Sisyphean Bills

Marshawn had plenty of trade value in the draft. I have no doubt that a more experienced GM would've played the suitors off against each other and got a deal done. It just didn't happen. As far as not knowing what they had in Jackson, there may be some truth there. They appeared to be clueless about what Trent Edwards brought to the table until he jogged out of bounds to end a game (and vanished into the sunset with his golf clubs). One of the narratives at the time was that they needed a full-season to evaluate players, though a new head coach making a team worse is actually a rarity.

Well, at least, you shouldn't. Not these days. What they did made little sense at the time. If they were done with Marshawn, then drafting his replacement and trading Marshawn for draft picks would have been a decisive strategic approach. If they wanted to keep Marshawn and evaluate him, then, in the age of the UDFA RB, why run to the podium to pick a 3rd string RB? This was Nix and Gailey's first year and they were coming in with Trent Edwards as the incumbent QB. Trent Edwards. The guy that got cut before October by a team heading to 0-8 with the new regime in charge. And let's not forget that Buddy and Chan wanted to overhaul a Tampa-2 defense to a "Planet Theory" 3-4 and could have used more draft picks for that as well.

It should be pointed out that the depth issue has spanned several coaching staffs and player personnel think tanks. What are the chances that all of these football people have had the same philosophy? And, if they might not have all had the same philosophy then it begs the question: why did they all adopt the same approach in Buffalo? It's not like there is no evidence that the approach may be deeply flawed. I don't find much solace in Marrone's defense of Crossman vs. the players. Seriously, the players weren't good enough? If that is the entirety of it, then he might as well have said, "Doug Whaley didn't do his job and I don't know how to build an NFL roster," because it is Whaley and the scouting staff's job to find the talent for all phases of the team and Marrone's job to oversee that the right mix of skills are on the roster. And if Marrone did not build a roster capable of special teams success, that begs the question, why not? The churn at QB and OL during the season saw some of the veteran special teamers out the revolving door, but it would be interesting to see a break down on hold-over vs. new players.

aka: the Modrak Wheelhouse section of the draft.

It helps to have a time machine.

Dave Wannstedt is available, I believe.

Seems like depth is a problem every single year.

I'd like to see razor thin goal posts. Maybe the ball would get cut in half.

You're welcome. As for Stevie, there is this: http://www.buffalorumblings.com/2012/12/14/3766988/buffalo-bills-buddy-nix-stevie-johnson-slot-receiver

Hackett said before the season that he was going to run CJ Spiller silly. Of course, the reality was that Spiller was gimpy. But, the plan sure sounded like it was to try and get even more production out of the most productive playmakers.

The way Pete Carroll explained it was that John Schneider had Buddy on speed dial and called him every single day to ask about Lynch. Buddy refused and laughed him off, day-in and day-out. Then, one day, Buddy simply said, "OK" and a deal was done. I don't have any trouble believing that this account is precisely how it transpired. My question is who changed Buddy's mind?

http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/draft/prospectrankings

Not without your headset, you can't.

Thanks for the links Dibs. I was going by what I remembered from a few years ago. I didn't break down this data (no time), but by rough eyeball, I see 7 Cs, 14 Gs, and 7 RTs with numbers $5M/yr. or better. So (very roughly) about even. LT in comparison has 21. Obviously, hugely disproportionate. And, we still see LTs come off the board early in the draft. Also, things evolve. As the up-tempo principles become more popular and the ball is getting out on the perimeter faster, teams may feel they don't need to spend huge money on a blindside protector, but need to be strong up the middle. The running game is evolving as well. It's not important how an offense rips off huge chunks of yardage, after all, just that they do so, since offense is the new defense. Manufacture those plays on the ground when most defenses are geared up to try to slow down a passing game is an advantage for the offense.

I'm with you about having patience. Wouldn't mind seeing some better options added... But, getting back to what Pats and Jets fans think for a second. Around here, many people can't wait for Brady to retire and some are, well, over-the-top anti-Brady. On the other hand, many people here were enjoying the schadenfreude of the Mark Sanchez era. I know I wouldn't have minded the Jets going with Mr. "Butt Fumble" for a few more years. His play was downright comical many times. Seemed like there was some positive vibe about the Geno Smith meltdown last season as well. Just saying. I'm not too sure what to make of Pats and Jets fans congratulating a Bills fan about something.

The statistical data from how teams draft (and pay) that I'm aware of would order the OL positions: LT, RT, LG, C, and last ST and RG. RT is second only to LT in terms of importance. LT and RT are not really interchangeable parts. Teams are typically "right handed" -- they run to the right and line up a TE on that side -- and would want the elite pass protector at LT and a powerful run blocker at RT. LG is typically a position where you want a guy that can run, pull on sweeps and get out to the second level and has power. The ideal C knows your offense like your QB and OC; you see teams stick with a good C for very long periods of time. They may need to play in a phone booth with a NG or get downfield in the run game. RG is the "least important" position on the line and many teams will value a backup T more than a RG. The RG is your consummate "wheel dog" -- a power guy that can drive block in the running game and maul in the trenches. On the other hand, the line functions as a unit and having any one position along the line be a weakness is an opportunity for NFL DC's to eat your lunch.

Doesn't that work both ways, CB? You could say EJ was surrounded by some talent that won the National Championship the next year and Bortles was surrounded by guys that went to the American Conference instead of the ACC or SEC. What do you think of Gabriel's opinion given the parallels in these stats?

To the OP: I'm not sure I'd give credit that 3 raw inexperienced QBs looked about the same to their coach.

If I understand you, the ceiling for year 1 is hard and not a 4 year aggregate. So, deferring half the dead money from year 1 to year 2 has no effect on the floor or the total cap in year 2 (rollover - $5M - $5M == rollover - $10M), but it does maximize the room under the ceiling in year 1. Thanks, Dibs.

Putting pride before performance may not be good for longevity.

Ah, I see. No, I wasn't meaning to link C2C to the "accounting fee", The $4.95 was meant to imply pushing a charge from the previous year. In this thread, the "fee" is Fitzpatrick's contract dead money. So, basically, this was a hypothetical to try and understand the nuances of the earlier pages of back and forth. From your explanation, it simply seems to make no sense why anyone would bother to split dead money across two years inside of a 4 year window. Yet, it was done. The fact that it is even an option seems strange as well, does it not? On the other hand, if I have to spend $506M over 4 years and there is no penalty for being thrifty up front, what is to prevent us from spending $10M (save $115M), $16M (save >$100M again), $30M (etc.), and then $450M (no problem assuming I invested wisely )? It would be like getting an interest-paying loan. If I sell the team in year 3, then the new owner is on the hook for the $450M, right? (This is just a hypothetical, not trying to imply anything that extreme would be wise.)

Thanks for the explanation, Dibs. Though, this bit rubs me the wrong way a bit. The hat thing was an analogy and I'm not sure what is difficult about it; it was meant to illustrate what I said earlier. If you have any sort of budget policy, you don't spend more than the budget. Would it help if I didn't call it cash-to-cap so we can get beyond preconceptions for a second? Obviously, a budget that allows me to by a "hat subscription" for 3 years, paying $10 a year fits within the budget of $20 a year. And I understand that perfectly well. There is no "cynicism" at all and not sure why you would suggest so. Teams have stopped giving huge signing-bonus contracts with amortized bonus spread over the length of the contract in favor of roster-bonuses which kick in year to year. Yeah, I know. There never was a disagreement. PS: Thanks again. That helped me understand the new cap better.

Thanks, Dibs. I don't think "my terms" and your terms add up. ("My terms" come directly from the table in the link that I posted, and are thus not really my terms.) The explanation that you give above does not explain the numbers. Look at the Bills line. The "base cap" for all teams is $123M, the Bills adjusted cap is $115M, and they rolled over $10M. By your definition (in bold), the adjusted cap should be $133M. However, it clearly is not. This doesn't make sense to me. Your saying the cap window is fixed for specific years. Let's say the cap is $125M in 2013, $135M in 2014, $145M in 2015, then $155M in 2016. (How do they even know the future shared revenue here? In fact, they don't as we know they have to calculate it each year.) So, the average is $140M for those 4 years. The 90% floor is $126M. That means the floor in the first year is greater than the ceiling! Yikes. Like you say, C2C has nothing to do with it other than it is a philosophy to manage spending in the future by limiting the spending now. If I have $20 in my pocket now, I do not even consider purchasing a $30 Bills hat. I buy the $15 one. If my next "allowance" is only $15, then the $5 that I saved means I can consider buying a new hat next year for $20 or less. But, if I charge myself an accounting fee of $4.95, then my next allowance is $15.05 and that's all I have to spend on my next hat. (Shh, now. Don't ask where the $4.95 went.)