2003Contenders

That must mean that Chester Taylor is available. He wouldn't be a bad backup for Willis. In fact, he would fit right in line with the young, up-and-comer types that the team has been signing in free agency thus far.

??? As the poster above said, Bentley was never truly available to us. Recall, that the hot rumor was that he was originally headed to Philly. He wanted to play for his hometown Cleveland Browns, so it doesn't sound like he was ever going to go anywhere else, once they presented him with a strong offer. I don't see Larry T as a "below average" player at all. Indeed, he appears to be an excellent fit, a quality individual, and a player who already knows the new defense. The other two guys are definitely role players -- but both are young and come with some upside. Maybe the team did overpay a bit for Royal, but we knew going into the off-season that this 5-11 team without a playoff appearance in this millenium would HAVE to overpay to get guys to come here. Recall that the Patriots thought so much of Davis last year that they gave up a draft pick to get him. Att he very least, if fully healthy, he should be an upgrade over Josh Reed. At this juncture, the best thing to do is NOT to take each FA acquisition on it own merit, but wait until the preseason is over and judge the entire collection. For example, if Pickett does come in today -- and winds up signing with us, then we can look back and say (on paper at least) that the front office did a nice job handling one of the real need positions (DT) of this team. That also frees us up to do more things in the draft. We all know that the OL is in major need of repair -- but let's wait until after free agency and the draft conclude before we start accusing Marv and co. of not having done enough.

The write-up appears to be from a fantasy football perspective. And for that standpoint, it is a fair assessment that he is a below average fantasy prospect, as aside from one or two years, his numbers have ALWAYS been subpar for a #1 WR. Of course, there is more to being a good receiver than simply catching the ball and putting up numbers. His mere presence on the field means that he will draw attention, which means that Evans, Parrish, and now Davis should have some decent looks. Without Moulds on the field, the other guys' production all drops, which is the inverse of what you would logically think. Still, if I am Moulds, then I see no reason to take a paycut. Seeing what Randle El just got -- and the lack of other top notch WRs on the open market, you have to expect that Moulds believes he will get some decent change. In fact, he probably becomes the consolation prize for whatever team does NOT wind up with TO (possibly Dallas, where he can be reunited with Drew) -- or to Philly as TO's replacement. Thus, the front office must decide whether they can live with his large cap number this year -- or prepare for entering the 2006 season without him. And, for the reasons I just cited, the prospects aren't good about a quality replacement if Moulds leaves. In my mind, Moulds' departure could make it more likely that the team will draft Davis.

That is a good point about Royal possibly playing an H-Back role. Also, let's not forget about the offense that Fairchild ran in St Louis for a clue about what this signing could mean. If the Bills had serious considerations about drafting Davis, I do not think that the signing of Royal will impact that decision in the slightest, since the two players would essentially play two different positions with Royal representing a 6th blocker in most situations and Davis representing an extra WR. The decision about whether or not to explore Davis will tell us more about what the new regime thinks about the prognosis of Everett, as that is the position that Davis would conceivably be upgrading.

1. Lavar gave them about $4 M in cap relief 2. They cut Matt Bowen (freed $2 M), Walt Harris (freed $2 M), Cory Raymer (freed about $950 K), Brandon Noble (freed about $1.5M), and Tom Tupa (freed $600 K). All told, that freed up about $7 M. The above moves, coupled with the expansion of the cap by $7.5 M was enough to get them under the new cap in time. On top of that, they also approached a number of players, inlcuding Jon Jenson and Shawn Springs about restucturing their contracts to free up more cap space. Between those two players alone, they could have freed up several million dollars. So, I have no doubts that what they've done is legit. Of course, you can question the intelligence of giving guys like Randle El and Archuletta so much cash.

Randle El can thank Lavar for paying the Skins over $4 M to release him.

...Which means that we may be able to bring him back in for the league minimum.

The bottom line is that one hand feeds the other. If ownership is willing to pay the money to put a quality team out there on the field -- and the team wins, then it will in turn help generate extra revenue. Yes, the Patriots play in a larger market, but their recent rise toward the top in revenue, I think, has more to do with their success in recent years. Washington's situation is so unique because the area is so affluent -- and because the owner is always trying to find new ways to make extra cash. For example, how much more annual revenue could Ralph generate if he were to sell the naming rights to RWS? There are many who despise SNyder for his anything-for-a-buck mind-set, but the other owners in the league, including Ralph, that want a piece of his action aren't complaining, are they? My intent isn't to beat up on Ralph here. I think his "No" vote was more of a protest vote, because he did not like the way that the owners were pressured into having to digest a great deal of information in a short period of time -- and then make a unilateral business decision that affects the economic climate for the next 6 years and beyond. I actually see where he was coming from with that. His latest responses come off as his being a bit stubborn about the vote itself, rather than what he was actually voting on. I just hope that he doesn't continue to be stubborn about this to the point of refusing to shell out the necessary money that we need for free agents just to try to further prove his point.

