Dibs

You might be interested in these two studies I did last off season regarding the success rates of WRs and OLmen. http://forums.twobillsdrive.com/topic/155410-drafting-success-wr/ http://forums.twobillsdrive.com/topic/155887-drafting-success-ol/ In short: 1st round OGs were nearly twice as successful in regards to becoming solid starters as 1st round WRs were......as well as having twice the "star" success rate. 2nd round OGs were however three times as successful in regards to becoming solid starters as 2nd round WRs were.....and four times as successful in becoming "star" players. Due to the relatively low drop off from 1st round to 2nd round success with OGs compared to that of WRs, I tend to think drafting OGs in the 2nd round provides the better draft value in terms of potential success.

Though I agree that it most likely that any TE would take several years to become a good to great player.....this can also be said of WRs......and perhaps slightly less with LBs. I disagree with your assessment of where one can better find good TEs though. As with every position, there is a higher success for TEs picked in the first round(and lesser as the rounds progress). As I personally can't judge the overall ability of a TE, I thought I'd simply look at pro bowl appearances.....and then average yards.... Drafted from 2000-2013: 1st round: 17 drafted 9 pro bowlers(52.9%). (Franks, Heap, Shockey, Winslow, H.Miller, Davis, Clark, Lewis, Gresham) 2nd round: 22 drafted 4 pro bowlers(18.2%) (Crumpler, Z.Miller, Gronk, Rudolph) 3rd round: 31 drafted 3 pro bowlers(9.7%) (Witten, Cooley, Graham) 4th round: 30 drafted 3 pro bowlers(10%) (Daniels, Thomas, Cameron) TEs with 400 yards per year(Ave) or greater: 1st round: 13 of 17(76.5%) (Heap, Shockey, Clark, Watson, Winslow, H.Miller, Lewis, Davis, Olsen, Keller, Pettigrew, Gresham, Eifert) 2nd round: 6 of 22(27.3%) (Crumpler, Scheffler, Z.Miller, Gronk, Fleener, Ertz) 3rd round: 6 of 31(19.4%) (Witten, Cooley, Finley, Cook, Graham, Reed) 4th round: 3 of 30(10%) (McMichael, Daniels, Hernandez)

No worries.....and my pleasure actually(you've probably figured that I enjoy numbers and really like talking about the cap ) The error you have made here though is that the $115m figure is not an adjusted cap number. The chart you provided refers to the number as "Team Cap"......and it actually is "Team Cap Spending". If you scroll to the bottom of this link(from Spotrac).... http://www.spotrac.c...-bills/cap-hit/ ....you will see the figures as follows: 2012 Available Cap Rollover: 9,817,628 2013 Adjustment: 360,790 2013 Salary Cap: 123,000,000 2013 Adjusted Salary Cap: 133,178,418 (Bolded in the link....and you are correct, the adjusted cap was/is $133m) It then goes through the expenditures: Active Contracts: 89,852,071 Injured Reserve Money: 6,246,046 Dead Money: 18,574,921 Practice Squad: 816,000 ....and then a total: 115,489,038 (which is the $115m "Team Cap" in your chart) Lastly it provides the total cap room: 17,689,380 (which is of course the $133m adjusted cap minus the $115m expenses). I think you misunderstood. There is no cap floor for individual years anymore. The cap floor is calculated at the end of the 4 year period(actually it would be done at the start of the 4th year when that years base cap has been determined). Teams will need to have spent 90% of the total of the 4 years to remain above the floor. Using the numbers from your example..... The total base cap for those 4 years would be $560m. Teams will need to have spent 90% of that.....$504m. They can chose to spend any amount in any year(within the 4 year period) without fear of being under the cap floor. For instance they could spend $80m, $140m, $90m and $200m.....reaching a total of $510m, thus remaining ahead of the cap floor.....even though two of those years were well below 90% of their individual year base caps. Though this is a wiki link, it perhaps does a better job of explaining how it works than I have done(1st paragraph of the NFL section): http://en.wikipedia....Football_League "However, the floor is based on total cash spent over each of two four-year periods, the first running from 2013–2016 and the second from 2017–2020. A team can be under the floor in one or more seasons in a cycle without violating the CBA, as long as its total spending during the four-year period reaches the required percentage of the cap." Like many people, you seem to have quite a cynical view of C2C......which is really quite unfounded. I don't recall any team claiming that they can't sign a player due to their C2C restrictions, and in fact, C2C barely hinders teams in this regard at all. The only time I recall NFL teams referring to C2C was when they were initially introducing it......and it was specifically relating to the huge upfront signing bonuses given to players. Signing several large contracts in one year could mean mega dollars in cash needed for the signing bonuses. Adding the extra mega-dollars in cash debt into an individual year throws ones accounting into a spin if one doesn't have a great deal of cash on hand to cover it. The solution of course was to guarantee monies in later years of the contracts. The big contract players can(and are) still signed.....but the guaranteed money does not solely come out of the first year. The large up front costs was the only reason that most teams adopted a C2C system.....and it is only ever a rough guide, with most teams spending above or below to varying degrees each year dependent on their individual contract situations. On top of all of that, each team's cash spend is a matter of public record so they can't get away with sneaking a few million into accounting fees(or such like).....and perhaps a better analogy using your hat would be that I buy the $30 Bills hat by paying $20 today and another $10 tomorrow.

