BarleyNY

Agree that stopping the run is a concern due to the loss of Spikes and Searcy. Also the typical concerns when switching to a new scheme apply here.

It's not a weak argument at all, at least not according to the SCOTUS. Feel free to respond to my other points.

Exactly how does marriage equality take over an aspect of your life? The State vs. Federal argument is incredibly weak here as people, including married couples, move temporarily and permanently from state to state. There's been too much issue with that not to settle things. The gubment out of marriage argument looks pretty sad both on its face (since there are a lot of legal reasons for it) and because of timing (where have all of you been the last couple hundred years?).

True, but Flacco got his contract after he carried his team on his back through the playoffs right to a Super Bowl win. Wilson has won one, but hasn't put in that level of performance. I figured that difference in productions and the rise in cap space would just about balance each other out and Wilson would wind up at about the same place.

Wilson is a good QB. He does a lot well, he's smart and decisive. He uses his legs wisely. He's not a superstar talent, though. He's not elite, but he's been successful enough that he's going to be paid like he is. He's got a good enough resume and enough on field success that Seatle won't have much choice in the end. They're going to have to pay him very well. Not Aaron Rogers well, but close to Joe Flacco well. And who knows what that means anyway. Can anyone make sense of the pay scale for QBs?: http://overthecap.com/position/quarterback/

I was thinking the same thing. Just posturing at this point anyway.

Very well done there, OC. One additional caveat is that the salary cap wasn't adopted until '94. That makes it even tougher to replicate that kind of success - and makes the 2000 Ravens even more impressive (as much as it pains this Cleveland native to say it). I hope the Bills can keep a dominating defense together for many years, but other than retaining up our own I want to see the focus on improving the offense.

Thank you.

I'm looking for a reasonable body shop that does good work. I've got two vehicles that have scratches and/or dents that need repaired. I haven't needed this done since I've moved to Buffalo and the one recommendation I did get has yet to yield a quote despite the one car having been looked at a month ago. I live in Williamsville and proximity is nice, but not necessary.

Agreed. The team certainly didn't scheme to his strengths and I never heard him gripe publicly about it. I never understood the crap he constantly got from the fans. I'm interested to see what he can do if used properly so watching some NO games this season should be interesting.

That's completely myopic. What you're describing is perfect way to screw up a team long term. You're advocating putting the best product on the field this year, but ignoring the impact of significantly overspending for the level of talent gained and for less impactful positions. "Poor value? Who cares if it makes us marginally better this year! Can't afford to pay our quality LT next year? We'll worry about that later! What matters is that we have a slightly above average TE this year!" It's exactly how you don't want to budget a football team. Congratulations, you're our Dan Snyder Award recipient for the thread.

I'd be fine with a 5 year, $40M deal, too. I think that's fair. I'd want to get a deal done before the season started if I was him (or his agent). I'd be pushing for a better deal until about that time, but I'd go with the above deal or better at that point. The risk of a blown knee followed by hoping to catch on somewhere with a one year, vet minimum deal to show I could still play would drive me to that. Just look at what happened in Atlanta with Sam Baker. Imagine if that knee injury had happened before he got his new deal instead of after. I agree that breaking the playoff drought is a big deal. It sure would be nice, but I don't want to see it followed by a backslide. I don't get too caught up in what the fans think either. Every year a couple fan bases get all worked up because they were Offseason Champs, but unless a franchise QB came to town those were usually some very disappointed people by season's end. Teams like Washington and Miami have played that part in recent years. How'd that work out for those teams?

http://overthecap.com/position/left-tackle/ I like the OTC table because it is just LTs and shows year of contract expiration. I totally agree that Albert money is too much. I see Glenn in the $7M-$9M per year range depending on guarantees and structure. Has anyone heard what his asking price is? I looked, but no dice. I did see that he's expected to get more than Jared Velheer who just got a 5 year, $35M deal. That makes sense. That was from buffalobills.com.

I don't see things turning out that way. McCoy's contract is $8M per year, Spiller's is $4M per year - and Spiller isn't the Gold Standard here as many solid RBs are considerably less. Plus McCoy cost us Kiko who was a very good player on a cheap rookie contract. At least Shady might be a top 5 back this year and that can't be overlooked. Value can be reasonably argued, but paying premiums for RBs is always a concern for me - especially with the amount of guaranteed money assigned to him. Clay is more worrisome. He's the 4th highest paid TE in the league now and I just don't see the value (again with so much guaranteed). He's good at everything - which is a very good asset in a TE (and one I personally love), but he's not great at anything. That's a big worry. Spending these premiums on these positions is going to force the Bills to lose out on better values at more important positions, including some of their own impending FAs. That's going to hurt them starting next offseason. I wouldn't have an issue with it if they had an aging QB and were pushing for a SB, but to go this route with Cassel, Manuel and Taylor? I don't see the point.

You're really being selective if that article got you excited about the season - or you skipped the first two paragraphs.

It all depends on if the player wants to risk it. The upside of playing for a bigger deal is that they might make a lot more if they stay healthy and perform well, but the downside isn't so much having an off year as it is having a bad injury. That's the killer. Imagine what having a horrible knee injury would cost Glenn. FWIW most players hate playing out the last year of their contracts due to this risk. Plus the very high performers know they run the risk of being in the same spot the following season due to potentially being tagged. There are exceptions, but that's the rule.

No, there's nothing that should be controversial about saying a team must prioritize. But here's the rub - the Bills have already put some players ahead of some of the ones on that list. Shady and Clay are two big money acquisitions this past offseason. Will the difference between their production versus that of either a) the next player on the depth chart or b) an inexpensive replacement be bigger than the difference between Glenn or Gilmore and theirs? Or Dareus and his? That is a question I can't answer definitively right now, but I'll be watching games with that thought in mind. What worries me most are that the relative values of the positions in question. I'd much rather spend bigger on a CB, a DT and/or a LT than a RB and/or a TE. Also this is where I think about The contracts of Eric Wood and Chris Williams. If Wood was paid more in line with his recent production and CW was never signed I'd feel a bit better about the overall situation. But here we are.

I would agree that the vast majority of fights are avoidable. Once in a great while someone is in the wrong place at the wrong time, but that's rare - and most of those wrong places and wrong times are pretty obvious.

Depends on the QB and the applecart.

The building a team through high priced FA route has never worked for any team EXCEPT in rare instances where QBs are concerned (see Brees, Drew). I don't know why this time it should be any different.You worry about upcoming cap issues before they cause some substantial problems or you wind up with substantial problems. I'd prefer someone worries about them before it becomes a detriment to building the team.

My reasons for pessimism: - No decent QB on the roster - Dependence on improving offense through mostly expensive FA and trade acquisitions - Looming cap issues that will limit future moves There lots to love regarding virtually all of the defense and some of the offense, but those are not inconsequential negatives.

If - and it's a fairly big if - I wouldn't expect it to be until someone better came available. You're right - the Bills can't go with just EJ and TT.

Having to cut Cassel would be more disappointing than surprising. If he can't be depended upon as a a starter or as a mentor who can spot start if needed then he needs to go. Hopefully he improves. It isn't like he's going anywhere anytime soon. If Henderson goes because someone better is brought in then I'm happy the Bills improved.

It's just a new application of an old label. Meh. No biggie. What I find more interesting is that at least one of those schools actually added new requirements - ACT/SAT scores and community service. That's sure a positive. My only concern is if the reason for so many great grades is that the tests and grading throughout the year is easy. That obviously a real possibility.

Could be Chandler just because of how heavily the Pats* rely on their TEs. Kiko is a real possibility as are Byrd and Spiller.