VABills Posted January 23, 2006 Posted January 23, 2006 In another typical Buffalo Bills and Ralph Wilson move, the Bills can be counted on to underpay or not sign high priced/high profile olinemen or coaches. While I think Jauron will be an okay coach, he probably was cheap as it was obvious SHerman was asking for some major coin. That said, the Bills can be counted on to sign the less expensive FA (e.g., Trey Teague), and not go after the Bentley's or Hutchs. JPL and Holcomb prepare to be abused in the backfield for a few more years.
rolly Posted January 23, 2006 Posted January 23, 2006 In another typical Buffalo Bills and Ralph Wilson move, the Bills can be counted on to underpay or not sign high priced/high profile olinemen or coaches. While I think Jauron will be an okay coach, he probably was cheap as it was obvious SHerman was asking for some major coin. That said, the Bills can be counted on to sign the less expensive FA (e.g., Trey Teague), and not go after the Bentley's or Hutchs. JPL and Holcomb prepare to be abused in the backfield for a few more years. 578054[/snapback] I was just thinking about that, but I think Sherman would've come cheap or at least at a respectable amount because the packers would've had to pay a chunk of his salary.
VABills Posted January 23, 2006 Author Posted January 23, 2006 I was just thinking about that, but I think Sherman would've come cheap or at least at a respectable amount because the packers would've had to pay a chunk of his salary. 578065[/snapback] No everything reported was saying Sherman would have been getting 3+ million per year. While I don't mind Jauron, I think this is partly about money. There has to besomething about the business side wanting "super star" key position players that they know they can recoop part of the cost by selling lots of Jerseys. How many people buy Olinemen jerseys? But LBers, RB, QB, WR, etc... are sold by the dozens and brings income in.
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted January 23, 2006 Posted January 23, 2006 No everything reported was saying Sherman would have been getting 3+ million per year. While I don't mind Jauron, I think this is partly about money. There has to besomething about the business side wanting "super star" key position players that they know they can recoop part of the cost by selling lots of Jerseys. How many people buy Olinemen jerseys? But LBers, RB, QB, WR, etc... are sold by the dozens and brings income in. 578309[/snapback] Exactly. Unlike other franchises, which are basically toys for rich businessmen, Ralph RELIES on earnings from the Bills.
sven233 Posted January 23, 2006 Posted January 23, 2006 To correct people on this........here is how the salary for Sherman would have worked. GB would have had to pay the difference between whatever the Bills were paying for him and the 3.25 mill he was making in his GB contract over the next 2 seasons until that contract expired. For example, if he were to continue to make the 3.25 mill and the Bills were to pick up 1 mill of that, GB would have been on the hook for the other 2.5. This topic was actually reported over the last couple days saying that it would help Sherman's case for the job because actually he would have been the CHEAPER way out for the Bills. So, actually, the Bills will spend more on Jauron than they would have Sherman. The Bills' did not take the cheap way out this time. They actually spent more money to get Jauron!
granitestatebillsbackers Posted January 23, 2006 Posted January 23, 2006 No everything reported was saying Sherman would have been getting 3+ million per year. While I don't mind Jauron, I think this is partly about money. There has to besomething about the business side wanting "super star" key position players that they know they can recoop part of the cost by selling lots of Jerseys. How many people buy Olinemen jerseys? But LBers, RB, QB, WR, etc... are sold by the dozens and brings income in. 578309[/snapback] Wait--people believe that an NFL team that wants to get to the playoffs actually alters its drafting and FA strategy to SELL MORE JERSEYS?!!!! Here is the thought process of 90% of the posters on this board: "Sherman. Big salary. W-L record. Goooood. Jauron. Chicago. Detroit. W-L record. Baaaaaad. Wilson. Cheap. Cheapcheapcheapcheapcheap. Therefore, Wilson + Jauron = same old same old" Actually, Jauron signed for $2.0 million per year + all the Super Mighty Tacos with extra cheese he and his family can consume. *THAT* is what gave him the edge over Sherman. Less money, and willingness to be paid in kind with tacos.
VABills Posted January 23, 2006 Author Posted January 23, 2006 To correct people on this........here is how the salary for Sherman would have worked. GB would have had to pay the difference between whatever the Bills were paying for him and the 3.25 mill he was making in his GB contract over the next 2 seasons until that contract expired. For example, if he were to continue to make the 3.25 mill and the Bills were to pick up 1 mill of that, GB would have been on the hook for the other 2.5. This topic was actually reported over the last couple days saying that it would help Sherman's case for the job because actually he would have been the CHEAPER way out for the Bills. So, actually, the Bills will spend more on Jauron than they would have Sherman. The Bills' did not take the cheap way out this time. They actually spent more money to get Jauron! 578335[/snapback] Unless as you say, it was only 1 million per for Jauron. If it is a 4 year contract that is 4 million total. Now if Sherman was 3.25 per year, with Ralph only paying 1 million the first two and then 3.25 the last two, then it is 8.5 million outlay. That is 4.5 million more. And last I checked they do not sell Dick Jauron Jerseys.
