Sisyphean Bills

Please correct my misunderstandings. Let's say we are team X. X has an unadjusted cap of $123M. X's adjusted cap is $115M. The $8M negative adjustment is, I guess, for dead money and perhaps other penalties (like going over the cap or whatever). Team X also rolls over $10M from the previous year. That gives a new cap of $125M. I'd guess that the floor is computed from the adjusted cap of $115M, so X has to spend, just to toss out a number, $103M. The notion would be that pushing dead money into the next year, lowers the adjusted cap, which has the effect of lowering the effective floor. But the bonus is in canceling out a large percentage of the money rolled over. The rolled over money, coming from money not spent on contracts now, is canceled out by accelerating the C2C money already spent, leaving money on the table. That is, X already spent the $8M but gets an accounting charge against the saved $10M so they only effectively rollover $2M. So, the $8M on the table goes where? My bank account, I hope.

Third, the Bills did gut the depth on the roster that Buddy built, right? Or was it that Buddy re-built? Anyway, a lot of new faces behind the starting cast, something that was argued for and against back in September.

In the link I posted above, the Bills had the 2nd largest amount of unspent cap, had the 8th largest rollover from the previous year, and had the 4th smallest cap (only Washington, Dallas, and Miami had less room). They are also on the low end of number of contracts. I think someone could use those numbers to form an argument on the relative quality of cap management.

Just give the rook some time... er, wait.

Carnac the Magnificent says, "Status quo."

Don't forget to lock up Hogan. He's a hero!

Since the title of this thread is "cap management" and not "who makes the most cheese", this link might be interesting. https://nflplayers.com/reports/RunPublicReport.aspx?report=top51

Maybe this should be merged with the slam dunk thread now.

Might be the W-L record.

Well, apparently you are not Marrone. Marrone placing all of his chips on a single bet seems rather gallant perhaps. On the other hand, blowing the place up every 3 years or so because the bets never pay off has helped create a culture of losing, instability, and futility for 14 years. I'd like Marrone to have every chance at success. Not just be the latest in a long line of talk-toughs that hop on the sled and ride it down the hill into oblivion. Didn't they fire the coach?

There is a difference between "throwing in the towel" and giving yourself options. Unless they think Kolb, Tuel, or Lewis (or Dixon or ____) are going to suddenly blossom next year as well as Manuel, then they are short on options.

Fun game.

Mercy rule? Looked good in pre-hype.

So, Winston won the Heisman, right? Happy Birthday, Jameis.

I don't believe that's really relevant to my point. I remember Jones in an interview around the time it opened talking about how he had big loans to pay back, etc. (with a huge smile on his mug) The Cowboys make a ton of money, as OldTimer points out. It's not really germane if they paid the loans off by now or not. The point is that Ralph Wilson is not going to take out a $870 million loan to build a new, state of the art facility with 300 luxury suites, and on and on, at this point. Doing so would burden the franchise with a debt and make it harder to sell. Jones is no dummy when it comes to leveraging his investments. Ralph and his money guys know what they are doing as well. Also, the city of Arlington is involved and may actually hold the stadium (according to Wikipedia anyway). So, I may have been wrong about who owns the complex.

I think you're missing that the Cowboys have taken on huge debt (borrowed money) to increase their overall value. They own a zillion dollar stadium, but borrowed money to build it. The Bills simply aren't going to do anything like that. They aren't going to take debt on the books at this point. Money like that from the Toronto deal is just cheese to get stacked. Besides spending more than the cap on players is against the rules, as Badol has pointed out. We're not talking about baseball.

Bortles isn't your typical spread-option college QB, that's for sure. I like him though. Throws a very accurate ball, even on the run. He doesn't look to have a howitzer for an arm, but he makes up for it with his sick accuracy.

The accuracy improvement is also an interesting theory. One of the knocks on Ryan Tannehill as a rookie was his accuracy, and his numbers did go up slightly in his second year, but those improved numbers were behind, for example, Ryan Fitzpatrick this year. My search found an article that may be interesting or not. http://www.sportsonearth.com/article/64557588/

Saying he's a bad version of Legursky isn't saying he isn't very good? So what. I happen to think K-9 is wrong. But, you two are entitled to your opinions.

Sort of a headscratcher there. SeaBiscuit is a vocal champion of the front office, but he chose to defend the Bills decision to write off a homegrown talent without even trying by comparing it to the Bills decision to throw Steve Hutchinson's contract at the feet of a middling player. What did Buddy say? "That money is for our own guys." Little did Buddy know they didn't mean players. Enjoying the revisionist perspective that he wasn't any good. That's usually why other teams try to sign a talent quickly in free agency, because they sense the suckitude and crave adding it to their team.

The sticking point with Byrd is that they've already made him unhappy. Besides "top 5 money" goes upwards every season.

No way, man. Nobody will slip to the Bills. We're doomed. There's like 25 players going off the board before the Bills pick at #9.

Fitzpatrick was already signed. The Bills wanted to strong arm him to take a pay cut. How far did they end up under the cap?

I was confused about why Palmer appeared in the list with 2004 next to his name. He did not play his entire rookie season (I looked it up to confirm). So, again, this list includes "rookies" that were not really rookies.

No argument. But, the point was to the credibility of this list. None of the QBs from arguably the strongest QB class in the last 20 years are on the list. FWIW, Manning's QB rating was bad, but he didn't make the threshold as far as attempts either. Roethlisberger had a rating of 98.1 but fell 5 pass attempts short.