will be aggressive, pointed, and fiscally-responsible.
Kellyto83TD Posted March 9, 2014 Author Posted March 9, 2014 I see us signing 3-4 mid tier guys who can perform but at a lower cost than the 'name players'. Fill in the rest with the draft and coachem' up
Not at the table Karlos Posted March 9, 2014 Posted March 9, 2014 being a bills fan is being bipolar. One day the ledge, the next day singing gayfully strolling thru the meadow. couldnt explain it any better
3rdand12 Posted March 9, 2014 Posted March 9, 2014 Why would you wonder who Buffalo is calling after saying stuff like this? "I really need for fans to please, PLEASE after all these years and ralph owning the team for 50+ years to finally come to grips with something. Even if we had 100 million under the cap, we won't spend it. Ralph and more importantly Jeffery Littman will not allow it. and when the cap hits say 160 mill in 3 years or so it won't matter if we have 10 million under or 50 million under, Buffalo won't have the money to spend that much. I still think the league is going to rid themselves of teams that have proven that they can't stay competitive in today's market but increase the number of roster spots per team. I can easily see us going back to 28 teams. If a team is costing the league money (extra revenue sharing but not putting much if any back in) then the right business move is to cut those teams." i see what you did there. nice work turning tables over : ) all in good fun
Luxy312 Posted March 9, 2014 Posted March 9, 2014 Why would you wonder who Buffalo is calling after saying stuff like this? "I really need for fans to please, PLEASE after all these years and ralph owning the team for 50+ years to finally come to grips with something. Even if we had 100 million under the cap, we won't spend it. Ralph and more importantly Jeffery Littman will not allow it. and when the cap hits say 160 mill in 3 years or so it won't matter if we have 10 million under or 50 million under, Buffalo won't have the money to spend that much. I still think the league is going to rid themselves of teams that have proven that they can't stay competitive in today's market but increase the number of roster spots per team. I can easily see us going back to 28 teams. If a team is costing the league money (extra revenue sharing but not putting much if any back in) then the right business move is to cut those teams." For those that care about the issue, this is flat out incorrect. EVERY team in the NFL is required to spend up to a certain percentage of the hard salary cap. Last year it was 85%. This year it's 90% and next year is 95%. The penalty for not spending that minimum percentage is to be fined the difference by the NFL. What this means exactly is that if the theoretical salary cap is indeed $160 million, that the Bills would be required to spend $152 million on player salaries OR pay the difference as a fine to the NFL. I.e. they pay $152 million no matter what. Another incorrect perception about the salary cap is how it is determined. It is driven almost exclusively by NFL national revenue (i.e. advertising and their TV contract are the lions share), and each NFL team gets an equal share. In terms of teams "costing the league money", it is literally impossible for that to be the case. If someone were to simply read the CBA and have even a rudimentary understanding of the revenue sharing formula, they could see that that is the case. Should a team actually suffer a loss of net income (which is possible), it falls squarely on the shoulders of the owner of that team. Nothing goes back upstream to the NFL or to other teams. I want to point out also though that suffering a loss is fairly rare. Last year in fact, only 1 team in the NFL lost money and that was the Detroit Lions primarily as a result of having to pay interest on debt that they incurred some time ago to build Ford Field. Technically, it's really a paper loss only as their cash flow was well out of the red.
3rdand12 Posted March 9, 2014 Posted March 9, 2014 I believe the right term is "were offering", not "are offering". Circumstatnces change, Williams signs, other money gets spent......I believe the offer that was on the table is not necessarily there today. I can see this being a reasonable assumption , as i have made the same one!
Buffaloed in Pa Posted March 9, 2014 Posted March 9, 2014 Middle of the pack free agents at OLand LB. I hope we sign Carpenter.
uncle flap Posted March 9, 2014 Posted March 9, 2014 Middle of the pack free agents at OLand LB. I hope we sign Carpenter. I wouldn't be surprised to see Carpenter re-signed in the next couple days. I'm sure they have an offer for him on the table, and he is just doing his own due diligence to make sure some other team doesn't come calling with something substantially better. Same with Chandler. Someone *might* throw a huge contract his way, but unless some other team blows him away with an offer (unlikely), he will re-sign too. I think you're right about the mid-tier LB and/or OL, but like I mentioned in another thread, they might cost a little more than we fans would expect.
Johnny Hammersticks Posted March 9, 2014 Posted March 9, 2014 Why would a realist care about our opinion on free agency? I'm a nihilist. I believe in nothing. Nothing Lebowski!
Coach Tuesday Posted March 10, 2014 Posted March 10, 2014 I'm a nihilist. I believe in nothing. Nothing Lebowski! That must be pretty exhausting.
YoloinOhio Posted March 10, 2014 Posted March 10, 2014 ProFootballTalk @ProFootballTalk 17m Cardinals offered Karlos Dansby two-year deal worth $10 million to $12 million http://wp.me/p14QSB-9qG6
Estro Posted March 10, 2014 Posted March 10, 2014 I think there will be a handful of teams, the Patriots and Jets to name a few, that will be interested in signing Emanuel Sanders. I think the Bills like Goodwin a lot, but he got hurt last year on a couple of occasions so it wouldn't shock me if the Bills were interested in Sanders. Sanders is the type of WR that you can get the ball to quickly and let him pick up some YAC, the type of WR the Bills are rumored to be looking for in FA. Plus there's the whole Whaley/Pittsburgh connection.
KRT88 Posted March 10, 2014 Posted March 10, 2014 So I wonder who Buffalo is calling? That's what this thread is about. OK, this may be one of the dumbest one ever. It's kind of like wonder, who gets to bang Jennifer Connolly? Does it really freakin matter who we call? It matters who we sign, and then how we coach them. I don't care if we call three FA or 33, sign a few player who can contribute and get us a winner!
Jamie Nails Posted March 10, 2014 Posted March 10, 2014 Hoping that they can get some deals inked via phone, becasue it sounds like their's some nasty weather brewing in the area. Visitors might not even be able to get into town tomorrow, let alone want to sign in the midst of a March blizzard.
Kirby Jackson Posted March 10, 2014 Posted March 10, 2014 Hoping that they can get some deals inked via phone, becasue it sounds like their's some nasty weather brewing in the area. Visitors might not even be able to get into town tomorrow, let alone want to sign in the midst of a March blizzard. I didn't even think about that but it's a great point. That kind of sucks trying to recruit someone in the midst of a mid March snowstorm.
Recommended Posts