Spiderweb

The whole idea of a "cap" was to balance the playing field, yet a loop hole with the signing bonis was left open for abuse, and the rich teams have used it well to their advantage. Sure would be nice if the old IRS would bring back "income averaging" but that was taken away from us. Is this not the same thing in essence in which the owners get to distort their true payroll? Add to this that every team, expects the cap to rise each year so as to help soften the blow of the large signing bonuses in the long run. Want true balance? Signing bonuses count 100% against the cap in the year they are paid. Same with roster bonuses, incentive bonuses, etc. Now the players would object heavily, yet might this blow to them be softened a bit with at least partially guaranteed contracts? Large signing bonuses serve as a "guaranteed contract" as the bonus itself is a guarantee. Unfortunately the average to backup players still don't benefit much from this as their signing bonuses are relatively small. I would submit that for the collective (players) real contract guarantees would be more beneficial overall to them rather than the elite getting all the bonus money. Sadly, the divide we see amongst the owners also applies to a divide amongst the players as well so change or hopefully real balance with never happen. All boils down to individual greed, apparently a common human trait.

If the new player percentage ends up being 59.5% or close to, the cap pressures are going to be eleviated for most, if not all teams. Hutch....sadly to say, won't be coming here....

Imposter! No way was this point stated in such a brief and concise manner by......

I'm willing to bash Holcomb at the drop of a hat, but I will agree while that McMahon looked interesting when he came out of college, he's been absolutely horrible in the NFL. Answer to McMahan? HECK NO!!!!!

Trade up for Young? ABSOLUTELY NOT!

This isn't just some guy crying the blues as he openly acknowledged that what they had was working quite well. Everyone was getting paid lots of dough. He also brought up the point of rookies (top draft choices) getting inordinate amounts of money and the lack of some contract guarantees that I believe most of the vets would like to see happen. He wasn't looking for sympathy, he was just stating the obvious....

I would hope that Villerial's replacement is found quickly and pushes him to the bench, or better yet, to the curb. Watching him get blown up play after play last year was painful to watch. His injuries surely played into that, but the injuries I believe were telling. Villerial may have hit the wall and the body is beginning to break down.

-belinda-

From what I've seen of Kelsay, I'd like him to hit the bricks. Major disappointment. Denney on the other hand isn't flashy, but stands up against the run better than Kelsay and also (with less snaps), had more sacks IIRC. If Denney can be resigned reasonably, I'd say do it in a heart beat. Kelsay is the guy that wears me out. To me, he must come up big this year or simply go away.

Exactly, right on the money.....

You're position would carry much more weight if the Bills were on the verge of greatness, then sure find a way to keep Eric. However, Losman is still a year or two away from being ready to roll, and that's still an "if" as well. Holcomb surely won't take the Bills to the promised land so.... I suspect it could be a couple years to get this team in shape, barring a miracle, and by then Moulds will be even older, slower and less deserving of top WR pay. Moulds would take a salary cut, if up front bonus money was involved, and that would only come back to haunt the bIlls next year and the year after. Sadly, as much as I dislike the idea of losing Moulds (who still is valauable, just not at his cap number the next few years) it's probably time. If he has a great year and actually gets on a playoff contender or participant, all the more power to him. At this time, I see his point (best part of his career is definitely behind him as a star) and the Bills point. It's all part of today's game. Sometimes things like this just have to happen, just like when Thomas, Reed, and B. Smith were all let go. Thomas and Reed were shot, but Bruce still had somethng left (although nothing like what he gave us). Father time grants no exceptions.

Jeez, after reading this thread it made me feel like I picked the wrong day to quit sniffing glue.

Og all those flopping around out there at the moment, at least he's young and even though he had to toil for the Cards, he's shown possibilities and promise. What caused him to fall out of favor with Green is anyone's guess.

I appreciate your opinion that Young is....well...special. I don't hold the view. The report I referred to came from CBS Sportsline, or possibly ESPN a few days back and it isn't worth the effort to try to extricate it now, and if that's where the "rumor" came from, so be it. If true, regardless of where it came from, it doesn't speak well of Mr. Young.

It was reported (and I'm too lazy to find the link) that Young had actually had to hire help with his accuracy for the workouts, because he was throwing so poorly. Now, its "rumored" over on BZ that Mr. Young has scored an outstanding 6 on the old Wonderlic test. Sorry Bluefire, but Young is NOT what we need. He may not be what anyone needs. May be a great guy, but he won't be a QB of note, other than for failing.

Can't agree more. less is more Marv when it comes to this. Keep 'er ZIPPED....

Simply....Vince Young? Heck NO!!!! Poor throwing motion, questionable accuracy...It all points to falling stock in the draft. Despite being a great college competitor, this guy is not who we want or need at this point.

Different types of injuries. Brees injury is far less career threatening. Brees did not tear his rotator cuff, let alone do it twice...

As great as it would be to have him, the Bills NEVER had a shot....Time to move on (re: Hutchinson).

Ya had to do it.... Dag.....I sure do miss the great play of Hull.....

With the $$$ they've spent on Manning alone, let alone Harrison, Wayne, Edge, et al, they should ALREADY be in cap hell. Fenny's going to get real expense soon, along with Simon and .... Maybe we should forget about our worrys over our coaching staff and go get a "cap" guy like Indy's? The will just sign anyone willing to put their John Hancock on a Bills contract.

Where's Clump? I'd bet he has a better handle on this vet issue. IRCC, it only applies to a vet/team when the vet is also playing for vet minimum and has a signing bonus of under 25K or the like. Even then it does NOT reduce the cap hit to a 1st year player min salary. IRCC it more like the high 480's, wheras a 1st year guy could be in the 200's. A number of years back, both the league and the players saw vets getting the short end (those who were good enough still to make the team as a spot or situational player) and were often cut due to cap reasons. It has only provided marginal benefit to the vet who may fall into this category. There is also a minimum number of years of service before this could apply and that number is higher than say 4,5 or 6 years if memory serves. This would be an area that I hope a new CBA can remedy a bit more. In short, a quasi "soft" cap that would benefit those borderline vets would be something that I would be in favor of. With the current system, it's still very difficult for teams to afford the luxury of a Mark Pike type, excellent ST guy with long vet tenure and stil be "decent" contract wise.

Amen....

What's up with the wgrz.com links? They never work for me. Time out or unavailable is all I ever get.