HOW CAN WE NOT AFFORD NATE? ARE OTHER TEAMS 60 MILLION UNDER THE CAP

[THATHURMANATOR]

I just don't get it. We should be able to sign him and then some!!!

[cocamide]

Re: HOW CAN WE NOT AFFORD NATE? ARE OTHER TEAMS 60 MILLION UNDER THE CAP

I don't think it's that we can't afford him. It might just be that he's not worth all that money, and we would be better off addressing other issues.

[TacklingDummy]

Re: HOW CAN WE NOT AFFORD NATE? ARE OTHER TEAMS 60 MILLION UNDER THE CAP

HOW CAN WE NOT AFFORD NATE?

Because the Bills gave Lindell an extension.

[OpIv37]

Re: HOW CAN WE NOT AFFORD NATE? ARE OTHER TEAMS 60 MILLION UNDER THE CAP

I just don't get it. We should be able to sign him and then some!!!

damn, thurm, stop and think for a second.

First, we're 40 million under, not 60.

Second, we only have something like 25 players under contract and we need 47. So that money needs to pay 22 guys.

Third, we have huge holes on the DL that should be priority.

Fourth, we have cap space THIS year but we may not have it over the next few years. It's not worth the risk.

And finally, just because the Bills have the money doesn't make Nate worth the money. If Bill Gates wants to buy an Acura, should he have to pay Porsche money for it just because he can afford it? Nate is an Acura that think's he's a ****ing Porsche.

[JJamezz]

Re: HOW CAN WE NOT AFFORD NATE? ARE OTHER TEAMS 60 MILLION UNDER THE CAP

I don't think it's that we can't afford him. It might just be that he's not worth all that money, and we would be better off addressing other issues.

I agree.

It's all just more proof of the media bias against the Bills.. the truth is the Bills aren't STUPID enough to compete with the morons like Snyder who break the bank every year (seemingly just to make a splash, because it certainly never works out on the field for them..)

I do hate the insinuation that we CAN'T afford this guy and that guy..

[TacklingDummy]

Re: HOW CAN WE NOT AFFORD NATE? ARE OTHER TEAMS 60 MILLION UNDER THE CAP

Does anyone know what's the biggest signing bonus the Bills have ever gave someone?

[clumping platelets]

Re: HOW CAN WE NOT AFFORD NATE? ARE OTHER TEAMS 60 MILLION UNDER THE CAP

It's all about the guaranteed money.............

Is Nate worth $20 million in guaranteed money? Not in my book

What is the "opportunity cost" of re-signing Nate? could be huge if it prevents the Bills from bidding on other players......The Bills organization doesn't have the deep pockets like Snyder/Jones/etc........those owners can throw $60-70 million out in signing/roster bonuses....Bills are limited to much less, likely half as much..........how do you spend those limited resources to gain maximum return?

Spend $20 million in guarantees over 2-3 yrs on Nate

OR

Spend $20 million in guarantees on 4-5 players

[don137]

Re: HOW CAN WE NOT AFFORD NATE? ARE OTHER TEAMS 60 MILLION UNDER THE CAP

Yes, I agree with CP its about the guaranteed money and signing bonus money. The Bills do not have the luxory of throwing out huge guaranteed money with very high signing bonuses. Just because the salary cap is something like 109 Million teams with money actually spend much higher than that due to signing bonuses and fork out 150 million. RW is not going to do that. If we did that for Nate it would limit how much they can go after other players.

[eyedog]

Re: HOW CAN WE NOT AFFORD NATE? ARE OTHER TEAMS 60 MILLION UNDER THE CAP

Ok fine. So we are going to spend 20 m. in guarantees/bonuses on 4-5 players instead ? I can hardly wait to see the combo of these five bums instead of the one real player. Will it be something along the lines of Reyes, Fowler, Royal, Price, and Bowen ? Yippee ! Those type of players are real difference makers.

