Rk_Bills86

LoL - ask this guy how he's going to deal with being 3rd in the ACFE this year.

I really liked how the draft board fell for this mock: 30. Jayson Oweh DE Penn State 61. Asante Samuel Jr. CB Florida State 93. Kenneth Gainwell RB Memphis (because we love 3rd round rbs) 161. Jamien Sherwood S Auburn 174. Josh Imatorbhebhe WR Illinois 213. Jack Anderson G Texas Tech 236. Tay Gowan CB UCF (This seems unrealistic that he would fall this far)

I think most people would agree that a very slight trade down out of the first is a high likely hood for us. I think not having a 4th rounder is a killer for this draft class. While I somewhat agree with the assessment of the Bills looking for a playmaker, I think a more accurate statement would be "Athletic Freak". The Bills coaching staff has shown an incredible job of being able to coach and work with what they have to this point. I wouldn't be shocked if we get some picks of players that have some incredible workout numbers and limited exposure. We have a team with no "GLARING" needs, so at this point it's all about upgrading to elite talent and getting equal==younger talent at positions. Highest two positional needs: DE and CB2 Areas where I could see us getting younger: DT (Specifically a Space Eater), G/C, and S Food For Thought pick: We run 4-2-5 90% of the time - would this be true if we had a beast SAM. Also what value would a tweener S/LB have for us. Can't think of his name, but The guy from the Chargers comes to mind as being something we'd love.

This is underappreciated

Are we even All-In just for this year? We're set to basically take BPA or only aim for highest on our board for this draft. We have room to work on important extensions for next off-season. FA next year is going to be absolutely flooded with talent. For the first time in my memory we have no true glaring "hole" on the team. This is the type of team building we haven't seen in 30ish years and the first since the Cap was put in. We are set to be major players for years to come.

I mean this is even better overall and to the original point no reason to add any value from his eventual extension to this years cap hit.

I just don't see us having the room to add any part of his signing bonus to this years cap hit. I fully understand where you guys are coming from - but lets look at where we're at currently: According to Spotrac we have $4.1 Million in space - but this does not include whatever contract Efe Obada got. Ways to increase our cap space remaining: Dion Dawkins bonus option (similar to Tre unless there was a window we missed to activate it +7.5 million) Diggs Restructure/Extend ($$ unknown) Hughes Restructure/Extend ($$unknown) Things we need money for: Rookies Round 1-3: roughly around $1.5-2 million Rookies Round 4-7: most likely zero regarding cap concerns due to not being top 51 Emergency Signing: Injuries happen - we will most likely sign a few players during the year due to injuries - recommended $4-6 million cap space reserved (number suggested by a GM on XM talk show - didn't catch name) Rollover Cap space: if applicable Right now we're sitting pretty close to cap if we look at Efe and Rookies being added in. We need to have some money for signing players incase of injuries. I could be persuaded to not aim for an initial rollover pot. But essentially if the year started now - we're be in the theoretical red or be playing a dangerous game with little wiggle room for unexpected injuries. Directly regarding JA and a signing bonus - any and all signing bonuses can be distributed across up to 5 years on a contract. We could just sign extend him for 6 years and the first part of the signing bonus wouldn't hit the cap until 2023. (Special note here, when a signing bonus hits the cap is NOT when the player gets the money - I think there was a disconnect in an earlier post - signing bonus money goes to the player the second they are done putting pen to paper) Hell we could extend him for 8 years with 2( or more? don't know the limit here) voidable years and have his signing bonus be spread across the last 5 years and his signing bonus wouldn't hit the cap books until 2024. One step further - the new contract concept that Jerry Jones started using recently, the team reserves the right to convert a portion of the remaining contract into a signing bonus at anytime throughout the contract. Think something similar to what we just did with Tre but repeatable and at the teams discretion. Huge special note here - they are not limited in how often they can do this. Now I'm not sure how I feel about this - but this type of clause in the contract allows a team to really have a ton of wiggle room when they see how much cap they do or don't have. There should be zero hurry or desire to stress the cap anymore than it already is for this year - when any value he signs for will be chump change in 5 years and we should realistically be aiming to lock up Allen long term - preferably overlapping into the new broadcasting deal so we're not dealing with a contract market where everything has reset right at the start of the new money entering the NFL (I should clarify this - the CBA money starts entering the NFL market this year, but with the likely expansion to 17 regular season games between 2021 and 2023 more money will be available to the players). *The current train of thought is that next year we should see the cap be slightly higher than it was anticipated to be prior to COVID Original Cap estimated for 2021: $210millin Current Estimated Cap for 2022: $215million I wouldn't mind a contract extension that looks something like: 8 years (last two years voidable) - $275 million, $67 million signing bonus (or more - but this 1 ups Dak by literally 1million), $145 million guaranteed (I think this is fair - it's slightly more than Mahomes but across less total years) * I think 43 million a yr is a good benchmark and over 6 years that would be 258, the round up to 275 sweetens the pot but you tack on the 2 voidable years to give wiggle room. take away the signing bonus you only need to average 34.6 million a year. I provide the following overly generalized template: *Feel free to divide up $67 million as you see fit and add it to any of the years *Feel free to change any yearly amount but what you take away from one year you must add back somewhere else - may I suggest a lower 2022/2023 hit and a higher 2024/2025 hit as the market resets from the CBA money from a likely extended regular season. *Feel free to up the signing bonus and make additional changes (example: $75 million signing bonus would be $31.6 million for 6 yrs.) 2021: $6.9 million Extension begins 2022: $34.6 million + 2023: $34.6 million + New CBA money has entered the league and market values have had full FA pass to reset player values 2024: $34.6 million + 2025: $34.6 million + 2026: $34.6 million + Voidable years (extra years to roll over signing bonus if needed): 2027: + 2028: +

