Sound_n_Fury Posted December 30, 2005 Share Posted December 30, 2005 Doesn't seem that unreasonable, but it'll be interesting to see how large the bonus was for cap purposes. 2004 LB Salaries Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rico Posted December 30, 2005 Share Posted December 30, 2005 I would like to know who signed him...Donahoe or Modrak 545535[/snapback] TD loves to put $$$ into the LB unit... much more $$$ than most other teams. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VABills Posted December 30, 2005 Share Posted December 30, 2005 Doesn't seem that unreasonable, but it'll be interesting to see how large the bonus was for cap purposes. 2004 LB Salaries 545665[/snapback] Good link, but with that salary that puts Crowell in the top 30 salary wise as far as LBers go. Even or ahead of Suggs, Diggs, Bullock, Porter, Morgan. Sorry but Crowell by any stretch, and his being inactive early is not "starting quality" on a good football. He certainly is not top 30 in the NFL, and probably not top 100 lb in the NFL. This is a bad deal for the Bills. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
a player to be named later Posted December 30, 2005 Share Posted December 30, 2005 Salary's are from 2004. Does he make more than Posey? If we get Crowell for equal or lesser value than Posey I think we are all set. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted December 30, 2005 Share Posted December 30, 2005 Good link, but with that salary that puts Crowell in the top 30 salary wise as far as LBers go. Even or ahead of Suggs, Diggs, Bullock, Porter, Morgan. Sorry but Crowell by any stretch, and his being inactive early is not "starting quality" on a good football. He certainly is not top 30 in the NFL, and probably not top 100 lb in the NFL. This is a bad deal for the Bills. 545676[/snapback] I would assume that most signings/extensions of any starter at any position in the entire league puts that player in the upper 30 on that particular day. Surely, a year from now, (if he is a starter) Crowell will not be in the upper 30, two years from now he will likely be in the middle of the pack, and three years from now, still under contract, he will be closer to the lower 30 of LB starters in the league. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VABills Posted December 30, 2005 Share Posted December 30, 2005 Salary's are from 2004. Does he make more than Posey? If we get Crowell for equal or lesser value than Posey I think we are all set. 545682[/snapback] Based on the contract, looks like he is making 300-400k more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VABills Posted December 30, 2005 Share Posted December 30, 2005 I would assume that most signings/extensions of any starter at any position in the entire league puts that player in the upper 30 on that particular day. Surely, a year from now, (if he is a starter) Crowell will not be in the upper 30, two years from now he will likely be in the middle of the pack, and three years from now, still under contract, he will be closer to the lower 30 of LB starters in the league. 545686[/snapback] Regardless, at no time has Crowell proven that he should ever be in the top 30 LB's regardless of timing/resignings. This made no sense as he was a restricted FA, and could have been forced to sign for about 700K next year, unless a team was willing to offer him big money and a fairly high draft pick. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
34-78-83 Posted December 30, 2005 Share Posted December 30, 2005 Regardless, at no time has Crowell proven that he should ever be in the top 30 LB's regardless of timing/resignings. This made no sense as he was a restricted FA, and could have been forced to sign for about 700K next year, unless a team was willing to offer him big money and a fairly high draft pick. 545689[/snapback] It's called foresight. Guys mentioned like Suggs, etc. are going to far exceed these dollar figures once their time comes due. And again, if you look at all the starting WLB's in the league right now (which Crowell happens to be at this point), and look at their tackles/sacks/ints (ie. production) he is closer to the top than he is the bottom. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
d_wag Posted December 30, 2005 Share Posted December 30, 2005 Good link, but with that salary that puts Crowell in the top 30 salary wise as far as LBers go. Even or ahead of Suggs, Diggs, Bullock, Porter, Morgan. Sorry but Crowell by any stretch, and his being inactive early is not "starting quality" on a good football. He certainly is not top 30 in the NFL, and probably not top 100 lb in the NFL. This is a bad deal for the Bills. 545676[/snapback] i don't know how you figure those contracts are comparable...... crowell -- 6.5M/3 years.....2.1M average suggs -- still working under rookie contract........second contract will be double what crowell got....not a relevant example when discussing extensions to contracts diggs -- signed his contact 3 years ago.......only one of this bunch that is close to the average value of crowell, but the contact is outdated anyway......2.6M average bulluck -- in second year of severely backloaded 36M/5 year contract.......7.2M average porter -- in 4th year of 22.5M/6 year deal.......3.75M average morgan -- signed extension of 28M/5 years before season.......5.6M average please stick to the facts........ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VABills Posted December 30, 2005 Share Posted December 30, 2005 i don't know how you figure those contracts are comparable...... crowell -- 6.5M/3 years.....2.1M average suggs -- still working under rookie contract........second contract will be double what crowell got....not a relevant example when discussing extensions to contracts diggs -- signed his contact 3 years ago.......only one of this bunch that is close to the average value of crowell, but the contact is outdated anyway......2.6M average bulluck -- in second year of severely backloaded 36M/5 year contract.......7.2M average porter -- in 4th year of 22.5M/6 year deal.......3.75M average morgan -- signed extension of 28M/5 years before season.......5.6M average please stick to the facts........ 545712[/snapback] Why don't you look at the link? Those were the facts in the link. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
d_wag Posted December 30, 2005 Share Posted December 30, 2005 Based on the contract, looks like he is making 300-400k more. 545687[/snapback] what a load of crap..... posey is scheduled to count 2.1875 on the cap next year.......that is the average for crowell!!........his cap hit will likely be 1/2 to 2/3 of that number, putting him in the 1.08 to 1.44 range......therefore, even with the dead money from cutting posey, the bills will come out ahead....... try backing up some of these points your making.......they don't hold any water....... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