I think a definition of certain terms will help you here somewhat.... An "unadjusted cap"(as you put it) is merely "the cap"(which I will refer to as the base cap). This is the base amount of money each team can spend determined by the CBA rules. It works exactly like the old base cap. The "adjusted cap" is the base cap plus any leftover money rolled over from the previous season(plus certain other unusual factors which for the sake of this can be considered irrelevant). In your example it would be $123m plus the rollover amount. Dead money effects the base cap(and adjusted cap) in the exact same way as player contract money does. It does not alter the level of the adjusted cap(or base cap)......it merely acts as expenditure under that cap(and the base cap). The base cap and the adjusted cap remain fixed once determined at the start of each new NFL year. No. The adjusted cap does not effect the cap floor. The cap floor is now determined over a 4 year period. The 4 base caps for the period are combined......and the floor is determined from that combined number(90%). A team is now allowed to spend under the floor in any given year as long as they spend over the combined floor for the 4 year period. The rollover enables this to occur as a team the might spend only 80% of the base cap in year 1, can carry the unspent 20% into year 2.....spend it then instead.....and meet the cap floor requirements. As explained above, the adjusted cap will not be effected in this situation. Also, as the floor is now over a 4 year span, only moving the dead money from one 4 year span to the next 4 year span would effect the amount spent which counts towards the cap floors. As the first 4 year period is 2013-2016, moving any dead money from 2013 to 2014(ala Fitz money) obviously has nil effect on the overall spend.....and therefore nil effect on the cap floor. You've really lost me on this one. C2C has nothing to do with the cap rules, cap dollars or cap management. It is a philosophical approach taken where a team endeavors to spend actual physical dollars to a level that is close to the base cap in any given year. It does not effect the cap in any way. I hope all of that was easy enough to follow.

Regarding the bolded..... As far as I know this is incorrect. The amounts are a matter of public record. The cap sites get access to exact figures of contracts etc and give a definitive number in regards to how much money is left over after each season. If a team were to "hold back a few million" it will certainly be reported. You also seem to be running under the assumption that teams that follow a rough C2C system are inherently trying to pay less money. As far as I am aware that certainly isn't the case......and though I can't provide a link, I am very confident(from past articles that I have read) that a vast majority of teams use some form of C2C to help manage their cash spending in relation to their income. Furthermore, I am pretty sure that the C2C philosophy would not be applied by teams to the adjusted cap figures.....and that they would still use the actual cap numbers for their rough cash spending limits(it would defeat the purpose of C2C if they didn't).......likely with their own private cash rollover system added(if not already existing). Assuming this to be the case, having a bit less of the adjusted actual cap to spend will not effect the C2C in any way as the cash to actual cap will remain the same. And sure, any team(regardless of C2C) that wants to reduce their cap can simply not rollover the full amount. My comment was to say that I believe that any team that does this will be roasted alive.....therefore I believe it will never happen. (If it ever does, feel free to call me out and give me a "told you so".)

I don't follow.

....but that illusion will only last until the media makes it public. Any team that doesn't move all of its rollover money is going to be facing a horrendous PR nightmare IMO.