[eyedog]

Re: HOW CAN WE NOT AFFORD NATE? ARE OTHER TEAMS 60 MILLION UNDER THE CAP

You can literally sign five undrafted rookies out of college and get just about as much production, for a hell of a lot less money.

[patmoran2006]

Re: HOW CAN WE NOT AFFORD NATE? ARE OTHER TEAMS 60 MILLION UNDER THE CAP

I HONESTLY believe in this league when it comes to free agency that you get what you pay for...

Every now and then you find a FA or a player released from another team that nobody wanted (Flutie or Tasker) that come cheap and have a huge impact on your franchise.

but for the most part if you want a game-changing LB (Spikes, Paup) or a run stuffing DT (Adams) then you're going to have to go out and spend the money.

The Bills have a nice core of solid young players. Now what they need IMO is 2-3 PROVEN FA's at positions of need that will come in and from day ONE take over that spot and improve the team.

Given the fact whether you like it or not the fans of Buffalo are becoming a bit turned off by this team's long run of mediocre football-- and given the fact we do have cap space.. THIS is the year they need to go out and get a guy like Briggs or Freeney-- someone capable of coming and lifting this team to another level.

To me at least this statement right here is important:
Whether Fletch or Clements are worth the money or not is a good debate. Maybe they are and maybe their not. But one thing is for certain. If Buffalo lets them both walk and then goes out and signs a couple of 2nd or 3rd tier players to take their spots-- If this team gets off to a bad start in 2007 attendance is going to PLUMMET because the average fan will take this offseason as a sign that Wilson doesnt care about winning by letting well known players go and replacing them with projects.

[OpIv37]

Re: HOW CAN WE NOT AFFORD NATE? ARE OTHER TEAMS 60 MILLION UNDER THE CAP

I HONESTLY believe in this league when it comes to free agency that you get what you pay for...

You're half right. "you get what you pay for" applies to not going cheap- if you do that, you don't get results. Buffalo has proven that repeatedly.

However, the opposite does not apply- spending money does not guarantee success. The Washington Redskins have proven that repeatedly. Hell, look at Mike Williams. $9 million a year for jack ****.

You need to spend money to win in the NFL, but it needs to be spent wisely.

[patmoran2006]

Re: HOW CAN WE NOT AFFORD NATE? ARE OTHER TEAMS 60 MILLION UNDER THE CAP

I agree with that.. I should've elaborated better.

Washington is a perfect example of throwing money around stupidly, and I"m not suggesting Buffalo does that either.

What I'm saying is they need proven quality to replace players and especially in spots of need.

A truckload of Bowens, Royals, Price's, Nall's and Reyes' isnt going to do the trick this time around.

[Stewie]

Re: HOW CAN WE NOT AFFORD NATE? ARE OTHER TEAMS 60 MILLION UNDER THE CAP

It's all about the guaranteed money.............

Is Nate worth $20 million in guaranteed money? Not in my book

What is the "opportunity cost" of re-signing Nate? could be huge if it prevents the Bills from bidding on other players......The Bills organization doesn't have the deep pockets like Snyder/Jones/etc........those owners can throw $60-70 million out in signing/roster bonuses....Bills are limited to much less, likely half as much..........how do you spend those limited resources to gain maximum return?

Spend $20 million in guarantees over 2-3 yrs on Nate

OR

Spend $20 million in guarantees on 4-5 players

It's not a guarantee that spending money on 4-5 players is a better deal. When you only have 11 players on the field at a given time, playing this kind of "value" game is risky.

What you're essentially doing is going after less stellar players because you can sign them for contracts averaging $4m guaranteed. Presumably, you're signing these guys because you think they can play well enough to get on the field during games.

So if 3 of these figurative 5 guys plays on one side of the ball, the value move results in three "mediocre" players at on the field at once.

It's not automatic to assume that you get better value giving $20 million to 5 guys instead of one. Sometimes you need to keep the pieces that you know can get you there.

Personally, I don't think you pay any corner that much money to play in a cover-2 system, because effective corners can be had for less. It's too bad we cant franchise and trade Nate.