Dibs

I very much agree with that assessment. We also have him under contract for next season, and at a very very cheap rate.

That is not the case anymore. Recent SB winners rushing stats(outside top 16) 2012 Ravens: 20th yards D 2011 Giants: 32nd yards O, 32nd ypa O, 19th yards D, 23rd ypa D 2010 Packers: 24th yards O, 27th ypa O, 18th yards D, 31st ypa D 2009 Saints: 21st yards D, 26th ypa D 2008 Steelers: 23rd yards O, 29th ypa O 2006 colts: 18th yards O, 17th ypa O, 32nd yards D, 32nd ypa D 2004 Patriots: 17th ypa O 2003 Patriots: 27th yards O, 30th ypa O 2002 Bucs: 27th yards O, 27th ypa O 2001 Patriots: 24th ypa O, 19th yards D, 21st ypa D In perspective..... For the last 12 SB winners there was 25 rushing stat categories in the bottom half of the league.....with 11 being in bottom 5. For the previous 12 years of SB winners there were only 5 rushing stat categories in the bottom half of the league......with only 1 being in the bottom 13(20th or worse).

I am very happy that NE has something to play for. All the more sweeter when we pummel them this weekend.

Apart from the concept that the cost would be prohibitive(Skins gave 2 1st rounders to trade from 6th to 2nd....at best we will be 9th)......which team would want to make the trade? If the QB is that much of hot prospect, the Texans, Rams and Jaguars wouldn't trade down for anything.

Broncos. Manning is my favourite non-Bill in the NFL. After that....Bengals probably. Anyone but the Patriots.

Our average time of possession has been 1:20 less than last year.....so not much difference there. And our average number of 1st downs per game is exactly the same as last year. I think the main aspect(statistically) where we have regressed is 3rd down conversions. 4.7% less than last season. This however basically means that out of 20 attempt we succeed one less time than last seasons offense. I understand the perception that our offense has regressed. I watch the games & I feel the same way. But the reality is that the offense has overall been performing at a similar level to the one last season. I personally put this down to the erratic nature of this years O. We see a bunch of very poorly executed drives(3 & out, or minimal yards) and perhaps tend to focus on them......neglecting to realize that in nearly every game there are usually several long scoring drives......though even these often have bonehead plays involved. Quite honestly, I have come to think very highly of Hackett. Erratic rookie(and multiple) QBs, injured RBs, injured WRs, turnstile LG(earlier in the season)......and we still find a way to move the ball down the field in most games and score. Run CJ up the guts on 1st down for little gain again, and again, and again. Oh how frustrating it is to watch. But maybe Hackett doesn't care about flashy stats. Maybe it is all part of a well structured plan to enable those long scoring drives we regularly see(though seldom seem to remember). Maybe.....with non erratic QB play with a relatively healthy support cast.....maybe those ugly looking plays will become far less frequent, and not only will we remember the long successful drives, but they might just come with more regularity turning us from a mediocre offense into a top 10 offense. Maybe.

Didn't EJ have his best game of the season against Sexy Rexy?

I think you missed the final numbers a little there. Had we signed Levitre and Byrd we would have only $1.4m left in 2014 to work with. You can let Spiller walk in 2015 if you want.....but what about A.Williams, or Dareus, or Hughes? What about a punter, or re-signing other players? What about the rookies? It's easy to look at the $18m($17m assumed) this year and grumble.......but it needed to be done so that we have some room next year. Looking at the 2014 cap situation as it stands....we likely will have $19m to play with(This includes a guessed $1m reduction to rollover for Branch deal & a guessed $4m 2014 cap hit for him.) Pay Byrd $9m and we are down to $10m. Pay the rookies($4m?).....and we have only $6m left. Already we are getting close to the edge, even if we do indeed want to do anything more with the money. Of course if we don't sign Byrd we will be back to $15m......but I fully expect we would then spend the money elsewhere. Did the signing of Mario and reworking of SJ, Wood & Branch give nobody else pause to reflect on their long held views that the Bills won't spend money?

