Nephilim17

I hope I'm wrong but I'm thinking (largely due to the Chiefs but for other reasons as well) that the Bills will never be a bona fide dynasty with Allen but will be a very good team consistently with maybe one championship season over his career. I think for the term "dynasty" to apply, that means going to the SuperBowl multiple years in a row, and winning at least one if not more) and I don't see that.

Letting Douglas go makes no sense to me. So you save $10 million. And who's gonna be our number 1 or number 2 corner? And what do you pay him? You think you're gonna get a proven starter at corner for $5 million? No? So we draft that guy? And we pin our hopes on a rookie being a starter? No way.

Thanks, @GunnerBill. So I assume no talk of DE (other than keeping Von) or DT, interesting.

Can you imagine Mitch Morse saying this with a year left? Some guys, most of them younger, need (more) media training. Even if you feel it, you don't say it to the media.

Where was his fire when there was a loose fumble in the SuperBowl?

Have you heard anything from your contacts about what the organization is feeling on Steph's ability now? Or nothing yet?

WIth the tight space we have, you say bring in a 1tech and a safety... Where does a vet WR rate in terms of a free agent signing? How much would you limit the spending on a vet WR and who do you think that lands us?

Most people were happy. @Back2Buff @Einstein @Wayne Arnold were not fans of the extension. And they took heat for it.

Sure, it's bad for a player, but if signing bonus was changed to salary, a team could cut the player and not be hit with dead money. That would be positive for a team. But I don't think it's allowable. And the only reason for a player to agree, theoretically, is if the player wanted out so bad, he was willing to leave behind money to make himself tradeable and not give his current team a huge hit with dead money.

First, I think it's useful to define where "dead money" comes from: Dead money exists because of how salary cap accounting rules operate. Signing bonuses, option bonuses and certain roster bonuses are prorated or spread out evenly over the life of a contract for a maximum of five years. When a player is released, traded or retires, the remaining proration of these salary components immediately accelerate onto his team's current salary cap. To use a simple example and only using signing bonus as the only bonus, if a player signs a 5-year deal for 15 million per year ($75 million over 5 years) and a signing bonus of $20 million ($4 million per year)... If that player is no longer wanted after two seasons, the team can escape paying the player's base salary $15 million a year, but the signing bonus for every three remaining years accelerates at once and there is then 3 year's of "dead money," $12 million dollars. So, as far as I know, midway through a deal, teams will convert base salary into signing bonus (thus spreading out the big base salary hit for a season when money is tight) but that money is equally distributed over the remaining years of the contract as bonus. The Bills have done that a fair bit lately. But... I can't remember a situation where the INVERSE happens: the signing bonus is converted to salary which can be avoided. I think that's either your question or related to it: can a team escape the "dead money" hit of remaining signing bonus. I don't think so. I don't even think if a player was willing if the CBA would allow for it. Possibly because bonus is "paid" immediately but just for accounting purposes it's spread over a deal. Maybe the concept is you can't take back a signing bonus that was paid upon signing and in the past. If not the simple reason of you can't take back something that was paid all at once in the past, I'm not sure why. I'm about 85% sure of this. Someone correct me if I'm wrong please.

This is my second Mea Culpa to you in a few days! What that hell are you doing to me?!

Not news we can use but nice and interesting to see. I don't hear Jim's name come up in this convo outside of some fans here. "To me, [Joe] Montana and [John] Elway, Jim Kelly -- those guys, all those guys," Marino told Sports Illustrated before Super Bowl LVIII. "Patrick Mahomes, he's going to be considered one of the best ever, too. You got Tom Brady, you got a lot of guys. So, there's a lot to pick from there." https://www.cbssports.com/nfl/news/dolphins-legend-dan-marino-lists-his-greatest-nfl-quarterbacks-of-all-time-one-surprising-name-makes-the-cut/#:~:text="To me%2C [Joe],of the best ever%2C too.

McD joins the Competition Committee; a couple days later this happens. Coincidence? I think not!

Good watch. The Brandon Jones, safety, section was intriguing. He's only 25 and moves well and hits hard (at least according to their highlights and analysis). Wouldn't mind him on an affordable deal.

Good points about lower salaries but — and I'm not an employment lawyer — I'm guessing some enterprising US lawyers would bake in a million dollars for suffering and anguish, etc.

I hate the Chiefs as a team but I love this. This is a bigger achievement than anything any player can do on a field.

For sure, that's ideal... but given our cap situation what do you spend on that top WR option? And, no, I'm not a "let's fix the D first because we have Josh Allen" guy. It's criminal how we've ignored boundary receivers with high upsides. But how much would you spend this season given where we are at and the holes on D? And question 2: Do you sign the "safe" guy with a history of production but without the really high upside? Or do you sign the high-upside guy without the production? We don't have the $20 million to do both.

We'll see what the court says but interesting how she's suing for $135,000 Canadian which is probably a shade under 100K US. In the NFL I bet this is a million dollar lawsuit.

I'm surprised to see, according to one site, Samuel's projected numbers so low: Projected Contract: 2 years, $15.0 million, $7.5 APY, $9.0M GTD I have no idea if it's accurate but it just may be affordable by the Bills if it's backloaded. https://atozsports.com/washington/curtis-samuel-contract-projection-free-agency/#gid=ci02d5421cf000278d&pid=usatsi_22129331

Unaffordable via free agency because of our cap situation. We'll have to draft this guy.

Good guy, occasionally makes a big play. Crazy contract for his production. Beane swung and missed on this one. It happens. I expect this year will see a lot more of Kincaid and Knox will realize he's lost the TE #1 spot for good. Will he redo his deal for less money? I don't know. Can't release him in 2024 without taking $20 million dead cap. That's $7.8 million dead cap in 2025, vs. a $15.4 million 2025 salary. I expect him cut next year if he doesn't redo.

Ok, mea culpa THAT video was posted after the Dorsey firing. THIS one wasn't. It's very critical of Doresy and it's posted Nov. 6. Before his firing. I quote: "It's got to be frustrating the players on the field to see the lack of creativity week in and week out from Ken Dorsey on offense." 17:52 of the video. But there's criticism throughout. That's just an example. Boom. There ya have it. I wasted too much of my afternoon for this but you're wrong and this is proof.

Actually, not it's not just the opinion of @DrDawkinstein. here is a video where they blame Dorsey for a lot of the play concepts and "shepherding Allen into making some of his bad decisions (they still assign some responsibility to Josh). To make things ultra easy, I'm also attaching a screen shot where they literally say it (see the CC). I've even put a yellow oval around it so you can't miss it.

Thanks for helping me understand (I think). I assume the $9 million is his bonus money, which he get if he plays and which we eat if we get rid of him. So the $31 million of cap space is not impacted by this $9 if he stays or goes. And trading Diggs post June 1 saves us $19 million this year and costs us an extra $13 million against the cap as opposed to keeping him in 2025. Not the end of the world if we trade him post June 1 — if we got some worthwhile assets in return (good vet player with lower cap hit or a high pick). Not saying we should, just that the post-June 1 numbers don't prohibit it. That said, his replacement cost, even as a number 2 in 2025 would have to be factored into the equation. So if we replace him with a $10 million vet #2, it's costing us $23 million more to get that new player rather than keeping Diggs in 2025. If that number is correct, I don't see the point. Unless a cheap rookie replaced him and offered better production.

I'm not 100% clear on this but this is what Spotrac says regarding a Diggs post-June 1 trade: 2024 Dead Cap: $8,849,000 2025 Dead Cap: $22,247,000 2024 Cap Savings: $19,005,000 https://www.spotrac.com/nfl/buffalo-bills/stefon-diggs-16872/#:~:text=Current Contract,average annual salary of %2424%2C000%2C000. So if the Cover 1 guys say there's $22 million in 2025 dead cap hit, Spotrac agrees, as per above. Are you saying something different? I think you're suggesting that the total available cap space in 2025 is higher than they suggest if this happens. I don't know the 2025 cap space as of now (with no Diggs trade) but it seems pretty definitive that a post-June 1 Diggs trade negatively impacts the 2025 cap — whatever that number is — by $22 million. Let me know if I'm not reading your comments correctly.