thebandit27

Yep...which is, not coincidentally, when Darby becomes a UFA

Here was my rip at the Gilmore deal a few weeks back: http://forums.twobillsdrive.com/topic/183724-spotrac-manage-roster-tool-2016-bills-salary-cap/?view=findpost&p=3944148 5 years, $66.5M, $32M guaranteed Year Base Signing Roster Cap Hit Dead Hit Savings 2016 $11M (gtd) $3M -- $14M $32M -$18M 2017 $6M (gtd) $3M -- $9M $18M -$9M 2018 $8M $3M $1.5M $12.5M $9M $3.5M 2019 $10M $3M $1.5M $14.5M $6M $8.5M 2020 $12M $3M $1.5M $16.5M $3M $13.5M The above would consume an additional $3M of the current cap, which means they'd have $11M in cap room to sign draft picks and perhaps add a veteran or two. This would also bring the amount of cap space available to sign FAs next offseason down to $5.5M, which means one or two key players at starting positions. So then don't give Darby $14M; he can't sign a new deal until after the 2017 season anyway. There's a reason that Darby had a regression after Gilmore's injury.

That was my first impression as well. He's a smart kid, and I think both sides know what's at risk here. I would be surprised if they can't get something done prior to TC. Now that all of the draft picks are signed, he's got to be their #1 focus from a contractual standpoint at the moment.

That's what he's going to get, here or elsewhere. He's better than guys like Trumaine Johnson, Byron Maxwell, and Janoris Jenkins, and they're all getting top-8 money. http://www.spotrac.com/nfl/rankings/average/cornerback/ They might be able to get Gilmore in the fold for $13.5M, but that's the absolute minimum we can expect him to take; he's probably pushing for $14M AAV.

No worries it appears: @JoeBuscaglia #Bills CB Stephon Gilmore said he wouldn't sit out of training camp practices if he doesn't have a new deal by then.

It's happening--the Zika virus is going to turn the world's best athletes into zombies. Good luck escaping zombie Usain Bolt.

Obviously.

I don't have to; he made it quite clear: The Gilly Lock ‏@BumpNrunGilm0re 23h23 hours ago I'm just here so I won't get fined The little smiley emoji guy thingy sort of makes it clear he's being cheeky.

Really?

Because obviously he was serious

Indeed I did Yolo...and I remarked at the time that I felt Daniels was at least a comparable player. I was mistaken about Jackson's numbers though--he had 5 sacks last year, and had 6 in 2013. Still, he got close to the AAV of Mario Williams, which is patently absurd.

Had to figure that the great DLmen were fixing to cash in after that absurd contract that Malik Jackson got...that one still sickens me--$15M/year for a guy with 4 sacks last year (a career high by the way). As to Mo Wilkerson, I wonder if a team like Pittsburgh or Green Bay--who are (a) gearing up for a title run, (b) don't have that stalwart DLman, and © don't have franchise-defender-type money committed to any one player--would make a move to trade for him before TC. I suppose Washington could be a possibility as well when I consider the above criteria.

Count me in on the 3rd WR. I'm also interested in hearing about Aaron Williams' progress and the battle for the No. 3 corner job. I don't necessarily think that the battle has to be for the slot, since I think Darby can play there if one of the others emerges as a solid boundary option. Mostly though, I'm hoping all's quiet on the injury front.

Let me see if I can understand here... Long-term is what we're supposed to focus on, but you're outraged at the selection of Shaq because he's going to miss 4-6 games as a rookie? Again, I need some clarity here... Shaq was a bad selection because he's going to miss time immediately as a rookie, and that's important. Jack, on the other hand, is already practicing and slated to start in week 1, with no indication that he'll miss time as a rookie or at any other time in the near future, yet he should also have been picked later? Other than "the Bills are losers and desperate", what, exactly, is your drafting philosophy? And who, pray tell, would you have picked at that spot?

Make sure you go ahead and assume things will go sour well before they do. I mean, the guy is in attendance and doing interviews at Minicamp, and both sides say talks are ongoing, so there's plenty of reason to assume that they'll go as you're saying here...or not. It just amazes me at how quickly some folks want to paint every single piece of information disseminated from the media as an indictment of the organization. Did they need a lesson in cap management 101 when they re-signed Cordy Glenn? Richie Incognito? Marcell Dareus? Jerry Hughes? Sometimes I wonder...

