BuffaloHokie13 Posted September 24, 2015 Share Posted September 24, 2015 No, you're not getting a 1st for Leodis, but the goal shouldn't be to accumulate 1sts...it should be to build the best team possible. Don't trade away the best player in your secondary for a draft pick when you can simply sign him and be done with it. Especially when that draft pick could turn into Dee Milliner Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thebandit27 Posted September 24, 2015 Share Posted September 24, 2015 Especially when that draft pick could turn into Dee Milliner Right? I'll never understand the "this guy's good...we should get rid of him" thought process. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aristocrat Posted September 24, 2015 Share Posted September 24, 2015 when we don't have the cap room to keep him and we let him walk people will say...why didn't we trade him? Unless we magically come up with cap space Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thebandit27 Posted September 24, 2015 Share Posted September 24, 2015 when we don't have the cap room to keep him and we let him walk people will say...why didn't we trade him? Unless we magically come up with cap space It's not magic, it's managing the cap. They've got about $10M in room they're going to carry over, and they can create a ton more by: - moving/releasing McKelvin, Lawson, and Urbik - adjusting Wood's contract, or outright releasing him - releasing Kyle Williams (I know, blasphemy, but he's the oldest of their DLmen, would save $5M against the cap, and they have Bryant/Charles to step into that role) - giving Mario Williams a new contract The above, all by themselves, would create approximately $20M in cap room. Add to that the fact that Gilmore already counts $11M against next year's cap (no way a new contract requires more space than that), and there's absolutely no excuse for not signing him. Oh, and that's all assuming that the cap only jumps $7M next year--my guess is it'll be closer to $10M. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FireChan Posted September 24, 2015 Share Posted September 24, 2015 It's not magic, it's managing the cap. They've got about $10M in room they're going to carry over, and they can create a ton more by: - moving/releasing McKelvin, Lawson, and Urbik - adjusting Wood's contract, or outright releasing him - releasing Kyle Williams (I know, blasphemy, but he's the oldest of their DLmen, would save $5M against the cap, and they have Bryant/Charles to step into that role) - giving Mario Williams a new contract The above, all by themselves, would create approximately $20M in cap room. Add to that the fact that Gilmore already counts $11M against next year's cap (no way a new contract requires more space than that), and there's absolutely no excuse for not signing him. Oh, and that's all assuming that the cap only jumps $7M next year--my guess is it'll be closer to $10M. Lawson, Ubirk and Wood are all for sure goners, IMO. KW has one more year at best. Leo will be dangled as bait. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thebandit27 Posted September 24, 2015 Share Posted September 24, 2015 Lawson, Ubirk and Wood are all for sure goners, IMO. KW has one more year at best. Leo will be dangled as bait. Agreed. I think Wood's probably going to go as well--if he's not a top-8 center, then he can't be making top-5 center money. It would be nice if Leo can come back and prove himself capable post-injury; he's the kind of guy you move for a mid-round pick so that you can get something for him instead of cutting him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pete Posted September 24, 2015 Share Posted September 24, 2015 (edited) It's not magic, it's managing the cap. They've got about $10M in room they're going to carry over, and they can create a ton more by: - moving/releasing McKelvin, Lawson, and Urbik - adjusting Wood's contract, or outright releasing him - releasing Kyle Williams (I know, blasphemy, but he's the oldest of their DLmen, would save $5M against the cap, and they have Bryant/Charles to step into that role) - giving Mario Williams a new contract The above, all by themselves, would create approximately $20M in cap room. Add to that the fact that Gilmore already counts $11M against next year's cap (no way a new contract requires more space than that), and there's absolutely no excuse for not signing him. Oh, and that's all assuming that the cap only jumps $7M next year--my guess is it'll be closer to $10M. pure blaspheme cutting Kyle. He is the heart and soul of this team and still kicking ass! I am not sure why so many want to jettison McKelvin. He is a perfect fit for our Defense, very capable, and not that expensive. Edited September 24, 2015 by Pete Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FireChan Posted September 24, 2015 Share Posted September 24, 2015 Agreed. I think Wood's probably going to go as well--if he's not a top-8 center, then he can't be making top-5 center money. It would be nice if Leo can come back and prove himself capable post-injury; he's the kind of guy you move for a mid-round pick so that you can get something for him instead of cutting him. Yeah, Leo having a resurgence would be great. I'm sure a playoff team would give us a third if they have a weak #2 CB and are in their chip window. Like the Colts. Although Grigson would probably give us 2 firsts and TY. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CNY315 Posted September 24, 2015 Share Posted September 24, 2015 The first time I saw an interview I thought "who is this child they're talking to". Dude looks like he's about 13 lol. Really like what he's shown so far Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FireChan Posted September 24, 2015 Share Posted September 24, 2015 (edited) pure blaspheme cutting Kyle. He is the heart and soul of this team and still kicking ass! I am not sure why so many want to jettison McKelvin. He is a perfect fit for our Defense, very capable, and not that expensive. It's not about wants. It's about cost-benefit analysis. McK would net us a good pick, clear cap for more important FA's, and we are already grooming his heir apparent in Darby. Realistically he's probably 2-3 years of this level of play before he drops off a little. I love McK, but trading him for a 3rd makes too much sense. Also, the same goes for Kyle, but I doubt he warrants the same kind of value in the trade market. Edited September 24, 2015 by FireChan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prickly Pete Posted September 24, 2015 Share Posted September 24, 2015 I'd like to get excited, but the Bills just gave up 500 passing yards. I have to think that our "studs" at CB had something to do with it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thebandit27 Posted September 24, 2015 Share Posted September 24, 2015 I'd like to get excited, but the Bills just gave up 500 passing yards. I have to think that our "studs" at CB had something to do with it. Surprisingly, no, not really. Aside from a few throws, Brady basically targeted the safeties and LBs. He did hit a big play against each of Darby and Robey (to Gronk and Amendola, respectively), but coverage wasn't an issue. Both were a case of perfect throw, perfect coverage, and perfect catch. Not much more you could expect there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prickly Pete Posted September 24, 2015 Share Posted September 24, 2015 (edited) Surprisingly, no, not really. Aside from a few throws, Brady basically targeted the safeties and LBs. He did hit a big play against each of Darby and Robey (to Gronk and Amendola, respectively), but coverage wasn't an issue. Both were a case of perfect throw, perfect coverage, and perfect catch. Not much more you could expect there. This is true, but then I guess I'm still not excited, because apparently having 2 studs at CB isn't enough to have an effective backfield. They need coverage LB's. I would have liked to see some harder hits on receivers too. Edited September 24, 2015 by HoF Watkins Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LB3 Posted September 24, 2015 Share Posted September 24, 2015 This is true, but then I guess I'm still not excited, because apparently having 2 studs at CB isn't enough to have effective backfield. They need coverage LB's. I would have liked to see some harder hits on receivers too. I actually think our LB's are pretty good in coverage, Gronk just makes everyone look bad no matter what position the play. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thebandit27 Posted September 24, 2015 Share Posted September 24, 2015 This is true, but then I guess I'm still not excited, because apparently having 2 studs at CB isn't enough to have effective backfield. They need coverage LB's. I would have liked to see some harder hits on receivers too. Yeah...part of it is scheme-related. They simply didn't do enough to disrupt the offense's timing. They had to play far more aggressive at the LOS to force Brady to take an extra half-second, giving the DL longer to get home, which in turn means the safeties and LBs don't have to cover as long, and so on. I actually think our LB's are pretty good in coverage, Gronk just makes everyone look bad no matter what position the play. Now that I disagree with...Lawson is okay, but Brown and Bradham aren't very good. Not that I expect them to be; they're far better players moving toward the LOS than away from it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Billsguy Posted September 24, 2015 Share Posted September 24, 2015 http://nysportsbiz.com/2015/09/22/ronald-darbys-rookie-season-off-to-a-promising-start/ It's only been 2 weeks but the rookie has exceeded expectations thus far. He's guarding studs too as 14 out of 17 targets have come against Gronk, Edelman, TY and Andre Johnson. Thank goodness the cornerbacks played so well against the Patriots. If not, Brady might have passed for 700 yards! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DirtDart Posted September 24, 2015 Share Posted September 24, 2015 This is good news compared to the pre-season. It was worrisome. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prickly Pete Posted September 24, 2015 Share Posted September 24, 2015 I actually think our LB's are pretty good in coverage, Gronk just makes everyone look bad no matter what position the play. Gronkowski had 7 catches for 113 yards. That leaves 350 yards to account for. Somebody somewhere played poorly even without Gronkowski's numbers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LB3 Posted September 24, 2015 Share Posted September 24, 2015 Gronkowski had 7 catches for 113 yards. That leaves 350 yards to account for. Somebody somewhere played poorly even without Gronkowski's numbers. It was a poorly played game by the LB's and safeties for sure. Just from what I've seen, I think our LB's have been pretty solid in coverage overall since the start of last year. Bandit disagreed with me and he could be right. I might just be letting some memories of really good plays they made in coverage in the past affect my overall opinion of their coverage ability. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dulles Posted September 24, 2015 Share Posted September 24, 2015 Sometimes and sometimes not---see the play in the endzone that he gave up on that gronk scored an easy TD. That's on Duke...do your homework. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts