Hypothetical: If Big Mike moves to G...

[CentralVaBills]

best lineman, and dominates in the years to come (In fact, he becomes easily our best OL'man), would he be considered a failure at his current salary because he is a guard?

 

I have no motives here, I'm just wondering what people would think. Remember, it's a hypothetical, which we all hope would happen.

[Rico]

best lineman, and dominates in the years to come (In fact, he becomes easily our best OL'man), would he be considered a failure at his current salary because he is a guard? 

 

I have no motives here, I'm just wondering what people would think.  Remember, it's a hypothetical, which we all hope would happen.

500165[/snapback]

Just becoming "easily our best OL" isn't enough, he's arguably there right now.

IMO MW has to dominate like Larry Allen in his prime to even be considered halfway-decent value ...though even that's not really good enough, just way too much jack.

[BillsObserver]

best lineman, and dominates in the years to come (In fact, he becomes easily our best OL'man), would he be considered a failure at his current salary because he is a guard? 

 

I have no motives here, I'm just wondering what people would think.  Remember, it's a hypothetical, which we all hope would happen.

500165[/snapback]

 

That scenario may save him from becoming a total bust. Regardless, he will HAVE to take a paycut next season or he is gone. Simple economics at this point. If he is a guard, he can't be the highest paid guy on the team.

 

I was going to start a seperate thread to ask this question but I may as well do it here. The reason for Mike Williams not performing as well at the tackle position HAS to be because of the ankle injury from week 2. If that isn't the case, was last year a fluke when he started to play like an animal? The guy is starting to get healthy again so if he plays like he did last year, he should be a heck of a guard. The problem is keeping this softy healthy.

 

One more related question; does Jason Peters really deserve Mike Williams position after ONE start? I love Jason (notice how I avoided saying 'I love Peters') as much as anyone here, but I'm slightly concerned that they're forcing him in because of Williams' injury. I love the idea of getting him in there now and letting him develop on the line but to say Mike Williams lost this position is slightly unfair and I say this because Williams' played well last year and this year he has been battling that ankle sprain.

 

That being said, I'm still pleased they are making the move to get Bennie out of there. He flat out blows on pass protection and draws at least 2 penalties a game. I really hope Jason Peters works out in the RT position on a full time basis. He's a beast. I also hope Mike Williams becomes a monster at the guard position and sticks but is willing to take a good paycut next season. We simply can't afford him with his current cap hit playing the guard position.

[Mikie2times]

Looking at Mike Williams’s value compared to the rest of the team and he still isn't worth it. Looking at the entire lines value, including Williams in this scenario, and it would be worth it.

 

With Peters at RT, Preston at C, Gandy at LT, and Vill at RG, the rest of the line would be relatively cheap. I look at us allocating a block of money to the different positions, and I would say that compared to the rest of the league our OL would be very affordable. Since we can't cut Big Mike we should try and extend him. Maybe give him some upfront money to motivate him to lower his cap hit over the next few years.

[sfladave]

Looking at Mike Williams’s value compared to the rest of the team and he still isn't worth it. Looking at the entire lines value, including Williams in this scenario, and it would be worth it. 

 

With Peters at RT, Preston at C, Gandy at LT, and Vill at RG, the rest of the line would be relatively cheap.  I look at us allocating a block of money to the different positions, and I would say that compared to the rest of the league our OL would be very affordable. Since we can't cut Big Mike we should try and extend him. Maybe give him some upfront money to motivate him to lower his cap hit over the next few years.

500173[/snapback]

He is not allowed to even agree to a pay cut of more than 10% per the current collective bargaining agreement. (I think that is the right %)

 

If he moves to LG permantently the only way to lower his salary is a long term extention with some sort of signing bonus.

[Mikie2times]

He is not allowed to even agree to a pay cut of more than 10% per the current collective bargaining agreement. (I think that is the right %)

 

If he moves to LG permantently the only way to lower his salary is a long term extention with some sort of signing bonus.