I didn't realize that I was arguing anything, merely discussing cap stuff. I have never claimed that there is an advantage to rolling the dead money into 2014......I don't know where you got that from. I have always stated that it made no difference to the 2014 cap either way.......and it is always in response to somebody stating that the 2014 cap is worse off for the Bills to put it there rather than in the 2013 cap(which is simply incorrect). The 89% minimum spend(which will be going up to 90% starting next season if I recall correctly) really isn't much of an issue at all. People may really want to perceive the Bills as being cheap.....but there is no likelihood at all that the Bills wouldn't cover the minimum spend in 2014 even without the $7m Fitz hit. Assuming the 2014 cap will be $126m, this means the minimum spend will need to be $113.4m. The Bills have already committed to $98m plus $5m in dead cap hit(having removed the $7m Fitz money). This makes $103m. Add to that the Branch hit....no idea....let's say a simple $4m.....brings us to $107m. Byrd? If we sign him for an $8m 2014 cap hit we are now over the minimum spend......plus we will need further money for rookies, punter, re-signing Carrington maybe.....and hopefully reworking of the 4 young players that I mentioned earlier. To somehow think that the Bills handled the Fitz money the way they did in order to spend as little as possible in 2014 is not only illogical but smacks of overt pessimism. Essentially, the low increase in the 2013 and 2014 caps has made the 2014 cap year very tight. Had the Bills spent over the cap this season(going into 2012s rollover money), we would be in a very rough cap situation next year. To highlight this, let's say that all the Bills did differently was to sign Levitre to the Titans deal......and sign Byrd to 9m/year.....we should now also chuck the $7m Fitz money into 2013 as well(as it would now make sense to do it as we do not expect any rollover monies for 2014). This would reduce the 2013 cap space from the current $18m down to $4.3m(minus any branch factor). There would now be no rollover so the cap for us in 2014 would be the base $126m. We have $98m committed... plus $5m dead = $103m plus $8.6m for Levitre = $111.6m plus $9m for Byrd = $120.6m plus $4m(?) for Branch = 124.6m Now we have only $1.4m to pay the rookies and a punter......and have no money left to re-sign anybody else(Carrington) nor do some early reworking of Dareus, Spiller, Hughes or A.Williams. Like I said......IMO the Bills have been extremely wise in how they have managed the cap situation this year.

If one cannot re-roll money(as you and I both believe is likely the situation), then if one goes over the base cap level in any given year(into the rollover monies from the previous year) then there will be no rollover money for the following year(as one has gone over the base cap number). I am thinking that the Bills wanted to have additional money for the 2014 cap year(very little increase in base cap).......and that is why they kept the spending below the base cap in 2013. In 2014 we will likely want to rework Dareus, Spiller, Hughes and A.Williams(as we did with Woods and Branch this year). Had we spent into 2012s rollover money, there would have been no extra monies for 2013(to achieve the re-signings)......plus the money spent in 2013 would most likely be on salaries that would further reduce the 2014 cap amount. Levitre is a great example of this. Had we signed him to the exact same deal as he got with the Titans, it would have reduced the 2014 cap by $13.2m ($4.6m in lost rollover from 2013 & $8.6m in 2014 cap hit). In regards to Fitz......the Bills actions did not effect the 2014 cap at all. Here is my now standard explanation of the Fitz situation.....I have it saved now and cut and paste it, as I have had to explain it many times over the past year to people.... The Fitz situation made no difference to the 2014 cap by putting the dead hit in 2014 rather than in 2013. I'll draw a fictional example.....simplified. Team A has 25M cap room in 2013. They have a scheduled 20M cap room in 2014. They have a dead cap hit from a player of 10M that they can either put in 2013 or 2014. If they put the 10M into 2013.....that will leave 15M in cap room which they can roll over into 2014.....which makes the 2014 cap 35M(20M + 15M). If they put the 10M into 2014.....that will leave 25M in cap room which they can roll over into 2014.....which makes the 2014 cap 35M(20M + 25M - 10M). The question shouldn't be "Why did the Bills put the dead Fitz money into 2014 rather than 2013?". The question really should be "Why wouldn't you put the money into the next year if you have the opportunity to do so?"(considering that it has no effect on that following years cap figure). There is no benefit in putting it in the first year unless you plan on spending over the base cap level(into the previous years rollover)........and as I explained, doing this means that there will be no rollover for the following year(which in this case it certainly looks like we will want to use). I could be wrong(I hope I'm not), but it really seems to me that the Bills have planned very well for the low increased 2014 cap considering the young players we may want to re-sign that year.

If they do though, due to the rollover rules, it will likely only effect the 2015 cap(which is due for a large increase.....10% maybe). If SJ is not seen as a desired player in the long term future of the Bills, I personally would rather him be cut after this season than after the 2014 season. My reasoning on that is that the cap hit difference between cutting him at those two points is 5.675m. Effectively SJ playing in 2014 will cost us $5.675m in cap room in 2015(plus a large chunk of cash)......which is a lot of extra cap hit for that one year of play. Rather take your lumps early($8.475 dead hit) than pay $14.15m in cap room(plus large amount of cash) IMO. Of course this is only under the proviso that SJ is not part of the long term plans for the Bills.

Yeah, I'm thinking that most of that would only reduce the amount of cap room(increase the amount spent). Only the voidable years would increase the amount of cap room(of which we don't have any this year to my knowledge). Whatever the case, we certainly will have enough to sign Byrd and do some early 2014 re-signings of several of our young players if we want to(Dareus, Spiller, A.Williams, Hughes).

