Dibs

Is it that big of a concern? He played 74 of a possible 80 games so far in his career.

I've been trying to figure out his 2009 contract for weeks now. If anyone could find a link(I've had a decent look for one but didn't find it)....linking it would be much appreciated. I was under the assumption that his 2009 contract had an 8m signing bonus attached. This works in perfectly with figuring his 2011 extension(in several areas). You seem to be working from memory on this Hopeful.....which I'll trust over my attempts to make sense of his 2011 contract. I actually never meant to dilute your base point.....just that I was under the impression that the dollars/year was a good deal more than what you stated.

I think that is very true. I am pretty sure that I have driven people to distraction......just as others have driven me half crazy. I tend to think however that it is the lack of "common decency" that really does the damage. Because of the impersonal nature of the internet, people tend to forget that they are talking to actual people. Many a time I have felt the urge to type "You're an idiot" (No to you specifically Tcali....everything you write is flawless and perfect )......but I refrain from doing so....realizing that not only is the person I am talking to entitled to their opinions regardless of whether it is based in knowledge or rational thought......but that I too am guilty(on the odd occasion) of not seeing things in a fully reasonable light. I personally can cope with idiots......I can cope with a massive influx of new or occasional posters espousing thoughts of doom & gloom(or conversely kool-aid inspired rainbows)......I can cope with people with dogmatic views.....I can even cope with people who don't understand the difference between a marsupial and a monotreme......but I have a difficult time coping with people who are quick to insult somebody.

Jake Long signs with the Rams. http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/9064766/jake-long-agrees-deal-st-louis-rams 4 years.....up to 36m. 4 pro-bowls(1 all-pro) in 5 years. The Dolphins invested the #1 pick overall in him in 2008......and he actually lived up to potential. It's not like the Dolphins couldn't afford 9m/year.....they just paid 12m/year for a 1 time pro-bowler who only had 836 yards last year. Only "up to" 9m/year. Puts into perspective a team willing to pay 7.8m/year to an OG that hasn't made a pro-bowl. Seriously though.....I think the Dolphin's moves this off-season are likely to set them backwards in the next few years. Go Bills!

I was actually expecting somebody to correct "Flour" to "Flower".....

Oh, I definitely agree. I personally see no point in trading for a QB that has virtually no chance to become an Elite QB. Cutler is your more common trade when it comes to decent QBs......but that sort of situation has never resulted in the QB developing their abilities further and becoming Elite. The only Elite QBs ever traded(or to hit FA) are..... Old farts like Manning, Favre etc. Brees......who's situation was quite unique and not likely to happen again any time soon. And potentially Schaub.....who was backing up #1 picks(Elite or potential elite) on a team. This is why I wouldn't count Hasselbeck in the same category as the other QBs. He too was backing up to an Elite QB. The distinction I make is that any team who has an Elite QB(potential) on their roster always recognizes them......and never lets them leave. It is only teams that already have an Elite QB as their starter that would be willing to let their backup potential Elite QB leave.

As you likely know, I have done a few studies on drafting success rates......and found that each position has a different success rate. The LB & OG positions seemed to have the same success rate, both for starter and elite calibre player throughout the 1st round.......while QB seemed to have the same success rate through picks 5-32. WRs & OT had a distinct drop off(which is what one would typically expect.....though it is not actually typical for all positions). If one were to purely look at selecting WRs......and using the trade value chart......here is how things would pan out. Pick 8 is roughly equal to the Rams 16 & 46 picks. According to my study(http://forums.twobillsdrive.com/topic/155410-drafting-success-wr/?do=findComment&comment=2718875).... Pick 8 would be a 29% chance for a solid starter......22% chance for him to become an Elite player. Pick 16 would be a 21% chance for solid starter.....13% chance for Elite player. Pick 46 would be a 13% chance for solid starter......3% chance for Elite player. Combining the chances..... Picks 16 & 46 would be a 31% chance for at least 1 solid starter.....15.6% chance for at least 1 Elite starter. As you can see, there is a better chance to obtain a solid starter by trading down.....plus the chance of 2 solid starters.....but the chance to hit a home run are reduced. In regards to 1st round LBs & QBs(after pick 4)......it would actually make sense to always trade down inside the 1st if you have a high 1st round pick and were after these positions. It seems apparent that the scouts can recognize the better prospects......as the 2nd round success rate for both LB & particularly QB are greatly reduced......but they cannot differentiate very well between those players that they grade as 1st rounders. QB data: http://forums.twobillsdrive.com/topic/155235-drafting-success-qb/ LB data: http://forums.twobillsdrive.com/topic/155307-drafting-success-lb/ IMO, the OP was on the right track. If the Bills have rated several QBs as 1st round prospects(with none being of Elite prospect talent).....and they believe that at least one will definitely be available at a later part in the 1st round........the best scenario(based upon my drafting history analytics) would be to trade down picking up 2 later 1st round picks.....taking a QB(which will likely have the same chance of becoming Elite as a QB selected at #8).....and also take a LB(who will also have a similar chance of success as a LB selected at #8). See above.

