cossack Posted March 8, 2012 Share Posted March 8, 2012 Per PFT Wimbley Get it done Buddy! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted March 8, 2012 Share Posted March 8, 2012 If he's the only outside FA they add, I'll be happy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shibuya Posted March 8, 2012 Share Posted March 8, 2012 yeah this would be a great pick up God bless the Raiders financial mess Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maddog69 Posted March 8, 2012 Share Posted March 8, 2012 It would be nice for him to be cut now and get a chance to sign with someone before Mario is available. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickelCity Posted March 8, 2012 Share Posted March 8, 2012 Man this would be big, but we're going to have to be competitive to land him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
It's in My Blood Posted March 8, 2012 Share Posted March 8, 2012 Man this would be big, but we're going to have to be competitive to land him. Buddy has stated something along the lines of the Bills having to.pay more for FA. I believe that if they want Wimbley, they could have him. It would just cost more than other teams. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ndirish1978 Posted March 8, 2012 Share Posted March 8, 2012 He's pretty much exactly what Nix said he wants in a DE. I would be so happy if we could pick him up. But PFt says "Wimbley would be a highly valued commodity around the NFL and can expect a first-year payment from his next team that dwarfs the $11 million Oakland would have paid him." I though Mario would be getting 13-14? How expensive is it going to be to sign a good DE? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain Hindsight Posted March 8, 2012 Share Posted March 8, 2012 (edited) Picked 5 picks after whitner.... Edited March 8, 2012 by Captain Hindsight Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maddog69 Posted March 8, 2012 Share Posted March 8, 2012 I think Mario is going to end up getting $16-18m per year. Wimbley will probably get $12 or more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shibuya Posted March 8, 2012 Share Posted March 8, 2012 He's pretty much exactly what Nix said he wants in a DE. I would be so happy if we could pick him up. But PFt says "Wimbley would be a highly valued commodity around the NFL and can expect a first-year payment from his next team that dwarfs the $11 million Oakland would have paid him." I though Mario would be getting 13-14? How expensive is it going to be to sign a good DE? Mario is going to walk away with $30 - $40 million guaranteed, and my money says $18 - $20 in the 1st year with salary and signing bonuses etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
apuszczalowski Posted March 8, 2012 Share Posted March 8, 2012 if the Bills really want him, why not call Oakland and offer them a pick to take him off their hands? he plays for the $11 mil he is signed for this year and no need to get into a bidding war Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
damj Posted March 8, 2012 Share Posted March 8, 2012 Buddy has stated something along the lines of the Bills having to.pay more for FA. I believe that if they want Wimbley, they could have him. It would just cost more than other teams. Wimbley's contract goes through 2015 ... we could just claim him off waivers if/when Oakland cuts him Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K-9 Posted March 8, 2012 Share Posted March 8, 2012 Wimbley's contract goes through 2015 ... we could just claim him off waivers if/when Oakland cuts him I like the idea but there are too many teams in front of us in the waiver pecking order. Gotta think somebody else would claim him first. GO BILLS!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoSaint Posted March 8, 2012 Share Posted March 8, 2012 (edited) He's pretty much exactly what Nix said he wants in a DE. I would be so happy if we could pick him up. But PFt says "Wimbley would be a highly valued commodity around the NFL and can expect a first-year payment from his next team that dwarfs the $11 million Oakland would have paid him." I though Mario would be getting 13-14? How expensive is it going to be to sign a good DE? First year - not per year. Big difference in total value from there. Say he gets a 4 year 50 mil with 10 per plus a 10 signing bonus- that's 20 first year with a 12.5 average. High still but easy numbers to demonstrate with. Edited March 8, 2012 by NoSaint Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted March 8, 2012 Share Posted March 8, 2012 Wimbley's contract goes through 2015 ... we could just claim him off waivers if/when Oakland cuts him He's a vested veteran (more than 4 credited seasons in the NFL) so he doesn't go through waivers. Like Manning he'd be a FA immediately. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thebandit27 Posted March 8, 2012 Share Posted March 8, 2012 He's a vested veteran (more than 4 credited seasons in the NFL) so he doesn't go through waivers. Like Manning he'd be a FA immediately. Beat me to it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maddog69 Posted March 8, 2012 Share Posted March 8, 2012 if the Bills really want him, why not call Oakland and offer them a pick to take him off their hands? he plays for the $11 mil he is signed for this year and no need to get into a bidding war that is what I was thinking. The cap is not an issue for us at this point. That would be great because we would not have to get into a bidding war. We could always work with him to restructure the deal if necessary. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoSaint Posted March 8, 2012 Share Posted March 8, 2012 that is what I was thinking. The cap is not an issue for us at this point. That would be great because we would not have to get into a bidding war. We could always work with him to restructure the deal if necessary. Can't trade til FA- does he have a bonus due? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