Didn't say they couldn't challenge it - I asked you to state on what grounds would easily win them the case - since you inferred the legal copyright/trademark squatters would be simple to deal with in court. The onus is on the accuser.

Not a lawyer - however - I did work for NFL Films and ESPN (in multimedia) as well as other companies (product and brand design) and as a Free Lance designer where dealing with copyrights and trademarks was a daily thing. I have won in court in a trademark vs copyright suit vs a movie distribution company where my trademarked won over the company and their copyright. I have watched companies I've worked for absolutely destroy competition by abusing copyright/trademark laws to get them immediately removed from amazon and have their sellers license revoked (I should note this is only American companies). I again ask you again - directly tell me - if someone has a legal copyright/trademark to a name the WFT wants - what exactly are they going to do in court to get someone to relinquish it. I don't care if the owner is a legal squatter. If you think riding the "intent at conception" angle thinking it's going to be a slam dunk in court you are sadly mistaken - which is what the lawyer in the article eludes to. There are plenty of copyrights and trademarks that don't get used for their original intent at conception. Changing the intent at future date and then seeing through with said secondary intent is just as valid.

You should take your own advise on this one: 1) I'm not coming at this from zero experience 2) Websites are actually completely comparable - see point 1. Many of the laws related to this are directly pulled from the Dot Com laws that came about from domain squatters - see my original post where I mention this. 3) If you would like other options anyone squatting on a copyright and trademark could use here's one that is common practice - create a brand with both a copyright and trademark, have said logo/name on a item that you give away for free to promote a related (or unrelated) item. This can be done with say, a microfiber towel that is packaged with camera parts for sale - which then allow you claim exclusivity to a packaged deal of sale items due to you having the legal rights to the "free" item with your copyright/trademark on it. The definition of "use" of the copyright/trademark is extremely broad. - see point 1 Let's extend this to say - a recreational sports team. I would like to sponsor a softball team through my business for a league. I could easily come up with a name and logo - copyright/trademark it - and so long as the team exists I would win in court. 4) The money to push this guy through court - some of these people are squatting on 20+ names. Do you think they care if you drag them through court - that they haven't seen that as a course of action? This is literally their retirement plan. Also it will cost the team WAY more than it costs some of these people. Not to mention - on what grounds are you going to bully this "dude" into giving up their carefully saved nest egg? No seriously - since I'm the one being "snarky" - I would like you to tell me on what grounds the WFT would win in court over a legal name squatter? 5) Copyright vs Trademark distinction here is very important. But in both cases the name alone is enough to file for. Copyright is intellectual property vs Trademark being things like company names, logos, etc.. While you might be able to argue that this is more of a trademark case - the argument would be moot if this "dude" or anyone for that matter has a filed and granted Copyright/Trademark. The scope is irrelevant - see point 1. 6) You are right that many of the copyright/trade mark squatters are half-brained thinking that this scheme is their golden goose. I will agree to you on this - the idea is insane. 7) That being said - I have seen as a standard business practice, the ease of obtaining and abusing copyright/trademark laws and how they favor those with the valid copyright/trademark heavily. They are called legal squatters for a reason - they do just enough to legally maintain their copyright/trademark for the duration that they see fit to have such legal protections. While this might not sit well with you, that does NOT change the laws and how they work.

