Hapless Bills Fan

If there's something I question about this team, it's our ability to retain and develop OL talent - Johnson was an upgrade on Castillo, maybe Kromer will be an upgrade on Johnson there. But I don't see even the Bills keeping an OLman who hasn't "flashed" and had good games at times. Someone pointed out they thought Ford played well (or at least looked servicable) in a couple games in 2020 when he replaced Spain, before he got hurt (this was like 2 games, though, and he looked awful playing hurt against KC and Tenn). People also commented that they thought he looked good (or at least serviceable) against NO and Car at RG this past season. So I think there is probably some good film to go with the bad film on Ford, and the "rationale" until this past season has been that the bad film goes with "playing hurt".

Nope, still not seen. Also Taiwan Jones and Ike Boettger not shown. Bills are shown as having $3.8M cap, which I believe is "up" $1.5M from the other day. Unclear to me where that came from, Anyone? Whatever it is, that's not enough cap to register a reported $4.25M AAV contract, which I imagine to be front-loaded to make it harder to match. I think the Bills have until 4 pm today or tomorrow to register the matching contract with the NFL(5 business days from last ?Thurs?) I could be wrong, but I had the impression that Ford looked OK to good when he played in pre-season. It's only when the game speed and intensity ratcheted up that he floundered.

Now that’s a phrase I haven’t heard for a long time

Considering the state of OL play in the league, and OL play on the Bills, I'd settle for a slightly above average guard who demonstrates consistency at that level of play. But I agree completely that it's time, and past time, for a serious draft investment at IOL

OMG did you actually sit down sober and write that? IMMA guess "yes" Dude, you (and I) were using situations like negotiating sales of homes and collectibles as analogies to negotiating NFL contracts, we weren't just shooting the ***** about them. The chap you're talking to here was using situations like negotiating other major league sports contracts as an analogy to negotiating NFL contracts. If there's a chasm, it logically favors the latter as more relevant and applicable.

When I think back about those games, my impression was that the line was pretty good. Winters was just plain horrible. It seemed like such an upgrade when Feliciano took over.

Pot, kettle. I'm actually trying to explain stuff to you, but you seem more interested in pursuing your own worldview while sniping at anyone and anything which contradicts it. This is a total straw man. I am not saying this. Someone else might have said this, I don't know. I would doubt that Beane would have offered the same deal prior to FA. But let's suppose that in fact, Beane did offer him just the same offer. As with my analogy where you are trying to sell the house you inherited - if your brother makes you an offer on the house that you believe to be below market value, why wouldn't you go see what market value on the house is before you accept your brother's deal? You put the house on the market, the best offer you got was somewhat similar, so you nod your head and say "OK, that's how the market values my house, so now I come back and do business with my brother because if I don't, I'll be in crap soup with the fam" (in Bates case, because the league rules for the RFA tender he got require it). Right, we agree - that's what happened. Why do you see this as a sign of bad tactics on Beane's part, is the question? I'm sure he was. He had good "connections" with the FO and coaches there. Why would he sign an offer sheet with them if he wasn't willing to play for them? See above - because (hypothetically, assuming such a deal was offered) at the point where it was offered, Bates didn't know what his market value was. Once he tested the market, then he knew. My guess is that the same deal was not offered prior to FA; if a long term deal were offered, it would have been for less, but that's not relevant to the argument; Bates could not have in any way been forced to accept a deal prior to FA. The point is, Bates could have been offered a deal that was miles above what the 2nd round tender would have been, in which case Beane likely wouldn't have matched. But he wasn't. The second point is: how could Beane have stopped all 31 teams from bidding on Bates services? The argument started out (to my understanding) that Beane was a poor negotiator not to offer Bates a 2nd round tender for 1 year, $4M instead of winding up with a slightly higher $4.25M AAV for a longer period of time. But there's value (to both sides) in a longer contract. It's in the player's interest to let the market set his value before signing a long term deal; it's in Beane's interest (if they like a player and think he'll continue to improve) to lock him up to a longer deal as long as it's on reasonable terms vs. giving him almost the same AAV on a 1 year rental. But how is this to have been achieved? I think that's the heart of the dispute. The only way I know of assuring it would have been to offer Bates whatever he and his agent thought his market value was, prior to him testing FA. And if that wasn't a match for what Beane thought Bates was worth, why would he make that offer? That would be poor negotiating on Beane's part. You say "It's usually a privilege of the rich, but off market homes, art, cars, collectables, etc are bought all the time before the public can drive up the price." This is true - but why? It's not just because the buyer is some silver-tongued devil who can persuade the seller to take less. There has to be another motivation. The seller wants cash or a fast sale, or doesn't want the hassle of an auction. Or, the buyer so values the object for sale that they are willing to ratchet up the price (or adjust the terms) to the point where the seller says "***** the open market I'll take the deal". In this case, the terms are what they are under NFLPA rules. The timeline for payment is what it is under NFLPA terms. The value of the object in question (a NFL lineman who has started on a mediocre OL, without a large body of work) does not appear exceptional. What exactly do you think should have happened? Not the details, no. Just that it's 4 years, $17M with $8.8 guaranteed in the first 2 years.

Interesting. Spain lost his starting job after Miami. So that would be the Rams, Raiders, Titans, and 3/4 of the Chiefs game. I thought Ford kind of sucked in the Titans and Chiefs games, but he was on injury report all week and there were questions about whether he would play. The Jets game was Boettger at LG and the Pats game Feliciano came back at LG then moved to C the 2nd drive after Morse went out (which I thought was kind of weird actually because initially Bates came in for him and we drove right down and scored). I hadn't thought about the Rams and Raiders games where, you're right, we did have pretty decent line play

I think the above is pretty well correct to my understanding. When you have a franchise-changing talent - a young QB or pass rusher, where values seem to accelerate every year - the team has more motivation to negotiate higher in order to keep the player, and to structure the contract to keep the player happy. There are also tools the team can use such as franchise or transition tags, which the players then hate because it doesn't give them long term value protection (particularly against injury), and tools the player can use (such as behind-the-scenes negotiation before FA). So these players are less likely to reach FA.

I would say that you're not grasping the core principle of the argument and that's why it doesn't appear logical or rational to you, but it's possible that you do grasp it and are arguing for the sake of it. You have a bunch of people who are normally pretty logical and rational (and who are not claiming that Beane is perfect or played this perfectly, though I have seen that stated once or twice here) trying to explain to you, so you might want to drop the fixation on whether or not it's "perfect" and look at the actual arguments. The point that you don't seem to acknowledge is: *if Beane offered Bates the same deal prior to FA, nothing requires Bates to take it*. Bates can say "I go see what my value is to other teams before I sign". Full stop. We don't know whether or not Beane offered Bates a long term deal prior to FA or at least had a "bounce numbers around" discussion with his agent where he realized they were too far apart. This is where I, and I believe others, are just rolling our eyes at your posts. OF COURSE the GM is going to try to sign his players to lower contracts. OF COURSE the player is going to try to negotiate a higher contract. How do you do that? You have other suitors for your services, either in FA or prior to FA (during unacknowledged or legal tampering period). Being an RFA is just a special case where a player who has been cut during his rookie deal, or was originally an UFA, can be allowed to "explore the market". It has nothing to do with "wanting out" or not, and as for being "trapped", that's the whole point of the NFL system - to give teams a certain amount of "dibs" on a player in exchange for acquiring and developing them when they enter the league. This statement makes no sense to me "he literally could not have paid more for Bates than he did". Of course he could have paid more for Bates. He could have offered Bates such a good multi-year deal that Bates and his agent would have said "***** FA we sign this now!". The Bears could also have offered Bates such a good deal that Beane would have said "yeah....No." Let's use your realtor/home buyer analogy, because it's a good one that may help you understand the point that people are trying to make. Let's say you are selling your family home, which you just inherited (you're Bates). Your brother (the Bills) wants to buy it, but the price he offers is, in your opinion, low. No way you are going to sign that deal! You counter offer, but your brother says "well, that's really higher than we have in mind to pay". Your brother can not force you to sell him the house at the price he is offering you. You will just say "nope!" But neither can you force your brother to pay what you are asking!! So you put the house on the market, and get offers in writing. You take the highest legitimate offer during the period allowed to you for consideration, and you show it to your brother (the Bills). It's rather less than you thought you could get for the house, but it's more than your brother was offering initially. The market has spoken and established a value for the house. So you and your brother agree on the deal and the house is sold. Now. Your brother could also have offered to rent your house for a year, at the same monthly payment as the mortgage. At the end of the year, maybe that would be a great deal for you and a bad deal for your brother - if the housing market shoots up, and the house is now worth much more. Or it could save your brother some money and be a bad deal for you, if it turns out your house has unknown flaws that will lower its market value next year. Either thing can happen, and both you and your brother have tools to assess how likely you think those outcomes are. You seem to think that before the market has spoken, Beane should somehow have gotten Bates to sign the same contract, or maybe a lower contract. But it doesn't work that way. If Bates is willing to shop himself around and the rules allow him to do that, why should he sign a contract that is less than he thinks he could get, until he establishes whether or not he can actually get that? And why should Beane make a lower-tier lineman "an offer he won't refuse" until he knows that it's a fair value on the market?

Again - OLmen sometimes take a year or more to develop, top guard contracts have become huuuuuuge, and Saffold at age 34 on a 1 year deal is NOT a long-term plan at G If you're not contending that Bates is a star, or that the behavior of teams with major stars is relevant to discussing his contract, then why are you bringing it up?

If we're talking about Ryan Bates deal here, are you contending that he's a star, or that the behavior of teams with major stars is relevant to his contract negotiations and RFA tag? Seems like shifting the ground to me.

Oh, I'm curious here. Can you tell me which season/games you're talking about and what you saw?

IMHO, there is nothing "sneaky" about the Bills need for an improved OL and especially at G Saffold on a 1 year deal age 34 is NOT a long term solution at guard Bates was part of an OL Beane referred to as "a starting point" last season. With top guards bringing in $14-16.5M AAV, the most logical way to improve the IOL is to draft the best guard that falls with your board. Just a little point that part of the "curve" of grading is comparing Brown to the vet RT we re-signed because he looked so good in 2020, Williams. Brown looked "good" relative to Williams who played like "got paid, sit back" at tackle.

To your last, I think you've addressed some of that question with the RAS you shared. Isn't Bates >> Ford by that metric? It was also pointed out in the Chicago media that Bears assistant GM Ian Cunningham was in the Eagles FO in 2019, when Bates signed with the Eagles as an UDFA. There may be a Bears-Bates connection that isn't there for Ford. I have a theory (with nothing behind it really) that Ford's injuries, and playing through them as much as he did, did him in as an NFL player. Fractions of a second and fractions of an inch count in the NFL, and if injuries mess with that it can drop a player from a top prospect to a dud. I personally thought Ford looked OK in a couple of the games he played down the stretch - New Orleans, Carolina. Not great, not "we're set at G!" but OK. If the Bills agree, they'd want to hang on to Ford as relatively inexpensive backup help.

I expect they will pick someone up after the draft if they don't draft someone. I agree that in theory, Bates says he can play across the OL but in practice, I don't want to see him at LT