section122 Posted March 8, 2012 Share Posted March 8, 2012 that is what I was thinking. The cap is not an issue for us at this point. That would be great because we would not have to get into a bidding war. We could always work with him to restructure the deal if necessary. he is being released because he refused to restructure his deal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maddog69 Posted March 8, 2012 Share Posted March 8, 2012 he is being released because he refused to restructure his deal. I know. But our timeline for a restructure would be much different and our offer may be different. The point is that we would not have to have him restructure since we are not in cap jail like the Raiders are. Somebody else posted that veterans cannot be traded until FA starts, I don't know if that is true, but it could be the reason he will not be traded. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
White Linen Posted March 8, 2012 Share Posted March 8, 2012 God bless the Raiders financial mess Yep and the Bills will be right there with them if they do crazy things like extend Fred Jackson. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain Hindsight Posted March 8, 2012 Share Posted March 8, 2012 Yep and the Bills will be right there with them if they do crazy things like extend Fred Jackson. Ya im sure we will throw 11 million a year at 33 year olds and trade 2 1st roun picks for Carson Palmer. Its not even close to the raider mess if we extend jackson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
White Linen Posted March 8, 2012 Share Posted March 8, 2012 (edited) Ya im sure we will throw 11 million a year at 33 year olds and trade 2 1st roun picks for Carson Palmer. Its not even close to the raider mess if we extend jackson I wasn't drawing comparison's to their decisions, only to say when you get in trouble with money you have to cut players like Wimbley. What player would you be willing to part with to sign Fred? Levitre, Wood, or Byrd? Edited March 8, 2012 by Triple Threat Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ieatcrayonz Posted March 8, 2012 Share Posted March 8, 2012 Picked 5 picks after whitner.... Is he an All Pro? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoSaint Posted March 8, 2012 Share Posted March 8, 2012 I know. But our timeline for a restructure would be much different and our offer may be different. The point is that we would not have to have him restructure since we are not in cap jail like the Raiders are. Somebody else posted that veterans cannot be traded until FA starts, I don't know if that is true, but it could be the reason he will not be traded. the trade deadline was week 6. its still 2011 in the nfl. until everything rolls over next week, no trades. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted March 8, 2012 Share Posted March 8, 2012 Is he an All Pro? Whitner? Nope. Not even a Pro Bowler. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickelCity Posted March 8, 2012 Share Posted March 8, 2012 Whitner? Nope. Not even a Pro Bowler. Hahaha But with regard to Wimbley, this might fit the mold of who the Bills could target, if we're considering Nix's comments about "being aggressive" in FA. Wimbley might be a bit to rich for our taste though. I do think we could sign him if we wanted to... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adam Posted March 8, 2012 Share Posted March 8, 2012 I think Mario is going to end up getting $16-18m per year. Wimbley will probably get $12 or more. If it costs $12, I am all for it!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
San Jose Bills Fan Posted March 9, 2012 Share Posted March 9, 2012 Yep and the Bills will be right there with them if they do crazy things like extend Fred Jackson. So you already know how much the Bills will be extending Freddy for and you know that the amount will cause the team to be in "Salary Cap Jail?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aristocrat Posted March 9, 2012 Share Posted March 9, 2012 david harris got a 4 year 36 mil deal last year, lamarr woodley got a 6 year 61 mil deal, lawrence timmons 5 year 50 mil deal...i imagine wimbley will be somewhere in there. 5 years and 45-50 mil gets it imo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
White Linen Posted March 9, 2012 Share Posted March 9, 2012 (edited) So you already know how much the Bills will be extending Freddy for and you know that the amount will cause the team to be in "Salary Cap Jail?" Of course not, but I do believe having 12-13 million per tied up in 2 running backs has to stop us from doing something. You don't get 25-30 million every year, that's just what we are under the cap now. How can we sign Stevie, Chandler, Bell, free agent pass rusher, free agent LB, free agent #2 wide receiver, and extend Fred - without it effecting our ability to extend Wood, Levitre, or Byrd within the confines of 25-30 million. We can't just say cut Kelsay and Merriman and there's the money. Good teams loose good players every year. There's just a point where you have to say goodbye to players in order to stay viable. Edited March 9, 2012 by Triple Threat Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
San Jose Bills Fan Posted March 9, 2012 Share Posted March 9, 2012 Good teams loose good players every year. There's just a point where you have to say goodbye to players in order to stay viable. Fred Jackson signed a 4-year, $7.5 million contract for which he's entering the final year. That's an average of about $1.8 million per year for a guy who was an MVP Candidate before he was injured. He would have led non-QBs in total yards from scrimmage. He's an excellent and important player who has very little leverage because of injury, age, and one year remaining. I'm not seeing where giving him a fair extension is going to be detrimental to the team in any way whatsoever. Rather than worrying about paying a deserving player, how about we complain about a legitimate bad contract such as Tyler Thigpen signing a 3-year, $11 million contract? That's good backup QB money for a bad backup QB. THAT is the stuff Bills fans should be concerned with. Not extending Fred Jackson. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain Hindsight Posted March 9, 2012 Share Posted March 9, 2012 I wasn't drawing comparison's to their decisions, only to say when you get in trouble with money you have to cut players like Wimbley. What player would you be willing to part with to sign Fred? Levitre, Wood, or Byrd? sine were about 30 million under the cap, none of the above Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