No player cares about a signing bonus - especially when talking about as large of a contract as JA is going to command - the only number that matters of Guaranteed Money. That's it. Now - having a signing bonus is nice, because it's money now, but these aren't people choosing to take a lump sum vs deferred payments on lottery winnings over 30 years. The second Cousin's signed his first Vikings contract, the power of gtd money became king for all superstar players. There are literally no players that would option for a signing bonus over a much larger guaranteed money value because it offers FAR greater protection and overall value. As a matter of fact, why would ANY player that wasn't a far lower tier care about signing bonus.

I should maybe clarify. The thread title is misleading - there was no restructure to Tre's contract - we only exercised an option that was already built in - that spread 7.5 million across later years while removing it from this years cap hit. Back to JA - there is no reason to have any of his next contract value hit this season. He is under his rookie contract - we have the option to grab him for a 5th year at 23 million if we don't get a contract done. While I expect us to use the same option in Dawkins contract to get more cap space if needed (there is a chance we missed the window to do this? not sure if I read that there was actually a set date to decide on exercising the option prior to), it will not be for JA. I understand your view of "Brady did it" for all those years. Let's get a few things out of the way here. 1) Beane clearly knows how to structure contracts - we have had 1 truly bad contract in the last 4 years. 2) JA cap hit when he dos get his extension won't be too bad. The cap will go back up in the following years. 3) Brady is an extreme outlier when it comes to taking less money "for the team" and it has less to do with him and more to do with his situation. How many other players in the league are NOT the one bringing in the majority of the money in their relationship/family. Brady is not the bread winner - it's very easy to say, yeah, i'll take less money on a multi-million contract because my wife makes more than me and due to that I can afford to value winning over financial security for my family. 4) There are so many ways to spread the cap hit. Worst case we use the Jerry Jones method where the team retains the right to at anytime create a signing bonus for a value and implement it (Dak and others have this - it lets them choose a value and just write it off over 5 years at the whim of the team). There is the revival of the team option bonus - see Tre and Dawkins. There is also the voidable years that where never going to be used except in extreme situations that allows for a less controlled version of the signing bonus rules for cap offsetting. 5) The Mahomes extension that has an absurd amount of yrs and pay on it is a prime example of the type of contract we should look to implement as the size and depth of wiggle room in it is great for bot the player and the team. Both sides know that it is unlikely that Mahomes will play out the entirety of that contract with A) restructures [already happened] and/or B) both just agreeing to a "new" contract years down the line.

Spotrac estimates our rookie class to cost about 6 million - but there are things to factor here: 1) You are correct that beyond round 3 - picks will not be top 51 contracts 2) Rd 1-3 picks will actually push other contracts down: Some simple math as an example - We sign a rookie for 1.5 million but they push a 750k contract down under the top 51. Total cap change ends up being only 750k for that rookie.

JA will get an extension - not a new contract that has any monetary value effect for this season. The earliest this would hit our cap would be next year.

The "Dude" has every right to copyright and trade mark names that are NOT being used by anyone other than himself. That is literally how it works. This is in reference to the multitude of names the squatter has legally reserved rights to such as the Washington - Redhawks, Diesels, Generals, Patriots, etc... The guy literally reached out and offered several names for free and since he got no response he's not waiting to be contacted: https://www.cbssports.com/nfl/news/washington-redskins-name-change-trademark-squatter-says-only-four-name-options-are-viable-for-2020-season/ Your assertion that he has no right to the names is ridiculous. The guy could literally make a website tomorrow using the names and it would hold up in court. He's not the only one with names being squatted on. Any recent bar passing attorney would easily be able to dismiss a high profile team trying to strong arm an individual for a name they have had for years and can show records of use in any setting. An NFL team has no "RIGHT" to overtake a name and would lose embarrassingly in court.

If it hasn't been brought up yet - the reason they haven't gotten a new name boils down to two things: 1) A legal copyright/trademark squatter who has bought the rights to virtually every suggested name over the past 15-20 years + the multiple logos. There were rules put in place to prevent something like this as it was seen as possible issue during the Dot Com boom - however the rules are pretty simple to circumvent if you are willing to put in the time/effort. It boils down to you need to use the name in some way (multiple usage stipulations are noted) and this one guy has basically done that. 2) As mentioned, the team is most likely going to be up for sale, and it is not everyday that a new owner gets to walk into owning a new team and be welcomed to changing it's name. There is a rumor that Bezos wants to buy the team and many feel that if he does buy the team they could be renamed to the Washington Primes. And more directly to the OP original post - I doubt the spike in sales from changing team name would be noticeable in the teams overall revenue stream. New is always king - with or without a true logo. You might see slightly higher new sales if they had an actual logo attached, but truthfully, considered the current economic situation, sales are probably down across the board as is. Any rush they may have had to select a new name and push merchandise was most likely nullified.

