Dibs

Not making comment on Crossman.....but Brandon didn't say the team has much more ST talent. One can improve in talent overall but regress in talent at specific areas. I am not saying that this was the case(I don't know)......but the two statements above can play happily together without conflicting.

I stand corrected. Has there ever been a HC(or QB) that has won the SB for two different teams? I'm thinking not.....but clearly my memory is fallible in this area.

Great post! IMO due to the limited data pool, the immense number of variables, and the unpredictable nature of the individual(players, coaches, team unity etc).......trying to use analytics to effectively determine coach appointments or retention is nigh-impossible(Spoon!).

Plus Spiller(who by the half way point next season, with hopefully much better QB play, is shining again).....and on top of that we will be looking at Glenn and Gilmore the following year. Regarding all of those players however.....things likely won't be as bad as you might think. The cap increases will be coming in 2015/16.....and in 2015 we will have $12m more room due to the dead monies being gone(minus any new dead money). Hijacking the thread a little, I will cover how I see the immediate players in regards to the cap..... Byrd: $9m/year will likely get the deal done......and the cap room we have heading into the future seems to have taken this into account. Dareus: We are in good position here. His rookie contract is already the 15th highest in the league......and his 2014 cap number is $6.5m. A $2.5m increase on his 2014 number would see him as the 4th highest paid DT in the league. Furthermore.....and I only learned this recently from a different thread.....we will have an option to extend him through the 2015 season for only $7m. AW: Interesting situation. I really can't see that AW will command a top 10 deal(particularly if we extend him mid-2014) but....even if we sign him up in the 18-16 range in safety rankings we will be up for $4.5m-$5m per year. This would be about $3m above his 2014 cap hit. Top 10 would mean an extra $5m(instead of $3m) above. Spiller: His contract is currently the 13th highest for RBs.....though his 2014 cap hit is only $4.4. Bringing him up to $8m/year would see him as the 5th highest paid RB in the league(cap increase of $3.6m). I see Spiller as a problem as if he shines next season as he did in 2012, he will likely want more.....and if he doesn't, I doubt the Bills would justify $7m-$8m on him. Hughes: I've got no idea what sort of money he may be worth as he is a situational player(and my knowledge of players only goes so far). I find it hard to imagine that he could be worth top 10 money......but even top 20 money might be too much of an increase to pay(Increase of $5m+ needed). The main question I have with Hughes is......Is his production on the field largely due the top level talent around him(Mario, Kyle, Dareus), or is it a product of his own stellar talents? I tend to think that Hughes will be gone post 2014. Glenn will be the big issue, likely requiring an extra $9m+/year from 2016.....but with the lack of dead monies & the future cap increases, this should also be relatively easily obtained. If we rework AW & Dareus next season, I can't see that costing more than an extra $6m in post 2014 average cap space. We can easily sign Byrd and still maintain most of the up and coming talent. The only real question mark IMO would be Spiller.....and that all depends on his production next season. Going forward, the Bills are in a very good cap situation IMO.

I double checked for you....the numbers are indeed correct. The "don't overpay him" concept could perhaps be put into some perspective. Paying him what he wants would likely mean that we land the 3 times pro bowl turnover machine Byrd, for slightly more($9m/year?) than what the Titans paid for the pretty good Levitre($7.8m/year). Value for money I would say that is pretty good.....particularly since by year 3+ his contract numbers would likely be eclipsed by the bigger 2015/2016 safety contracts(providing even better value).

Bill Parcells did it with Giants & Patriots. ...and I don't believe the conference distinction need be made, as I'm pretty sure Parcells is the only HC to lead 2 different NFL teams to the SB. Also....Warner(I believe) was the only QB to get to 2 SBs on 2 separate teams......Manning will become the 2nd if Broncos win.

There might be some correlation between the passing game and the weather. Just a thought.

Interesting thought. I think you should start a whole new thread on it.

You've had me laughing with your Harbough/Carroll comments. A friend of mine(Rams fan) had texted me not long before your first comment saying he was happy an NFC West team will represent in the SB again.....but bemoaning the fact that both HC made him want to smash them. Once informed of your amusingly worded post, he wanted me to pass on that he thought that Bills fans must be intelligent, informed and well spoken.

To someone from Australia, that comment really has multiple ways one can take it.

It was if you didn't watch the game and only looked at the final score. I mean, the favoured team won. Totally predictable.

I'm sure somebody will correct me if I'm wrong......but didn't we not run things spread this year in order to provide better protection(and simpler plays) for our inexperienced rookie QB(s)?