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted January 23, 2006 Posted January 23, 2006 Wait--people believe that an NFL team that wants to get to the playoffs actually alters its drafting and FA strategy to SELL MORE JERSEYS?!!!! 578351[/snapback] What makes you thinkg Ralph wants to make the playoffs? All he wants is asses in the seats.
granitestatebillsbackers Posted January 23, 2006 Posted January 23, 2006 What makes you thinkg Ralph wants to make the playoffs? All he wants is asses in the seats. 578356[/snapback] Last time I checked, winning gets asses in the seats. That, or a fiercely-loyal fan base. A non-NFL person looking at this board would think that the Bills pull about 14,000 per home game. Since we didn't really win much last season, must be the fiercely-loyal fan base, right? That's why it's great being a Bills fan. Win or lose, there are going to be plenty of people just like me who love this team and want it to improve, win, go to the playoffs and then (finally) win a Super Bowl.
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted January 23, 2006 Posted January 23, 2006 Win or lose, there are going to be plenty of people just like me who love this team and want it to improve, win, go to the playoffs and then (finally) win a Super Bowl. 578370[/snapback] Hope you're alive when it happens. Doubt I will be.
VABills Posted January 23, 2006 Author Posted January 23, 2006 Last time I checked, winning gets asses in the seats. That, or a fiercely-loyal fan base. A non-NFL person looking at this board would think that the Bills pull about 14,000 per home game. Since we didn't really win much last season, must be the fiercely-loyal fan base, right? That's why it's great being a Bills fan. Win or lose, there are going to be plenty of people just like me who love this team and want it to improve, win, go to the playoffs and then (finally) win a Super Bowl. 578370[/snapback] Care to go back and see how many people were in the seats before Flutie saved us. Or before the teams of the early 90's. It wasn't pretty.
granitestatebillsbackers Posted January 23, 2006 Posted January 23, 2006 Hope you're alive when it happens. Doubt I will be. 578377[/snapback] We're probably around the same age. Hey, the owner and GM are octagenarians--there's hope for us yet! A bunch of us will be streaming into The Ralph with our walkers and Rascals. GO...cough..cough...BILLS!! <taking oxygen>
granitestatebillsbackers Posted January 23, 2006 Posted January 23, 2006 Care to go back and see how many people were in the seats before Flutie saved us. Or before the teams of the early 90's. It wasn't pretty. 578383[/snapback] Oh, I remember the Eighties all too well. You just gave me heartburn.
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted January 23, 2006 Posted January 23, 2006 We're probably around the same age. Hey, the owner and GM are octagenarians--there's hope for us yet! A bunch of us will be streaming into The Ralph with our walkers and Rascals. GO...cough..cough...BILLS!! <taking oxygen> 578384[/snapback] Well, I for one am not drinking the kool-aid this time around. I wanna see it on the field first.
Fake-Fat Sunny Posted January 23, 2006 Posted January 23, 2006 The Bills problem from my point of view does not seem to be a lack of focus and payment to OL players but having made some bad choices which coupled with bad breaks has produced bad performance. I am not letting the Bills braintrust off the hook at all because it is responsible for the OL being bad. However, the reason you state for this in your post does not seem to match the real events which happened. Exhibit 1: If ever there was a case of the Bills commiting to paying big bucks and because of his lousy performance grossly overpaying him it was for RT Mike Williams. The Bills certainly can be faulted for hiring GW and allowing him to make stupid investments in non-OL position coach Vinky and the non-experienced Ruel, but the decision to commit to a #4 slot salary for an RT they planned to make an LT (and the general consensus among pundits was that he could do this goes against your lack of fiscal commitment to the OL theory, Ex 2: Villarial was an essential pick-up once we jettisoned Ruben, but given his production I think we overpaid him for his worth and at least if not exceeded the market for him. Ex 3: Mentioning Ruben this is probably a timely place to point out that it is unfortunate that we cut him lose given that Villarial is a Ruben re-do at best. However, again the cheapskate thing to do would have been to make him play out his contract. Rx. 4: Bennie Anderson was given a pretty good dime for jumping offside but again this was making a bad choice not a lack of commitment. Ex 5: I will certainly concede that they made a decision not to spend big LT dollars in the case of resigning Jennings (one of several Bills OL draft choices) but thank gosh they did as he proved to be so injury prone if they had taken your approach and laid out the big bucks it would be for him to spend time in the trainer's room as he did in SF. Ex 6: the Bill certainly signed Peters on the cheap and dealt with the meltdown of Sullivan and Pacillo with Smith who came here from the Ravens PS where he started, but neither of these things are bad things in my view as the alternatives where we did make bigger financial commitments would have been worse. Ex 7: There are several examples of the Bills trying to find a good OL player on the cheap like Sobisskit or that highly ranked byt oft-injured guys whose name I forget they signed in the initial TD days. However, I have no problem with signing a guy for the minimum hoping he will play as well as Peters. I would have a problem if they insisted on playing this idiot and generally the Bills have made a habit of simply cutting these flyers. Perhaps you could more reasonably argue that our big expenditures on folks like Anderson and the likely cap hit of cutting MWs undercuts our ability to spend on the OL, However, it will take some fiscal analysis to demonstrate this rather than a simple whine that the Bills will not spend on the OL. The problem has not been an unwiillingess to spend but that we spent badly,
Recommended Posts