It really is a ludicrous statement isn't it? The first rule of following the NFL is we do not talk about the NFL. The second rule of following the NFL is we do NOT talk about the NFL.

Agreed. It doesn't make sense to me.....but I've noticed that the situation(erroneous figures) is not uncommon with most articles involving cap numbers. I would think that there are not many sports writers who have good abilities in mathematics. I know I'm a little weird but I'm actually really looking forward to when the new NFL year starts so that I can find the definitive answer to the re-roll question.....and then confidently look at the 2014 cap for the Bills(and other interesting teams like Dallas & NO).

The numbers in that article seem a little different to what I would figure..... Using the 2014 cap numbers from these two sites(both have the same figures).... http://www.spotrac.c...s/cap-hit/2014/ http://www.overtheca...Bills&Year=2014 We get a cap expenditure of around $110m. ($98m cap hit + 12m dead cap hit). With a $126m cap level for next season, that leaves us with $16m in cap space. Added to that is the rollover dollars. Though I am fairly certain that a team cannot re-roll rollover monies into subsequent years, I am still uncertain on this.... The rollover amount will be $8m(if re-roll not allowed) or $18m(if re-roll is allowed). This means our cap space will be $24m(if re-roll not allowed) and $34m(with re-rollover allowed). Like I said, I'm fairly certain that re-roll monies are not allowed so running from there...... I figure that the Bills 2014 adjusted cap will be $134m......with $24m in cap space. This does not take into consideration Branch's new deal which would not only directly effect the 2014 cap......but will effect the rollover amount from 2013(signing bonus and possibly salary increase). It also obviously doesn't include a Byrd figure. No.....$12m in dead cap for 2014.

The new regime doesn't seem content to retain players who are sub-par.......and unfortunately Moorman is far enough past his prime that he fits into that category. A new punter will undoubtedly be found this off-season.

I'm pretty sure it is only illegal if you are making some sort of profit from the reproduction.....regardless of what the NFL states at the end of each broadcast.

I'm not convinced that it isn't a good fit.....or I should say won't be a good fit. The offense has obviously been reigned back due to the lack of experience at QB that we have had this season(Hackett & Marrone have stated and implied as much many times). It has me curious to see how it would operate in regards to CJ if it was fully implemented and executed with precision.

Their comment on each one being.... "Hello, friend! If you've stumbled upon this photo gallery, you've discovered a large chunk of a secret project that we'll tell you more about once said project is made public. For now, enjoy some pictures completely free of context. Go Bills!" .....has me very interested to see the final "secret project". Edit: You linked the reads twice. Throws of note: http://www.buffalorumblings.com/2013/12/23/5238818/ej-manuel-film-study-throws-of-note

Though I generally agree with that, I think that comparing base QBRs is a tad deceiving. Though the sample size is small, Thad has shown himself to be relatively consistent. 4 games, 3 games with QBRs 67.6, 72.0, 77.8.....and one game 100.5. EJ IMO has shown that he is far less consistent than Thad having shown results that are both horrible, and very good. EJ's bad games result in QBRs of 31.2, 48.9 & 63.5.....but his good games result in QBRs of 121.9, 105.5, 105.0.......with the rest ranging throughout with QBRs of 89.3, 86.7, 74.8 & 71.8. So we have two QBs who are playing relatively poorly(both near 78 QBR). One of those QBs typically produces in a game at around that base level(Thad)......while the other QB can perform horribly in any given game, but also can far more regularly be very good(or better than the base level). These are all just stats......and really mean nothing.....but they do IMO represent the differences between the two QBs at this point in time, at least in my eyes.

I can't see that there was any "hometown discount" at all with Eric Wood(4th highest paid C in the league)......and likely wasn't with SJ either(22nd WR). Both seem to be paid in accordance to where their relative skills were perceived to be at the time of signing. (Many will argue that we over-paid for SJ.....not in fact got a discount.) In regards to Levitre, it is not the question of perceived "value" of a guard......it is the perceived value of that particular guard. Levitre is being paid as the 4th best OG in the league. Unlike Wood(& SJ), the Bills obviously didn't perceive that his relative skills were commensurate to the contract he was demanding.

We still need to beat the Patriots first......but yeah, it would be quite an odd occurrence.

In regards to the bolded line above......This to me is the main reason why I still hold some home that he can become a Franchise QB. IMO the ability to play at ones best when things are close going down to the wire is the hallmark of the truly great QBs. (To preempt being attacked.....Haters please note: I said "hold some hope"......not "will become" or "has a good chance".)

Very well said.

19-0 is same ole, same ole? Some are harder to please than others I guess.