BarleyNY

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.

I don't know about that. Why is it automatically assumed that Wood can play guard well? Also that isn't the whole equation. Mack is going to get a huge contract. How are the Bills going to afford all of those players? Mack is looking at $10M per year, RI is in line for $5M-$6M per year and Glenn is looking at $11M+ per year. How the hell would the Bills make that work? And, yeah, first year hits can be minimized somewhat, but how about everything beyond that? Plus there is the very real possibility that Wood can't be effective at RG.

As a lifelong Browns fan and much more recent Bills fan I'd say you're probably correct. But it really all comes down to what's worse for you personally. Is it the illusion of hope and opportunity for improvement or the despair of hopelessness? The Browns used to be the best of the best (worst of the worst?) in the former category. I used to joke that hope was part of the curse because without it there could be no soul-crushing letdown and fall into despair. But those days are gone. Now it just seems hopeless for the Browns. Even with the very real possibility that Hue Jackson can be a force of positive change and help turn the team around. No, it's believe-it-when-I-see-it time in Cleveland. The Bills still give their fans hope, but they really havent delivered anything beyond mediocrity (or worse) in a long time. Still, there's such a close margin between 8-8 and making the playoffs at 10-6 I don't blame the fans for getting excited. But I've seen that in Cleveland and I'm admittedly jaded. I no longer look for what could go right for a team or what genius I'm missing in their plan. I no longer assume competence or functionality. But I don't assume the worst either. I'm pretty emotionless about it all, except on game day when just about anything can happen. I really try to see the logic in situations and work through them that way. Usually there's a lot of grey and I've had my mind changed a number of times recently. I guess my takeaway is this: What's worse? Seeing things as so bad that you really don't get worked up about them anymore or getting excited and hopeful only to have those hopes and dreams repeatedly crushed? Make that choice for yourselves.

Mack wants to be the highest paid center in the NFL - and he likely will be with his next deal. Thats way too rich for the Bills and, quite frankly, why would the Bills go after someone to replace the best offensive lineman they have signed for the 2016 season?

I don't think that's correct. Where are you seeing that rule? This is all I found that addresses repeated tags of the same player. It says it is allowable and gives a 3 year running example: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/early-lead/wp/2016/02/15/nfl-franchise-tag-rules-and-the-top-candidates-to-be-tagged-in-2016/

I think he might be yanking everyone's chain.

I was really impressed by Darby. He was a steal that I didn't see coming, but Whaley knew it. Williams looks like an excellent find in the fourth as well. The article way overrates Miller though. He's only a year in, but he hasn't shown me he will stick in the NFL. Still, with no first round pick Darby and Williams make it an excellent draft all by themselves.

Thanks. Yes. They could release higher priced players, but the lowest paid ones roll out of the Top 51 automatically. Until final cut down day at least. Then all players count.

His original post (and some others) were a little confusing. I was just trying to clarify that teams actually can't go over the cap. They can be set up to go over in a future year, but have to be in compliance before that league year starts. Not trying to nitpick, just clarify.

Rhino (and others) are correct. The Bills Rookie Pool will be about $5M (unless some major wheeling and dealing is done). But they don't need $5M to sign them. Each rookie will displace another player (Rule of 51). Each displaced player's salary will be about $500k and the Bills have 6 picks. $5M-(6x$500k)=$2M. The Bills will need to have $2M in effective cap space to sign their rookies. http://overthecap.com/draft/

Anyone else think that Mathis' one year, $2.5M deal with Denver just MIIIIIIGHT have been a little bit about ring chasing?

No, teams can't. Teams are PROJECTED to be over the cap for the following league year, but must be under the cap prior to the official start of league year. That date is March 9th this year. The only exception is that if a player is released and the termination of the contract puts a team over, then that team has 7 days to get back under. The team cannot sign any additional players until it does.

If he had 16 sacks I think he'd have been very happy with the scheme. That's true. It's a crying shame to see so much talent wasted under Rex & Co.'s scheme. That's the cause of decline for Mario and most of the rest of the defense. The only thing worse than watching that would be to watch the team pay players astronomical amounts of money and then waste their talents. If Rex isn't changing his scheme and he isn't going anywhere, then players like Mario have to go. The problem is that some other vey talented players that are making huge money, but don't fit the system can't be let go for years. It's like watching a trainwreck in slow motion.