And correct me if I'm wrong -- but that 59.5% that we keep hearing tossed about is the CAP, not the minimum. So if the smaller market teams don't want to spend that much, they don't have to. For what it's worth, those Bills teams in the late 80s and early 90s did pretty well with no cap in place -- and, in fact, the cap paid a significant role in dismantling them years later.

Anyone else think that Kim's psychiatrist boyfriend was planted by Robocop? He keeps going on and on to Jack about how much he's looked into taking care of Kim during Jack's hiatus. I also think that they've done a good job of showing us how tough Robocop is to the point where even drugs won't make him talk. That was set up to show us that the grieving Tony -- who blames RoboCop for what he did to Michelle -- will get some measure of revenge in MAKING him talk. That could also provide us with some dramatic moment when Tony realizes that he was "inadevertantly" invlolved by spilling the beans to the wrong person that Jack was still alive.

Isn't Walker coming off a season ending knee injury?

Good point -- which is why I doubt that we will be quite the mover and shaker in free agency that many of us would like. I hate to say it, but we will probably be in the position of having to OVERPAY for some players. There's also going to be guys out there looking for a fresh start that may see a real opportunity by coming to a place like Buffalo where there will be so much competition for starting jobs. Some of these guys may be perceived as over-the-hill (Mawae), while others may be guys who have never lived up to their potential but may thrive in a new city -- guys like our very own Mike Williams and Josh Reed. This is where the pro scouts are going to have to earn their money.

Actually, if we brought Mawae in at a reasonable price, assuming that he is healthy and still has something left in the tank -- I wouldn't even be opposed to re-signing Teague, provided that he accepts a contract cosistent with what a backup would make. After all, he has experience playing OT as well as OC.

Part me also thinks that Ralph is tired of being patronized by Tagliabu and some of the owners. Folks should remember that without his bailout, the AFL would have folded.

With the CBA extension now in place, they have the luxury of waiting until June 1 to cut him and spread out his cap hit, depending on when his roster bonus is due.

He was to the Cleveland Browns what Mike Williams was to us -- only on the other side of the ball. If he comes cheap, he's worth a look. But I wouldn't shell out big money.

Ralph is being made fun of for his age -- and his age alone. He simply wanted to take some time to review the proposal in hand and did not want to make a rash decision that he and the other owners may have to live with for the next 6 years.

Not to mention that Synder can force people to pay $35 for parking and literally double the price of season tickets because he knows that people are actually PAYING to be on the waiting list to get season tickets. Oh, and under the new terms, I suppose all of that would count as revenue too.

It is too soon to call Upshaw either a moron or a genius. If no deal gets done, the players wind up losing portions of their 401K, have to wait 6 years to file for free agency rather than 4, and head into the 2008 season with no CBA in place, then Upshaw looks like a fool for being too combative. On the other hand, if the owners end up coming to an agreement and signing off on the deal that is on the table now, then Upshaw deserves all of the accolades he's getting.

I agree. I liked what all of the coaches had to say. Now let's see if they follow through.

Don't forget that Brandon Spoon was also part of that deal, as we traded down a few spots and picked up a second from Tampa Bay. Then we traded that new second down a few spots and picked up a 4th from Denver. That 4th rounder wound up being Brandon Spoon. I know he only lasted a couple of years, but he did start at LB as a rookie and had some promising moments. For me, considering the premium on good CBs versus good OGs, I would say that we made out better with Nate over Hutch, even discounting Henry and Spoon being added to the equation. Taking a CB in the first round is a crapshoot, but when you take a guard that high he had BETTER be a Pro Bowl caliber player. For all the criticism that anyone may have of TD, in retrospect his decisions in the 2001 draft have to be looked upon with great fondness. Considering the way that the team was gutted with cap cuts, it was very important that he strike paydirt in that first draft, and for the most part he did: 1. Nate Clements (Starter and has gone to the Pro Bowl) 2. A Schobel (Starter and Pro Bowl caliber) 3. Travis Henry (Starter, 1300+ rusher twice) 4. Jonas Jennings (Starter, lost him to higher bidder in FA) 5. Ron Edwards (Spot starter who has battled injuries) 6. Brandon Spoon (Starter who also battled injuries after rookie season) And that was just rounds 1-4. Ironically, it was the one draft during his tenure in which Modrak did NOT take part.

