Canadian Bills Fan Posted January 21, 2016 Share Posted January 21, 2016 No CBF Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain Hindsight Posted January 21, 2016 Share Posted January 21, 2016 You are never going to be guaranteed a certain amount of games with anyone. It is the risk / reward that you have to weigh. I am always taking the difference maker with question marks over the plugger with a clean resume. I will sacrifice the delta between the plugger and the street FA for the upside of the delta between the plugger and the difference maker. This^ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Webster Guy Posted January 21, 2016 Share Posted January 21, 2016 I assume you mean a deal with $3M base plus incentives. I don't have a problem paying Harvin well, but I do have a problem guaranteeing him any money. It was a mistake this season and it's a mistake going forward. I'd insist on multiple roster bonuses throughout the season - every game if I could get it. It's been done before. Greg Hardy has such a deal, with a $750k base and $9.25M in weekly roster bonuses, plus a hefty workout bonus of over $1M. So if Harvin wants a similar deal - maybe a base around $750k plus something like $500k per game in roster bonuses and bonuses for being on the active game day roster. He can make his $8M-$9M if he performs all season and is willing to gut it out and play dinged. If he steps out of line, nurses an injury or even genuinely gets injured he'd be out. Also if the roster bonuses were small, but the active game day roster bonuses were large he could be kept on the team if he was to miss some time due to legitimate injury, but would be expected back. While I don't think he'd accept that kind of contract, it'd be the only way I'd touch him. *Please note that failure to pay a roster bonus terminates a contract whether or not a player is injured. These are the kinds of posts I like to read. Instead of the just plain "NO" people. He was dominant in one of our games this year, can't remember which. Structure the deal correctly so it works for both sides and get the guy in camp. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luxy312 Posted January 21, 2016 Share Posted January 21, 2016 These are the kinds of posts I like to read. Instead of the just plain "NO" people. He was dominant in one of our games this year, can't remember which. Structure the deal correctly so it works for both sides and get the guy in camp. Don't you wish they would have done something similar with Mario for his productivity? At the end of the day, I'm fine with a creative contract for Harvin. No big guarantees though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keukasmallies Posted January 21, 2016 Share Posted January 21, 2016 No Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BobbyC81 Posted January 21, 2016 Share Posted January 21, 2016 Why? Remember Seattle also signed Whitehurst and Flynn to big deals but they made 2 Super Bowls. You have to take risks. Some will work and some won't. I say the Bills took the risk with Harvin and it didn't work out. Time to move on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Direhard Fan Posted January 21, 2016 Share Posted January 21, 2016 I agree with the NO'S. He is too fragile and even considered retirement last year. Bad additude. New blood in the draft. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bigK14094 Posted January 21, 2016 Share Posted January 21, 2016 (edited) I wouldn't waste a slot in the 53 man roster at cutdown time on him.....to injury prone.....keep another NFL player who might last 16 games. Played 5 games for 6 mil....what a waste. The problem here is Rex has taken in Harvin like a stray dog....and doesn't want to let him go. Edited January 21, 2016 by bigK14094 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted January 21, 2016 Share Posted January 21, 2016 You are never going to be guaranteed a certain amount of games with anyone. It is the risk / reward that you have to weigh. I am always taking the difference maker with question marks over the plugger with a clean resume. I will sacrifice the delta between the plugger and the street FA for the upside of the delta between the plugger and the difference maker. But there's more to it. If it were simply the decision between the two, but in Bills case, there was also the question of the fall off after Harvin, which was questionable in the first place, and totally went to crap with Woods & Hogan's injuries. You can afford to swing for the fences with a risky guy, as long as Marcus Thigpen isn't the guys who's standing in the wings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jobu Posted January 21, 2016 Share Posted January 21, 2016 I would not resign Harvin to my kids Pop Warner team, let alone the Bills. Bad tude, no durability, a Nancy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kirby Jackson Posted January 21, 2016 Share Posted January 21, 2016 But there's more to it. If it were simply the decision between the two, but in Bills case, there was also the question of the fall off after Harvin, which was questionable in the first place, and totally went to crap with Woods & Hogan's injuries. You can afford to swing for the fences with a risky guy, as long as Marcus Thigpen isn't the guys who's standing in the wings. I definitely agree with that. I guess the point that I am trying to make is that I would rather Harvin, Woods, Hogan, Salas (option A) as opposed to Woods, Hogan, guy like Woods, guy like Hogan (option B). I would rather the upside of Option A vs. the comfort of option B. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted January 21, 2016 Share Posted January 21, 2016 I definitely agree with that. I guess the point that I am trying to make is that I would rather Harvin, Woods, Hogan, Salas (option A) as opposed to Woods, Hogan, guy like Woods, guy like Hogan (option B). I would rather the upside of Option A vs. the comfort of option B. Option B is not an option at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kirby Jackson Posted January 21, 2016 Share Posted January 21, 2016 Option B is not an option at all. Well there are going to be 4 guys on the depth chart in positions 2-5. You can insert the names of whomever you believe it to be. The point that I was making is that if you will be making a roster decision at some point regarding Harvin vs. someone like Hogan. There salaries for the upcoming year will probably be relatively similar (within $2M). I would rather someone like Harvin instead of adding another role playing WR (Cotchery or Hartline for example). I would rather use the same money on Harvin and Salas ($4M combined) vs. Cotchery and Hartline ($4M combined). The names are just examples of the types of people to fill those roles. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fan in Chicago Posted January 21, 2016 Share Posted January 21, 2016 I definitely agree with that. I guess the point that I am trying to make is that I would rather Harvin, Woods, Hogan, Salas (option A) as opposed to Woods, Hogan, guy like Woods, guy like Hogan (option B). I would rather the upside of Option A vs. the comfort of option B. If those are your only choices, maybe Option 1 is better but there will be other WRs becoming available. My major issue with having a #2 WR with injury/other issues is this - an offense is planned around the personnel. Injuries do happen but a #2 WR is more critical to an overall season's plan than a #3 or lower WR. I hesitate to go into the season planning around Harvin as the #2 because, in this case, history is an indication of the future. If the Bills say they have no idea whats up with Harvin, it is a terrible sign. His employers have to be totally aware of what issues he has so that they can plan accordingly. I am tired of players whose chance of playing a full season, heck half a season, are very very low. I would rather give the money to a cheaper, less spectacular but more reliable WR. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John from Riverside Posted January 21, 2016 Share Posted January 21, 2016 The thing is I dont think Harvin would even do a deal like that Its not in his best interests Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted January 21, 2016 Share Posted January 21, 2016 (edited) Well there are going to be 4 guys on the depth chart in positions 2-5. You can insert the names of whomever you believe it to be. The point that I was making is that if you will be making a roster decision at some point regarding Harvin vs. someone like Hogan. There salaries for the upcoming year will probably be relatively similar (within $2M). I would rather someone like Harvin instead of adding another role playing WR (Cotchery or Hartline for example). I would rather use the same money on Harvin and Salas ($4M combined) vs. Cotchery and Hartline ($4M combined). The names are just examples of the types of people to fill those roles. I hear where you're coming from, but to me that's not a viable strategy because Cotchery & Hartline are essentially the same player, and are modest improvements over a Salas. It's clear that Bills need a decent #2. I still think that Harvin is too much of a risk (both physical & mental concerns, not just one of each) to gamble on. There will be a good WR available in the spring who wore out his welcome in the past team. Edited January 21, 2016 by GG Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leroi Posted January 21, 2016 Share Posted January 21, 2016 Drastic Change is going to hurt, but in the end we will be better for it. Sacrifice for the better... Imo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Augie Posted January 21, 2016 Share Posted January 21, 2016 I just wonder if Harvin really wants to play, or if he just wants to get paid. That may be unfair, but that seems like a reasonable question. But I've never met the guy and I'm not a doctor. That's why I say low salary, and earn a ton with incentives. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyst Posted January 21, 2016 Share Posted January 21, 2016 We absolutely have to move on. For the simple fact that he was being depended on within our offense and he's not reliable. You can't put yourself in a position to have a guy be important and then not be there. It's just not worth it even though his skills when healthy are very very good. what if we do not move on and keep him but do not depend on him? what cost would he really be? $1mm? $2mm? For a 4th WR, which he would be for us hopefully, at the right price he'd be a helluva lot move valuable than another joe blow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
White Linen Posted January 21, 2016 Share Posted January 21, 2016 You are never going to be guaranteed a certain amount of games with anyone. It is the risk / reward that you have to weigh. I am always taking the difference maker with question marks over the plugger with a clean resume. I will sacrifice the delta between the plugger and the street FA for the upside of the delta between the plugger and the difference maker. You're point is very clear and has definite merit. The only thing that I'd add to the argument is that Harvin became so critical to our offense that when he left we were reeling. I'd argue he was too good. I'm not saying I wouldn't want him but I'd prefer Sammy be the focal point and the other WR's playing roles. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.jpg.529869a0a9afd197241cad0932282c97.jpg)
Recommended Posts