500208[/snapback]

 

That's why I said give him some upfront money, as in signing bonus.

 

We've done this with Moulds, and I think we can make it work with Mike. Most players want that guaranteed up front money because they know their one injury away from there last payday.

[Rico]

That's why I said give him some upfront money, as in signing bonus.

 

We've done this with Moulds, and I think we can make it work with Mike. Most players want that guaranteed up front money because they know their one injury away from there last payday.

500210[/snapback]

Please show an example of how you can make this work,

I don't think it can be done.

[TC in St. Louis]

I'm not sure if this move is because Jason Peters is better than Mike Williams. Maybe Jason is better than Bennie Anderson, and they feel it would be an easier adjustment to put MW at guard than JP.

[Mikie2times]

Please show an example of how you can make this work,

I don't think it can be done.

500215[/snapback]

 

I'm no cap expert, so if we can't do it we can't do it. I am however familiar enough with the cap, and how it pertains to Williams in regard to us not being able to cut him, or trade him. As I originally said the rest of the line is economical enough for Mike not to kill us. Besides what choice do we have?

[Rico]

I'm no cap expert, so if we can't do it we can't do it. I am however familiar enough with the cap, and how it pertains to Williams in regard to us not being able to cut him, or trade him. As I originally said the rest of the line is economical enough for Mike not to kill us. Besides what choice do we have?

500218[/snapback]

It's a big mess anyway you look at it, but I think the worst thing TD could do is extend him.

I would have to say cut him before his 2006 roster bonus kicks in. This is the least expensive of all possible moves, and it is also the cleanest.

[macaroni]

Hypothetical answer ....................... assume big Mike was not on the roster .... would we be willing go out and get a good/great left guard and make him the highest paid member of the team????

 

 

In Mike's defense .......... the situation is what it is ....... he is getting paid what the organization thought he'd be worth for some reason or another (I think the brain trust thought he would easily convert to a dominating LT therefore his "price tag" would be reasonable). I just don't know what would motivate him to take a paycut, so if it will take an unpalitable cap hit to get rid of him, I think we're stuck with the hope he starts to dominate whereever he plays.

[plenzmd1]

He is not allowed to even agree to a pay cut of more than 10% per the current collective bargaining agreement. (I think that is the right %)

 

If he moves to LG permantently the only way to lower his salary is a long term extention with some sort of signing bonus.

500208[/snapback]

 

I have never heard of this. Not saying not right, just never heard of that 10% rule. I think he can restructure any way he wants, the Bills can sure restructure it all the way down to zero

 

(edit)Ahh, now that i reread your post, the new money might be the key.

[Albany,n.y.]

He is not allowed to even agree to a pay cut of more than 10% per the current collective bargaining agreement. (I think that is the right %)

 

If he moves to LG permantently the only way to lower his salary is a long term extention with some sort of signing bonus.

500208[/snapback]

 

There's a way around this. He can be cut & re-signed. Once he is cut, his contract is voided and he can be signed for the minimum or anything above minimum. Since he'll have 4 years in, he is not subject to waivers-he's a free agent who can sign with any team-including the Bills. Years ago the Bills cut Tasker for a game with a side deal he'd re-sign on Monday. If MW is willing to take a pay cut, he can stay with the Bills. Here's the definition of waivers. It was taken from a site that referenced 1999, although it quotes it comes from 2005:

 

The following explanation was found in the 2005 NFL Record & Fact Book. "The waiver system is a procedure by which player contracts or NFL rights to players are made available by a club to other clubs in the league. During the procedure, the 30 other clubs either file claims to obtain the players or waive the opportunity to do so - thus the term "waiver." Claiming clubs are assigned players on a priority based on the inverse of won-and-lost standing. The claiming period is three business days from the beginning of the League Year through April 30, 10 days from May 1 through the last business day before July 4, and 24 hours after July 4 through the conclusion of the regular season. If a player passes through waivers unclaimed, he becomes a free agent. All waivers are no recall and no withdrawal. Under the CBA, from the beginning of the waiver system each year through the trading dealine (October 19 1999), any veteran who has acquired four years of pension credit is not subject to the waiver system if the club desires to release him. After the trading deadline, such players are subject to the waiver system."

