Dibs

The rollover money is the amount that a team does not spend under the cap. In 2012 the Bills spent 9.8m(I rounded to 10m above) under the cap number......this then can be rolled over into the 2013 cap number. Bringing the 123m standard cap figure up to 133m. If a team spends over the standard cap figure(123m this year).....they will have no rollover for the following year. Therefore, the Bills.....who are sitting at 114.5m....could spend another 18.5m(though as I showed, this will screw the 2014 cap). Effectively, whatever we don't spend of the 10m rollover money(money used above spending 123m) will be wasted. I understood what you were meaning.....but it will in fact screw with the 2014 cap figure. Even if you sign a couple of players to 1 year contracts(so they have no immediate effect on the 2014 cap), it will cut down the rollover amount that we can take into next year......and it looks as though we will be needing some rollover money in order to sign Wood etc.

As I showed, any moves are going to make the 2014 year very difficult to negotiate around the cap. They will be praying for a 7m cap increase rather than an expected 2m increase.

I searched for myself.....but all I could find was a mutant aardvark. We will have 7m dead money from Fitz in 2014(factored into my 2014 numbers). As far as I can figure it, the numbers I showed are correct. If teams have a good cap situation(particularly for the following year).....then yes, definitely they can front load a contract by using the rollover money. Unfortunately for us(and most teams), we don't have a good cap situation.

I decided to rework some of it and started a new thread.... http://forums.twobillsdrive.com/topic/156765-the-reason-for-lack-of-fa-action/

A lot of people are looking at the numerous holes we need to fill......looking at the fact that we still have 18m+ available to spend.....and are apparently very annoyed at the lack of action the Bills have taken so far in FA. As far as I can figure it, the reason for the lack of FA action is due to the concept that the cap has only gone up 2% per year for the last few years.....while player salaries have been rising at a much higher rate. Simply put, if we sign any more FAs this off-season......our 2014 cap situation is looking to be in bad shape. I'll explain.... The reason we have 18m+ available is due to the new cap rollover rules. Rollover money from 2012 into 2013 is treated as “adjusted cap”. Any unused “adjusted” money in 2013 cannot be rolled over again into 2014. This is an extremely important point and I think that most people don't understand the ramifications of how it effects future cap planning. Having all of that rollover money looks exciting, but the reality is it could easily become a cap-trap that destroys a roster. Effectively this means that if a team spends above the cap(into their rollover).......they will have no rollover money the following year. If the cap increase for the following season is similar to recent times(2%), this likely will place teams in a tenuous position in regards to the cap for future years as teams will be going from a higher cap situation to a lower cap the following year......and as player contracts are usually structured in a manner where the cap hits increase each year throughout the contract, this would place the team in a very difficult position. Looking at the Bills(for example)..... At the moment we have spent 109m(top 51 player caps).....we will get back 4.5m for Fitz contract in a few months. We also have a dead cap number of 6m......and 4m for rookie contracts(I've adjusted this down from 5.5m as several of the rookie contracts will fall outside the top 51 cap hits)............bringing the total spend to.....114.5m. The base cap figure is 123m. The Bills' rollover amount is 10m. This means that we are 8.5m under the cap.......and 18.5m under the adjusted rollover cap. Ignoring any adjustment for Byrd(leaving his cap hit at 6.9m).....if we don't spend any more money on FAs, we will take a 8.5m rollover into the 2014 season. Placing a base 6.9m cap hit for Byrd, our 2014 cap situation is currently 111m. Adding in the 4m for the 2013 rookies.....and 4m for the 2014 rookies, this places our 2014 cap situation at 119m. Assuming there is only a 2% increase in the cap in 2014.....the 2014 cap figure will be 125m. This would leave us with 6m(plus 8.5m rollover) to re-sign Wood, Chandler, Carrington, Moats, 2nd & 3rd string QB & a raft of other FAs (13 more players). If we chose to sign another 2 FAs this year(total cost 6m/year, assuming the same cap cost through each year)......this would mean we would have ZERO money left(with a 2.5m rollover) to sign all of our own FAs in 2014(19 players). Obviously, if we chose to spend into our current rollover we would need to either re-structure major players, cut more players, or not be able to re-sign anybody who is worth keeping. With a new coach, it seems logical to progress through a season for him to see what he has.....and what he can get out of the current players, before mortgaging the future with relatively expensive FAs. From what I can tell, it is not just the Bills in this situation. Many teams have already started to cut good players due to future cap concerns this off-season.....and likely this will continue for a few more years.