So....what are the Johnny Manziel rules?

Perhaps.....if the player was coming off of a sterling year. His 2012 year was injury riddled with horrible numbers (53-692-3TDs). He has now backed that up with another year with injuries.....and apparently doesn't make any effort to catch the ball. He has only had two good years(not great).....with no pro bowls. I tend to think that he has cost himself a fair bit more than 1m(I assume you meant per year). .....but we'll see Of all the FA WRs.....doesn't Decker fit the mold we are after best?

That really doesn't make too much sense. Typically players heading into a contract year will play to the best of their abilities to maximize their next contract. Perhaps it is the constant injuries that have had him playing gun shy? (btw, Cruz's deal is $8.6m/year)

Thanks for that. I think that is the first time I have seen the OL broken down and explained in such a manner. Very handy for OL dummies like myself. I'll pick you up on your "and pay" assumption though. At the moment, RT is the lowest paid position on the OL(I'll show links later). Assuming that you are correct in that the RT is the 2nd most valuable position on the OL......to me this highlights my point about the value of obtaining a star RT for ones team. I'm sure there are vastly more complexities etc.....but it really seems to me that if one ends up with a star RT(who can't convert to LT), they won't have to pay star OLman rates when the player matures. ....and if they end up with a very good(but not great) RT(who can't convert to LT), it looks like payment in the $3m-$3.5m/year range would be enough to keep them long term. Here are links to OL salaries(each ordered from highest "Average per Year"). LT: http://www.overthecap.com/top-player-salaries.php?Position=LT RT: http://www.overthecap.com/top-player-salaries.php?Position=RT OG(no distinction between LG/RG unfortunately): http://www.overthecap.com/top-player-salaries.php?Position=G OC: http://www.overthecap.com/top-player-salaries.php?Position=C

As this thread has evolved into discussions about OL drafting strategy on top of the evaluation of current OL players, I thought I'd cut&paste a couple of posts from a different thread which directly relate to the OL......and comment on them here rather than there..... I think the perception that RT is the least important position on the OL is a product of the high importance placed upon the LT position. As most talented OTs can play both the LT and RT positions(I'm sure somebody will correct me on that assumption if I am incorrect).....any RT who would make a good LT is invariably going to become one. His value as a good starting LT to teams that don't have one is far more than that placed upon the RT position. As a result of this, the contract numbers of the LT position are the highest on the OL(obviously).....and the RT contract numbers are the lowest, thus perhaps giving the perception that the RT is the least important position on the OL. In relation to the Bills, I believe that drafting an OT at #9(who can become a great LT) is counterproductive. As we have a top 10 LT(Glenn), any other OT on the roster who becomes a decent LT is bound to be highly sought after.....and likely won't remain on the team past their initial contract(for the reasons stated above). In regards to using top 10 picks to draft "difference makers", I generally agree with matter2003......but not wholeheartedly. Cheddar's Dad to me makes some very strong points. Everybody says "What a difference maker!" when Mario flips sides and manhandles the RT causing disruption......but when(if?) he is held in check one-on-one by a great RT, very few will say the same about the RT. If that same RT was to maintain concentration throughout a game(no penalties), and open up some big holes for a Spiller to do his magic......again, very few people will perceive the RT as being a difference maker. My point being that having star non-difference makers on a team can be an extremely desirable commodity. That said, future cap ramifications enter into draft selection(at least they do with me). When a team has stars at the two most important positions on the OL as the Bills do(Glenn, Wood).....drafting other OLmen in the top 10 is generally not viable(IMO). One drafts players in the top 10 for their potential to become star players. With the modern NFL cap, it is very difficult(impossible?) to maintain a viable championship team while having to pay 3 star OLmen.......except..... ....and here is the thought I had(which has taken a while to get to)...... As the supply/demand for RTs is low(due to the LT factor mentioned above).......drafting a pure RT(one who has no ability to swing to LT) could be an extremely wise move for future team building. The end result of drafting a great prospect pure RT could mean that one could end up with a true star player at RT......for the cost of a decent LT or a very good OG(or star OC). Essentially we could end up with a player as good as Glenn(or Boselli, Pace etc) for less than the cost of Levitre. As it happens, there might be the perfect pure RT prospect in this years draft....(taken from Astrobot's DraftTek thread).... I have no idea about the analysis on Greg Robertson.....or even if he is indeed a pure RT(won't be able to swing to LT)......but if he is a super NFL prospect as Astrobot suggests....and indeed a pure RT.....due to all of my thoughts above I would be very content with this pick at #9(or a similar player who fits).

