BarleyNY

A franchise QB is a big factor in a team's talent. Their recent records indicate that they've been average with an average amount of OVERALL talent compared to other teams. If they had an elite QB with a huge cap number, then they'd have less talent elsewhere because they couldn't afford some of the other expensive players. If their spending was in line with their record, then they'd have cap room to afford a franchise QB in addition to the current roster.

Good reminder. A lot of people (and not just Bills fans) are getting worked up about players not re-signing yet, but do not realize that teams and players can't officially do anything until the new league year.

Every team has players other teams would love to have. But the Bills don't have enough talent overall to warrant their spending. They're spending like a team trying to keep a Super Bowl contender together, but have been average. It's not that they are devoid of talent, they're not. They just don't have the talent level or success to warrant where they are from a cap perspective. They're going to have to dig themselves out.

Teams that draft well can always keep the cap reasonably in check. The Bills are not in a great spot from a talent and cap balance right now, so hitting in the draft is of even more importance than usual. While there are certainly some very talented players on the team, the wins just haven't been there to justify such high spending. There's not much to be done except to try to draft well and find deals in free agency. Planned or not, there's really no other reasonable way forward right now. The good news is that this is a great draft for defensive linemen. You're sure right about that.

It's a place I feel I can help out so no worries and I enjoy it. Everybody can contribute something.

Thanks. It is a part of the game that I find fascinating.

It sounds ridiculous, but that total includes incentives and there is nothing regarding structure. The reality of the contract might be far less extravagant. Leaking that selective information is probably a tactic used by the Broncos to create public pressure to push him to sign the deal.

I'm not sure what you mean by that. Currently they're in the 24th best shape for the 2017 league year, not including rollovers.

The $60M projected space would include the rise in base cap from what I've seen. The Bills are at about $107 in commitments for 2017 at the moment. The current base cap is $155. Next year will likely be about $168M. That's about $61M in cap room by my estimate. That might seem like a lot at first blush, but it doesn't include cap hits for Tyrod, Glenn, Gilmore, Incognito, this year's draft class or any other QB. Those players (or their replacements) won't take all of it, but they'll make a substantial dent in it.

This was Apple's entire comment on the matter: "I've been asked a lot of weird questions. I don't know if I could say on TV," Apple said. "The Falcons coach, one of the coaches, was like, 'So do you like men?' It was like the first thing he asked me. It was weird. I was just like, 'No.' He was like, 'if you're going to come to Atlanta, sometimes that's how it is around here, you're going to have to get used to it.' I guess he was joking but they just ask most of these questions to see how you're going to react." It sure didn't seem like he thought he'd get anyone in trouble or create a stir. It's a slow media cycle and this is an easy article to write. Apple won't be hurt by it and the Falcons apologized. I should probably end there. Now that it hit the news every single team has probably communicated (for the umpteenth time) to their staffs that comments and questions like this are not acceptable. At some point this sort of thing becomes a stupidity test for career potential. It's sort of like players who smoke pot before the combine. If you're not smart enough to know you can't do it - or if you have such a big problem that you do it even though you know better - then you are a liability and we probably don't have much use for you.

Didn't Pat seem a little drunk in that video?

Incredibly stupid - and probably illegal - thing to ask.

I am coming off as defending Mario - and I clearly am to a degree. But that's actually muddying my main point, which is that the big problem in 2015 was the mismatch between scheme and talent. Unlike Mario, I don't see that going away in 2016. In the future I'm going to try to stay out of any arguments regarding Mario because, quite frankly, he's gone and what happened with him in 2015 doesn't really matter to the Bills moving forward. If it was largely a symptom of a bigger problem, then there will be plenty of other evidence to back that up. If the defense is back on top in 2016, then I have been wrong and there isn't a problem going forward. We shall see.....

That's weak sauce. Teams deal with injuries and suspensions every season. The Bills do. Every team they play against does. Every team they get ranked against does. Nobody notices when a team or unit still plays well, but it is suddenly trotted out by some people as a convenient excuse when they don't.

I'm just going to disagree on Hughes and Dareus (and others), but obviously a NT that fits the scheme will help. I don't see a bunch of players who excel at an attacking one-gap scheme all transitioning well to Rex's two-gap system. And don't get me wrong, it isn't a bad system by any stretch. He just did not have the right players for it and he forced it on the ones he did have. If he does that again in 2016 the defense might be a bit better than in 2015, but it won't be what it could have been with the right scheme.

On the former statement, it depends on what he was asked to do on the plays where he was "dancing". Believe it or not, sometimes defensive linemen have responsibilities other than rushing the passer. Sometimes their job is to maintain a pocket but not push it. That often goes hand in hand with asking them to try to deflect passes at the LOS, something Mario looked to be trying to do. Maybe he was given those kinds of responsibilities so often that he became frustrated. Or maybe he didn't like the scheme and dogged it all season. I don't know. But he sure seems to be more of a symptom of the Bills' ills than he was a cause. Would anyone care to respond to that? You know, the thing where the whole rest of the defense fell off so precipitously. As for Mario's next deal, I'm less interested in that than I am in his production and fit with his next team. At worst, a low (for him) show-me deal will have substantial incentives. He will get paid if he performs. He might get paid regardless as there are a lot of team with huge amounts of cap space available. And I'm also very interested to see how the defense performs next season. Man, I hope it goes that way too. It's reasonable to expect some growing pains with new NFL owners (even if they were already was an NHL owners). I hope the Pegulas learn from everything and come out better for it.

Couple observations on that play. Mario's responsibility appeared to be the RB, which he got to quickly. He appeared to pick up Cousins with the ball after it was probably too late to get to him, but he didn't exactly chase the play either. He did his primary job and that was pretty much it. There was no extra effort. While that's not exactly quitting, it obviously isn't what you want from your players. Of course, this was from the end of the season too (3rd last game) and I've already mentioned that I knew Mario was dogging it - and why I thought he was. He was frustrated with his use specifically and the scheme in general, he knew he wasn't going to be a Bill next year and he was probably protecting his health for free agency. I'd have a much different opinion of the situation if I: A) didn't think he was correct about his misuse and scheme and B) had ever seen this behavior from him before. Mario was the Bills' best player for three seasons and never created any issues. When he was healthy and in a 4-3 for the Texans the same was true. So grabbing the pitchforks and torches and going after him doesn't make any sense to me. If the Bills had hired Hue Jackson and Schwartz remained as DC we wouldn't be having this conversation. Mario would have still been lighting it up and the big issue would have been how to afford to keep him and the rest of the defense together. Scapegoating Mario is easy, but it ignores the real problem - a defensive scheme ill-suited to the talent on the front seven. Mario was an easy player to release, but there are others that don't fit the scheme that aren't. Dareus and Hughes aren't going anywhere anytime soon due to their contracts, but they don't fit either. All of that money (and cap space) poured into a defense is being wasted. That's the real problem and it hasn't gone anywhere.

That's ridiculous. Please show me so e examples of these concerns from that time. And if people suggest a wait-and-see-how-Rex-does-this-season approach for him, then I suggest the same for Mario. I suspect he will be back to form if used properly.

I'm so sick of the Mario "quitting" narrative. The man played in the league for 10 seasons and never had any question of his effort on the field until the very end of last season. That was after his requests regarding his use and scheme had fallen on deaf ears and strong rumors of his impending release were already in the news. Summing up the situation as "he quit" doesn't really capture the situation. But your point about waiting to see the team when they hit the field this year before deciding about Rex certainly has some validity. But I'll be watching closely because what I saw last season was a defensive head coach who utilized a scheme that matched pretty much nobody on his front 7. And I saw that defense suffer for it. Next season I'll be watching to see if the scheme has changed and what the results are, but before that I'll be looking to see what players are swapped out and for whom. That'll give a good indication of the direction the defense is headed.

Loved? No. Marrone was using the Bills as a stepping stone. When the change of ownership occurred he told the Pegulas he wanted an extension. They declined so he cashed out and bailed, expecting that he'd get the NYJ job. But he'd overestimated himself and didn't. I understand that a HC under a previous owner would want some assurances that he wasn't going to be a short bridge to that new owner's own hand picked guy. But Marrone sure hadn't done enough to earn that extension and he wasn't willing to coach the Bills one more season to prove his value. How do we know that was the deal? Look to Whaley. He was in the same exact situation and he didn't cash out and bail. Whatever you think of him or his performance, Whaley manned up. He stayed, did his job and got his extension. No. I'm sorry. Whaley EARNED his extension. Marrone opted not to even try.

I was thinking something close to that. Bills in the $5M per and RI in the $6M per areas. What would you say to something like a 3 year deal with a $5M signing bonus, and salaries of $1M, $5M and $6M with only the first year salary guaranteed? The Bills could be out from under that in two years for $11M and the cap hit from the signing bonus would be spread over three years. First year cap hit would be $2.67M.

Fair enough. I totally agree with that.

The Suh deal definitely looked like it was set up for a restructure this season. His salary ($23.5M) and cap hits ($28.6M) are astronomical for anything other than an elite QB.

That's probably all true, but often it's the smart people that know it's best to walk away when things get out of hand. Suh is a great example. Some team was going to give him a deal so stupid big that it would make it impossible for him to live up to it. Miami was that team. The other 31 teams in the league were winners on that one. Mario's deal wasn't nearly as out of hand as Suh's, but the Bills paid a premium for him. He did a great job of living up to it as much as possible (overall).

To answer the thread title: For the same reason I don't take up the Victoria's Secret models' repeated invitations to their slumber parties.