Kelly the Dog Posted March 1, 2007 Share Posted March 1, 2007 except that Nate does nothing to stop the run, while Kelsay is a key component to the front 7. One Nate and one Denney is far better for the defense, pass defense, and run defense, than two Chris Kelsays. You could easily sign Nate today to a 4 year, 50 million dollar deal with 26 mil guaranteed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
todd Posted March 1, 2007 Share Posted March 1, 2007 I hate to say I told you so, but I've posted that his base salary was probably backloaded like this in response to all the chicken little farts around here. I'm glad that sometimes cooler heads prevail and people don't jump out windows. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted March 1, 2007 Share Posted March 1, 2007 I hate to say I told you so, but I've posted that his base salary was probably backloaded like this in response to all the chicken little farts around here. I'm glad that sometimes cooler heads prevail and people don't jump out windows. I wouldn't call that contract "backloaded" at all. More than half of it is guaranteed, and we have no idea when that money will be paid, and each year the salary goes up at a fairly steady pace. Only one quarter of the total deal is in the last two years, which is quite common of non backloaded contracts. A backloaded deal would have salaries in the 5-6 million range in the last two years, and usually means salaries the player is not likely to see. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
todd Posted March 1, 2007 Share Posted March 1, 2007 I wouldn't call that contract "backloaded" at all. More than half of it is guaranteed, and we have no idea when that money will be paid, and each year the salary goes up at a fairly stead pace. Only one quarter of the total deal is in the last two years, which is quite common of non backloaded contracts. A backloaded deal would have salaries in the 5-6 million range, and usually means salaries the player is not likely to see. To your point, I wouldn't call the contract backloaded, but the salary is. Jumping from 1 mil to 3.7 by the 4th seems backloaded to me. It seems backloaded for a solid player, not a star. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted March 1, 2007 Share Posted March 1, 2007 To your point, I wouldn't call the contract backloaded, but the salary is. Jumping from 1 mil to 3.7 by the 4th seems backloaded to me. It seems backloaded for a solid player, not a star. A four year, prototype non-backloaded contract in his range would be 1 mil, 2 mil, 3 mil, 4 mil. I really don't see much difference. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
obie_wan Posted March 1, 2007 Share Posted March 1, 2007 One Nate and one Denney is far better for the defense, pass defense, and run defense, than two Chris Kelsays. You could easily sign Nate today to a 4 year, 50 million dollar deal with 26 mil guaranteed. you could -- but the risk/reward doesn't support paying such big money to anyone other than a top flight QB. where would they be if Nate got injured, like Spikes. the team would be hamstrung for years to come. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted March 1, 2007 Share Posted March 1, 2007 you could -- but the risk/reward doesn't support paying such big money to anyone other than a top flight QB. where would they be if Nate got injured, like Spikes. the team would be hamstrung for years to come. Where would the Colts or the Pats be if Manning or Brady got hurt. That's kind of a foolish argument. Franchise figures for cornerbacks are the fourth highest of any position, ahead of LBs and RBs and WRs and DTs among others. That means a lot of teams in the NFL value and are willing to pay CBs a lot of money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
34-78-83 Posted March 1, 2007 Share Posted March 1, 2007 Just to add (based on previous comments), Nate Clements plays just fine against the run thankyou. In fact , he is one of the best Corners out there at run support. His price may be too high, but the run support agument cannot be used as a rationalization with him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
obie_wan Posted March 2, 2007 Share Posted March 2, 2007 Just to add (based on previous comments), Nate Clements plays just fine against the run thankyou. In fact , he is one of the best Corners out there at run support. His price may be too high, but the run support agument cannot be used as a rationalization with him. Bills were gouged by running up the gut. not quite sure how Nate helps with that problem. Building a strong front 7 is the key to being effective on defensive - which is why keeping Kelsey makes sense. continue on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
obie_wan Posted March 2, 2007 Share Posted March 2, 2007 Where would the Colts or the Pats be if Manning or Brady got hurt. That's kind of a foolish argument. Franchise figures for cornerbacks are the fourth highest of any position, ahead of LBs and RBs and WRs and DTs among others. That means a lot of teams in the NFL value and are willing to pay CBs a lot of money. Risk / reward. The reward from having a premiere QB who touches the ball on every offensive play is worht the risk of an injury. However, a CB who can only impact plays on his side of the field can be taken out of games by a good offense. When you add in the fact that our defense is designed to minimize the need for elite skills at CB, the risk of a big contract for a CB far outweigh the benefits. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
34-78-83 Posted March 2, 2007 Share Posted March 2, 2007 Bills were gouged by running up the gut. not quite sure how Nate helps with that problem. Building a strong front 7 is the key to being effective on defensive - which is why keeping Kelsey makes sense. continue on. I agree with all that now that you break it down but to say Nate did not help against the run is simply false. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted March 2, 2007 Share Posted March 2, 2007 In the Buff News this morning there is a breakdown of Kelsay's contract. It looks like he got a 8 million signing bonus and first year salary of 1 mil. There is also a 3 mil bonus for this year, but they were uncertain when that was scheduled to be paid. It better be next year, otherwise, Kelsay cost 12 million of our 30 million, which is far too much. I'm beginning to hate the "crap to the cap" policy more and more. And it's likely why Spikes is about to get released. http://buffalonews.com/editorial/20070302/1027966.asp Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts