Dibs

Yeah, there was a deal of discussion started a couple of weeks ago about it in this thread(covering much the same things as this thread). http://forums.twobillsdrive.com/topic/164666-bills-6-on-list-of-best-cap-situations/

Have I ever mentioned that I often very much enjoy your posts OC? This one being one of the better ones.

I'd say the Colts got Lucky.

No worries....your wires were likely crossed due to the misleading and incorrect statement made earlier in the thread. I used to think similar to you there(re: flexibility)....and I still see it as a factor, but I now see that using the rollover monies would have been extremely difficult to do and still keep the 2014 cap in a healthy situation(as the 2014 cap is very tight). Spending extra money in 2013 would inherently increase the 2014 spend......which would have meant difficulty reworking A.Williams, Dareus Spiller & Hughes if we wanted.....as well as limiting our FA acquisition abilities. Of course....as you said, if the re-roll is indeed allowed, it makes all of this discussion absolutely moot anyway.

But it isn't even that.... The 2013 cap year and the 2014 cap year are both in the 2013-2016 cap floor period. Placing the $7m Fitz money in either year counts towards that 4 year period cap floor. In regards to the cap floor amount it absolutely makes no difference. They chose to put the $7m Fitz money into the 2014 cap....not the 2013 cap(as you stated above). They couldn't eat the dead money in 2012 as Fitz played the 2012 season. The question is between 2013 & 2014......and both count towards the same cap floor. Edit: It seems that people have simply followed what another poster has written without applying their minds properly to the situation. Here is the 2013 cap showing $3m dead for Fitz: http://www.spotrac.c...-bills/cap-hit/ And here is the 2014 cap showing the extra $7m dead for Fitz: http://www.spotrac.c...s/cap-hit/2014/ The statement made earlier in the thread of "The motive to push it into 2013...." was simply incorrect as it was pushed into 2014....thus making the cap floor irrelevant to the situation(as I have just shown).

I'm hoping re-roll will be the case.......but I am still doubtful. I find it difficult to see the owners accepting such a deal as it would be tantamount to spending every cent of the cap & would also make the cap floor redundant. Not in the first year(s) of course.....but running under the assumption that teams always apply for the full rollover, this will shortly lead to teams having massive amounts of excess cap dollars($50-$100+) which will just keep building. At some point teams will have to start spending the excess(even for merely appearance sake)......and likely need to massively front load contracts in order to not destroy future caps. It could set up a system of spend the minimum for 8 years....then massively front load several stars in order to win. I guess we will find out in a couple of months.

Sorry....I couldn't resist it.

You're son has pursued your wife and 3 daughters?!?!?!?

There was no mismanagement of the cap at all. Due to the rollover rules, putting the Fitz $7m into the 2013 cap would mean that there would be $7m less to roll over into the 2014 cap......either way, the 2014 cap was going to be lower by $7m.

I've got no idea.....does anybody know if Nate Solder is a top LT?

I think the main problem with our leadership was that we let the 2 best leaders walk early in the season. Though Justin Rogers and Colin Brown might have been bad players, they were clearly great leaders in the locker room and their influence on the other players was obviously missed later in the season(re: Darius issues).

I think that they definitely did have a plan.....but the plan failed miserably.

DCTom hasn't called me an idiot yet. Welcome stuckinny.

It makes a great change from being number 2s.

And there lies a conundrum. If the owner has no real understanding of the business, how is he to know who the right people are that he should hire to run the franchise?

Though none of us know what the Bills are actually planning, I tend to agree with Rocky Landing's assessment(though not his extremely funny line urging you to another full breakdown). The FO seems to be placing a very high importance on making the playoffs next year. As it stands we are reliant upon improvement in either EJ or Thad(or both) to provide better QB play in order to achieve this. As it would be very doubtful that a rookie(even a top prospect) would be able to provide better QB play than we saw this season, it leads me to think a veteran FA will be obtained in case EJ does not improve as hoped for.

