Dibs

That sort of polarizing view rankles my hackles. I totally agree that QB is super important. I have been saying so ever since I joined TSW & it has annoyed me every year when we make no legit effort to find "the guy". It is still possible however....though very unlikely....to Dilfer yourself a win in the SB. And it's a hell of a lot easier to Dilfer yourself into the playoffs....teams do that all the time.

I'm going to take my bat and ball and go home. There's an old saying....actually I just made it up but.....the old saying goes....Don't blame the hammer if you are the tool. I don't know how applicable it is in this situation though.

Send your donations to: Tactileporn@feeltheexcitement.com

I have no idea what you are talking about. A link might have kept me interested to actually find out what you were talking about. btw....I don't know what/where customer service is. I only hang around the wall.

I'm sentimental about the Levy/Kelly era.

I believe they are working on tactile outputs for computers. The research is mainly being funded by the porn industry.

I was talking generalities, not specifics. I could be totally wrong(likely am).....but I recall early in the season we were regularly getting good production out of our many & varied screen plays. Commentators started commenting on how masterful we were at doing it. As time went on I noticed that the plays that were getting 1st downs regularly earlier in the season were being sniffed out by defenses later in the season and our overall productivity in those plays seemed dramatically reduced. I'm not going to do the research on such a small concept. I'm happy enough thinking that Chan dogmatically stuck with something that no longer was working how he envisioned it should.

My apologies(I think?)....your assumed hyperbole was actually what you think? For the record, I think we would have made the playoffs if we had P. Manning......and I think we have more talent than our record shows. I also think that if we had fitz, megotron, patrick willis and jj watt we would have made the playoffs......and that it's quite ridiculous to think that a relatively talented team could add 3 of the best players in the league and not make the playoffs.

Technically no. You were assuming that C2C effects the actual cap figuring......in particular how signing bonuses effect the cap. This isn't the case. Try looking at it this way.... C2C is an additional cap that is self imposed by teams. They must still follow all of the rules and structures of the cap(which do not alter).....and on top of that they follow the rules and structures of C2C. "The Cap" is the amount of theoretical dollars that a team is allowed to spend in a given year. This includes the yearly salary, special bonus, last years incentive bonuses, an equal fraction of the lump signing bonus & any flow through hit from players cut.(I think that covers most areas). "Cash to Cap" is the amount of money that is paid out of the actual checkbook each year.

Did anyone else notice that half way through the season our screens started to no longer be effective? Yet we persisted for the rest of the year with it.

You have to be careful with hyperbole when you are in internet forums. The reason being that even though it might sound like an obvious overstatement(hyperbole), there are plenty of chowder heads who type overstatements as their solid opinion. It's often difficult to tell them apart. (I'm obviously referring to your "if we had Fitz, megatron, patrick willis and jj watt last year, we would have still missed the playoffs." line.)

You don't seem burned out on it. You seem quite content to not only click on the thread containing discussion about Fitz.....but also to type in your opinion on the subject. Take a deep breath.....firm up your mind.....and chant the mantra "I won't click on the Fitz thread. I won't click on the Fitz thread."

Don't click on the threads with Fitz in the title...........and if you do, don't read them............holy moly.

Is that some sort of code? Not that there's anything wrong with that.

I am 99.6% certain it's true. Teams assign roster bonuses and incentive bonuses to avoid amortizing the money. Signing bonuses are always amortized over the entire contract.....and kick in with a vengeance if the player is cut early. Example being....10M signing bonus over 5 years would mean a cap hit of 2M per year. If player is cut before year 3 then the remaining 6M(3x2M) is lumped into that year as a cap hit. FYI.....Cash to Cap is a spending philosophy that most teams have adopted. Essentially it means that you will only spend actual physical dollars up to the level of that years cap. As example.....if you sign a player to a 5 year 50M contract and pay 10M up front as a signing bonus with equal salary payments of 8M/year.....this would mean that your cap hit would be 10M per year......but your "cash to cap" would be 18M in the first year as you have spent 10M on the signing bonus & 8M on salary. Years 2-5 would however only have an 8M C2C value.

You could be right....but the only thing that would explain this would be if his contract was actually a 5 year contract with the option of 2 additional years. I say this due to the fact that teams cannot alter how a signing bonus is proportioned towards the cap....i.e. it has to be evenly divided through every year of the contract.

I'm thinking all of this back and forth is due to the fact that the draft is a long way of and nobody knows how the QBs are going to be generally assessed.....and nobody will ever know how the Bills will assess the QBs. If it ends up that there are 3 or 4 QBs who are considered at least a level better than their QB draftee peers then they very likely will all be gone by the time we pick in the 2nd round. If there are 5+ QBs....I agree....not much difference, take the one left.

This site has player contract numbers....but doesn't show past years. http://www.spotrac.com/nfl/buffalo-bills/ryan-fitzpatrick/ According to this, his 10M signing bonus is equally spread over the first 5 years. This means if he is cut before the 2013 season he will at least be owed 6M of his guaranteed money.

Yeah....I was really pointing out that it could easily be 4 QBs in the first 39 picks....with a good possibility of some more. Ending up with even our 5th preferred QB is not the situation that I would like to see us in.

....and if they assess a different QB as having a better chance to be "the guy", there is nothing apart from an irrational fear of them having a blinding man-love for him to stop them from going with the player that they perceive as having the best chance to succeed.

I've asked this before in other threads....but.... How did Tannehill & Weeden rate at this time last year compared to Smith, Barkley, Wilson, Nassib & Gleenon etc? In other words, is this considered a lousy QB class because there isn't a Luck or even a RG3 in it....or is it a lousy draft because every QB in it is without good(standard) level potential? I imagine that by draft day several of the QBs will be universally rated higher than they are at the moment.

Actually.....I just want to keep him for the times he lays a hit on a player so I can say my usual "What a Leodis hit."

Stay put at #8 and take the best graded QB regardless of reach. Jets pick at #9 and are as desperate as we are for a legit QB. If we trade down we run the risk of missing out on the guy we want. QBs are always drafted higher than they are rated.....therefore, unless you get pick #1 and are lucky enough to get a Manning or Luck that year, you will always have to reach for your wanted QB in the draft. This is our year to have to reach.

Keep him. ST ability is awesome.....and as noted in another thread, he not only improved this year but was statistically rated by PFF as the best CB we had this year. Though I'd be fairly confident that Gilmore will eclipse him in his 2nd year, McKelvin may well improve further under new coaches and become a solid #2 CB.

This seems to be a common sentiment.....but is honestly a very risky plan. There are 4 teams that are likely very interested in a QB who pick twice before our 2nd round pick(pick 41). Chiefs, Eagles, Cardinals & Jets There are another potential 6 teams who might be looking for a QB who pick before us(2 of them twice). Jaguars(x2), Raiders, Browns, Titans(x2), Bears(Culter is a FA in 2014) & Ravens(if they don't re-sign Flacco). Assuming the 4 desperate teams select a QB in the first 2 rounds....we will be left with virtually no choices. Chiefs (1, 34) Geno Smith Eagles (4, 35) Matt Barkley Cardinals (7, 38) Tyler Wilson Jets (9, 39) Ryan Nassib ....and if some of the other teams who may want a QB pick one....we will have no QB who is rated at all. Jaguars (2, 33) Mike Glennon Raiders (3) Browns (6) Titans (10, 40) Landry Jones Bears (20) Tyler Bray Ravens (25) Zack Dysert If we wait till the 2nd round to try to draft our potential star QB of the future we could end up with nobody.