H2o Posted August 22, 2006 Share Posted August 22, 2006 Read who's getting more PT this wee and at who's expense. http://billsdaily.com/news/index.shtml#082206 He may very well be cut by the end of the preseason. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Gross Posted August 22, 2006 Share Posted August 22, 2006 "Jauron did say not read anything into this move as far as the backup QB job goes, they just need to see more of Nall. " He did miss a lot of practice...they know what they have in Holcomb, for better or worse... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted August 22, 2006 Share Posted August 22, 2006 I think it is much more because Nall hasnt played much, played pretty decent, and they genuinely want to see him with the second stringers. They had already seen the game, and watched the film of the game, and haven't changed the depth chart (even though they already dropped Watson from it). And Jauron said don't read anything into it.I don't think Holcomb is gone, or even will be gone. I do think Nall will move up to #2 though, because of his arm. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Realist Posted August 22, 2006 Share Posted August 22, 2006 As of now, the only thing I reading from this, is Holcomb is not going to be the starter on opening day. But, I do think its very possible that Nall overtakes KH with a good game on Saturday, if he hasn't already. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K-gunner Posted August 22, 2006 Share Posted August 22, 2006 It can't happen fast enough...whatever "magic" he had in Cleveland,it sure stayed there.No way in hell Nall could be worse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HurlyBurly51 Posted August 22, 2006 Share Posted August 22, 2006 Read who's getting more PT this wee and at who's expense. http://billsdaily.com/news/index.shtml#082206 He may very well be cut by the end of the preseason. 749514[/snapback] Is this imminent that he will ultimately take a more eminent position elsewhere? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TigerJ Posted August 23, 2006 Share Posted August 23, 2006 That depends on whether or not a position out of football will be more eminent or not. It's certainly not imminent that Holcomb will become more eminent with the Bills. Jauron wants to see Nall work a little more in game conditions. I think it is likely that Nall could move up to second in the depth chart, but that is unrelated to the decision to play him more and Holcomb less or not at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H2o Posted August 23, 2006 Author Share Posted August 23, 2006 It's simple. Holcomb is getting solid back-up QB money. If he drops to 3rd on the depth chart, do you think they're gonna keep him? No way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2020 Our Year For Sure Posted August 23, 2006 Share Posted August 23, 2006 It's simple. Holcomb is getting solid back-up QB money. If he drops to 3rd on the depth chart, do you think they're gonna keep him? No way. 749917[/snapback] Actually, it costs more to cut him than it does it to keep him, plus they'd have to pay a new guy to come in. We'll actually save a decent chunk of change by just letting Holcomb sit on the bench all year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pyrite Gal Posted August 23, 2006 Share Posted August 23, 2006 It's simple. Holcomb is getting solid back-up QB money. If he drops to 3rd on the depth chart, do you think they're gonna keep him? No way. 749917[/snapback] KH has already been paid a bonus such that if the Bills were to cut him it would not result in any salary savings for the Bills but in fact they would pay him to carry the clipboard for someone else or sit at home on his couch to watch the games. Ralph clearly hates to pay $ for someone else to sit at home so is simple financially whether they keep him and the answer is WAY. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inkman Posted August 23, 2006 Share Posted August 23, 2006 We'll actually save a decent chunk of change by just letting Holcomb sit on the bench all year. 749996[/snapback] ...and that he will. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted August 23, 2006 Share Posted August 23, 2006 Actually, it costs more to cut him than it does it to keep him, plus they'd have to pay a new guy to come in. We'll actually save a decent chunk of change by just letting Holcomb sit on the bench all year. 749996[/snapback] Not more. But close. I think they gave him about a 2 million bonus. So it would only cost them 1.5 to cut him. He probably makes closer to 2 million a year counting his bonus. You're right though, we would have to pay a guy to replace him at at least one-third the 1.5, plus we really don't have a huge amount tied up in the QB position compared to most teams. A #1 pick at 24 or whatever Losman was is not a huge contract. The deal they gave Nall was not big, a 1.3 bonus. Chump change in the overall scheme of things. There isn't a good reason to cut KH unless there is some FA or yet to be cut guy that has some huge upside. Holcomb is still a decent back-up in this league if JP goes down. We don't know what we have in Nall. I surely would not want to go through the season with Craig Nall, Kliff Klingsbury and Craig Ochs if Losman goes down. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RuntheDamnBall Posted August 23, 2006 Share Posted August 23, 2006 Actually, it costs more to cut him than it does it to keep him, plus they'd have to pay a new guy to come in. We'll actually save a decent chunk of change by just letting Holcomb sit on the bench all year. 749996[/snapback] It costs more cap money, but not more cash. That could be saved to allow us the resources for spending next year or getting someone to extend. Tell me, would you rather have an extra half million to offer to your favorite free agent, or have it going to a noodle-armed benchwarmer with a few stellar games and a host of mediocre ones under his belt? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swift Sylvan Posted August 23, 2006 Share Posted August 23, 2006 I'd imagine that KH would do a very fine job holding a clipboard Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marv Levy Posted August 23, 2006 Share Posted August 23, 2006 The O line is everything and its something that the Bills don't have. DAMMIT!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramius Posted August 23, 2006 Share Posted August 23, 2006 I'd imagine that KH would do a very fine job holding a clipboard 750195[/snapback] Provided he holds it with his left arm, because i dont think his right one is strong enough. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H2o Posted August 23, 2006 Author Share Posted August 23, 2006 Actually, it costs more to cut him than it does it to keep him, plus they'd have to pay a new guy to come in. We'll actually save a decent chunk of change by just letting Holcomb sit on the bench all year. 749996[/snapback] It will cost us more this year and that's it. It would actually free up more money for next year. If you add up the rest of what he is owed, it totals more than the caphit we'd take this year. Also, we have a couple of QB's who could fill the 3rd spot. Tory Woodbury and Craig Ochs. Holcomb is a crappy little dink and dunk guy who can't even throw the ball 20 yards down the field on a straight line. Finally, who else do we need to get signed? Uhhhh, nobody. The caphit isn't going to hurt us that much if we dump his noodle arm. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sen. John Blutarsky Posted August 23, 2006 Share Posted August 23, 2006 That depends on whether or not a position out of football will be more eminent or not. It's certainly not imminent that Holcomb will become more eminent with the Bills. 749760[/snapback] Ahhh...the joys and pitfalls of homophones... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TigerJ Posted August 23, 2006 Share Posted August 23, 2006 Holcomb has 4 years left on his contract at a salary in 2006 of $875,000. http://www.rotoworld.com/content/playerpag...ort=NFL&ID=2604 I could not find any info on his signing bonus. Those who are saying it would cost 1.5 million against the cap, I assume know it is to be amortized over 2 years (post June 1). That works out to a remaining amortized bonus against the cap of $3 million, or $1 million per year over the three remaining years of his contract. If the Bills were to wait untill after the season, and cut Holcomb next offseason before June one, it would cost them $2 million one time versus $2.23 if he remains under contract. After June 1, however, that two year remaining bonus and be amortized to the cap over two years at a $1 million per year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted August 23, 2006 Share Posted August 23, 2006 Holcomb has 4 years left on his contract at a salary in 2006 of $875,000. http://www.rotoworld.com/content/playerpag...ort=NFL&ID=2604 I could not find any info on his signing bonus. Those who are saying it would cost 1.5 million against the cap, I assume know it is to be amortized over 2 years (post June 1). That works out to a remaining amortized bonus against the cap of $3 million, or $1 million per year over the three remaining years of his contract. If the Bills were to wait untill after the season, and cut Holcomb next offseason before June one, it would cost them $2 million one time versus $2.23 if he remains under contract. After June 1, however, that two year remaining bonus and be amortized to the cap over two years at a $1 million per year. 750341[/snapback] Well that site has him 3 years left, not 4. This year, 2007 and 2008. I thought he signed a four year deal with about a 2 million signing bonus. So they would be on the books for 1.5 of that this year. But no salary. If they wanted to they could spread it out after the June 1 rule but I think there is a different one in place this year. They have the money. Clump has his salary this year at 1.125 so he probably hit some incentives last year, plus a 200K bonus, plus the 500K for his amortized signing bonus. So if we keep him, it's 1.825 and if we cut him it's 1.5. The 325K savings probably isn't worth it just for money sake to cut him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts