Greg Rousseau Extended (4 years / 80M / 54M Guaranteed)

[Magox]

Just now, Mikie2times said:

He will be in out top 5 players for cap hit no?

Rousseau?  

 

Yeah, probably starting in either 2027 or 2028

[Mikie2times]

1 minute ago, Magox said:

Rousseau?  

 

Yeah, probably starting in either 2027 or 2028

How do we determine the hit for 25 and 26?

[Magox]

4 minutes ago, Mikie2times said:

How do we determine the hit for 25 and 26?

As soon as the details come out we will know for sure.  Should be relatively soon.   It depends on how much they will allocate for base pay in 2025 and 2026.  How much the signing bonus is.  How many voided years.

 

Im guessing around $4 - $6m cap hit in 2025 and around an $8 - $12m in 2026.

[FireChans]

1 hour ago, FireChans said:

I really admire your optimism.

 

But I think to most of the folks that don’t like the deal, it is because they see this deal as closing the door on truly upgrading the EDGE position either through FA or trade.

 

I think the odds that Garrett or Hendrickson is a Bill in 2025 went down after yesterday.

 

You think it went up, but most of us just don’t see it.

Ding ding ding ding @Magox

 

Hendrickson gone next. Rousseau extension was clear evidence the dream of the top 2 guys was ova. 

[Norcalbillsfan]

23 hours ago, SCBills said:

Fair points. 
 

If the plan is to address the DL through the Draft by signing a mercenary EDGE and drafting a DT early, I can see that being underwhelming. 
 

If the idea is pay Rousseau and then make a big trade or sign Sweat AND use an early pick on the DL… I see the vision. 
 

I think Beane realizes that a talented, big/physical 1T needs to be next to Ed Oliver.    And I think Beane realizes a legitimate 10+ sack guy needs to be opposite Rousseau. 
 

That can be accomplished via trade, signing a guy like Sweat and through the Draft, but we very clearly still need 2-3 new pieces on the DL. 

Agreed, I dont think the vision is to just expect groot to all of a sudden become a 10 sack guy, I think they see the potential in what groot could be if he's the 1A for run defense and 1B for pass rush if the bills get a Hendrickson or a sweat opposite of him. 

 

If the vision works out and groot stays the elite run defender he is and starts getting near the 10 sack seasons as a 24 year old this contract will be a home run. But I don't see it happening without help.

[Magox]

5 minutes ago, FireChans said:

Ding ding ding ding @Magox

 

Hendrickson gone next. Rousseau extension was clear evidence the dream of the top 2 guys was ova. 

I said top 6 which included Garrett.

 

So you’re blaming the signing of Rousseau prevented the Bills from Garrett being signed by the Bills???

 

lol

[Magox]

The Rousseau signing looks even better today than it did yesterday 

 

 

[FireChans]

1 minute ago, Magox said:

I said top 6 which included Garrett.

 

So you’re blaming the signing of Rousseau prevented the Bills from Garrett being signed by the Bills???

 

lol

Well see, when I said “this extension is evidence the Bills aren’t gonna get Garrett” and you say “no that’s not true” and then of course the Bills don’t get Garrett, that’s kinda the end of it.

 

Sure maybe the Bills get a Bosa or a Mack instead. Cool. Whatever. Garrett > Rousseau + whoever else they drag up combined.

 

Which was the whole point.

[Magox]

4 minutes ago, FireChans said:

Well see, when I said “this extension is evidence the Bills aren’t gonna get Garrett” and you say “no that’s not true” and then of course the Bills don’t get Garrett, that’s kinda the end of it.

 

Sure maybe the Bills get a Bosa or a Mack instead. Cool. Whatever. Garrett > Rousseau + whoever else they drag up combined.

 

Which was the whole point.

He was never on the trade block, the signing of Rousseau had nothing to do with Garrett’s extension.   Rousseau being signed didn’t increase or decrease those odds because it was never available.

 

My argument is that the Rousseau signing does not diminish Buffalo’s chances of getting a high level FA or player via trade.   
 

You and Kirby’s argument is that the signing of Rousseau diminishes those odds.

 

 

[nosejob]

10 minutes ago, FireChans said:

Well see, when I said “this extension is evidence the Bills aren’t gonna get Garrett” and you say “no that’s not true” and then of course the Bills don’t get Garrett, that’s kinda the end of it.

 

Sure maybe the Bills get a Bosa or a Mack instead. Cool. Whatever. Garrett > Rousseau + whoever else they drag up combined.

 

Which was the whole point.

Oh Hell no.  Von Bosa or Kahlil Miller. Please NO

[FireChans]

Just now, Magox said:

He was never on the trade block, the signing of Rousseau had nothing to do with Garrett’s extension.   Rousseau being signed didn’t increase or decrease those odds because it was never available.

 

My argument is that the Rousseau signing does not diminish Buffalo’s chances of getting a high level FA or player via trade.   
 

You and Kirby’s argument is that the signing of Rousseau diminishes those odds.

 

 

The odds of getting Garrett not zero two days ago.

 

they are zero today. Right now. 
 

The argument was correct lol.

 

No one was arguing that signing Rousseau prevented us from giving Joey Bosa a 1 year prove it deal. In fact, that may be the plan.

 

It wouldn’t have been my plan.

 

This is dirty pool. If we got Garrett or Hendrickson, you would take a victory lap. If we didn’t get either (which we won’t fyi), you would just say “well we got Joey Bosa for $12M”. You can’t lose lol.

 

The Rousseau extension was a sign the Bills were never getting a $30M+ EDGE this offseason. Now maybe they COULDN’T and chose to extend Rousseau as an alternative. But that’s what the extension meant to me. THAT’S why it decreased the odds. It meant that avenue wasn’t available, one way or another.

[Dr. Who]

2 minutes ago, FireChans said:

The odds of getting Garrett not zero two days ago.

 

they are zero today. Right now. 
 

The argument was correct lol.

 

No one was arguing that signing Rousseau prevented us from giving Joey Bosa a 1 year prove it deal. In fact, that may be the plan.

 

It wouldn’t have been my plan.

 

This is dirty pool. If we got Garrett or Hendrickson, you would take a victory lap. If we didn’t get either (which we won’t fyi), you would just say “well we got Joey Bosa for $12M”. You can’t lose lol.

 

The Rousseau extension was a sign the Bills were never getting a $30M+ EDGE this offseason. Now maybe they COULDN’T and chose to extend Rousseau as an alternative. But that’s what the extension meant to me. THAT’S why it decreased the odds. It meant that avenue wasn’t available, one way or another.

It really doesn't matter whose narrative was correct. The ultimate reality is the same. My view is Beane will likely go after a solid DB and DT in FA. If he wants  a plus level player via Trade, maybe Metcalf is a remote chance. 

[transplantbillsfan]

3 hours ago, Kirby Jackson said:

I guess that I’m a “hater” because I don’t think that you should pay role players top 10 AAV. 🤷🏻‍♂️ 

 

Lol, there are lots of steps between “everything the Bills do is right” and “everything the Bills do is wrong.” This isn’t a great deal IMO and potentially prevents them for going all in for Garrett. Garrett is a 1,000,000X better player than Rousseau. 

 

3 hours ago, FireChans said:

Yeah.

 

I don’t see this extension and Garrett happening now. I would have rather traded a 1st and a 2nd and paid Garrett $34M than paid Rousseau $20M.

 

What did you guys want to happen? Trade him?

 

If you wanted us to trade him then fine. If not, this move actually frees up a bunch of CAP space for us right now for a potential Garrett trade and extension.

 

And I don't know if he has the 10th highest AAV through this extension, but let's say he does. In 2026 when the actual money for the extension itself kicks in it's probably going to be in the 15-20 range after other guys get contracts.

 

This deal in no way prohibits a big trade.

 

EDIT: just saw the Garrett extension. So much for that...

Edited Sunday at 05:49 PM by transplantbillsfan

[FLFan]

1 hour ago, FireChans said:

Well see, when I said “this extension is evidence the Bills aren’t gonna get Garrett” and you say “no that’s not true” and then of course the Bills don’t get Garrett, that’s kinda the end of it.

 

Sure maybe the Bills get a Bosa or a Mack instead. Cool. Whatever. Garrett > Rousseau + whoever else they drag up combined.

 

Which was the whole point.

Well, in the end, Garrett really was not available, and neither is Hendrickson for that matter.  Even if he was, letting Rousseau go was never in the cards.  

[Kirby Jackson]

15 minutes ago, transplantbillsfan said:

 

 

What did you guys want to happen? Trade him?

 

If you wanted us to trade him then fine. If not, this move actually frees up a bunch of CAP space for us right now for a potential Garrett trade and extension.

 

And I don't know if he has the 10th highest AAV through this extension, but let's say he does. In 2026 when the actual money for the extension itself kicks in it's probably going to be in the 15-20 range after other guys get contracts.

 

This deal in no way prohibits a big trade.

 

EDIT: just saw the Garrett extension. So much for that...

Yes, I wanted him traded as part of the Garrett package. That way you could trade less picks and avoid paying him. I’m sure they tried but Garrett wasn’t leaving.

[Magox]

The Garrett deal is an overpay, it’s beginning to rival the overinflation of WR’s.

 

DE’s are rightfully becoming the highest paid position group but this valuation is very rich.  
 

The Bills would be better off slightly overpaying for Sweat which they probably would have to based off the Crosby and Garrett signing.  Might have to go as high as $22M and I’m not even sure that would be enough to get him.   They may have to go another route as I would expect him to be a hot commodity coming off a great Super Bowl.

 

The Bills were lucky that Rousseau signed before this Garrett extension

[FireChans]

7 minutes ago, FLFan said:

Well, in the end, Garrett really was not available, and neither is Hendrickson for that matter.  Even if he was, letting Rousseau go was never in the cards.  

I don’t think it’s a coincidence the Rousseau and Garrett extensions were within 24 hrs of each other.

 

I don’t think that Beane necessarily chose between Rousseau and Garrett. I do think that Beane may have extended Rousseau once Garrett wasn’t an option. And lo and behold, it becomes clear Garrett wasn’t an option.

[BullBuchanan]

16 hours ago, Alphadawg7 said:

 

Dont get me wrong, if I had to choose between Garrett and Groot, I am all in on Garrett too and then looking to the draft.  So no disagreement from me.  But, I also don't think Groot's deal prevents us making a run at either Garrett or Hendrickson.  Whether or not either gets traded or either would trade them to a perennial top 3 team in their own conference is another story.  

 

And I also think Groot is worth a lot more than $10M a year, and at $20M in todays market, thats a bargain IMHO.  I think Groot is going to be even better once we improve elsewhere on the DL too.  I mean as much as everyone wants Hendrickson, he didn't break out as a sack machine until he was in the league a little while.  

 

I hope so. I just think our Dline needs its two best players to be guys not currently on the roster if we want to be able to make that final step in January & February.


I would have loved a guy like Clowney making $10M as our #2 DE, and use that extra money to acquire someone like Dexter Lawrence or a premier EDGE.

[Doc Brown]

1 hour ago, FireChans said:

Ding ding ding ding @Magox

 

Hendrickson gone next. Rousseau extension was clear evidence the dream of the top 2 guys was ova. 

I was never a fan of it to begin with. The worst thing you can do is give up hefty compensation (two first rounders plus) for a non QB and then make that player the highest paid at that position in the league.  Except for Metcalf because the trade assets wouldn't be as crippling.

[HappyDays]

3 hours ago, SCBills said:

I don’t get why so many people think Rousseau’s extension closes the door on signing/trading for another big EDGE piece..

 

I don't think it does. We could still afford Hendrickson for example if they really wanted to. My concern is that when you overpay too many good not great players, eventually it catches up with you and then on the rare occasion when elite players become available you're shut out of the market. Look at the DK Metcalf thread - a lot of fans balking over paying him $30M AAV. The reality is we should want a $30M AAV player on our roster. All the other contenders have players worth that kind of money. Only in Buffalo do we have fans praising $20M for a solid player while saying we can't afford a top 100 player.