White Linen Posted March 9, 2012 Share Posted March 9, 2012 Fred Jackson signed a 4-year, $7.5 million contract for which he's entering the final year. That's an average of about $1.8 million per year for a guy who was an MVP Candidate before he was injured. He would have led non-QBs in total yards from scrimmage. He's an excellent and important player who has very little leverage because of injury, age, and one year remaining. I'm not seeing where giving him a fair extension is going to be detrimental to the team in any way whatsoever. Rather than worrying about paying a deserving player, how about we complain about a legitimate bad contract such as Tyler Thigpen signing a 3-year, $11 million contract? That's good backup QB money for a bad backup QB. THAT is the stuff Bills fans should be concerned with. Not extending Fred Jackson. Ok signing Fred won't stop us from signing anyone we need either currently on our team or free agents. I guess we have unlimited funds. sine were about 30 million under the cap, none of the above You're not understanding my point, maybe in hindsight you will. Pun intended. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain Hindsight Posted March 9, 2012 Share Posted March 9, 2012 Ok signing Fred won't stop us from signing anyone we need either currently on our team or free agents. I guess we have unlimited funds. You're not understanding my point, maybe in hindsight you will. Pun intended. We've signed two players when we were 30 million under the cap. How much do you think Chandler cost us? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WhitewalkerInPhilly Posted March 9, 2012 Share Posted March 9, 2012 I think he'd be a solid choice. I would support giving up some draft picks, maybe a third this year and a second next. Just not our first rounder really, just so that we could get him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ganesh Posted March 9, 2012 Share Posted March 9, 2012 Per PFT Wimbley Get it done Buddy! Isn't Wimbley a prototype 3-4 LB ? I think the Steelers have need in that area and he will probably sign with them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
White Linen Posted March 9, 2012 Share Posted March 9, 2012 (edited) We've signed two players when we were 30 million under the cap. How much do you think Chandler cost us? I don't think the question is how much Chandler cost although it's included obviously. As you said we were 30 Million under the cap. Stevie got an average of 7.25 as you know, I don't know how that breaks down in regards to front to back of the contract, but for simple math purposes we'll use 7.25. So that's 22.75 left from Stevie, Say Chandler got 3 million - that leaves 19.75. Beyond the cap being raised next year, assuming we will spend all the way to the cap we have 19.75 to work with. How do you suggest we extend Jackson, Wood, Levitre, and Byrd - and sign a pass rusher, LB, WR, Bell, sign our rookies drafted this year, and any other free agent (i.e Morrison)? Obviously you'd have to subtract the salaries of Wood, Jackson, Levitre, and Byrd (already counted in our number) vs what their impending raise would be. Just say they all get $2 million per year raises, that's another $16 million for just those players. No doubt players will get cut between this year and next that will fluctuate things, but my point is we don't have the money to just say hell sign everyone we want we have $30 million dollars. I honestly think it's prudent to consider the idea of not signing Jackson. I love the guy, one of my favorites for sure, but with Spiller there and bringing in another guy to go after the tough yards Spiller can't (ie Choice) to me is something to consider. Especially when we have a lot of areas that money can be used for. I think Spiller proved what he could do, even with a plethora of team injuries. I think we need to understand that extending Fred plainly translates that we won't be able to do very important other things. So again what would you concede to, in order to have two able RB's? Edited March 9, 2012 by Triple Threat Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
San Jose Bills Fan Posted March 9, 2012 Share Posted March 9, 2012 First off TT, you still haven't grasped my point. You're advising against extending Fred Jackson at any cost… you don't even have a figure in mind… which implies that you would be against giving him a raise of $100,00/year. To have a blanket policy against extending him at any cost is just ridiculous. At least have a make or break price in mind… $3 million per, $4 million per… whatever it is. Secondly, it's again ridiculous to single out an extension for Fred when you have guys like Tyler Thigpen sitting on the bench making nearly $4 million per year. The Bills would have been better off developing Levi Brown for $500K and giving the $3.5 million difference to someone who deserves it. Brad Smith is also making nearly $4 million and what has he done? How can you possibly quibble over a modest raise for a deserving player when there are guys on the roster who are clearly not performing up to their contracts? Thirdly, you're not taking into account the $8 million in dead money which is coming off the books next year (Maybin and Lee Evans). Every year some contracts come off the books. If you sign players to good contracts you don't have to worry too much about the salary cap… unless you have a star-studded team, which the Bills are not. Your fiscal cautiousness is totally misguided regarding Fred Jackson. You're an excellent poster but on this topic, I disagree with you vehemently on all of your points. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sniper Posted March 9, 2012 Share Posted March 9, 2012 He's pretty much exactly what Nix said he wants in a DE. I would be so happy if we could pick him up. But PFt says "Wimbley would be a highly valued commodity around the NFL and can expect a first-year payment from his next team that dwarfs the $11 million Oakland would have paid him." I though Mario would be getting 13-14? How expensive is it going to be to sign a good DE? Maybe if he played DE. He has played LB every year of his career. Including 4-3 SLB for the last 2 years after being a JLB in the 3-4. We would sign him still I think. But as a SLB!! Barnett Sheppard Wimbley. At least be knowledge about the players you think you want. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts