freester Posted April 16, 2019 Posted April 16, 2019 I hope so. I thought it was a mistake when we didn't pick up Sammy Watkins option year and I think this would be a similar mistake. I have a hunch that Shaq could get traded either at the draft or shortly after. Not picking up his option will further reduce his trade value I really like him and think he's about to blossom into a really good player. 1 1
MJS Posted April 16, 2019 Posted April 16, 2019 I say no way. He isn't a good pass rusher, so we need to find someone who is. You don't get a 5th year option for being a backup, rotational DE. 3
Rc2catch Posted April 16, 2019 Posted April 16, 2019 He will probably never live up to his draft position but that’s not his fault, he’s gotten better every year and what more can you ask of a player? I don’t think they’re concerned with the 5th year option, cause I think they’ll sign him long term, especially now his value isn’t super high like if he had a breakout season with 10+ sacks
BuffaloRebound Posted April 16, 2019 Posted April 16, 2019 A lot of these questions will be answered over the next 9 days. Will Hughes be extended? Will Lawson’s 5th year option be picked up? Will they trade for Clark or Clowney? Would Hughes or Lawson be included in any trade? Will they take DL in Round 1? What about Ansah? Lots of dominoes lined up and ready to fall. 2
Johnny Hammersticks Posted April 16, 2019 Posted April 16, 2019 No. Too much for a 4-3 DE who can’t get after the QB. 2
HOUSE Posted April 16, 2019 Posted April 16, 2019 He needs a contract that reflects past effort & stats. Anything more is risky
JoshAllenHasBigHands Posted April 16, 2019 Posted April 16, 2019 A lot of talk about value, and that makes sense. But we are talking about a one year contract. There really isn't any harm in giving him more money than he deserves for one year to see if he continues to develop. 4
Over 29 years of fanhood Posted April 16, 2019 Posted April 16, 2019 The poll here last month was like 70% yes. 10-15 million is a lot for what he is tho 1
freester Posted April 16, 2019 Author Posted April 16, 2019 I think he was alot more valuable last year than Trent Murphy. Its not all about sacks. He's good against the run and he's improved as a pass rusher. Murphy got alot of money for little production. 3
JoshAllenHasBigHands Posted April 16, 2019 Posted April 16, 2019 4 minutes ago, freester said: I think he was alot more valuable last year than Trent Murphy. Its not all about sacks. He's good against the run and he's improved as a pass rusher. Murphy got alot of money for little production. I hate the hyper focus on sack numbers. Last year, if Shaq had 6 more sacks, he would be at 10 total sacks. Everyone would agree that if he had 10 sacks he would be worth the money. But really, is less than .5 sacks per game really that big a deal? Does that really make a game changer? I don't think so.
Rock-A-Bye Beasley Posted April 16, 2019 Posted April 16, 2019 Wouldn’t an extension be cheaper? If the 5th year option is declined is he eligible? Still only 24 years old.
JaCrispy Posted April 16, 2019 Posted April 16, 2019 No fifth year option...extend him for backup money if you must, but I really don’t care either way...it’s not like he’s a game changer 1
Rock-A-Bye Beasley Posted April 16, 2019 Posted April 16, 2019 (edited) 6 minutes ago, JoshAllenHasBigHands said: I hate the hyper focus on sack numbers. Last year, if Shaq had 6 more sacks, he would be at 10 total sacks. Everyone would agree that if he had 10 sacks he would be worth the money. But really, is less than .5 sacks per game really that big a deal? Does that really make a game changer? I don't think so. I also hate how sacks are counted. If hypothetically a guy had 8 half sacks that’s 8 good plays, but it shows up as 4 sacks. It should be separate numbers for example 5 sacks and 3 half sacks Also, what about having him gain 10 lbs and putting him inside? Heard Sal Capaccio say today on WGR that Ed Oliver’s playing weight will be around 270-275 so why not try Shaq there? Edited April 16, 2019 by Chemical
416BillsFan Posted April 16, 2019 Posted April 16, 2019 8 minutes ago, freester said: I think he was alot more valuable last year than Trent Murphy. Its not all about sacks. He's good against the run and he's improved as a pass rusher. Murphy got alot of money for little production. I agree. I suspect the FO is going into the season with him with an open mind and have no idea what they'll do with him at this point.
Mister Defense Posted April 16, 2019 Posted April 16, 2019 They definitely should do so. Lawson was a much improved player last year and he is TWENTY-FOUR year old, will get better and better over the next few years, could become a great player. In my view he will become an even more disruptive force this year, as he will get more playing time, due to his performance 1n 2018, and because of his experience last year. Some of the players, like Murphy, that the Bills brought in last year may be out of the league in a few years and Lawson may be a pro bowler. The old Bills would cut him loose; let's see how smart the new Bills are. I say they sign him, as they see what I see.
JoshAllenHasBigHands Posted April 16, 2019 Posted April 16, 2019 8 minutes ago, Chemical said: I also hate how sacks are counted. If hypothetically a guy had 8 half sacks that’s 8 good plays, but it shows up as 4 sacks. It should be separate numbers for example 5 sacks and 3 half sacks Also, what about having him gain 10 lbs and putting him inside? Heard Sal Capaccio say today on WGR that Ed Oliver’s playing weight will be around 270-275 so why not try Shaq there? This. Didn't he also play inside a little bit? I seem to remember he did pretty well, but I don't really know for sure. But I love the idea.
costrovs Posted April 16, 2019 Posted April 16, 2019 No on the fifth year. Just sign him to a 3-4 year contract after this season. 1
Freddie's Dead Posted April 16, 2019 Posted April 16, 2019 Depends on how much we talkin' 'bout Willis....
Recommended Posts