I think he earned something like 32m over the 4 years that he was with the Bills......8m/year.

I agree.....but you can't really count Hasselbeck in that class as he never started for GB, backing up Favre for 2 years there before being traded.

That $20 million was since he signed his new contract in 2011. He earned over $10/year in that period.

Having never been to Rochester, I have to assume that there is no correlation between the quality of Amazing Spider-Man 1 and that of the city. I'd hope not. Also.... Is it really called the Flour City? I'm presuming wheat is the #1 produce from the area, yes?

Analytics?.....perhaps technically yes. Moneyball......definitely no. Analytics literally means "the science of logical analysis". It doesn't take a whole lot of numbers apart from the cap figures.....nor a whole lot of logical deduction to see that we have "X" dollars that we can spend........and "Y" number of holes that we need to fill with decent players. If we sign player "S" to a contract that costs most of "X"......we have no money left to sign "Y-1". The "moneyball" concept that you are referring to simply means "value for money". The cap naturally enforces the "value for money" concept in the NFL.

That's not an article.....that's a badly written blog. Did you think it was "great" because you happened to agree with the base sentiment? "Considering how many holes this team has it would be much wiser to neglect quarterback until the middle rounds (3 or so), and try to improve elsewhere."

To go with a theme currently running in an off the wall thread..... I find it ironic that somebody with the name DefenseWinzChampionshipz professes to know statistics. In relation to the actual OP point. As far as I can figure it(difficult to do as no actual statistics were presented.....and the point was sort of hidden in there)......the point is relatively correct. The percentages for finding solid players would likely be a fair deal better with multiple trade downs. The percentages however for finding an Elite player would likely be far less with multiple trade down. Also, the OP doesn't state where they would recommend taking the QB that we desperately need, after their trade down(s). Again, statistics show some very marked numbers in this area.

As it happens, that was a legitimate pet peeve of mine. The original irony has quite a specific application that can be used relatively frequently.....where no other replacement word(s) could convey the same meaning for its use. I figure that so many people miss-used the word that over time, the definition changed.....and is now technically appropriate to be used to simply mean bad luck. IMO it is one of the few times where the English language has evolved to hinder communication.....rather than improve it. ......and yes.....I see my own hypocrisy on my views on the word irony in correlation to my other pet-peeve that I listed earlier. .....and yes.....I see the irony of the situation. All that said, my favourite definition is that from the BBC comedy Blackadder.... G'doi Moit. They are indeed considered English.....though one often needs a translator to understand the accent.....or earplugs if one is around too many Australians in a confined area. We may not have a very nice sounding accent......but at least a majority of us know that the language we speak is English........unlike Americans who somehow think that they are speaking American.

That's ironic, as one of my pet peeves is people who act like the English language is some sort of holy fixture that needs to be revered.......when in fact it has constantly evolved through the centuries, adapting words from all languages to become by far the most versatile language for broad and precise communication. Originally Latin.....derived from 1500s French. Derived from Germanic language 1300s French Ancient Greek Germanic languages The offending word in question This one is English in origin Norse origin ......I think my point is made.

Did you accidentally post this in the wrong thread?

Not that I've found. The site that is generally most up to date that I look through is: http://www.spotrac.com/nfl/ If you click on "2013 cap hits" for each team......scroll all the way to the bottom.....you can figure all of the info. You are thinking of Dib.......who is totally different from me, Dibs.

Actually 73.4% Comparisons.... Manuel: 73.4% Dysert: 73.3% Geno: 72.1% Barkley: 70.9% Wilson: 70.5% Nassib: 63.2% Glennon: 58.6% Looks like he led the major contenders in that unfortunate category.....but most were in a similar range.

With the carry over situation it actually will make no difference. Edit: btw....the answer is no.

The 2013 salary cap is 123m. The minimum spend is 90%.....coming to 111m. Our rollover from 2012 is 10m....bringing our cap limit to 133m At this point, our contract cap hit(top 51 players) is 102m. We have 9.5m in dead cap hit....making a total so far of 111.5m. This means we have already spent over the minimum requirement. I have heard that our estimated rookie spend will be 5.5m......bringing the total to 117m. If Byrd signs a multi-year contract, we will likely see his cap hit reduced by at least 2m. Theoretically we have 16m(+/-) left to spend......which could easily nab 4-5 players at 2.5m-4m each. If we chose not to sign any more FA, this means we can take a 16m rollover into the 2014 season......keeping in mind we already have a 7m dead cap hit in 2014 for Fitz.

I wouldn't say "nothing"......but I understand your point. It only takes one team to feel that Geno is worthy of a top 4 spot for him to be selected in that range. Speculation is fun & all......but I'm happy to wait to see what happens.

At this point it would have to be Young wouldn't it? He was selected #3......and apart from a few salacious mock drafts & Bills message boards, Geno isn't rated as one of the top picks.

Try hitting the "enter" button. Leave a full line between the paragraphs.