I didn't mean to cause offense(and would have written that I appreciate the effort and elaborated on what I wrote had I not been posting from my stupid tablet grrrr.). I don't actually view your post with any disdain what-so-ever.......and if you have ever seen some of my own data type posts, you'd know that I would indeed be a hypocrite to suggest disdain at other data driven posts. My suggestion of reducing the lengthy list of results/options down to a summary was not to imply that you should leave out details.....merely to say that you could have reduced it greatly in size.....thus enabling more people to digest your points. As I showed, all of the 1's were the same.....as were all of the 2's. My "yada yada" and "blah, blah" were supposed to represent several paragraphs of options for the 3's & 4's(adding the details in for each into two sections rather than spread throughout). The reason why I made the comment was that your post is I think the longest post that I have ever seen. It is a sad concept, but I am sure that most of the people that you would feel could learn something from your data would not bother reading through the whole thing. You obviously put a great deal of work into it.....and I was endeavoring to give some helpful advice(from somebody who has posted similar data driven long posts many times). As I didn't say it before.....good work. (....and I will never be posting from my hard to type on tablet again. PC all the way for me in future.)

A valid path to what though?

I think the OP could have easily summarized things..... Winner of the QB comp - will get majority of practice reps 2nd - will get limited practice reps 3rd - takes #3 QB slot on active roster - will get no practice reps(if it is so and so he will yada yada) 4th - released(or PS if it is blah, blah etc) 24 listings of results and options all neatly packaged into one smart summary.

I think that moves things into a very unrealistic area of expectation. Dalton & Kaepernick were virtually 1st rounders(pick 35 & 36).......and you'll find that Wilson and Foles(assuming that they remain very good QBs) are very much the exeptions to the rule. The rule being that the chances of finding a very good QB ouside of the 1st round(or very top of the 2nd) are extremely slim(vitually non existent).

Yes. Sanchez down to a $4.8m dead hit if cut(with a cap saving of $8.3m). It would have been a $17.65m dead hit had they cut him after last season. http://www.spotrac.com/nfl/new-york-jets/mark-sanchez/ http://www.overthecap.com/cap.php?Name=Mark%20Sanchez&Position=QB&Team=Jets

Good call. I think those are two other factors(old rookie contracts, and separation of position inside a group) that could be added to the list......though obviously the rookie contract situation won't be a factor much longer in the NFL.

Nice post. I think there can be another factor......and that is the structure of existing top contracts. Though this factor is I believe lesser than the others, it can occasionally play a bigger influence(which I believe it does in regards to top Safety contracts at the moment). The #1 Safety contract atm is Polamalu at $9.87m/year. The next 3 range between $8.34m - $8m per year. After that it starts dropping considerably. The Polamalu contract is one designed for an older superstar in his declining years. It has lower years than the other contracts(3 compared to 5, 5, 6) and the guaranteed percentage is also the lowest. It was obviously a contract that was designed to give the player his superstar money(perhaps above his market worth).....but provided fairly good protection for the team in case his production/ability slipped dramatically. The #1 Safety contract at the moment is unusually structured and is not in alignment with a standard contract, and I would think any new contract for a top Safety would fall into the #2 area.

Just fact clarifying here.... Brees made a Pro Bowl in his 4th season(Rivers' rookie year). His 3rd season was similar to his 2nd.....not very good. http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/B/BreeDr00.htm

Ignoring your other points, considering the emphasis that the FO is placing on making the playoffs, I think this would be a wise decision(to bring in a QB immediately) regardless of how confident one is of EJ improving.....or even how much time one is willing to give him. I think it only logical that just as there is no real way of knowing that EJ won't become a lot better next season.....there is also no real way of knowing that he won't play at the same level or even regress. Considering the FO playoff directive, there still needs to be a plan B in place to help win games in the short term if plan A fails. I don't see that a new rookie would fit into that category as few rookie QBs produce consistent wins(though I personally am not adverse to drafting the right one if available/lucky)......and unless one can rely on Thad improving(which really encompasses the same logic as EJ improving) I believe this means we will be looking for a capable veteran QB who can manage the ship if necessary while the future is groomed.