I see your point. But there are two things at play here: 1. The $10.8 M cap hit that Moulds currently occupies, which accounts for over 11% of the total team cap. Not only is that too much for a player with his particular skillset, but it also hinders our ability to improve the team in numerous other important areas. 2. There is also the matter of the "real" $7.1 M that he's due this year. That's a lot of cash for Ralph to be coughing up for a guy who isn't even a guaranteed 1,000-yard receiver. The key is going to be how many viable WRs are out there in free agency, and what it would cost to bring one in of Moulds' stature. At his best, Moulds is a top 10-15 WR. When he's not playing at his highest level, I'd be hard pressed to put him in the top 25. I would imagine that we could find someone with similar production that would cost less than $10.8 M against the cap (including the escalation of Moulds' SB). Hopefully Moulds and his agent change their tune, becaue my first choice would be for him to come back at a reduced salary. If they remain firm in their stance, then it's adios.

I give Upshaw some kudos for driving such a hard bargain -- but the end result could be that he overstates his position to the point where no deal gets done, which is bad for EVERYBODY, considering how great things have been under the existing CBA. We all know that the owners are going to flat turn this 59.5% proposal down too. The only reason it got to this point was that Tagliabu and the NFLPA wanted to reach SOME form of closure and at least present the owners with SOMETHING to vote on. Over the next couple of days, the owners are likely going to work together to come up with their own new counter-offer. The last we heard was that they had gone up to 56.5% from their original 56% offer. Meanwhile, Upshaw has been willing to go down to 59.5% from his original 60%. Thus, to date both sides have only budged by .5%. If the owners come back with just another .5%, bringing it up to 57% for their counter-offer, then things could go back and forth for another couple weeks. The longer this goes on, the more tiresome it will become -- and the more PR damage it will cause. I'm still optimistic that something will get done, but I wonder what kind of a bad taste it will leave when it's all said and done.

Going back to the Willis pick, whether you agree with his selection or not, one of the things that you have to like about it was the strategy involved. Recall that our greatest need that year was a defensive lineman; however, the draft board was loaded with them early, so by the time we picked several of them had already come off the board. The scouts had 2 or 3 guys very closely ranked that they viewed as decent value with that first round pick. However, they looked at the teams picking after us, realized that many of them had already filled that DL need and rationalized that one of the guys we were looking at would still be there for us in the second round. Thus, they decided to roll the dice and gamble on greatness with McGahee -- and wound up getting one of those DL, Kelsay, they were looking at in the second round, just as they planned. With TD gone, it is hard to gauge what the new regime will do -- and much depends on free agency and what players we acquire there. Currently, the reality is that we have so many needs in so many positions that you could make a strong argument for a DL (Ngata), DB (Huff/Williams), or a TE (Davis). We also obviously need OL help, but there is no player likely to be there at OT or OG worthy of the #8 pick if Ferguson is gone as expected. I'd like for the war room to stick closely to their player ratings -- but I also hope our scouts and front office keep in mind the projection of what other teams are likely to do between the #9 pick and our second round choice, assuming there is no chance for a trade up/down. They should then draft the position player that has the greatest upside OVER the highest ranked player at the same position, who is likely to still be on the board in the next round. Scouts seem to think that, while Ngata is the best DT prospect, there is little that separates him from, say, the 3rd or 4th best, who are likely to still be around when we pick in the second round. Meanwhile, Huff and Davis appear to be head and shoulders above other propects at their respective positions. Depending upon how our scouts have them graded, based on my own observations, I'd be inclined to draft Davis or Huff in the first round -- and hold off for better value at the DT position in the second. Of course, with Adams gone and no bona fide starter at either DT position, the front office could panic, if they do not address the need in free agency. That could lead to the "safe" pick of Ngata in the first round. While I would not be mortified if that were to happen, I just wonder what kind of a rippling effect that will have on the quality of our picks in the later rounds.

Yea, Mayock's obsession with Cutler has caused him to lose some credibility in my eyes. Not in the sense that he's necessarily wrong about the kid, but he is so dead set on ranking him at the top that he's developed a predisposition about him. Personally, I didn't think he looked all that great in the Senior Bowl, and he did not stand head and shoulders above the other QBs in the combine's passing drills, despite Mayock's insistence otherwise. I think when the smoke settles, Cutler probably falls back toward the middle of the 1st round where he was originally projected a few weeks ago. Any team drafting him in the top 7 can only helps the Bills' cause.