The implications given in the article(and mirrored by your thread) are not actually put forward by Kelly. He basically says that Foles is the starter unless he totally mucks up.....which he adds he won't do. And he says the thing that is always said.....that they are always going try to look for upgrades at every position. This is no difference to what Whaley said in the last press conference.....EJ is the starter.....and......we are always looking to improve at every position. Will they draft another QB? I'd think it a good chance if they lose their backup(Vick). That doesn't mean that they are intending to draft a QB in the first couple of rounds and then share the reps with their "starter" in a true competition. This all sounds like media spin designed to create a story where there isn't one.

I agree. One of the few QBs in the league that I would be happy to lock into longterm and pay those massive QB dollars to.

Perhaps not as much weight as it sometimes holds.......but being a high profile star on a winning Super Bowl team certainly adds to a player's recognition.....therefore making them more famous. It being the Hall of Fame and all.....

I don't have much worry about that. It seems to me that the Bills have already factored Byrd's contrct into their future cap management(though possibly a couple of million lower than they will need, which shouldn't make any difference). I for one will be greatly annoyed at the Bills if Byrd is not on the roster in 2014......unless Byrd gives them absolutely no choice in being determined to leave.

Heh...from the responses I got(and re-reading my post) it is obvious that I didn't make my point very clearly. I think I got distracted over the concept of a player taking a dump on the GMs desk.....and what a great news story it would make . I for one am totally open to the concept that the Bills made a mistake in regards to DR. The firing of Hiliard might even have some relation to the DR situation.....who knows? The thing is.....nobody does know. So to make up ones mind with incomplete data and assume(and believe with such conviction) that the blame belongs on the shoulders of the Bills in this situation(which so many people in this thread have done) is irrational. In my previous post I was attempting to show a list of negative actions, reducing in severity, that a player could do which might get people who have previously assumed blame on the Bills to perhaps realize that the Bills might have been justified in their actions. My list wasn't very good(too many actions were too severe).....but the concept still stands. If there is a possible situation that may have occurred which one would think it a reasonable action to drop DR......whether that be not turning up to meetings, not learning the plays, or taking a dump on the GMs desk.....then as one has no idea if DR did or didn't commit an offense to that level.....one cannot assume blame on the Bills. I have no problems with people acting from emotion and placing blame on the Bills in this situation. 14 years of mistakes pretty much earns them that sort of response. I do however have a problem when people try to rationalize their dogmatic emotional responses.

At what point would you have cut him though? If he took a dump on the GMs desk......would you show him the door regardless of the risk/reward? How about if he told the coaches to F@#k off.....keep him? What about if he turned up stoned to team meetings.....or didn't bother turning up? Nobody knows the reasons for why he was let go......so bashing the Bills over this is a rather futile exercise IMO.

The fact that it's an option isn't really that strange when you look at how the monies are figured. At the start of the NFL year, the cap figures for all existing contracts are figured and locked in. This then gives a firm figure with which teams can work from/with. Cutting a player therefore will move any unaccounted for cap dollars(signing bonus + future guaranteed money) into the following years cap numbers. The important part is that there is a need to have a firm cap figure entering into a new NFL year. In Fitz's case, there was 10m of unaccounted for cap dollars. We entered the new NFL year(2013) which locked 3m of his SB money into that year.....and then when he was cut, the remaining money(7m) gets accounted for in the following year(2014). Had we cut him in the 2012 year then all $10m would be accounted for in the 2013 year. Why split it when it doesn't make any difference due to rollover and won't effect the cap floor? I tend to think....why not? Since you are going to have the same amount of cap room in the second year regardless of whether you split the dead money or not.....you may as well split it and leave yourself with as much cap room as you can in the first year. I don't know if every team does it or not. I know I'd do it every time. You can have extra cap space now, with no ill effects on future caps. Why wouldn't you do it? There is a bit of a caveat here in regards to whether the rollover can/can't be re-rolled. If rollover can't be re-rolled, then if you are planning on spending into the rollover money, you would likely put all of the dead money into that year to enable a maximum spend of that rollover money(also providing minimum side effects on the following years cap). Aside from that.....why wouldn't you?

Sorry about that. It was your reference to the accounting fee that had me thinking you were implying that the only reason for C2C was to be able to secretly fritter away money. I got the wrong end of the stick on that it seems. Not to worry.....my long winded C2C explanation might be useful to other posters. And again, apologies for the blunt comment when it wasn't warranted.