Sisyphean Bills

Maybe they just enjoy inflicting feelings of persecution or supernatural sabotage on a small minority of NFL fans.

I don't disagree that a team has to manage its cap resources. That's a no brainer. You are arguing about general implications and presenting arguments to buttress why the Bills decided to not bother pursing Levitre. That's all fine and well worn as we both know. Still it simply isn't germane to the point that was actually being refuted that you jumped in the middle of. That argument was that the Bills had to make a choice and couldn't sign both Levitre and Byrd to top contracts. Ignoring all the extraneous possibilities, the actual money numbers say that that argument is indefensible. The Bills could easily have kept both players and had money left over. That's the simple objective math of it. The subjective arguments of who is more valuable and why a team might go cheap at this position and spend at that position notwithstanding. There's a good debate there, to be sure, but I was NOT speaking to it. I understand the mathematics rather well. Thanks, anyway. BTW, your psychic powers aren't working. I never said Byrd was flawless.

Who said it was hard to understand? The actual point was made that there was no way to keep all the good players when Levitre was mentioned. Well, it turns out that argument has a $14.8M hole in it. It absolutely, positively was possible to keep Levitre for what he got paid. You're changing the argument and implying that the Bills have a sub-cap on the interior line positions and couldn't afford Levitre based on your assumptions about this sub-cap.

And Levitre got more than that, right? Because, if they couldn't afford to keep him at all, he must have signed for more than $22.6M somewhere else, right?

Statistics appear naturally. As do people that can't count.

How many millions are the Bills under the cap?

Say nothing of the raw economics and how it clearly undermines the position that a FS is more important than a OL as you posted above. The OL gets paid nearly twice as much.

That may be. But, the original point was that the Bills were being smart because they knew or suspected Byrd was damaged goods all along. So, if Byrd is damaged goods and you know that, why then would you come to the conclusion he was one of the best at his position, or any position? Why tag a guy that might be cooked?

Actually, I just rephrased what Papazoid wrote. You act like a mouthpiece for the Bills front office.

So, in a word: Money. It's not about talent or making the best investments to build a winning team, it's about money.

You need to come over to the discussion about Byrd, Ed Reed, and contract values.

Really? Watching Manning last night, I couldn't help but recall that the Bills were a team not on his short list. PS: And, yes, I'd rather have Manning than Super Mario. Why would a team use its franchise tag on a guy that they feel has enough red flags health wise that they don't want to sign him to a long term contract at top money? Especially if there are two excellent players coming due for free agency at the same time and both would get top money in free agency and they must make a decision which one they want to use the tag upon?

I like your take. Makes sense.

and a worse defense

Good question. I suspect that the team cannot trade its franchise player designation right along with the player. Edit: Research says Byrd is stuck for 2013. He cannot sign a long-term contract with any NFL team.

The formula used to be based on a team's record. My conjecture is that the present formula has something to do with TV market coverage.

We want Reggie Corner back.

Say, do you think they told Marrone that he'd be able to pursue his own guy at the QB position?

http://www.buffalobi...92-9ea5110d19e8 "... incredibly false information ..." (around 5:30 into the PC)

His girlfriend recovered.

You said that having a better player wouldn't have made a bit of difference. You then followed up that nugget with the gem that the QB is more important anyway, as if the OP had said otherwise.

Who said having a TE was more important than a good QB? If the choice is between having Tom Brady and Rob Gronkowski, anybody would take Brady. On the other hand, Brady's job is much tougher if you surround him with garbage that can't run precise routes or catch a football. Playing 10 against 11 because your TE has no hands and is a token blocker at best isn't a recipe for sustained success.

It's a position that the Bills have, for the most part, simply conceded as an offensive weapon for years. That fits your data: teams that win have and make use of the contributions made by the position. Those teams win football games in the NFL, which is only irrelevant if winning is not a priority. Concerning the Bills, Trent Edwards is a very middling QB whose best skill was the dump off pass. Not coincidentally, the Bills "best" years of TE play in recent memory came when he was the primary starting QB and Robert Royal was dropping nearly as many as he caught. If Edwards had been dumping off to Tony Gonzalez, those drops turn into first downs that keep the chains moving and the offense on the field. None of which would've made Trent Edwards a great QB any more than Dick Jauron was an offensive mastermind of a coach. Still it is not difficult to imagine how the Bills offense staying on the field would give them both a chance to score more points and to keep the undersized Jauron Tampa-2 defense on the sidelines where it wouldn't be as prone to be decimated by injury season after season.

Since this has gone on for so long, it appears that the organization as a whole just doesn't place any value on the position. Which is kind of odd, in a way. According to Sports Illustrated, the average TE is paid less than a kicker. They are the definition of a bargain weapon.

There is a marked difference in the approach. Shanahan and Carroll came into their organizations with plans on the offense and defense systems that they were going to use and hit the ground running overhauling the roster top to bottom including taking chances on obtaining QBs. Their first moves at QB solutions failed, btw. They quickly moved on down the road. The Bills under Gailey never even got out of the driveway. The Bills started QBs that they already had on Jauron's roster the entire time Gailey was coach. The difference is definitive: After 3 years, Gailey was fired and Carroll and Shanahan led their teams to the playoffs.