Though nobody has actually used the ranking numbers you listed, plenty have made argument on the overall numbers to suggest poor management and a generally cheap attitude from the Bills. Though understandable that people see these numbers and feel "Ugh, the Bills are cheap!", it is a very insular way to look at the current situation. The questions that would need to be asked are.... Who do you spend the money on? What effect does the spending have on future cap management? Assuming non re-roll(re-rolling would effectively make all arguments moot as the money will be there to spend when there are appropriate players to spend it on....Glenn, Kiko, Dareus etc).... ....the signing of just one extra decent contract this year would have sent the 2014 cap into trouble. The most appropriate and easiest example would be if the Bills matched the Titans contract on Levitre. Using figures as they stand now, this would have dropped the cap space for 2014 by $13.2m......going from $19m down to $5.8m. (I'll show more detailed numbers if people want.....though I have done so many times prior). How do we then sign Byrd or rework A.Williams, Dareus, Spiller, Hughes....or go after a top FA? The Bills may well be cheap and regularly mismanage their cap.......but this isn't the season to try and show it IMO.

I assume that every team will always carry over their maximum amount. To not do so would be tantamount to waving a big flag and yelling "Look at me! Many of you assumed I was cheap......now I've proven it." I think everybody has been discussing things under the same assumption that the max roll will always be rolled. So far there has been no suggestion that this will not happen.

I agree. Literally 50% of playoff teams win at least one game. 50% Not easy....not hard.

I wouldn't be surprised if one or more of them have their contracts reworked throughout the 2014 season(thus eliminating a draft, FA period and part of a season) as that has pretty much been the focus of the Bills in recent times. KW, SJ, Wood, Branch.....and if my memory serves, they wanted to sign Levitre and Byrd during season(last year) but couldn't agree on money.

Why did none of the NFL teams spend to the cap? (See Sisyphean Bills' link above). The cap is exactly what the word "cap" means. It is a maximum level that a team is allowed to spend to. Due to the nature of this.....and the penalties involved in going over the cap.....all teams will generally leave some room under the cap to cover unforeseen situations. The question really is "why don't the Bills spend closer to the cap?". As I don't know the actual numbers of the past.....one can only look at the current CBA rules to determine why. If the cap is allowed to be re-rolled(debated in this thread)......it makes no difference at all for a team to not spend in any given year as the money will continually roll forward, creating a bigger and bigger number for teams to spend. It would seem logical that under this situation, teams will eventually spend the excess money from previous years when they are in the situation where they feel it warranted. Where they feel it warranted. This to me is a vital aspect in spending to the cap. Though it should never be used as an excuse(which I'm sure was done in the past by certain teams(Bills?), there shouldn't be an insistence IMO for a team to always spend close to the maximum. Cap planning is a very complex system. Spending all of your money today(simply because it is there) will often preclude the spending of money tomorrow in areas deemed to be of better value. Teams need to look at their active contracts for future years as well as the projected cap figures for future years before they commit signing a player. As an example, the Bills active roster spend for 2013 is $90m. Their active roster spend for 2014 is already $102m and doesn't include Byrd or new rookies. The cap increase from 2013 to 2014 looks to be only $3m. Spending the extra monies in 2013(rather than letting it roll over into 2014) would drastically alter the cap situation in 2014. I see no problem with the Bills looking ahead, realizing that they might want to extend Dareus, Spiller, A.Williams & Hughes.....and have some money left to sign a big FA if the right one becomes available(Graham?)......and deciding not to spend all of the free money they had(to make this possible). Mind you, the 2015 cap is looking to be a great deal higher than 2014......so if the Bills don't take advantage of the great setup they have created for the 2014 year(a buyers market for FAs) & instead they let things ride through to the 2015 season, I will be very negative towards them in regards to cap management. Regardless of whether a team can re-roll rollover money or not, it seems clear(due to base rollover and 4 year cap minimums) that the new CBA has taken into account these concepts. It readily allows for the concept that not all years are the same for a team regarding their cap(and future cap) situation.....and while still enforcing a minimum spend, allows a much greater leeway for cap management.

.....and in Buffalo it was 3.7% (ranging from 4.4% to 3.2%).

For 2012: http://www.thepostgame.com/blog/dish/201308/only-one-nfl-team-lost-money-2012

Though I don't believe OldTimer1960 is correct in his belief that the Bills(and small market teams) struggle to be able to afford the cap(which I'll explain me reasons why at the end).......he has highlighted an issue which clearly places the small market teams at a disadvantage.....and potentially a great disadvantage. Though OldTimer1960 has gone through the issue......I feel many did not fully understand the point he was making. The Salary Cap is determined by the total of all of the revenue(AR) every team makes......which is then divided by a certain percentage(roughly 47%).....and then divided by 32(the number of teams). Shared Revenue for each team is however based upon a lesser amount. Essentially only the TV rites, ticket sales & NFL merchandise gets divided equally amongst the 32 teams. The monies any particular team makes from luxury boxes, advertising, naming rites etc goes directly to them......and 47% of the amount, divided by 32, is added to each teams cap. Question 1.2 in the link explains it better.... http://www.askthecom...aryCap/faq.aspx A simplistic example: If the top 5 teams each earn an extra $136m which isn't revenue shared........the cap increases by $10m per team [(136x5x0.47)/32 = 10].....but the other 27 teams don't have the extra revenue to pay for it. Those top 5 teams are better off by $126m each while the other 27 teams are worse off by $10m each. To put things another way......because the Cowboys can make a bigger profit, the Bills have to pay their players more money(without getting additional funding to do so). I personally don't believe that it is an issue at this point in time because quite frankly I don't believe the profit figures given out each year by the NFL teams are an accurate reflection of their profits. For tax reasons, it is always in the best interest for private businesses to show as little profit as possible......and that is exactly what I believe the NFL teams do. Other reasons that I see are......it is illogical for a billion dollar company to maintain viability if they are only slightly above the break even point each year......and if things were indeed as tight as the figures show, there would be a greater emphasis from the small market teams to garner revenue. (Ralph Wilson Stadium would be too much of a luxury to afford not to sell the naming rights if the team was making virtually no profits). The only real effect that I see in today's NFL is that the smaller market teams might not have enough cash on hand to be able to pay multiple Signing Bonuses in the one year.......where the big market teams obviously have plenty of cash on hand to do this. I believe that this is why most teams follow a rough Cash to Cap system. It might be possible in the future that the AR becomes so much higher than the shared revenue that the small market teams actually will be struggling to pay the cap......but the massive increase in revenue for the new TV deals(coming in 2015) have me doubtful that this will be the case any time soon.

Which stats did you want us to look at?

Here, here! I couldn't agree more. Even the posters here who I get the most annoyed at often contribute interesting and well constructed points, or seem to be generally good blokes......or both. For somebody like myself who lives outside of the USA, TBD is a Godsend. I too would like to take this opportunity to thank everybody(especially the mods) for helping make my love of the Bills more enjoyable.

I'm with you on that.... Did I miss the link? Any official word yet?

Lordy no......I'm no expert. Far from it. I'm in the same boat as you in seeking the expertise from other posters on this sort of thing. Good thread though......I too would love to hear a comprehensive breakdown on the OL. It seems that Pears in particular is being touted as horrible by some & decent-above average by others. Very confusing to those of us who only typically notice the OLmen when they stuff up.

I don't see those as errors as such. To me it comes back to cause and effect. Locking into Fitz caused the Bills FO to stupidly(IMO) not look for a better QB. In the years that Fitz was starting we didn't look for anyone better. It perhaps could have been viewed as errors had we been seeking a QB and grabbed the wrong one......but we weren't even looking. The error was assuming a previous 7th round journeyman could help elevate the team to the SB(even playoffs).

I thought it was the "Last post wins " thread.

Seemed like the commentators are not allowed to point it out either.

That really has nothing to do with you knowledgeably using incorrect information to belabor you points......which is far more an important concept to me at this point than quibbling over an innocuous situation. You obviously don't want to know the reasons for conversation/information purposes.....you merely want to argue against me. This I have no interest in. Though I(and others) have actually given several reasons(which you never responded to)......there is no need for giving reasons. I have stated that it made no difference either way(and have shown many times why this is the case). You have stated it was a horrendous mismanagement. The onus is upon you to back your views....not me. And stating erroneous information to back your opinion is not a valid stance to take.

Yes, it seems that most of the sites are running under a re-roll assumption(and it's quite possibly/likely correct). The main reason I am personally unsure of the veracity is the wording of the CBA....and this spotrac link... http://www.spotrac.c...-next-year-295/ I even emailed spotrac to try and get further confirmation/explanation but they didn't return my email. Oh well. I'm content being unsure for the time being as my personal speculations don't make any difference to what the reality will be.......and one can't really start speculating till the firm figures come in either way.

U-huh......except for the concept that without the typo your point becomes invalid. ....and there is also the concept that I pointed out the same error to you in the previous cap thread. And this isn't the first time that you have done this sort of thing. If I give you the benefit of doubt, I'd think that you don't actually read/comprehend the posts that you respond to. If I didn't, I'd think that you purposefully ignore, twist and fabricate information in order to argue your views.