[Buffalo_Stampede]

Hypothetical answer ....................... assume big Mike was not on the roster .... would we be willing go out and get a good/great left guard and make him the highest paid member of the team????

In Mike's defense .......... the situation is what it is ....... he is getting paid what the organization thought he'd be worth for some reason or another (I think the brain trust thought he would easily convert to a dominating LT therefore his "price tag" would be reasonable). I just don't know what would motivate him to take a paycut, so if it will take an unpalitable cap hit to get rid of him, I think we're stuck with the hope he starts to dominate whereever he plays.

500269[/snapback]

 

Yes. People are obsessed with the LT spot and cant see anything else. The Reality is, your only as strong as your Center and OG's. If they are weak, it doesnt matter who you have on the outside.

 

OG's are geting paid alot of money now. Not as often as OT's, but still, the Good ones are getting paid.

[34-78-83]

Yes.  People are obsessed with the LT spot and cant see anything else.  The Reality is, your only as strong as your Center and OG's.  If they are weak, it doesnt matter who you have on the outside.

 

OG's are geting paid alot of money now.  Not as often as OT's, but still, the Good ones are getting paid.

500288[/snapback]

 

A very true statement. People are still stuck in 1980's football where a "LT must make x amount of $" and " a LG can only make x amount", etc. If your player is one of the 5 starting linemen AND contributing in high degree to having some success (this is yet to be seen with MW) on said line, it really doesn't matter if he falls into some sort of pay hierarchy, especially when potentially you have a decent starting tackle who came in as a street free agent. Do I think that MW still needs to restructure his salary? Yes, but there is certainly more than one successful way to build an O-line.

 

- I like what we have (generally speaking) in Teague, Chris V, Preston, and Peters.

-MW is now a question mark at LG but we'll find out soon enough, and he is certainly atleast a fair to good RT based on his play for @ 10 games last year and this year when healthy.

-Gandy has been serviceable, and played decent so far but likely can and should be upgraded.

- Considereing these things, it appears the Bills are probably only a very good tackle away from having a group of guys to make a line that can be more than just average, depending also on where Preston shakes out to (C or G). Overall, salary wise, this does not project to be an "overpaid" group when you look at it as a unit.

 

Just some opinions from a rose colored glasses wearing fan that doesn't know anything about football.

[CentralVaBills]

Just some opinions from  a rose colored glasses wearing fan that doesn't know anything about football. 

500302[/snapback]

LOL, don't worry, hopefully my tickets will knock a little sense into ya, and we'll get back to being a respectable football team again.

 

Enjoy the game!

[34-78-83]

LOL, don't worry, hopefully my tickets will knock a little sense into ya, and we'll get back to being a respectable football team again.

 

Enjoy the game!

500314[/snapback]

 

Thanks again Central!

 

Maybe I'll start watching the ball again like I'm supposed to

[Fake-Fat Sunny]

There's a way around this.  He can be cut & re-signed.  Once he is cut, his contract is voided and he can be signed for the minimum or anything above minimum.  Since he'll have 4 years in, he is not subject to waivers-he's a free agent who can sign with any team-including the Bills.  Years ago the Bills cut Tasker for a game with a side deal he'd re-sign on Monday.  If MW is willing to take a pay cut, he can stay with the Bills.  Here's the definition of waivers.  It was taken from a site that referenced 1999, although it quotes it comes from 2005:

 