IMO, this would be a very good move.......but with two strong provisos. There would need to be 4 QBs that are going to go in the 1st round(seems likely to me).......and more importantly that the Bills rate all four of those QBs to be of similar potential. Furthering to that, if there is one(or two) QB who is rated higher than the others, and the Bills miss out on him(them) by the #8 pick(unable to trade up etc)......then again I would say trading down is a preferable option.

This is an extremely important point and I think that most people don't understand the ramifications of how it effects future cap planning. Having all of that rollover money looks exciting, but the reality is it could easily become a cap-trap that destroys a roster. Effectively this means that if a team spends above the cap(into their rollover).......they will have no rollover money the following year. If the cap increase for the following season is similar to recent times(2%), this likely will place teams in a tenuous position in regards to the cap for future years as teams will be going from a higher cap situation to a lower cap the following year......and as player contracts are usually structured in a manner where the cap hits increase each year throughout the contract, this would place the team in a very difficult position. Looking at the Bills(for example)..... At the moment we have spent 109m(top 51).....which we will get back 4.5m for Fitz contract in a few months. We also have a dead cap number of 6m......and 5.5m for rookie contracts............bringing the total spend to.....116m. The base cap figure is 123m. The Bills' rollover amount is 10m. This means that we are 7m under the cap.......and 17m under the adjusted rollover cap. Ignoring any adjustment for Byrd(leaving his cap hit at 6.9m).....if we don't spend any more money on FAs, we will take a 7m rollover into the 2014 season. Placing a base 6.9m cap hit for Byrd, our 2014 cap situation is currently 111m. Assuming there is only a 2% increase in the cap in 2014.....the 2014 cap figure will be 125m. This would leave us with 14m(plus 7m rollover) to re-sign Wood, Chandler, Carrington, Moats, 2nd & 3rd string QB & a raft of other FAs (13 more players). If we chose to sign another 2 FAs this year(total cost 7m/year, same through each year)......this would mean we would only have 7m(with no rollover) to sign all of our own FAs in 2014. Obviously, if we chose to spend into our current rollover we would need to either re-structure major players, cut more players, or not be able to re-sign anybody who is worth keeping. With a new coach, it seems logical to progress through a season for him to see what he has.....and what he can get out of the current players, before mortgaging the future with relatively expensive FAs. EDIT: Those 2014 numbers didn't include the 2013 rookie class.....likely will be a solid 4m higher 2014 cap number because of it......plus the need to sign the 2014 rookies.

1. Great question......impossible to define. For the sake of the studies I did, I set a bar of 4+ pro-bowl appearances......but you can't really define it. An elite QB is one who is consistently very, very good. For the sake of the discussion, one can actually be a bit liberal as the best QBs to be selected after the #36 pick are QBs like Hasslebeck & Marc Bulger who nobody could possibly consider to be elite QBs. The only one that comes close(and might fit the mold) would be Matt Schaub.....and if he is, can be added to the list.....bringing the total number of elite QBs drafted outside of the top 36 in the last 28+ years to two. 2. I initially had the number at 33 as Brett Favre was the #33 pick. I decided to change to saying the top #36 to avoid arguments over the concept that people will definitely prematurely call Kaepernick elite. Either way, the percent chance that the NFL scouts miss the potential of an elite QB & he slips past the very early stages of the 2nd round are remote.

So are you going to root for the Bills to lose.......or simply not watch them for a year?

The article linked in the article is more informative than the article linked by the OP. http://blogs.canoe.ca/krykslants/sports/more-from-my-buddy-nix-qa/