I have no idea if it would or wouldn't be a minority opinion. I suppose we could look back to recent years to see about injured player's draft statuses, and see that guys like Todd Gurley went in the top 10. Then there's guys like: Jason Verrett - torn ACL - 25th overall (SD) Dominique Easley - torn ACL - 30th overall (NE) Karl Joseph - torn ACL - 14th overall (Oak) and there are others. And I still don't understand why you think it's some supposed "magical thinking". It's about as simple as it gets: teams draft for the long-term, not for the first 4-6 games.

Well, as I said, they manage to improve at a faster rate than the DCs are able to adjust. And please don't assume that other players aren't affected by DCs adjusting to their game. They are; that's why the NFL is a constant fight to improve, adjust, innovate, etc. It's almost as though progress isn't linear or predictable... And seriously man, you've got to stop taking these discussions so personally.

It doesn't assume that nothing about his game will change. It assumes that DCs will eventually be able to catch up with him, much the same as they do with many other QBs, and consequently asks if he can take his game to another level to rise above it. in fact, I think it was pretty clear when he said:

Well, it's awfully hard to "enlighten" someone when they're being intentionally obtuse, but I'll take a shot at it anyway. Jack fell because there are concerns about his long-term health. My position is that because his level of play portended all-pro ability, the upside of his on-field ability outweighs the potential long-term complication of his knee injury. Of course, I actually looked at the relevant data regarding players coming back from microfracture surgery, whereas I'm sure you haven't. Here it is, in case you care: http://www.footballoutsiders.com/ramblings/2016/teams-dont-know-jack For your information, my "calculus" also had guys like Chris Jones and Tyler Boyd going about 20 spots earlier, and it had guys like Robby Anderson, Elandon Roberts, Keyarris Garrett, and a bevy of other guys you've never heard of getting drafted in the top 4 rounds, whereas that didn't happen. I also think that guys like Keanu Neal, Will Fuller, and Kenny Clark had no business going as high as they did. Guess what? It doesn't make me right at this point, and it also doesn't make me wrong. What it really seems like you want to argue is whether or not the Bills will be right in the long-term, and that's patently absurd, since we won't know for a few years. As to negative valuation on Shaq due to injury, it depends on whether you have a short-term, microwave-style mentality toward building a team. If you do, then yes, you'll want to de-value a guy that might miss games in his rookie year, but also might not if things work out properly and he can have the surgery during his first offseason. However, if you build a team the smart way, and are looking to accumulate the best players for the long-term success of the team, then you're going to evaluate what a guy can do for your team over a 5-10 year period, and make your selection based on that. Sounds to me like you're more concerned over what happens in the first 4-6 weeks of 2016 than you are over the next decade. That's your prerogative. Me? I believe that the upside of what a stud EDGE defender will give you over the next 5 years is far more valuable than the downside of his missing 4-6 games, which is why I don't get as upset about Shaq's shoulder as some do.

Absolutely not. Myles Jack would've been my pick. Does it mean I know better? No. What it means (and I'm no longer shocked that I have to explain such things, for the record...thanks for that) is that I place a higher value on how impactful I believe Myles Jack can be if indeed he can avoid the career-threatening surgery that even he admits he's likely to need at some point. The difference between Jack and Shaq (which you clearly do not understand with your Shah comparison and refusal to retract such lunacy) is that Shaq will miss time in the short-term, but is all-but-certain to return to full capacity. Jack is unlikely to miss any time in the short-term, but is likely to need career-threatening surgery. They aren't even close to making the same decision, and no, I'm not the guy that likened them to each other; that was you. Are we all clear now?

He hasn't missed any more time in his first 4 years than guys like Patrick Peterson and Joe Haden FWIW

Please show where any one person has said anything even close to this...

I'm 100% convinced that you have no idea what discussion is occurring here if that's what you believe

Comparing the two situations is folly. Myles Jack dropped because of the increased likelihood that he could eventually need career-threatening surgery (though I definitely would've taken him anyway). Shaq Lawson needed a surgery that has a 90% success rate for the general population (though I realize that, in your opinion, it's tantamount to removing the Shah's spleen), and would be a short-term issue.

Here's what I keep coming back to: can anyone name a time in which the Pegula regime wanted to re-sign a player and didn't get it done? Granted, it's been two offseasons, but since they bought the team, they've been able to work out long-term deals with: Hughes Dareus Glenn Incognito McCoy I'm honestly struggling to think of anyone that they seriously have attempted to re-up with and couldn't get done. I'm thinking that Gilmore's deal is only a matter of time.