Mike in Syracuse Posted March 8, 2014 Share Posted March 8, 2014 If this is correct, the Bills are going to have to spend a lot more than I ever imagined to be players in FA. Oakland has $64M Jacksonville has $59M Cleveland has $49 Can this be right? It's from Henry Hodgson who works for NFL.com https://twitter.com/nflukhank/status/442120775005245440/photo/1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fixxxer Posted March 8, 2014 Share Posted March 8, 2014 It's amazing that the Colts already have their franchise QB for the next 10 years and they have $41 M to spend. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KOKBILLS Posted March 8, 2014 Share Posted March 8, 2014 (edited) I If this is correct, the Bills are going to have to spend a lot more than I ever imagined to be players in FA. Oakland has $64M Jacksonville has $59M Cleveland has $49 Can this be right? It's from Henry Hodgson who works for NFL.com https://twitter.com/...5245440/photo/1 That's pretty close to the numbers overthecap.com has as well... Vikings are about $41 mil under too... Of course the Bills would have been in really good shape were it not for the $11 million in dead money from the Fitz and Anderson deals...That same page says only three teams have more dead money ($12.07 mil) than the Bills (Panthers, Chargers, and Saints...) and the Cowboys are real close ($12.034 mil)... Edited March 8, 2014 by KOKBILLS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ET1062 Posted March 8, 2014 Share Posted March 8, 2014 ALL IN Baby! Oh wait, Ralph's puppet is in charge, Cash to the Cap Baby! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
T master Posted March 8, 2014 Share Posted March 8, 2014 (edited) Once we get rid of all the dead money from these ignorant contract signings & hopefully they won't do any other stupid things like get rid of Lawson so we have more dead money to add to what is already there we should be able to have more to spend to keep the good players we have on the roster ... Plus if they get rid of Kold, Pears & a couple of other before the the start of the official season we should have even more cap space to extend our core players ... Edited March 8, 2014 by T master Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Max997 Posted March 8, 2014 Share Posted March 8, 2014 It's amazing that the Colts already have their franchise QB for the next 10 years and they have $41 M to spend. Will be a different story in a few years when he gets his big deal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fixxxer Posted March 8, 2014 Share Posted March 8, 2014 Will be a different story in a few years when he gets his big deal. No doubt, but they can build something special until that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PromoTheRobot Posted March 8, 2014 Share Posted March 8, 2014 It's amazing that the Colts already have their franchise QB for the next 10 years and they have $41 M to spend. And they will have to spend all of that to keep him. I wonder why they haven't extended Luck yet? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuffaloBillsMagic1 Posted March 8, 2014 Share Posted March 8, 2014 Once we get rid of all the dead money from these ignorant contract signings & hopefully they won't do any other stupid things like get rid of Lawson so we have more dead money to add to what is already there we should be able to have more to spend to keep the good players we have on the roster ... Plus if they get rid of Kold, Pears & a couple of other before the the start of the official season we should have even more cap space to extend our core players ... dump SJ and we are heading back to top in terms of cap money also.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MDH Posted March 8, 2014 Share Posted March 8, 2014 It's amazing that the Colts already have their franchise QB for the next 10 years and they have $41 M to spend. They don't have him for 10 years at the bargain basement price they have him for now. They have to prepare for two years from now when they have to sign him to a new, HUGE, mega deal. Unless something happens to his progression in the next two years my guess is it will be the biggest contract in NFL history. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hondo in seattle Posted March 8, 2014 Share Posted March 8, 2014 A Raider fan told me the reason Oakland was so bad last year wasn't their coaching, it was something like $30 million in dead money. They'll get to go on a shopping spree this year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