Pats have an old and worn down Cam as starting QB - trying to reuse the formula that worked with Brady. Their D is older and missing parts Phins - unless Tua overcomes a LOT of his short comings (no pun intended) they won't be anything to worry about. New O system to learn. Jets - Hoping and praying Darnold or a rookie QB will somehow lead them to the promise land. Oh and 2 new systems. Yeah.... sorry - we are clearly the front runners to be repeat champs unless something drastic changes. We are better on O, and slightly better on D having Star back - this is without adding in any impact players we might have from the draft. A full and possibly regular off-season for Allen to get more reps in with Diggs and Davis and Sanders? The D last year was getting used to a lot of new pieces - which right now equates to the return of Star and figuring out who CB2 is. There is zero reason to think we should not be favored to roll the division.

We won't get that value for the 30th pick. That being said - if we trade back, we'll know how the staff feels about those on the board at the time of the pick. If we do use the #30 pick, then we are probably getting a steal. The first round is notorious for teams taking an over abundance on certain things like QBs, or hype players (Pitts), and whatever position an early run pushes (usually O-line or CB). There's also the early WR picks There will absolutely be value at #30, the question is does it line up with what we need and/or can we flip it for additional more practical value during later picks. Having no 4th rounders is a bit brutal with some of the depth of this draft.

Trading up would mean that we think the person we are targeting is going to give us instant returns and is worth the move. Beane has only done this to to truly target individuals. That being said - I think picks are at a premium this year do to the cap and it's unlikely that teams drafting in the top 20 will want to drop back. I think our biggest issue is that we have no true "holes" on our team and any draft pick spent is either hope for improvement or depth/eventual replacement. To go a bit deeper here: RB - Could we use an upgrade? Sure.... but it's not like our RB are terrible (both averaged 4.4 and 4.3 ypc last year) CB #2 - Could we use a true CB 2? You bet - but we could also do a lot worse than Levi Wallace and Dane Jackson competing here DE - not really a hole so much as we need/want to find the future of the position (I think this is probably our 1st or 2nd pick) OLB - A true SAM would be nice if and only if we plan to use the player in typical 4-3 formations instead of being in 2LB sets 90% of the time OT/OG/C - Replacements for Morse, Williams, and Feliciano down the line or an upgrade over Ford DT - Replacement for Star. S - Someone to groom for Hyde and Poyer as they age out of the league. That's basically all of our needs. The question is, how good do we feel about moving up for a person to fill any of those roles and how much do we value their possible impact for this season. If I had to guess DE and the CB 2 are our top 2 concerns, followed by Big Man DT, and an eventual Center that we play as backup Guard for now.

None - jeez that would be 100% trade out of the spot if I had only those selections.

Hopefully none of those options unless we trade back into the top of the 2nd and they are still there.

If we're looking at anything i'd assume: CB, O-Line, Gadget Play/Returner Specialist

I am fascinated with the idea of Bobby Brown - but really turned off by the multiple scouting reports that say he lacks heart/takes plays off. Just worries me that he'd end up being something like an unmotivated Marcell Dareus.

So the odd thing is (and yes I know mock drafts are useless) that when the Bills pick - there are some big names for positions we don't need or don't really fit what we need. A lot of players will push other prospects down the board - especially in round 1 where QBs tend to get taken at a higher rate. If we don't value the top prospects on the big board at the time we pick - I assume we move down to get some ability to move back forward in later rounds. I think Beane really likes having the ability to move forward and backwards to get specific players if possible. Unlike previous years where we were desperately trying to fill holes on the roster and trying to field at least average players - this year our draft will tell us exactly how the FO feels about specific positions (are the needs, are they starters this year, are we stashing them for contracts coming do 1-2-3 years from now). FA has, at least to me, shown the the FO thinks we were a lot closer than what many might have thought, to being a SB winner. It is entirely possible that they feel we simply had our worst showing 3 weeks in a row and experience was all we needed to grow for our next run. CB 2 is a need - but if we don't draft a CB high this year, I would assume the coaches think Dane is better than Levi (Levi being a slightly above average corner that we could do a lot worse than). If we get DE - I assume it's someone we really fell in love with talent/skill wise. A personal favorite pick in mock draft sims is Zaven Collins but I don't know how married we are to our overwhelming use of 2 LB sets.

Man.... I'm a bit bummed