d_wag Posted December 30, 2005 Share Posted December 30, 2005 Why don't you look at the link? Those were the facts in the link. 545714[/snapback] ah, those are cap values and how much players earned in '04 only (notice i pointed out '04 -- this isn't even '05 we're looking at)......if you don't understand how that relates to OVERALL CONTACT VALUE then you have no idea how the salary cap works....... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ROCCEO Posted December 30, 2005 Share Posted December 30, 2005 Roles not withstanding, I believe Crowell to be a better football player than Posey any way you look at it. Posey is surely a specimen but it does little for him on the field while crowell is always all over the place doin stuff. If he improved in run support he'd be a very good LB. As it is he is above average. Bills fans are spoiled by having seen so many good LBs over the years that we forget what its like to field a squad of losers(see 2001). 2 million per year is peanuts. Crowell is active on the field AND in the stat sheet, which is some people's only frame of reference. To be honest I think that Crowell should look for a new agent because he was about a year away from making at least 10 mil over 4 years provided he didnt get injured. This deal is a steal for the Bills as I doubt cutting Crowell would ever cost us more than 1.5 in dead cap. this is clearly a case of a guy being better than his madden rating. One of the few bright spots on a crappy Defense this year. If he can learn to be a run stopper, hes a stud. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
R. Rich Posted December 30, 2005 Share Posted December 30, 2005 Crowell's nothing more than a backup. That's it. He's too small to be a good strongside LB. He sucks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VABills Posted December 30, 2005 Share Posted December 30, 2005 ah, those are cap values and how much players earned in '04 only (notice i pointed out '04 -- this isn't even '05 we're looking at)......if you don't understand how that relates to OVERALL CONTACT VALUE then you have no idea how the salary cap works....... 545719[/snapback] And if you are so knowledgable, rather than being a prick why don't you point to someplace with all of the salary cap info for all of these players. It really doesn't change that much from year to year and comparing LB's from last year to this year should be within 5% or so. That said, Crowell still would be in the top 30 LB's and doesn't deserve it regardless of of that small average increase. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
d_wag Posted December 30, 2005 Share Posted December 30, 2005 And if you are so knowledgable, rather than being a prick why don't you point to someplace with all of the salary cap info for all of these players. It really doesn't change that much from year to year and comparing LB's from last year to this year should be within 5% or so. That said, Crowell still would be in the top 30 LB's and doesn't deserve it regardless of of that small average increase. 545728[/snapback] i did post the information prick -- i posted the actual contracts, which are much more relevant to the conversation given that all we know about crowell's deal right now is the length and the overall amount.......the comparisons you were offered are completely off base (as i demonstrated) and hold no water...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
34-78-83 Posted December 30, 2005 Share Posted December 30, 2005 Crowell is in "stage 2" of his career contract-wise. To be fair , you can only compare him to guys at that level of contract or higher. That cannot be ignored IMO. See the Suggs reference from earlier. We got him cheap. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Astrobot Posted December 30, 2005 Share Posted December 30, 2005 I think this contract with Crowell is a signal that we aren't going after AJ Hawk in the first round, but rather are zeroing in on OT, DT, DE, TE. Even if we did go to the 3-4, we are assuirng that we have strength in the LB'er department. Crowell's tackles are on par with Spikes' tackles on a per game basis. I'd rather have Spikes in Spikes' old position and allow Crowell (with his aggressiveness and range) to have Posey's position, moving out Posey as the DE/OLB used in 3-4. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sound_n_Fury Posted December 30, 2005 Share Posted December 30, 2005 Good link, but with that salary that puts Crowell in the top 30 salary wise as far as LBers go. Even or ahead of Suggs, Diggs, Bullock, Porter, Morgan. Sorry but Crowell by any stretch, and his being inactive early is not "starting quality" on a good football. He certainly is not top 30 in the NFL, and probably not top 100 lb in the NFL. This is a bad deal for the Bills. 545676[/snapback] Here's some more fuel for the fire: Average For Top 100 LB salaries: ..............Base Salary.......Signing Bonus.......Other Bonus........Total Salary..........Cap Hit 2004......$1,104,066.........$1,171,294..........$152,779...........$2,428,139........$2,013,251 2001........$874,416............$933,125.............$68,997...........$2,159,305........$1,677,390 % Chg..........26.3%.................25.5%................121.4%.................12.5%.................20.0% Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
d_wag Posted December 30, 2005 Share Posted December 30, 2005 I think this contract with Crowell is a signal that we aren't going after AJ Hawk in the first round, but rather are zeroing in on OT, DT, DE, TE. Even if we did go to the 3-4, we are assuirng that we have strength in the LB'er department. Crowell's tackles are on par with Spikes' tackles on a per game basis. I'd rather have Spikes in Spikes' old position and allow Crowell (with his aggressiveness and range) to have Posey's position, moving out Posey as the DE/OLB used in 3-4. 545739[/snapback] what about OG? bennie is a waste of space what about C? teague is a free agent what about WR? moulds can walk if he wants to what about CB? if nate leaves there is no replacement on the roster there are needs a lot more pressing then TE.......we still haven't even seen what everett has to offer.......there are only 3 roster spots to begin with and i can't see them cutting euhus or campbell to make room for a rookie....... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts