Emerging Sub Plot in Draft could effect Bills ...

[Formerly Allan in MD]

Anyone who thinks the Colts will not take a quarterback because Manning will be back is dreaming. Age and injuries put the best of them outside the bank. I doubt the Colts are stupid enough to think otherwise.

[Nuncha]

The Bills always think they are smarter than the NFL- Whitner, Mike Williams, James Hardy, Maybin, Lynch, POZ, Flowers...

 

FOr Gos Sake pick a Franchise Qb.

 

Willis McLazy, JP Lostman, Lee Evans

[Observer]

Take this with a huge grain of salt. But on the cost too move up this year according to one of the ESPN "experts" and i forget who it was. But he said moving from 9 or 10 to number one, would cost 3 number ones, and 2 number two picks. I actually find that reasonable if a guy like Luck pans out and has 10+ years as a "elite" Quarterback. It would be silly for the Bills to do that, and they never would. First they couldn't coach the kid up. Second as you state we have too many holes.

 

But for the right team with a NFL level coaching staff, and front office it's doable.

 

Way too risky for that price. Even if he's Peyton Manning, who's to say he doesn't get two concussions and end his career by year 3?

 

If this was a team where the biggest hole was QB and all other positions were solid, you maybe consider that kind of price. But giving up three #1s and two #2s would be the death of an already dead franchise. Who's going to catch the ball? Who's going to protect his blind side? Who's going to pressure the opposing QB? The answer to those questions can't be 4-5 years away or Luck will suck here like everyone before him.

[1B4IDie]

Why in the world would Bradford renegotiate his contract and take a lot less money to move from one stink bomb to another ? You keep resting your arguments on these casual unrealistic assumptions.

 

You're making the assumptions, I never said a lot less money. You made that up.

 

I said upfront money. Which is to say money in the bank, not money in unguaranteed NFL contract.

Which is 100% preferable, 100% of the time.

[aristocrat]

You're making the assumptions, I never said a lot less money. You made that up.

 

I said upfront money. Which is to say money in the bank, not money in unguaranteed NFL contract.

Which is 100% preferable, 100% of the time.

 

Mark Sanchez has already reworked his contract twice for the jets so its safe to assume that bradford would rework his deal to bring in more talent

[truth on hold]

You're making the assumptions, I never said a lot less money. You made that up.

 

I said upfront money. Which is to say money in the bank, not money in unguaranteed NFL contract.

Which is 100% preferable, 100% of the time.

Youre just getting more silly. If a player Only agrees to a minor reduction how is that attractive to a new team?

 

These remarks only relate to the gauranteed portion of the contract all along. The economic benefit to receiving upfront or over time is small, especially in this low rate environment (google time value of money, I don't have time to give you finance lessons.) and if it were substantial as you imply for the player, in this zero game that would mean the new team is substantially losing. So again why is it attractive to them?

 

Bottom line: unless Bradford were going to a team he wanted to play for so much that he agreed to real substantial paycuts, your argument makes no sense.

Edited December 20, 2011 by Joe_the_6_pack

[1B4IDie]

Youre just getting more silly. If a player Only agrees to a minor reduction how is that attractive to a new team?

 

These remarks only relate to the gauranteed portion of the contract all along. The economic benefit to receiving upfront or over time is small, especially in this low rate environment (google time value of money, I don't have time to give you finance lessons.) and if it were substantial as you imply for the player, in this zero game that would mean the new team is substantially losing. So again why is it attractive to them?

 

Bottom line: unless Bradford were going to a team he wanted to play for so much that he agreed to real substantial paycuts, your argument makes no sense.

 

Joe_the_6_pack, You never cease to amaze.

What the Hell are you talking about?

You are arguing that NFL players, would rather wait in order to receive payment, because interest rates are low? Really? How Silly is that?

 

Listen you can try your dim witted and or straw arguments with some random troll but if you're going to come to play with the big boys you need to make sense.

 

It's really simple.

 

Sam Bradford is due $1.205 million in 2012, $2.005 million in 2013, $2.805 million in 2014 and $3.605 million in 2015 in base salary, then about ~$4 mil per season in basic playing time bench marks, 35% of snaps, etc. Then another. $2 Mil a year in Escalators like #of TDs and passer rating.

 

So in 2012 he will get a paycheck for about $7.5 Mil.