You are 100% correct. The last year on their respective teams they had somewhat similar stats(though Brees was 10th in the league & Fitz was 17th). You seem happy to ignore the concept that Brees was an all-pro in his 2nd last year with the Chargers(3rd in league).....while Fitz was 22nd. You also seem ignorant to the fact that stats do not fully reflect the ability of a QB. Elway made the pro-bowl and dragged his team to the SB with QBRs of 79.0, 83.4 & 73.7. What is your actual point on trying to compare Brees to Fitzpatrick? You asked people to explain why the Chargers let Brees go......so I pasted the pertinent information from wiki. Did you not bother to read it? It clearly shows that Brees was considered a first class QB at the time.....that the Chargers had unfortunately invested large money into Rivers.....and that Brees' future was clouded by injury concerns. Here it is again(with a little more)....the relevant information is in red. I typically have plenty of free time.....just let me know what parts you don't understand. "Brees became a free agent after the season(2004 All-Pro) and was not expected to return to San Diego, which had already committed a large sum of money to Rivers. The team eventually designated Brees a franchise player, giving him a one-year contract that quadrupled his pay to $8 million for 2005. Under the terms of the franchise player contract, Brees was eligible to be traded or sign with another team, but the Chargers would receive two future first round draft choices in return. He was not traded and continued as starting quarterback for the remainder of the 2005 season.[17] Brees continued his productive play in 2005, as he posted a career high in passing yards with 3,576. Brees also posted an 89.2 rating, 10th best in the NFL. However, in the last game of the 2005 season against the Denver Broncos, Brees tore his labrum......Brees underwent arthroscopic surgery, .....to repair the torn labrum in his right (throwing) shoulder on January 5, 2006. Subsequent reports mentioned additional rotator cuff damage and he also was treated by Dr. Saby Szajowitz to recover and regain muscle movement. He was selected as first alternate to the AFC Pro Bowl team for the 2005 season. He would have played in his second consecutive Pro Bowl due to the injury to starter Carson Palmer, but his own injury dictated that the AFC Pro Bowl roster would have to be filled by second alternate Jake Plummer.[citation needed] After the season, the Chargers offered Brees a 5-year, $50 million contract that paid $2 million in base salary the first year and the rest heavily based on performance incentives. Brees evaluated the incentive-based offer as a sign of no confidence by the Chargers and promptly demanded the salary a top 5 "franchise" quarterback would receive." "After the Chargers refused to increase their offer, Brees met with other teams. The New Orleans Saints and the Miami Dolphins were interested. New Orleans made an offer that included $10 million in guaranteed money the first year and a $12 million option the second year. Miami was unsure if Brees' shoulder was completely healed and doctors suggested the team not sign him because of the injury.[18] The Dolphins ended negotiations and traded for Minnesota Vikings QB Daunte Culpepper instead. Brees signed a 6-year, $60 million deal with the Saints on March 14,"

Brees: 2004: 262-400-3159.....65.5%......27TD......7INT.....Y/A 7.9.....104.8QBR....11-4 win/loss......All-pro 2005: 323-500-3576.....64.6%......24TD....15INT.....Y/A 7.2.....89.2QBR.....9-7 win/loss Fitz: 2011: 353-569-3832....62%.......24TD.....23INT.....Y/A 6.7.....79.1QBR.....5-8 win/loss 2012: 306-505-3400....60.6%....24TD.....16INT.....Y/A 6.7.....83.3QBR.....6-10 win/loss Even if their stats were comparable, Brees looked special. Everybody knew it. You can't always judge a QB by his stats. If you did, you might think that a player like Elway was a lucky journeyman throughout his first 10 seasons. Injury issues aside, Brees was given one of the highest contracts in the league by the Saints in 2006. Explaining their wisdom.....from wiki.... "Brees became a free agent after the season and was not expected to return to San Diego, which had already committed a large sum of money to Rivers. The team eventually designated Brees a franchise player, giving him a one-year contract that quadrupled his pay to $8 million for 2005. Under the terms of the franchise player contract, Brees was eligible to be traded or sign with another team, but the Chargers would receive two future first round draft choices in return. He was not traded and continued as starting quarterback for the remainder of the 2005 season.[17] Brees continued his productive play in 2005, as he posted a career high in passing yards with 3,576. Brees also posted an 89.2 rating, 10th best in the NFL. However, in the last game of the 2005 season against the Denver Broncos, Brees tore his labrum......Brees underwent arthroscopic surgery, .....to repair the torn labrum in his right (throwing) shoulder on January 5, 2006. Subsequent reports mentioned additional rotator cuff damage and he also was treated by Dr. Saby Szajowitz to recover and regain muscle movement. He was selected as first alternate to the AFC Pro Bowl team for the 2005 season. He would have played in his second consecutive Pro Bowl due to the injury to starter Carson Palmer, but his own injury dictated that the AFC Pro Bowl roster would have to be filled by second alternate Jake Plummer.[citation needed] After the season, the Chargers offered Brees a 5-year, $50 million contract that paid $2 million in base salary the first year and the rest heavily based on performance incentives. Brees evaluated the incentive-based offer as a sign of no confidence by the Chargers and promptly demanded the salary a top 5 "franchise" quarterback would receive."

I don't think he was lying.....perhaps(and only perhaps), he might have made the announcement for PR purposes(but I don't think he did). The issue I was pointing out is that we......as the generally ignorant Bills fan.....have no idea what "establishing an analytics department" means. A lot of people have jumped to what I consider to be an illogical conclusion......that the Bills have not used analytics prior to the announcement. It is obvious that what most people think to be "analytics" roughly equates to the "moneyball" type concept. The concept of caponomics shows that all teams have been using analytics in this regard for many years. "Establishing an analytics department" likely means the expansion of what is already in existence......and hopefully means the use of analytics(or logical analysis) in a much wider spectrum in regards to all decisions. It also hopefully means there is a higher emphasis on following said analytic results.......rather than looking at them.....considering them.....and then going with one's original direction based upon tradition, emotion, hubris or any other emotion which can negatively influence a rational and logical decision.

But what exactly is the analytics thing? Buzzword indeed. I would say that NFL analytics has been around since the inception of the salary cap. Every NFL team has needed to be able to figure how to put together a team.....and future years teams.....while staying under the cap. How much money to justify paying top players, what players are "value for money", what players can be cut to improve the cap situation.....without being too detrimental to team play etc, etc. Every team in the NFL has been doing "moneyball" type analytics for years......only now they have a name for it. Mind you......caponomics worked well as a name for many years.

This site....though it is very slow at updating information..... http://www.overthecap.com/top-player-salaries.php?Position=QB

That's correct. The cap hit comes from the signing bonus money he was paid in 2011.

Actually, that's pretty much what I am claiming(Red). The studies I did were not about figuring player talent......they were about the study of the ability to be able to analyze and grade that talent. I figure that you are aware of this....but bear with me.....I'll endeavour to explain my rationale. This will likely be quite a lot of typing as I want to give justice to each aspect covered. Analyzing player talent is not an exact art......and it is impossible to determine an individual's ability to do so without having access to their private grading records. Obviously some will be better/worse than others, some will excel at grading certain positions, be deficient at other positions etc. It is possible that one(or a few) will be regularly much better than their peers. Unfortunately, it is extremely unlikely that these potential super-scouts are fully recognized and their opinions will be just one of many opinions on a team that go into formulating their big board. Logically, in regards to individual teams selecting players, it all relatively evens out......some teams a bit better.....some a bit worse.....but all have their fair share of "misses" which is the important factor, as it shows that it is indeed not an exact art. This amalgam of minds doing the selecting will also be constantly changing for many and varied reasons, adding further to the impossible nature of determining individual(or team) scouting. In relation to the QB position, the NFL scouting system as a whole has had an extremely good success rate(compared to other positions). There really cannot be much argument on this as the results clearly point to this being factual and not just conceptual. Looking at the last 28 years, it is improbable to think that it is fluke that only one QB(Brady) has become an elite NFL QB after being selected past the 36th pick(2 if you prematurely count Wilson)......and only one outside the top 33 picks(3 if you prematurely count Kaepernick & Wilson). It is obvious that virtually every QB who has a glimmer of elite potential is recognized and, with the QB position being so vitally important, are selected at worst inside the top 4 picks of the 2nd round. Furthering to the point, when a QB is recognized as having "special" potential, they are invariably selected inside the top 4 of the draft. Though some QB prospects(Alex Smith) are selected there due to supply/demand reasons, the success rate in those top 4 selections are far greater than other areas. Manning & Luck are great examples. The poorest of scouts could recognize their special potential. Leaf is also a good example as he was near universally considered to have special potential......which obviously didn't pan out. Now....getting to your actual point.... We can safely state that scouts can recognize those QBs who have some sort of elite potential. We can also safely say that scouts can recognize those QBs who have special potential. In short, scouts can differentiate between those QBs who have no chance of becoming elite.....those QBs who have a chance of becoming elite......and those QBs who have a good chance of becoming elite..... ......but can they differentiate between different QBs inside each area? Can they determine the better/worse success chance between two QBs that fall into the middle category.....say between Geno Smith & Matt Barkley(assuming that both fall in that category)? It seems logical that they can. If one can determine that Luck is has awesome potential, that Newton has very good potential, that Flacco has some potential & that Kafka has very little potential.....it makes sense that you would be able to determine some sort of difference between a Geno & Barkley. I tend to think however that the basis for this is slightly skewed......in that it is likely that the players selected inside the top 4 vary greatly in potential....and any player who grades above a certain point, is highly desired, and invariably gets selected inside the top 4. Effectively, the gradings are not proportionate. Top 4 is relatively easy for the scouts to grade.....any QB who looks very good is worth spending a top 4 pick on.....regardless of just how good(Luck compared to Young as example). Players who show elite potential but fall under that theoretical top 4 bar appear much more difficult for scouts to effectively grade. These guys show "something" which makes scouts believe that they could become elite. Trying to grade arm strength, intangibles, pocket awareness, accuracy etc, etc, against each other seems an extremely difficult task......and as history shows, a QB who is rated as a 8th pick or 15th type selection has just as much chance to succeed/fail as one who is rated as a 25th type selection. Using a racing car analogy......grading QBs is like trying to predict which cars will go around a track faster...without the use of mathematics/physics. You have a bunch of cars varying from a F1 to a mini.....with varying engine sizes, tires, weight, suspension, driver etc. The F1 car with a good driver, or the muscle car with low weight and good suspension become obvious predictions. The mini with the small engine are also obvious predictions. All of the other combinations become impossible to predict. Does the car with the big engine & low weight but bad driver have a better or worse chance than the car with the medium engine & good suspension with a decent driver? Both have a chance......but how can you determine which one has the better chance? In terms of mathematics, one may well be able to determine that player "A" is a better prospect than player "B".......but the variables involved outweigh the grading differences. Player "A" might be given a 10% chance.....player "B" a 6% chance......but there is a +/- of 90% making any grading of the players irrelevant. (Obviously my percentages here are fictional to highlight the point). In regards to where a QB ends up being drafted effecting his elite potential.....history has shown this to be basically irrelevant. Bad teams generally get the top 4 picks. The elite QBs on a bad team maintain(develop) their elite level of play regardless to whether their WRs drop the balls or their OL allows constant pressure. It is usually only under duress that elite QBs show themselves as being better than their peers......basically, all QBs look good when they have no pressure, lots of time to throw & have good WRs......very few QBs look consistently good when under heavy duress. Furthering to this, unless one believes that the "special" quality attributed to elite QBs can disappear, it is very telling that no QB, barring injury issues(in modern times?) has ever been considered not good enough by their drafting team......and then develops into an elite QB elsewhere. This occurs with many players of many positions......but never at the QB position. Sorry for the length of the response. Hopefully you didn't find it a complete waste of your time.

I understand what you are saying.....but it being difficult for Joe Average to assess the impact of an individual LT does not detract from the concept that LT is a very important position on a team......many placing it in the top 3....most certainly in the top 6. This is reflected generally by the high dollar amounts that top LTs earn in the NFL. When a team finally gets their Elite QB, they want to make sure he is protected.....and that protection usually comes in the form of a good LT. I totally agree that teams with Elite(or hopefully elite) QBs draft WR high......typically not Top 5, but that is due to not having many Top 5 picks after obtaining an Elite QB. You may be right with your assessment/opinion on the LT position.....but unfortunately it seems impossible to quantify.

Honestly.....SB teams rarely pick inside the top 5......and usually there are 2-5 elite prospects so teams have a limited variety of positions to chose from. Apart from QB.....is there any position that is worth the pick? If you don't have an Elite QB.....virtually all top picks are going to be wasted.

I agree with you on this KTD. It wasn't so much that the deal sucked.....it was the decision to extend Fitz and pay him as if he had the skills of a solid starter that sucked.....but even then it was widely accepted as a wise move by many at the time. Hindsight works her magic again.

Well no.....they didn't. Are you just being Mr. Grumblebum or do you have some sort of legitimate beef?

Actually.....when the Bills have picked anywhere close to the #1 spot we took DT & OT. Edit: Since Bruce Smith that is.

You really aren't very fussy are you Poojer?

I'm finding that comment quite odd. Discounting QB.....what positions do you think are not folly to be picked that high in the first round?

That's actually quite interesting.