The following explanation was found in the 2005 NFL Record & Fact Book.  "The waiver system is a procedure by which player contracts or NFL rights to players are made available by a club to other clubs in the league. During the procedure, the 30 other clubs either file claims to obtain the players or waive the opportunity to do so - thus the term "waiver." Claiming clubs are assigned players on a priority based on the inverse of won-and-lost standing. The claiming period is three business days from the beginning of the League Year through April 30, 10 days from May 1 through the last business day before July 4, and 24 hours after July 4 through the conclusion of the regular season. If a player passes through waivers unclaimed, he becomes a free agent. All waivers are no recall and no withdrawal. Under the CBA, from the beginning of the waiver system each year through the trading dealine (October 19 1999), any veteran who has acquired four years of pension credit is not subject to the waiver system if the club desires to release him. After the trading deadline, such players are subject to the waiver system."

500280[/snapback]

 

My recollection is that the NFL and NFLPA have figured out this dodge and agreed within the Collective bargaining Agreement to make this illegal. If teams had the ability to reduce plaer salaries by simply cutting them and resigning them it would provide a method which cuts against the general approach of the NFLPA to have salaries grow and grow.

 

From the NFL standpoint,they do not like any systems which tends individual teams into trying to game the system for competitive advantage. The NFL has tried to minimize their having to make judgments between teams which create friction among its individual members. The CBA creates a level playing field in which all the teams compete with each other under the same rules and a deal where a player and his team collude to avoid the rules such as an agreement to cut and resign with same team are frowned upon and in fact banned.

 

The CBA is a complex document which can be found at NFLPA.org. The language somewhere in pages 130 or so govern these types of situtation and my recollection is that if a team cuts a player they cannot resign him for a certain period of time which would force the team to hold open a roster spot and this is enough of a disincentive to players or teams trying this little game.

[DeeRay]

if mike williams moves to guard and becomes the bills best lineman and dominates (we're taliking all pro here) for years to come...

 

1) i won't have a problem with his salary, certainly when ruben brown was making almost as much as williams.

 

2) i will personally ask to be the halftime entertainment at a bills game and kiss your bare ass at the 50 yard line in front of a full stadium.

[Spiderweb]

Please show an example of how you can make this work,

I don't think it can be done.

500215[/snapback]

That's why teams backload contracts. On paper, it's not a cut in pay, but the reality is that a player will never see the last year or two of their contracts.

[Rico]

That's why teams backload contracts. On paper, it's not a cut in pay, but the reality is that a player will never see the last year or two of their contracts.

500429[/snapback]

OK. Now, if (hypothetically speaking) you were an arbitrator between TD & MW, can you or anyone else show a possible scenario for an extension that will come close to pleasing both sides? I still say it can't be done without an actual paycut (too much $$$ still owed), and I'd like to be proven wrong.

[Bflojohn]

I think the mantra that "we" are getting the best five out there is sound enough, but how about this? Everyone knows Mike Williams can play RT and initially Jason Peters was destined for LT. Simply put, this move is "only" two players playing new positions, but next year what's to stop them from going with Peters at LT, Williams at RT and Gandy at LG? This way, Peters gets "live" action for eight games and Williams also sees action at LG. Next year under Jim McNally, I could see this being the eventual solution overall.

[BB2004]

best lineman, and dominates in the years to come (In fact, he becomes easily our best OL'man), would he be considered a failure at his current salary because he is a guard? 

 

I have no motives here, I'm just wondering what people would think.  Remember, it's a hypothetical, which we all hope would happen.

500165[/snapback]

 

A few years back in 2000, we signed Ruben Brown to a very high contract as a left guard. I don't think it was nearly as high of a contract as Mike Williams is getting. I would say that to pay him that type of money to play left guard is way to pricey. If he takes a reasonable paycut, one that's good for him and the team, then he'll most likely stay.

[Shamrock]

MW has to dominate like Larry Allen in his prime to even be considered halfway-decent value ...

 

...that's a high standard to measure up too- if only