Browns expected to pursue Clements, Steinbach

[patmoran2006]

http://www.chroniclet.com/Daily%20Pages/022107sports6.html

[RockStar36]

So...Clements will either go there and never make the playoffs or have a season ending injury in the pre-season, right?

[OpIv37]

let them sign Clements- then they won't be able to afford Steinbach and it will be one less team we have to compete with for his services.

[TacklingDummy]

let them sign Clements- then they won't be able to afford Steinbach and it will be one less team we have to compete with for his services.

Yeah, because Clements is going to eat up all $26 million the Browns have in cap room.

[OpIv37]

Yeah, because Clements is going to eat up all $26 million the Browns have in cap room.

no, but depending on how they amortize his bonus, he could easily eat up $10-$12 million. And it's the BROWNS. They have needs beyond CB and OL.

[Carlton Bailey]

Randy Lerner: A man who doesn't subscribe to "cash to take a crap."

[TacklingDummy]

And it's the BROWNS. They have needs beyond CB and OL.

As do the Bills.

It doesn't send a good message to players looking to come to Buffalo that the Bills are only going to spend up to the cap. Some players want a ring to go along with their money.

[OpIv37]

As do the Bills.

It doesn't send a good message to players looking to come to Buffalo that the Bills are only going to spend up to the cap. Some players want a ring to go along with their money.

agreed.

[patmoran2006]

the fact that we could not tag Clements this year, to either keep him or more likely trade and get anything of value for him, is absolutely brutal.
Marv's move last year was one of the single-worst moves I've ever seen a GM make in my entire life.
Even a third round pick for Clements were we able to tag him right now would've been extremely beneficiary. Instead, we hired him for one season on a mediocre team my grandmother could've seen wasn't making the playoffs. So we improve as the year goes on and then let our top defender hit the open market and get absolutely nada in return for it

[Mr. Miyagi]

the fact that we could not tag Clements this year, to either keep him or more likely trade and get anything of value for him, is absolutely brutal.
Marv's move last year was one of the single-worst moves I've ever seen a GM make in my entire life.
Even a third round pick for Clements were we able to tag him right now would've been extremely beneficiary. Instead, we hired him for one season on a mediocre team my grandmother could've seen wasn't making the playoffs. So we improve as the year goes on and then let our top defender hit the open market and get absolutely nada in return for it
If we had tagged Clements, teams would need to give up 2 1st rounders to trade for him. No one would give that up for Clements and we'd be stuck with paying him top 5 money.

Let the guy walk. He's not as good as he thinks he is.

[Devin]

the fact that we could not tag Clements this year, to either keep him or more likely trade and get anything of value for him, is absolutely brutal.
Marv's move last year was one of the single-worst moves I've ever seen a GM make in my entire life.

Unfortunatley I have to agree.

Id have let him hold out before giving him that promise. That was a bonehead move, I realize he would have thrown a temper tantrum and all but not having that chip to use on him this year blows ass.

Marv screwed up there.

[patmoran2006]

If we had tagged Clements, teams would need to give up 2 1st rounders to trade for him. No one would give that up for Clements and we'd be stuck with paying him top 5 money.

Let the guy walk. He's not as good as he thinks he is.
No, teams would have to give up two first rounders for him if they signed him... Had we tagged him this year, we could have willingly traded up to a team, for a first rounder, a second, a fifth rounder, whatever we could get

[patmoran2006]

If we had tagged Clements, teams would need to give up 2 1st rounders to trade for him. No one would give that up for Clements and we'd be stuck with paying him top 5 money.

Let the guy walk. He's not as good as he thinks he is.
oops.. repeat post.. edited

[Dr. Lecter]

It was a really bad move by marv last year there's no getting around it, and it costed us a first day pick this year.

No it wasn't, at least not necessarily.

If the Bills did not make that promise he likely would have held out.

Secondly, his tagging would have immediately cost the Bills 12 million or so against the cap. That would have limited or stopped the Bills from making moves early in free agency this year.

So when actually looks into what the ramifications of tagging Nate again would have been, the move looks rather insiginificant.

[Devin]

While i see your point I disagree.

Nate would have brought something from another team, there is tons of interest we would have been able to move him.

[Dr. Lecter]

While i see your point I disagree.

Nate would have brought something from another team, there is tons of interest we would have been able to move him.

But when?

March 2? March 31?

My point is that it is not a certainy Marv messed up. Applying the tag again does nave negative ramifications.

