ajzepp Posted October 1, 2005 Share Posted October 1, 2005 Isn't McGee a restricted FA at the end of the season also? 460586[/snapback] I don't know, but we're not going to let both go.....TD will sign at least one of them. Terrence is turning into a poor man's Antoine Winfield, though....if Nate prices himself off the team, I'm not so sure McGee is that bad of a consolation prize. If we do lose Nate, TD will probably sign a free agent run stopper. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Typical TBD Guy Posted October 1, 2005 Share Posted October 1, 2005 Yeah, you're another one of the negative nancies..... Comparing McGee to Edwards makes no sense.....McGee is already a starter and becoming a pretty damn good corner. Oh, by the way, he's also a pro-bowl kick returner last time I checked. Ron Edwards is a marginal starter at best. 460583[/snapback] I'm sorry, but there is and will continue to be a huge dropoff from Clements to McGee...which BTW says nothing negative about McGee but only that Clements is truly that good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ajzepp Posted October 1, 2005 Share Posted October 1, 2005 I'm sorry, but there is and will continue to be a huge dropoff from Clements to McGee...which BTW says nothing negative about McGee but only that Clements is truly that good. 460590[/snapback] I don't really disagree with you there.....it's just a matter of how much cap room you want to tie up in one player. Nate IS arguably the best corner in the game. I REALLY want to see him re-signed, but if we have to settle on letting him go and signing a stud D-lineman to pair with big Sam, that would be okay too.....TD will sign Nate for market value and maybe a little more....but if Nate wants to really jack it up, I don't think TD will go for it. And you can make the argument that he shouldn't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frez Posted October 1, 2005 Author Share Posted October 1, 2005 Yes, Mcgee is a RFA. Restricted Free Agents The Bills have the right to match any offer any of these free agents get or receive compensation in the form of draft picks for each player lost. The round of the pick depends on where the player was drafted and/or the price of the qualifying offer given by the Bills. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Typical TBD Guy Posted October 1, 2005 Share Posted October 1, 2005 I don't really disagree with you there.....it's just a matter of how much cap room you want to tie up in one player. Nate IS arguably the best corner in the game. I REALLY want to see him re-signed, but if we have to settle on letting him go and signing a stud D-lineman to pair with big Sam, that would be okay too.....TD will sign Nate for market value and maybe a little more....but if Nate wants to really jack it up, I don't think TD will go for it. And you can make the argument that he shouldn't. 460593[/snapback] I'd rather tie up a lot of money in Clements than in Mike Williams or Eric Moulds. That was the intimation in my first post. My apologies if it came out overly negative. I like McGee a lot, but only as a #2 CB. And I, too, want a stud DT to pair with Sam Adams, but I think we can accomplish both (Clements and the stud DT) within the confines of next year's cap. Not only is the cap expected to increase a lot next year, but there's also some dead weight that can be trimmed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ajzepp Posted October 1, 2005 Share Posted October 1, 2005 I'd rather tie up a lot of money in Clements than in Mike Williams or Eric Moulds. That was the intimation in my first post. My apologies if it came out overly negative. I like McGee a lot, but only as a #2 CB. And I, too, want a stud DT to pair with Sam Adams, but I think we can accomplish both (Clements and the stud DT) within the confines of next year's cap. Not only is the cap expected to increase a lot next year, but there's also some dead weight that can be trimmed. 460598[/snapback] Well, at the time the Big Mike pick made sense. He just hasn't panned out as we expected. As for Moulds, I'll never be one of the posters who hacks on the guy. Even though most people consider him as having had an off year last year, the guy still caught almost 90 balls. He's not the receiver he used to be, and I suspect TD will re-do his contract in the offseason, but Moulds is still a pretty damn good receiver. IIRC, we also have some dead money tied up in Bledsoe this year. So what you're saying about next year looks good to me.....if we can sign Nate, upgrade Edwards, and maybe make a move or two on the line, I think will be in good shape. JP will have a year under his belt, too. But that's another topic, I guess.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frez Posted October 1, 2005 Author Share Posted October 1, 2005 Moulds is history next year. Time to move forward with younger players. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Typical TBD Guy Posted October 1, 2005 Share Posted October 1, 2005 Well, at the time the Big Mike pick made sense. He just hasn't panned out as we expected. As for Moulds, I'll never be one of the posters who hacks on the guy. Even though most people consider him as having had an off year last year, the guy still caught almost 90 balls. He's not the receiver he used to be, and I suspect TD will re-do his contract in the offseason, but Moulds is still a pretty damn good receiver. IIRC, we also have some dead money tied up in Bledsoe this year. So what you're saying about next year looks good to me.....if we can sign Nate, upgrade Edwards, and maybe make a move or two on the line, I think will be in good shape. JP will have a year under his belt, too. But that's another topic, I guess.... 460604[/snapback] I have ZERO problem with keeping Moulds, as long as his contract doesn't get in the way of re-signing Clements. And yes, I can understand having drafted Mike Williams at #4. But the problem lies in what to do about him now. Should we bail on him or keep extending his bloated contract into the future? I say let's bail on him this offseason if he doesn't show us anything this season. We can find a competent RT for probably a quarter of his price, and in turn can convert that money into Clements' contract or into more players on the O-line. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ajzepp Posted October 1, 2005 Share Posted October 1, 2005 I have ZERO problem with keeping Moulds, as long as his contract doesn't get in the way of re-signing Clements. And yes, I can understand having drafted Mike Williams at #4. But the problem lies in what to do about him now. Should we bail on him or keep extending his bloated contract into the future? I say let's bail on him this offseason if he doesn't show us anything this season. We can find a competent RT for probably a quarter of his price, and in turn can convert that money into Clements' contract or into more players on the O-line. 460632[/snapback] I'd be willing to bet that Moulds restructures to a fair cap number. He's shown plenty of willingness to do that, and TD will treat him fairly. I'd be against his contract getting in the way of Clements, too. Nate is clearly the priority. As for Big Mike, unless he can play L tackle and perform at a top 5 level, the hell with him....I say get rid of him. I don't know how much of a cap hit we'd take, but it would only be whatever portion of his signing bonus is left. I think it's fair to say that Gandy has been a more impressive player than big Mike has....at a fraction of the cost. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Typical TBD Guy Posted October 1, 2005 Share Posted October 1, 2005 I'd be willing to bet that Moulds restructures to a fair cap number. He's shown plenty of willingness to do that, and TD will treat him fairly. I'd be against his contract getting in the way of Clements, too. Nate is clearly the priority. As for Big Mike, unless he can play L tackle and perform at a top 5 level, the hell with him....I say get rid of him. I don't know how much of a cap hit we'd take, but it would only be whatever portion of his signing bonus is left. I think it's fair to say that Gandy has been a more impressive player than big Mike has....at a fraction of the cost. 460636[/snapback] If we do cut Mike Williams next year, it will probably have to be after June 1 because the accelerated cap hit should be enormous. This whole MW situation would be much easier if Mike just agreed to a reduced salary. He's not a bad RT at all; it's his contract that makes him wear the scarlet "B" on his jersey, B standing of course for Bust. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LancasterSteve Posted October 2, 2005 Share Posted October 2, 2005 You had to be there in early years. 460483[/snapback] I was. First game in 62 Endured those one win seasons in 68 and 71 or how about 9 consecutive home losses from Oct. 18, 1970 to Nov. 21, 1971. Went on active duty for the US Navy in Aug of 71, so I was spared the greater heartbreak of seeing the Bills lose than if I would have if I had been sitting in the stands. Still was a bummer and took a lot of ribbing from my shipmates. I really wore my beloved Buffalo Bills on my sleve back then and still today get bummed out when they lose, but in those early years it was always like someone took a sledgehammer to my gut after a Bills loss. Sat through those 14 lose seasons in 84 and 85 but the 12 loss season in 68 was for me by far the hardest season I have ever gone through. Todays Bills are light years ahead of any of those teams in terms of producing a winning season. Back then the only way to improve was through a trade or the draft; and before the AFL-NFL merger even that was iffy. At least today a team can turn their fortunes around a lot quicker. Hope should never be far removed from anyones lips when it comes to the Buffalo Bills in todays NFL. Stick around and enjoy the ride for there is no doubt in my mind that the Bills will someday be once again at the top of the NFL heap. As the late Bob Curran used to end his Buffalo News column with: Hang tough and Say a prayer for our guys and gals over there Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LancasterSteve Posted October 2, 2005 Share Posted October 2, 2005 Jerome Bettis would most be like Cookie. He could run over, through and around people. 460496[/snapback] The only other back from that era that I tought was better IMHO was Jim Brown. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fezmid Posted October 2, 2005 Share Posted October 2, 2005 As for Big Mike, unless he can play L tackle and perform at a top 5 level, the hell with him....I say get rid of him. I don't know how much of a cap hit we'd take, but it would only be whatever portion of his signing bonus is left. I think it's fair to say that Gandy has been a more impressive player than big Mike has....at a fraction of the cost. 460636[/snapback] Let's see, OL is the weakest part of our team... So let's cut the best player on the OL! We'll go from bad to worse in no time. Maybe we should just stick with discussing things other than the Bills CW Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LancasterSteve Posted October 2, 2005 Share Posted October 2, 2005 The Bills will Win tomorrow. Though if they don't we'll all be here Monday picking apart exactly what WE think is wrong with this team and by Friday or Saturday we'll all be really optimistic about Sundays game again. That is why we are FANS. Stick with the team through the good and the bad. 460552[/snapback] Exactly !!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mile High Posted October 2, 2005 Share Posted October 2, 2005 Let's see, OL is the weakest part of our team... So let's cut the best player on the OL! We'll go from bad to worse in no time. Maybe we should just stick with discussing things other than the Bills CW 460779[/snapback] Mike Williams is not the best player on our oline. Right now I'd have to say Gandy is. Maybe the biggest overrated bust. He almost sucks as much as Teague. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ajzepp Posted October 2, 2005 Share Posted October 2, 2005 Let's see, OL is the weakest part of our team... So let's cut the best player on the OL! We'll go from bad to worse in no time. Maybe we should just stick with discussing things other than the Bills CW 460779[/snapback] lol....Well my comments were more in response to his salary more than anything. I think most of us can agree that the guy is way overpaid. If we can plug someone else in there and get the same production for way less money, I'd be in favor of that. I love Big Mike, but he's not become the dominant force that we expected given his draft position. But I do agree, we seem to be of similar mind in the areas of HT and entertainment, but not so much with the Bills lol.....At least we're both die hard fans, though Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tcali Posted October 2, 2005 Share Posted October 2, 2005 on a scale of 1-10, with 1 being ACLU lawsuits to remove "Under God" from the Pledge of Allegiance and 10 being blowing oneself up to kill infidels in the name of Allah i'd say i'm a 2 460474[/snapback] lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
(2).thumb.jpeg.6e78fe3142ec9e6bfedbf027610db26f.jpeg)
Recommended Posts