Frez Posted September 5, 2004 Posted September 5, 2004 Why did we even sign him? So much for the possum thing.
IDBillzFan Posted September 5, 2004 Posted September 5, 2004 I'm very surprised by this. I know, I'm not an Xs and Os guy (or I'd spend more time playing Madden and less time with you dorks), but it's my perception that TD doesn't grab a free agent without good reason. My thinking was he would be able to fill in either on the end or in the backfield depending on the situation; one of those players who would go on the field and make offenses wonder what our defense was coming at them with. Shows you what I know. Oh, well. Back to Frogger.
Guest Guest Posted September 5, 2004 Posted September 5, 2004 There are a few who like to criticize TD simply for breathing. One thing that can't be said (at least it can't be said credibly) is TD won't fess up when he makes a mistake. Signing Gildon was a mistake. He let the coaching staff make the decision that was best for the team and let Gildon go. Kudos to TD.
MadBuffaloDisease Posted September 5, 2004 Posted September 5, 2004 Why was signing Gildon a mistake? He cost just $100K (a mere pittance) and potentially could have helped. I'll take that trade-off anyday. Gildon has either lost it or can't play in the 4-3, or both.
jarthur31 Posted September 5, 2004 Posted September 5, 2004 I'm not shocked because I never really thought we would sign him in the first place. One has to assume that the young LB's we have currently are or could be better than Gildon is now.
njsue Posted September 5, 2004 Posted September 5, 2004 Its out with the old who have lost there speed. In with the younger with plenty of speed.
Fake-Fat Sunny Posted September 5, 2004 Posted September 5, 2004 Why did we even sign him? So much for the possum thing. 19138[/snapback] This is easy. We signed hom to check him out to see if he had enough left at the end of a great career to strap it on in a reduced role as a designated pass rusher. He didn't, we cut him and it only cost us 100K on the cap to do this. The real mistake would have been doing something like GW (and thus TD) did with Robinson where even though he didn't have enough gas in the tank after his dlory days with GW and Gray we not only kept him but made him a starter. I do not see bringing him for 100K as a problem at all. Keeping him and relying upon him when it looked me in a couple of plays like he didn't have enough left would have been a big problem.
Guest Guest Posted September 6, 2004 Posted September 6, 2004 This is easy. We signed hom to check him out to see if he had enough left at the end of a great career to strap it on in a reduced role as a designated pass rusher. He didn't, we cut him and it only cost us 100K on the cap to do this. The real mistake would have been doing something like GW (and thus TD) did with Robinson where even though he didn't have enough gas in the tank after his dlory days with GW and Gray we not only kept him but made him a starter. I do not see bringing him for 100K as a problem at all. Keeping him and relying upon him when it looked me in a couple of plays like he didn't have enough left would have been a big problem. 19275[/snapback] Actually he cost more than this (he had a 500K signing bonus), but the point you and the other poster made is still valid. There was a potential short term upside. The mistake was the upside was not there. It happens.
BillnutinHouston Posted September 6, 2004 Posted September 6, 2004 Now Cincy can have him. Remember how much we were stressed out when he was making his decision?
JayFromDC Posted September 6, 2004 Posted September 6, 2004 Damn so he basically got 500k for training camp, I sure wish I was an NFL Player, man
Kelly the Dog Posted September 6, 2004 Posted September 6, 2004 There have been numerous conflicting articles written about how much we originally signed Gildon for. The one I stand by was by Len Passthepotatoes, who wrote a week or two after the signing, that it wasn't a 500K bonus as reported, but rather a 100K bonus. http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/columns/stor..._len&id=1845217
Guest Guest Posted September 6, 2004 Posted September 6, 2004 There have been numerous conflicting articles written about how much we originally signed Gildon for. The one I stand by was by Len Passthepotatoes, who wrote a week or two after the signing, that it wasn't a 500K bonus as reported, but rather a 100K bonus. http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/columns/stor..._len&id=1845217 19696[/snapback] This conflicts with what the Buffalo News said. http://www.buffalonews.com/editorial/20040...?tbd1004769.asp
Kelly the Dog Posted September 6, 2004 Posted September 6, 2004 This conflicts with what the Buffalo News said. http://www.buffalonews.com/editorial/20040...?tbd1004769.asp 19701[/snapback] I know. Because the News is wrong, and consistently wrong, and doesn't do much actual reporting or actual investigating. They went with the original unsubstantiated reports. LP is on top of these things. The operative paragraph is... By the way, the $1.25 million contract and $500,000 signing bonus Gildon is said to have received are bogus numbers. The real deal: A signing bonus of $100,000, roster bonus of $100,000 and base salary of $900,000. That totals $1.1 million, or roughly the same amount Cincinnati was offering in the first season of a two-year deal. Gildon can also earn $200,000 in incentives, based solely on sacks.
Guest Guest Posted September 6, 2004 Posted September 6, 2004 I know. Because the News is wrong, and consistently wrong, and doesn't do much actual reporting or actual investigating. They went with the original unsubstantiated reports. LP is on top of these things. The operative paragraph is... 19704[/snapback] Understood, just wanted to give the reader some more info. I hope LP is right.
(2).thumb.jpeg.6e78fe3142ec9e6bfedbf027610db26f.jpeg)
Recommended Posts