YoloinOhio Posted October 25, 2014 Author Posted October 25, 2014 One way to look at it is how much they would be paying the front 7 as a whole if they went with, say, Bradham, brown, Kiko. No highly paid LBs there for a few years which frees up money.
John from Riverside Posted October 25, 2014 Posted October 25, 2014 WOW.....maybe we wont be able to keep everybody
SmokinES3 Posted October 25, 2014 Posted October 25, 2014 (edited) One way to look at it is how much they would be paying the front 7 as a whole if they went with, say, Bradham, brown, Kiko. No highly paid LBs there for a few years which frees up money. True. Kiko has at least 2 more affordable years on the rookie deal correct? Brown is getting Rivers' reps now, and appears to improve almost weekly from what I csn see. Edited October 25, 2014 by SmokinES3
NoSaint Posted October 25, 2014 Posted October 25, 2014 One way to look at it is how much they would be paying the front 7 as a whole if they went with, say, Bradham, brown, Kiko. No highly paid LBs there for a few years which frees up money. A valid point, and something you'll likely see long term with Schwartz - I've said since he signed that the big bucks and top picks would likely be the front 4 at times at the expense of the back 7.
atlbillsfan1975 Posted October 25, 2014 Posted October 25, 2014 At some point you're still commiting pretty big bucks, and he has an agent fighting to keep ridiculous clauses out too. I don't think it is ridiculous to have drug clauses and safe driving ones given his recent history. Also a weight clause would be a good idea.
NoSaint Posted October 25, 2014 Posted October 25, 2014 (edited) True. Kiko has at least 2 more affordable years on the rookie deal correct? Brown is getting Rivers' reps now, and appears to improve almost weekly from what I csn see. If we don't activate him this year we have an rfa year after too. I'd expect rivers and spikes to transition out, Lawson and KW may not be here long term too. Add a high round pick to the line and you may be similar skills in the front 7 without wildly different dollars overall Edited October 25, 2014 by NoSaint
SmokinES3 Posted October 25, 2014 Posted October 25, 2014 I don't think it is ridiculous to have drug clauses and safe driving ones given his recent history. Also a weight clause would be a good idea. I don't think they'd get it but the weight clause is a good idea. He is bigger than 330 now IMO. If we don't activate him this year we have an rfa year after too. I'd expect rivers and spikes to transition out, Lawson and KW may not be here long term too. Add a high round pick to the line and you may be similar skills in the front 7 without wildly different dollars overall True, Lawson and Rivers probably won't stick long if Schwartz stays.
NoSaint Posted October 25, 2014 Posted October 25, 2014 (edited) I don't think it is ridiculous to have drug clauses and safe driving ones given his recent history. Also a weight clause would be a good idea. Right. But im guessing your not dareus or his agent. I don't know that the typical message board chatter of "yea, totally, just make it well fenced with clauses and incentive heavy" will always get the job done. Will he want something in return? Will he say screw it and wait for the open market? And even with protections, how protected are you? thats all I was getting at Edited October 25, 2014 by NoSaint
RCOHEN13 Posted October 25, 2014 Posted October 25, 2014 Eeeek. Way to drive the market up, jerks! yup... gonna be 100 million dollar deal needed to lock up Dareus.. MUST be kept but will make signing Hughes very difficult when we already are paying Mario huge dough and Kyle is still making big bucks too. thats gonna be alot of money tied up in DL
NoSaint Posted October 25, 2014 Posted October 25, 2014 Another point to ponder if you don't trust him fully- could it make sense to let him play out his 8m option next year, tag at just shy of 10m and an option to tag at 12m the year after to give him 3 contract years as motivation. That's a 3 year 30m deal at the close of this year that all team options essentially.
SmokinES3 Posted October 25, 2014 Posted October 25, 2014 Another point to ponder if you don't trust him fully- could it make sense to let him play out his 8m option next year, tag at just shy of 10m and an option to tag at 12m the year after to give him 3 contract years as motivation. That's a 3 year 30m deal at the close of this year that all team options essentially. Seems like a no brainer, though I'm sure he'd holdout.
NoSaint Posted October 25, 2014 Posted October 25, 2014 (edited) Seems like a no brainer, though I'm sure he'd holdout. That's certainly a drawback. Has he damaged his credibility enough already that he needs to be a good soldier? not all guys on the tag play it out til the last minute. Also does it give you another couple offseasons to test him before commiting? Not arguing for it, just playing out some options to hopefully get discussion going He also wouldn't be staring at losing his last big deal like Byrd was as he's younger Edited October 25, 2014 by NoSaint
Bill from NYC Posted October 25, 2014 Posted October 25, 2014 WOW.....maybe we wont be able to keep everybody Or maybe we will John. The Lions allocate a TON of money to their DL (Suh and Fairley). They also have to pay Stafford huge bucks. EJ and Orton combined cost pennies in terms of quarterbacks. Think about it.....qbs such as Dalton, Stafford and Cutler cost far more than double what we pay our qbs. It can work imo.
NoSaint Posted October 25, 2014 Posted October 25, 2014 (edited) Or maybe we will John. The Lions allocate a TON of money to their DL (Suh and Fairley). They also have to pay Stafford huge bucks. EJ and Orton combined cost pennies in terms of quarterbacks. Think about it.....qbs such as Dalton, Stafford and Cutler cost far more than double what we pay our qbs. It can work imo. Fairley is still on a mid 1st rookie deal and didn't have his option picked up. Otherwise, generally agree. To come at it another way- look at the crazy deals the Seahawks could support due to Russell Wilson Edited October 25, 2014 by NoSaint
Gabe Northern Posted October 25, 2014 Posted October 25, 2014 Yowsa. More than I expected. 14m wasn't the number I pegged. Time to fire up the "he doesn't want to be here" PR campaign once again...
Fan in Chicago Posted October 25, 2014 Posted October 25, 2014 Or maybe we will John. The Lions allocate a TON of money to their DL (Suh and Fairley). They also have to pay Stafford huge bucks. EJ and Orton combined cost pennies in terms of quarterbacks. Think about it.....qbs such as Dalton, Stafford and Cutler cost far more than double what we pay our qbs. It can work imo. For the teams with confirmed or marginal (Cutler, Matt Ryan) franchise QBs, a significant percent of the cap is tied up at that position. For better or for worse, the Bills do not have this 'problem' and appear to be a few years away from it. Till that time, it is fair game to spread the dollars to the rare skills and pro-bowl type performers. Dareus certainly fits that mold however his past off-field troubles stop me from advocating insane guaranteed dollars. As NoSaint advocates, it is in the Bills interest to stretch his contract and tag him till he proves himself to be trouble free. That may not be a luxury the Bills have as there are a lot of variables that come into play - Dareus holding out, other teams willing to overlook his troubles and still pay him etc. Be that as it may, I think $51 M guaranteed for any position is ridiculous.
TakeYouToTasker Posted October 25, 2014 Posted October 25, 2014 The money these athletes (and Goodell) get have gotten WAY out of hand. But I suppose that's a different story for another day. That's what the market dictates. People love the product that the National Football League sells. It generates billions. There are very, very few individuals who are able to do the work to create the product. They are paid appropriately.
QCity Posted October 25, 2014 Posted October 25, 2014 My heart sank when I heard this because this is the first time I've ever visualized Dareus playing in another team's jersey.
Miyagi-Do Karate Posted October 25, 2014 Posted October 25, 2014 At some point you're still commiting pretty big bucks, and he has an agent fighting to keep ridiculous clauses out too. Yeah, I am not optimistic that he would sign a deal with a bunch of restrictions. I would call it like a 90% chance he gets in trouble again off the field in the future. So we would have to be comfortable devoting a lot of guaranteed money to a guy I would be willing to bet gets hit suspensions down the line.
QB Bills Posted October 25, 2014 Posted October 25, 2014 He's the best player on the team. They better pay him.
Recommended Posts