To call it the single worst move a GM ever made is ignoring several reasons why it was NOT a bad move and is typical of the over-reacting hysteria that has become an epidemic on this board recently.

[OpIv37]

Secondly, his tagging would have immediately cost the Bills 12 million or so against the cap. That would have limited or stopped the Bills from making moves early in free agency this year.


but Marv already said that we're not making moves in FA this year. So we wouldn't have lost anything by franchising Clements this year in that respect.

And if Clements held out last year, it would have forced Youboty into action before he was ready, at least as a nickel. Yeah, it would have hurt us on the scoreboard, but we didn't make the playoffs anyway. And Youboty would have some experience.

Marv blew it.

[Dr. Lecter]

but Marv already said that we're not making moves in FA this year. So we wouldn't have lost anything by franchising Clements this year in that respect.

And if Clements held out last year, it would have forced Youboty into action before he was ready, at least as a nickel. Yeah, it would have hurt us on the scoreboard, but we didn't make the playoffs anyway. And Youboty would have some experience.

Marv blew it.

Can you provide a quote or some back-up for that one? Don't take WGR's twist and spin as truth and gospel.

The Bills would have had 12 million less to spend when FA started had they tagged Nate again. Yes, they could have gotten a pick at some point (1st or 2nd guess). Would have then been worth the wait and loss of potential FA's to get that pic?

[patmoran2006]

No it wasn't, at least not necessarily.

If the Bills did not make that promise he likely would have held out.

Secondly, his tagging would have immediately cost the Bills 12 million or so against the cap. That would have limited or stopped the Bills from making moves early in free agency this year.

So when actually looks into what the ramifications of tagging Nate again would have been, the move looks rather insiginificant.
Bull**** and even you, Captain Defender can't make that right..

If he holds out last year, its HIS loss. He's the one who doesnt get paid. We were far from a playoff team with or without him. Or we could've traded him last year if he held out if we chose. At least we would get SOMETHING for him. The bottom line is he played Marv and Marv was naive enough to agree to a really STUPID deal.

And if we tagged him this year (it wouldn't be 12 million either), who cares what it immediately costed against the cap. It's pretty obvious we're not going to be in any rush to go out and spend money. The Bills don't need to worry; scores of players that no other GM but Levy wants like the Robert Royals, Matt Bowens and Craig Nall's will stll be waiting around to get signed.

Even the average fan knew a year ahead of time that Clements would go on the market and be one of if not the most attractive FA out there. Are you telling me our ****ing GM was incapable of recognizing this a year ago?

So because of his either ignorance to today's football, being naive, I dont know what. But we lose a player that likely a dozen teams will bid for, and we get absolutely NOTHING for him. At worst, we could've gotten a late first day pick for him, which considering this team is pretty much starting every rookie they draft or bring onto the field for the matter, would be an important pick.

Christ, even Tom Donahoe knew how to get something out of using the Franchise tag. He never had any intention of keeping Peerless Price with his price tag, yet was able to land a free first round draft pick for him.

It was a totally stupid move by Marv Levy, so STOP being a homer and trying to defend everything.

[patmoran2006]

Can you provide a quote or some back-up for that one? Don't take WGR's twist and spin as truth and gospel.

The Bills would have had 12 million less to spend when FA started had they tagged Nate again. Yes, they could have gotten a pick at some point (1st or 2nd guess). Would have then been worth the wait and loss of potential FA's to get that pic?
LMAO.. What free agents?

[Dr. Lecter]

I am not defending everything.

I am simply looking into reasons why actions were taken like they were.

First off, despite what you think it is not always easy to tag and trade guys. How often does this happen in the NFL? Do you think it some easy little secret that only you have figured out? Now, I understand that you are more knowledgable and intelligent than 99% of the NFL GM's out there, but take a step back: Are you telling me that nobody else has this trick figured out?

And him holding out hurts both him AND the Bills. Not realizing that is being blind and obtuse to the facts.

As for the amount it would have cost, it was damn close to 12 million. It is 20% (Clump is that amount correct?) MORE than last years tag amount.

This is unbeleivable: You ***** that the Bills won't sign anybody (When you have no ****ing clue if they will or won't). And yet you want them to make it impossible to sign players by tying up a large amount of cap space on one over-rated player. By not having this room taken up Nate, the Bills have the opportunity to at least try and sign some players.

Calling this the worst move ever by a GM is moronic.

[Dr. Lecter]

LMAO.. What free agents?

You see, if you assume the Bills are not signing anybody, you are correct (to a point).

[OpIv37]

Can you provide a quote or some back-up for that one? Don't take WGR's twist and spin as truth and gospel.

The Bills would have had 12 million less to spend when FA started had they tagged Nate again. Yes, they could have gotten a pick at some point (1st or 2nd guess). Would have then been worth the wait and loss of potential FA's to get that pic?

take the spin however you want. We're 33 million under the cap. Marv said we won't be active in FA. If Nate had 12 million tied up, we'd still have 21 million left. Based on what Marv said we would try to do in FA, that sounds like more than enough to do what he wants.

[Dr. Lecter]

He never said we would not be active in FA. He said it would be more focused.

[patmoran2006]

Instead of beating around the bush, he could've just said I want some champagne, but Wilson will only give me beer money. "hope you guys like Piels"

[Dr. Lecter]

Good. I don't like champange and it gives me a headache.


I prefer beer. I have never seen anybody pick up a super model drinking the snooty stuff anyway.

[Ron Burgundy]

Wow.

This one's low even for you, Lecter.

Pat and Op are on point with this one, absolutely. Marv never should have made that stupid promise to Clements.

[Devin]

But when?

March 2? March 31?

My point is that it is not a certainy Marv messed up. Applying the tag again does nave negative ramifications.

To call it the single worst move a GM ever made is ignoring several reasons why it was NOT a bad move and is typical of the over-reacting hysteria that has become an epidemic on this board recently.

Marv has been in office for a little over a full calendar year, so calling it the worst move hes made to date as GM is not a stretch.

Of course there was reasoning behind it, Marv isnt a dumbass. But when weighing the pros and cons (especially now) IMO it appears he made a mistake. Given the way the market is this year and all the players currently tagged, and factoring in all the cap space we have I think the options would have been there. But whatever hindsights a *****.

I trust Marv completley, and think he will do alright this year. I just think Clements getting away scott free hurts a whole lot more then it helps.

But I dont work in the NFL for a reason so at the end of the day who cares really.

[Jeff1220]

I won't argue that, at this point, it would certainly be nice to be able to get anything of value for NC because of course iot would be. However, hindsight is 20/20 and we're all just being a bunch of Monday morning QBs at this point (sorry about throwing 2 cliches out there it once. That even made me cringe a little.)

Anyway, last year, my take on Marv agreeing to NOT tag Nate was sort of like him saying, "I'll get a year to evaluate this player and how he adjusts to the system. If he appears worth it, we pay him. If not, we let him walk while someone else pays him the big bucks."

When Marv made the decision to not tag him, that seemed like a move, to me, that might've endeared the Bills FO to potential signees. Let's face it, players hate the tag and don't really look fondly on being played around with in being tagged year in and year out. Marv gave what seemed fair. It might not have been a good business move outright, but the fact that Marv did what was actually fair and kept to his word speaks volumes to the rest of the players in the NFL about who they could be playing for. Whether that translates into Ws remains to be seen, but that is now the nature of this front office. There are worse things to be known for around the league.

[Dr. Lecter]

Wow.

This one's low even for you, Lecter.

Pat and Op are on point with this one, absolutely. Marv never should have made that stupid promise to Clements.

Low even for me???

WTF is that supposed to mean?

Point is, the issue is not black and white, regardless of what people think. I would have preferred to not have the promise made, but there are definetly reasons it was not and I doubt Nate would have been franchised again.


Taking a purely surface look at this is and thinking about the reasons behind it is pretty slow, even for a Southerner.

The Bills would have been nearly dead in the water on 3/1 with a instant 12 million $ caop hit, a point none of have been able to refute.

I do appreciate Devin and Op at least reading what I write though and thinking about it.

[Dr. Lecter]

Marv has been in office for a little over a full calendar year, so calling it the worst move hes made to date as GM is not a stretch.



Worst move he ever made and worst move by any GM are two different things. Pat claimed the latter.

Tell me, can you think of other moves made by GMs that are worse?

I sure as hell can.

[Ron Burgundy]

Low even for me???

WTF is that supposed to mean?
Y'know, dumber than usual.


Point is, the issue is not black and white, regardless of what people think. I would have preferred to not have the promise made, but there are definetly reasons it was not and I doubt Nate would have been franchised again.
Why would you not franchise him this year?


Taking a purely surface look at this is and thinking about the reasons behind it is pretty slow, even for a Southerner.

I must be slow, 'cause that didn't make a lick of sense.

Rephrase that and I'll be happy to respond.


The Bills would have been nearly dead in the water on 3/1 with a instant 12 million $ caop hit, a point none of have been able to refute.
Dead in the water? How? Are you telling me that we're spending over 21 million dollars (or whatever) on the first day of free agency?


I do appreciate Devin and Op at least reading what I write though and thinking about it.
Okay. If you're done tickling taint, here's the point: it was a mistake to promise Nate that we wouldn't franchise him. I haven't really felt the need to explain it because it's been spelled out for you about 5 times already.

For example:



Bull**** and even you, Captain Defender can't make that right..

If he holds out last year, its HIS loss. He's the one who doesnt get paid. We were far from a playoff team with or without him. Or we could've traded him last year if he held out if we chose. At least we would get SOMETHING for him. The bottom line is he played Marv and Marv was naive enough to agree to a really STUPID deal.

And if we tagged him this year (it wouldn't be 12 million either), who cares what it immediately costed against the cap. It's pretty obvious we're not going to be in any rush to go out and spend money. The Bills don't need to worry; scores of players that no other GM but Levy wants like the Robert Royals, Matt Bowens and Craig Nall's will stll be waiting around to get signed.

Even the average fan knew a year ahead of time that Clements would go on the market and be one of if not the most attractive FA out there. Are you telling me our ****ing GM was incapable of recognizing this a year ago?

So because of his either ignorance to today's football, being naive, I dont know what. But we lose a player that likely a dozen teams will bid for, and we get absolutely NOTHING for him. At worst, we could've gotten a late first day pick for him, which considering this team is pretty much starting every rookie they draft or bring onto the field for the matter, would be an important pick.

Christ, even Tom Donahoe knew how to get something out of using the Franchise tag. He never had any intention of keeping Peerless Price with his price tag, yet was able to land a free first round draft pick for him.

It was a totally stupid move by Marv Levy, so STOP being a homer and trying to defend everything.
Or:




take the spin however you want. We're 33 million under the cap. Marv said we won't be active in FA. If Nate had 12 million tied up, we'd still have 21 million left. Based on what Marv said we would try to do in FA, that sounds like more than enough to do what he wants.

Then, of course, we have the fact that we'd be flush again as soon as we traded Nate...which is not even remotely far-fetched.

[Philagape]

Do franchised players get signing bonuses? I would think not, because we don't have to attract them, but someone correct me if they do.

If that's the case, the tag would look real good to a "cash to cap" team.

[Dr. Lecter]

Dead in the water? How? Are you telling me that we're spending over 21 million dollars (or whatever) on the first day of free agency?


Once again, you put the 'tard in ******.

It is not just about the 1st day of free Agency. It is about not having sufficient space UNTIL a trade is made. So if it takes the Bills until the end of the month to make the move, then it takes until the end of the month to have all of the space.

It is also about getting him last year, with a new defense and two rookies in the defensive backfield.

In all honesty, it might have been good to trade him last year. With or without the promise, I doubt he would have been tagged again.

[Devin]

Worst move he ever made and worst move by any GM are two different things. Pat claimed the latter.

Tell me, can you think of other moves made by GMs that are worse?

I sure as hell can.

Of course I wouldnt call this the worse move by a GM ever lol.

Matt Millen has like 4 of those awards.

Just a bad move is all.

[BillsFever21]

Can you provide a quote or some back-up for that one? Don't take WGR's twist and spin as truth and gospel.

The Bills would have had 12 million less to spend when FA started had they tagged Nate again. Yes, they could have gotten a pick at some point (1st or 2nd guess). Would have then been worth the wait and loss of potential FA's to get that pic?

For starters it wouldn't cost 12 million on the cap for him. More like 8-8.5 million.

We have over 30 million in cap space. Add in 8-9 million and we still have 24-25 million in cap space with his money on the cap.

Do you really think we're gonna be jumping out of the gates signing big contracts and eating up 20 million in cap space? LOL

We will be lucky to use up a little more then 20 million in cap space during the entire offseason let alone the first week of free agency.

Marv already said they're not spending more then the cap. That means if we have 30 million that's all they're spending with the bonuses included. I said this a few days before his pathetic and unprepared news conference and that cements it. Even thought certain homers tried to say otherwise. Chalk up one more time I'm unfortunately right and they're wrong.

Anybody who thinks tagging Nate would've prevented us from signing FA's is totally a lost blind sole to the garbage this team is throwing out. I think we would've had enough cap space for the Robert Royal's, Peerless Price's and Matt Bowen's of the NFL free agency this year.

This is gonna be another offseason of garbage signings of guys for 2 million a year. So the Bills have 30 million in cap space and that's all they're gonna spend PERIOD. No spreading out the bonuses on the cap to afford other players.

What happens in a year or two when Losman AND Evans are both FA's? We will never dish out the money for both of them. It would cost 35 million in bonses and over 80 million in contracts to lock up both of them guys in a couple years if they continue to progress.

Anybody who thinks we're going after Steinbach of Cato June midas well get rid of the pipe dream. If all we're spending is around 25 million or so they aren't gonna go out and sign Steinbach to a 10 million dollar bonus and a 2 million dollar salary or so. That would be about 12 million of our 25 right then and there.

Leave it to the Bills to be the ones who invent the theory of "cash to the cap". Between that and how grossly unprepared Levy was for that press conference this team is a total joke. The other players see that stuff right there and they would never wanna sign with us anyway. Even if they were lucky enough to get paid they will know the Bills won't consistently pay players to keep the team competitive or take them to the next level anyway.

I can imagine what Losman and Evans are thinking right now. I'm sure they are even thinking about whether they would even wanna sign with us if they offered them the money. They wouldn't wanna rot away on a cheap spending team forever.

I bet Aaron Schobel wishes he would've re-signed with us. He took a hometown discount instead of hitting free agency. He would've got millions more somewhere else. And now instead of spending the money he saved them they will just pocket it instead and he will spend the prime of his career on a cheap losing team making millions less then he could've got.

[BillsFever21]

Once again, you put the 'tard in ******.

It is not just about the 1st day of free Agency. It is about not having sufficient space UNTIL a trade is made. So if it takes the Bills until the end of the month to make the move, then it takes until the end of the month to have all of the space.

It is also about getting him last year, with a new defense and two rookies in the defensive backfield.

In all honesty, it might have been good to trade him last year. With or without the promise, I doubt he would have been tagged again.

Even after a month we won't be using up 21-24 million dollars in cap space. And stop with this 12 million dollars. His tag last year was around 7.5. 20 % of that is 1.5. That equals 9 million at the most. If you failed math class we would be more then happy to help. With your math he is getting about 40% more then last year.

If we're around 33 million under right now we will probably spend a total of 25 million or so and leave ourselves 5-8 million under the cap. With this "cap to the cap" junk it could be even more under the cap after adding in the bonuses.

So if we spend 25 million this year they will keep at least 6 million out to sign the rookies. That isn't until months and months later.

That will mean they will probably spend about 15-20 million in free agency. Adding in their unique theory of "cash to cap" that nobody else uses that means a handful of guys with 3 year deals and 2 million dollar bonuses is what we're gonna get. That's all you're gonna get for 15 million when you're not gonna spend over the cap by spreading out bonuses over 5 years or whatever.

So with 24 million STILL left after tagging Nate you must be the only one on the face of the earth that will think this team and their cheap approach this year are gonna suffer from going after free agents with only 24 million dollars.

With the money we're gonna spend we won't see most of our free agent signings till later in the free agent period anyway. Most of our guys will be the scraps leftover that are looking for work.

Glad I could help with a math class for you this morning. 24 million is definitely enough for US of all teams to spend.

[jamze132]

I am not defending everything.

I am simply looking into reasons why actions were taken like they were.

First off, despite what you think it is not always easy to tag and trade guys. How often does this happen in the NFL? Do you think it some easy little secret that only you have figured out? Now, I understand that you are more knowledgable and intelligent than 99% of the NFL GM's out there, but take a step back: Are you telling me that nobody else has this trick figured out?

And him holding out hurts both him AND the Bills. Not realizing that is being blind and obtuse to the facts.

As for the amount it would have cost, it was damn close to 12 million. It is 20% (Clump is that amount correct?) MORE than last years tag amount.

This is unbeleivable: You ***** that the Bills won't sign anybody (When you have no ****ing clue if they will or won't). And yet you want them to make it impossible to sign players by tying up a large amount of cap space on one over-rated player. By not having this room taken up Nate, the Bills have the opportunity to at least try and sign some players.

Calling this the worst move ever by a GM is moronic.
Couldn't have said it better myself.

[TacklingDummy]

How are the Bills only $33 million under the cap? The only superstar the Bills have is Lee Evans. And he's being paid less then Peerless Price. (expect a holdout from Evans soon)

The Colts have Manning, Harrison, Freeney, Wayne and they are $14 million under the cap.

[Ron Burgundy]

Once again, you put the 'tard in ******.

That doesn't make sense, either.


It is not just about the 1st day of free Agency. It is about not having sufficient space UNTIL a trade is made. So if it takes the Bills until the end of the month to make the move, then it takes until the end of the month to have all of the space.

It is also about getting him last year, with a new defense and two rookies in the defensive backfield.

In all honesty, it might have been good to trade him last year. With or without the promise, I doubt he would have been tagged again.

It was a mistake. There's really no way around it. I'm not sure what you're arguing, other than "Hey, it's not the worst move ever made."

[Dr. Lecter]

How are the Bills only $33 million under the cap? The only superstar the Bills have is Lee Evans. And he's being paid less then Peerless Price. (expect a holdout from Evans soon)

The Colts have Manning, Harrison, Freeney, Wayne and they are $14 million under the cap.

No they aren't. Manning had to restructure to let them franchise Freeney.

[TacklingDummy]

No they aren't. Manning had to restructure to let them franchise Freeney.

Yes, they are.

The dual savings of both Manning's and Mathias' deals now gives the Colts $14.8 million of cap room. Before making those moves they were right at the cap.

It just amazes me how Indy can afford stars like Manning, Wayne, Harrison, Freeney, etc... and yet the Bills can't afford 1 star, Clements.

[Dr. Lecter]

Yes, they are.

The dual savings of both Manning's and Mathias' deals now gives the Colts $14.8 million of cap room. Before making those moves they were right at the cap.

It just amazes me how Indy can afford stars like Manning, Wayne, Harrison, Freeney, etc... and yet the Bills can't afford 1 star, Clements.

Subtract 8.6 million for that, since they franchised Freeney.

[HHURRICANE]

I like Marv but he blew the Clements deal. There was no point in gauranteeing not to tag him again. He could have sat out . Big deal. He sucked up to the bye. He got his act together the last 9 weeks. Big whip.

[RockStar36]

I think it's time to get over this Marv/Clements deal. What's done is done.

[Mr. Pink]

Well the Browns have a BIG need in getting a cornerback. McCutcheon has been hurt the past 2 seasons, Baxter can't stay healthy-which I've heard he may be on his way out the door via cut. Bodden was hurt most of the year last year. So the Browns were stuck with a guy named Ray Brown starting at Corner for most of the year. Cut Baxter on top of their already ridiculous amount of cap space and they can easily afford Clements and a Steinbach on top of many other players.

I've also heard mention that Mike Doss wants to come to Cleveland to play and has stated that "RAC would make a mistake if he didn't sign me." Just as a sidenote.

Of course Cleveland is going to be active in FA. Romeo might be coaching for his life this year after a paltry season, as well as others in the organzation. Don't forget that GM of the Browns is also the guy who made the Ravens the power they were earlier this decade. And has always been active at the deadline.

Cleveland is proof that just because you're in a smaller market doesn't mean you can't go out and make a splash in the free agent market. Now will all your moves work, not necessarily. But it shows to the fans when you pony up some dollars you are interested in helping the team win and compete.

[TacklingDummy]

Cleveland is proof that just because you're in a smaller market doesn't mean you can't go out and make a splash in the free agent market. Now will all your moves work, not necessarily. But it shows to the fans when you pony up some dollars you are interested in helping the team win and compete.

Who has more money Randy Lerner or Ralph "tighass" Wilson?

[BillsFever21]

Yes, they are.

The dual savings of both Manning's and Mathias' deals now gives the Colts $14.8 million of cap room. Before making those moves they were right at the cap.

It just amazes me how Indy can afford stars like Manning, Wayne, Harrison, Freeney, etc... and yet the Bills can't afford 1 star, Clements.

It's very simple. The Colts wanna spend the money but the Bills don't. The Colts also aren't paying a group of bums like Price, Reed, Fowler, Royal and Nall 3 million a year against the cap.

Instead of tying up 6 million between Price and Reed like the Bills the Colts would rather spend 5.5 million on somebody like Reggie Wayne and then draft a rookie at the same level as somebody like Price and pay them 500k. It's 6 million any way you slice it but the Bills don't have to be handcuffed by big signing bonuses.

Just because the salary cap is 109 million doesn't mean that every team only has 109 million to spend.

A team with a clever GM and an owner that's not cheap can swing money around to still stay under the cap and be able to sign all them stars.

Then you have the Bills current "cash to the cap" theory where they only wanna spend the 109 million. We can have some scrub come in and get a 3 million dollar bonus with a 2 million dollar salary and he will count 5 million against the cap when he would only count 2.5-3 million with somebody else.