Come off it with the goof-ball generalizations. Plenty of the people who are debating here have criticized Beane before and will again. In many of the areas where we criticized him, we've had to come back and eat crow (drafting Josh Allen) or at least nibble (Dawson Knox). In others, such as the QB room Allen's rookie season, the state of the OL and WR corps Allen's rookie season, and not doing enough to upgrade it last year, we've been shown right and Beane has even acknowledged mistakes at times. This isn't about "Beane can do no wrong" it's about you not understanding how different parts of the football organization work Let's try to summarize a few things that have been said in minimal words. Coaching change: 1) The OL coach has a large say in how players currently on the team are evaluated and who plays 2) That was Bobby Johnson 3) Therefore, the coach responsible for keeping Bates on the bench is gone, and there's now a new sheriff in Aaron Kromer who may evaluate differently 4) Also, players grow and improve. It's possible that Bates wasn't ready to play previous years, but got his shot and made good Free agency: 1) Beane could not "lock Bates up without testing free agency". That's just Bull. Bates agent and Bates have to see it as a good deal FOR THEM. Beane does not control the terms of the contract. He controls the terms of the offer. 2) If Beane had given Bate a 2nd round tender, he'd have Bates signed for 1 year for $4.2M. Then he'd have to re-negotiate a longer term deal, perhaps after Bates has put more on tape and is more attractive to 31 other teams. 3) By putting a 'right of first refusal tender' on Bates, Bates got the chance to explore his value to other teams and Beane got the chance to match it. These are just facts. OK, "Fail" on the minimal words. This is not what people are saying. A plausible scenario is that Beane may have wanted to re-sign Bates, but the two sides could not agree on a long-term contract. Maybe Beane wanted 2 years and $4M guaranteed, while Bates wanted 4 years and $12M guaranteed. So the sides agree to disagree, Beane puts the "right of refusal" tender on Bates, and Bates goes off to negotiate his worth in the open market. The risk there, is that Bates will get seriously overpaid or that the contract will be structured such that the Bills can't match the first year, but that seems like a manageable risk for a guy who doesn't have a lot of NFL game film yet. I haven't seen the terms yet, have you? So I can't comment on the structure. But the AAV of $4.25M is 6% more than the 2nd round tender could have been, which is probably a decent trade-off for a long-term contract if Bates continues the play he showed at the end of the season. It slots him into the Pat Elflein/Wes Schweitzer/AJ Cann/Lucas Patrick range, which IMO is "capable vet guards who have shown they can start in the NFL, but do not flash as top-tier talent". Last year the Bills gave Jon Feliciano what was reported as a 3 year, $14.4M contract with $4.4M guaranteed at signing. This was essentially a 1 year, $4.4M contract and may represent market value or somewhat above for a capable vet who can play G and C. It was an overpay for the Feliciano we saw last season, but didn't seem unreasonable based on the "spark" he seemed to give the OL when he returned Week 8 of 2020 or for having a G who could fill in seamlessly when Morse went out. With reported $8.8M guaranteed, essentially the Bills are matching a 2 year contract at this valuation. But now Bates is willing to sign such a contract, because he's set his market value.

Have the Fins done enough with their OL to make that happen?

Are you puzzled by Diggs laughing at "Josh Allen has Entered the Chat:" Josh Allen: "No."

IIRC he said something to the effect, he's willing to play either guard position but for now, he's been told to plan on LG

Almost certainly

I don't understand why people conceptualize Diggs as stamping his feet and insisting that the Bills give him a new contract RIGHT NOW. Beane has said multiple times that he likes to work on extensions after FA and the draft. This timeline works to Diggs benefit, as he and his agents get to watch all the trades and FA signings re-set the market. Players get paid by the week during the season so it's not like he's collecting low-ball salary checks at the moment.

Since it's being reported as $8.8M total guaranteed for a 4 year deal, I think it's safe to say that it's not $7-8M this season. So let's walk through this. Can we call the 2nd round tender at $3.98M a $4M contract for 1 year? 1) Bills give Bates 1 year, 2nd round tender. Bates makes $4M this year. If he plays and plays well, next year he goes out and gets PAID 2) Bills give Bates right of first refusal tender (lowest - lower than original round). Bates goes out and negotiates 4 year contract for $4.25M/yr. If he plays and plays well, Bills have him locked up for 3 more years at a very reasonable price. Which is better, over the long term? Course, we have to see the details yet. But it wouldn't surprise me if Beane has kept our cap space small to snooker Da Bears into thinking they didn't have to go very high before we'd fold and not match.

If this hasn't been posted elsewhere, Here is the place

No, the whole point of the "right of first refusal" is if the Bills match the Bears offer, he has to sign with the Bills