 

He can renegotiate and get about a ~$15-$20 mil signing bonus in 2012 then still make ~$3 Mil total salary, plus add years to the contract.

 

Would you rather have $18-$23 mil in the bank in 2012 or $7.5 Mil in the bank?

 

It is a no brainer for Bradford and by adding years it can reduce the cap hit for the team that takes him.

 

I'll let you look into how the Salary Cap is calculated since you clearly are confused about how NFL contracts are negotiated.

[The AntiFin]

Excuse me?!!! You have to have a QB! The Patriots are a team that has the ultimate franchise QB.

And in which round was Brady drafted?

 

You are nothing in this league unless you have one of those.

I remember all of the clamoring on this board a couple of years ago for Clausen. Has there been a Clausen sighting lately? I won't mention this past draft class where there MIGHT be two franchise QBs when all is said and done.

 

The Steelers knew this. Were the Steelers stupid in trading up for Rothlesburger?

Drafting a "franchise" QB is not an exact science. Are we anointing Luck, RGIII and Barkley HOFers ALREADY? Sure seems some of us are. Let's see them play a snap in the NFL, shall we?

 

BTW, the Patriots have done squat with all of those extra picks and should have been using them to trade up for impact pro bowl type players. Have you seen their defense?

Agree. Most of the Patriots drafts have been crappy. But we have a history -- over the past five or six years -- of drafting well in later rounds. I'm all for trading DOWN and getting picks. Heaven knows half/most of our higher picks over the last decade were the WRONG picks for this organization. Why not play to our strengths and not our weaknesses?

Edited December 20, 2011 by The AntiFin

[Dragonborn10]

Andrew Luck would never sign with Buffalo.

 

 

 

Poz was an excellent pick for his draft position. He's a good player who wanted more money than Ralph would dole out.

 

Agree Poz was an acceptable pick for his draft position but you forget they gave up another draft pick to move up to get him. Marv screwed us twice by giving away picks to move up and draft players.

[San Jose Bills Fan]

What exactly is wrong with this past year's draft class? Are you upset Jasper hasn't produced yet??

 

Dareus is everything he was supposed to be - getting sacks even though he's forced to play NT.

 

Aaron Williams has been hurt a bit, but when he's been out there he looks very good.

 

Sheppard is getting better every week - he looks like the big aggressive tackler we haven't had at ILB since - I don't know when! He was making plays all over the place - including the Miami backfield.

 

Justin Rodgers looks awfully good - a real late-round steal.

 

Seriously - this draft is looking very good.

Not to mention D'Norris Searcy and Chris Hairston. As bad as the 2010 Draft is looking (and it's looking a lot better with Spiller's development), the 2011 Draft is looking very good. Perhaps excellent.

 

Packers offensive line is a mess right now. They lost first and second strong RTs in that game alone. Then there was shuffling all over the line and guys looked bad.

What?

 

They lost two tackles and it's had a negative effect on their offense?

 

I thought there was no causal relationship between offensive line injuries and offensive efficiency.

 

 

[marshawnsdreads23]

I personally think barkley is gonna be better than luck...Any other year you would see him be the #1 pick but all the hype around luck has just overshadowed barkley. Kid makes nfl throws look easy

[WVUFootball29]

The Steelers did not trade up to get Roethlisberger, they were 6-10 in 2003 which awarded them the 11th selection in the draft to get Ben. With Ben off the board the Bills took their second choice in Lee Evans then traded up for Losman at 22.

[benderbender]

I think everyone is forgetting that Jim Kelly refused to be drafted by Buffalo and went to the USFL. I could see one the of top QBs refusing to play in Buffalo and going to the UFL

[WVUFootball29]

Doubtful, the UFL isn't paying out the absurd salaries that the USFL was at the time.

[truth on hold]

I think everyone is forgetting that Jim Kelly refused to be drafted by Buffalo and went to the USFL. I could see one the of top QBs refusing to play in Buffalo and going to the UFL

I dont think so, you're seeing less and less of that kind of thing these days. Players coming out seem more concerned about where they're picked than by whom. And if you're drafted high you're not exactly going to an elite team no matter.

Edited December 20, 2011 by Joe_the_6_pack

[BuffaloRebound]

Bump this thread. Indy beats Jax next week and it will get very interesting. Not that unlikely that St. Louis or Minnesota would listen to trade offers for Luck.