first_and_ten Posted March 8, 2014 Share Posted March 8, 2014 And they will have to spend all of that to keep him. I wonder why they haven't extended Luck yet? Just because the Colts might want to extend him now, it might be foolish for Luck to extend now. The closer he gets to tho the final year of the contract, the higher the price tag will be. He will definately get the biggest contract in history. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PromoTheRobot Posted March 8, 2014 Share Posted March 8, 2014 Just because the Colts might want to extend him now, it might be foolish for Luck to extend now. The closer he gets to tho the final year of the contract, the higher the price tag will be. He will definately get the biggest contract in history. That's funny considering how everyone here says we should have signed Byrd sooner, as if it's mandatory players take offers early. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luxy312 Posted March 8, 2014 Share Posted March 8, 2014 If this is correct, the Bills are going to have to spend a lot more than I ever imagined to be players in FA. Why exactly to they need to be players in FA? Have we not learned anything as fans from simply looking at what teams have done when they are significant "players" in free agency? Tell me how many Superbowls the Redskins have won or even better yet GONE TO when Dan Snyder was buying his teams in free agency for 10 straight years. Seattle, Baltimore, New York, Green Bay and New Orleans have won the last 5 Superbowls. Please tell me how big of "players" these guys were in free agency. Not even sorry to point it out, but championship teams are built from the draft. Getting an occasional player in free agency is one thing, but building a team that way just doesn't work. The cap room is significant for some of these teams, but it means very little in the grand scheme of things. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Turk Posted March 8, 2014 Share Posted March 8, 2014 I believe those teams have far fewer players under contract than the Bills do tho... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kirby Jackson Posted March 8, 2014 Share Posted March 8, 2014 Why exactly to they need to be players in FA? Have we not learned anything as fans from simply looking at what teams have done when they are significant "players" in free agency? Tell me how many Superbowls the Redskins have won or even better yet GONE TO when Dan Snyder was buying his teams in free agency for 10 straight years. Seattle, Baltimore, New York, Green Bay and New Orleans have won the last 5 Superbowls. Please tell me how big of "players" these guys were in free agency. Not even sorry to point it out, but championship teams are built from the draft. Getting an occasional player in free agency is one thing, but building a team that way just doesn't work. The cap room is significant for some of these teams, but it means very little in the grand scheme of things. FWIW, 15 of the 44 starters in the Super Bowl were acquired through free agency. Free agency is where you plug your holes (usually not where you find your stars). The Bills are not going to find their #1 WR in this market but they may find a starter or 2 on the OL and perhaps a run stuffing LB. Free agency is the opposite of the top 10 pick IMO. It is rare that you find LT, elite skill players, pass rushers and QB in free agency. Those guys get picked in the top half of the 1st round and rarely hit the market. You should plug other holes in FA (RT, OG, S, LB, TE) because you can find starters at those spots. In addition, you can find depth at WR (Bills do not need depth they need a #1), and depth at QB and RB (both of which the Bills could be in the market for). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoSaint Posted March 8, 2014 Share Posted March 8, 2014 That's funny considering how everyone here says we should have signed Byrd sooner, as if it's mandatory players take offers early. Can't extend a guy til after his 3rd season Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldTimer1960 Posted March 8, 2014 Share Posted March 8, 2014 It's amazing that the Colts already have their franchise QB for the next 10 years and they have $41 M to spend. They won't have much once his rookie contract is up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
purple haze Posted March 8, 2014 Share Posted March 8, 2014 (edited) dump SJ and we are heading back to top in terms of cap money also.... And replace him with who? Just because the Colts might want to extend him now, it might be foolish for Luck to extend now. The closer he gets to tho the final year of the contract, the higher the price tag will be. He will definately get the biggest contract in history. Yeah, but he risks getting injured too. If money and years are meaningful most players will take the security over the unknown. His agent would just need to make sure there is a point in that deal where Luck could opt out or give him some other provision that would allow for a renegotiatiation down the line. Edited March 8, 2014 by purple haze Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kellyto83TD Posted March 8, 2014 Share Posted March 8, 2014 I really need for fans to please, PLEASE after all these years and ralph owning the team for 50+ years to finally come to grips with something. Even if we had 100 million under the cap, we won't spend it. Ralph and more importantly Jeffery Littman will not allow it. and when the cap hits say 160 mill in 3 years or so it won't matter if we have 10 million under or 50 million under, Buffalo won't have the money to spend that much. I still think the league is going to rid themselves of teams that have proven that they can't stay competitive in today's market but increase the number of roster spots per team. I can easily see us going back to 28 teams. If a team is costing the league money (extra revenue sharing but not putting much if any back in) then the right business move is to cut those teams. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts