Source: Walker Move Nothing to do About Money

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • patmoran2006
    Ole' Ralphie SCROOGE
    • Dec 2005
    • 19840

    Source: Walker Move Nothing to do About Money

    I had the chance to speak this evening to someone inside the Bills organization regarding Langston Walker.

    They are insistent over at One Bills Drive that the release is a 100% pure football move and had nothing to do with money. While I am not saying I believe it or not, the fact is cutting Walker saved the team $3 million in cash this year. He will still count $4.5 million against the cap, which basically means nothing because Buffalo isn't in danger of falling over it (cap).
    From I am told the final straw came in back to back preseason games against Green Bay and Pittsburgh, when he was awful. It was also around this time word started to leak out that Bell was strongly being considered to start over Walker, as first reported by ESPN's Tim Graham last week.

    Many thought the move would be to simply move Walker back to right tackle; a position both himself and coaches ready admit he's better suited for. However, with the no-huddle offense in tact and the Bills ready to rely on more atheltic offensive linement, it was decided that Butler would remain at right tackle, even if Bell moved into the starting role.

    Apparently when Kirk Chambers was released on Saturday he was told it was a temporary move and would likely be back after the holiday. The Bills tried unsuccessfully to find a trading partner for Walker and realized last night they would be releasing him today.

    Sources inside the club became sold on Bell growing into a strong left tackle. Though he may not be ready to start against New England on Monday night. He is slated to return to practice on Wednesday and will be evaulated daily. Until the team considers him ready to start, Chambers will fill that role.


    Join the BSD FB page by CLICKING HERE

    Follow us on twitter by CLICKING HERE
  • Mr. Pink
    Peterman Sucks!
    • Mar 2006
    • 35303

    #2
    Re: Source: Walker Move Nothing to do About Money

    Even still it's slightly about money...

    But not in a bad sense.

    Why pay someone 5 million dollars to be a backup?

    Comment

    • X-Era
      What this generation tolerates, the next generation will embrace
      • Feb 2005
      • 27670

      #3
      Re: Source: Walker Move Nothing to do About Money

      Could you not squeeze your sources to find out if they have some trade or vet signing in mind now?

      Comment

      • patmoran2006
        Ole' Ralphie SCROOGE
        • Dec 2005
        • 19840

        #4
        Re: Source: Walker Move Nothing to do About Money

        Originally posted by FunTimesYaY!
        Even still it's slightly about money...

        But not in a bad sense.

        Why pay someone 5 million dollars to be a backup?
        of course it is, no doubt.

        Unless I read the info wrong, they only actually saved $3 million by cutting him. But still, between Walker and Rhodes, that's $5 million saved this week. That's not chump change by any team's standards.

        It's almost like those were T.O. reimbursement cuts, aint it?


        Join the BSD FB page by CLICKING HERE

        Follow us on twitter by CLICKING HERE

        Comment

        • Mr. Pink
          Peterman Sucks!
          • Mar 2006
          • 35303

          #5
          Re: Source: Walker Move Nothing to do About Money

          Originally posted by EdwardsEra
          Could you not squeeze your sources to find out if they have some trade or vet signing in mind now?

          If they did, why would they bother just resigning Chambers so quickly?

          Comment

          • yordad
            Registered User
            • Dec 2007
            • 11867

            #6
            Re: Source: Walker Move Nothing to do About Money

            What? Chambers is starting vs the Patriots? This isn't about the money? Yeah, right.
            "Heck, now I am glad his overrated arce made the pro bowl, else we would have only got a 3rd." ~ yordad

            "I've just been hit with a piece of sky. " ~ yordad

            "Forgive my opinion, but...." ~ yordad

            "Warning: I might be hammered." ~ yordad

            "I don't care if the word is "your" or "you're", so buzz off. Its (it's) a frickin(') message board." ~ yordad

            Comment

            • X-Era
              What this generation tolerates, the next generation will embrace
              • Feb 2005
              • 27670

              #7
              Re: Source: Walker Move Nothing to do About Money

              Originally posted by patmoran2006
              of course it is, no doubt.

              Unless I read the info wrong, they only actually saved $3 million by cutting him. But still, between Walker and Rhodes, that's $5 million saved this week. That's not chump change by any team's standards.

              It's almost like those were T.O. reimbursement cuts, aint it?
              What I want you to say is that they are planning to re-invest the money back into the team with a trade or vet signing.

              Comment

              • X-Era
                What this generation tolerates, the next generation will embrace
                • Feb 2005
                • 27670

                #8
                Re: Source: Walker Move Nothing to do About Money

                Originally posted by FunTimesYaY!
                If they did, why would they bother just resigning Chambers so quickly?
                I assumed it didnt have to be for an OT.

                Comment

                • Mr. Pink
                  Peterman Sucks!
                  • Mar 2006
                  • 35303

                  #9
                  Re: Source: Walker Move Nothing to do About Money

                  Originally posted by patmoran2006
                  of course it is, no doubt.

                  Unless I read the info wrong, they only actually saved $3 million by cutting him. But still, between Walker and Rhodes, that's $5 million saved this week. That's not chump change by any team's standards.

                  It's almost like those were T.O. reimbursement cuts, aint it?

                  Hey, even if they were, it's not a bad trade off.

                  When we first signed Rhodes I was kind of confused as to why we even bothered. You can draft a late rounder to be your 3rd string tailback or bring along one of your youngsters, Omon, in this case. Why go out and get an overrated player who doesn't add much to your team.

                  And if Walker was being pushed by Bell so soon, obviously Walker wasn't any type of answer. Although when we first signed him most of us scratched our heads at his signing.

                  Sure, some economics come in to play with the maneuvers. But so does what they bring to the table. For the money both were going to get, keeping them wasn't in the best interests of the franchise for what they actually brought to the table.

                  Comment

                  • patmoran2006
                    Ole' Ralphie SCROOGE
                    • Dec 2005
                    • 19840

                    #10
                    Re: Source: Walker Move Nothing to do About Money

                    Originally posted by EdwardsEra
                    What I want you to say is that they are planning to re-invest the money back into the team with a trade or vet signing.
                    I highly doubt it. They are going to roll the dice with the three young OL starters.


                    Join the BSD FB page by CLICKING HERE

                    Follow us on twitter by CLICKING HERE

                    Comment

                    • Oaf
                      Do you read what you write?
                      • Jun 2007
                      • 6151

                      #11
                      Re: Source: Walker Move Nothing to do About Money

                      Does this then mean that BFO flat out made a mistake about being confident enough in Walker that they were willing to give Peters away? I mean honestly we could have just packaged our 2 and a 3 and have gotten Wood to keep WITH Peters.

                      Comment

                      • YardRat
                        Well, lookie here...
                        • Dec 2004
                        • 86147

                        #12
                        Re: Source: Walker Move Nothing to do About Money

                        I heard John Murphy report on the evening news that the front office asked Walker to take a pay cut, and when he refused they decided to release him.
                        YardRat Wall of Fame
                        #56 DARRYL TALLEY
                        #29 DERRICK BURROUGHS#22 FRED JACKSON #95 KYLE WILLIAMS

                        Comment

                        • Mr. Pink
                          Peterman Sucks!
                          • Mar 2006
                          • 35303

                          #13
                          Re: Source: Walker Move Nothing to do About Money

                          Originally posted by YardRat
                          I heard John Murphy report on the evening news that the front office asked Walker to take a pay cut, and when he refused they decided to release him.

                          This wouldn't surprise me.

                          He shoulda took the paycut, he'll be lucky to find another job.

                          Comment

                          • patmoran2006
                            Ole' Ralphie SCROOGE
                            • Dec 2005
                            • 19840

                            #14
                            Re: Source: Walker Move Nothing to do About Money

                            Originally posted by YardRat
                            I heard John Murphy report on the evening news that the front office asked Walker to take a pay cut, and when he refused they decided to release him.
                            not saying its not true.. I'm saying that they aren't going to admit it, person I spoke too and likely what you'll ready in statements from Bills is going to say its a "football move" not a money grab.


                            Join the BSD FB page by CLICKING HERE

                            Follow us on twitter by CLICKING HERE

                            Comment

                            • X-Era
                              What this generation tolerates, the next generation will embrace
                              • Feb 2005
                              • 27670

                              #15
                              Re: Source: Walker Move Nothing to do About Money

                              Originally posted by patmoran2006
                              I highly doubt it. They are going to roll the dice with the three young OL starters.
                              Ok, this is like the third comment saying that we would simply get another OL.

                              No, Im not stuck thinking its only the OL that needs help.

                              Guys like Derrick Brooks help this team.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X