Dibs

Ex Bill WR Donald Jones visits the Patriots!!! https://twitter.com/ByTimGraham/status/312185416222638080

No probs.....you copped the arse end of me reading the truly negative spun posts lol . My point was that analytics won't hinder the Bills signing a Mario type deal in the future.....the salary cap automatically does that. This off-season for instance. How could we possibly sign a player to 12-16m/year when we only have 21m left under the cap......need 4-5 FAs & be able to sign our rookies(5m)? Unless you mortgage future caps.....and have to cut your players and go through cap hell(like many teams are doing this season), the cap insures that there is no way to do it.

:huh: I've always thought that I had above average communication skills......apparently my skills are well below par as you seemed to miss every point I made.....and somehow assumed I was saying things that I wasn't. That's cool....if you can be bothered....when you calm down a bit....re-read our conversation, particularly my responses. Here's a few tips.... The 2WRs, TE & 2LBs are holes on the roster that we need to fill. The Top3 WR was in reference to showing that we "can" sign a top player(ala Levitre) under the cap.....but we then won't be able to sign the 2WRs, TE & 2LBs that we need. I won't go on.....good luck to you sir.

How the F*ck do you know that?

You don't perhaps think we might sign one of the many, many FA OGs that are still available instead?

Apologies for my previous post.....was getting frustrated with the plethora of ways people are finding to be negative around here. Analytics is not going to be used in Football in the same way it is used in Baseball. In Football there is revenue sharing and a realistic salary cap. There is a relatively level playing field in the NFL......which is totally different to Baseball. The aspect of "moneyball" that you(& others) are putting forward is simply the concept of "value for money". This concept has been used in the NFL since the introduction of the salary cap. Also....in Baseball....it is far easier to assess an individual players' worth.....directly from their batting average. It is an individual stat totally unreliant on other people. It is easy to correlate this directly to the money that they command & determine their "value for money". In football, how does one determine the relative level that one player is worth at one position on the team compared to another player? How does one determine the skill level of player "A" who plays with 5 pro-bowl players......and player "B" who plays with a bunch of journeymen? In short, there is no direct analytics that can achieve this. Talent evaluation via the "eye test" is key. One can't simply say that since a QB has a high QBR over the period of 7 games, that they are therefore a "good" QB and are therefore worth "X" dollars(Yes I'm looking at Fitz here). Analytics will surely have its roll to play in talent evaluation......but likely more so with the evaluation success of the evaluators rather than with the actual players themselves.

Bollocks.

Agreed....that's why I put it in brackets. It wasn't pertinent to the issue at hand......and in hindsight, I shouldn't have mentioned it as it obviously detracted from the point too much....as shown by you addressing that one line rather than the point that was being made. We need a WR. Do we have room under the cap to sign one for 13m/year(top 3 contract)? Yes we do. Would it be sound cap management to do so in the current situation we are in? No it wouldn't. Similar situation with OG. Sometimes you have to look at the bigger picture of what is best for the team as a whole. All of this is a matter of where the money is best spent. I personally would have been ecstatic if we managed to afford to re-sign Levitre.....brought in a #2 WR, a TE & 2 LBs. That would be awesome. You seem to think however that there is only one strategy to running a team & that if the team doesn't follow your thoughts.......then they are clueless and without a plan.

Great work. Does your "Needs" section relate to the overall assessment of the talent at each position.....or does it relate to the needs we might have when looking at FA? It is a subtle difference between the two but I think an important one. For example, one can argue that Darius holds a "moderate need" as his talent has potential to improve.....but he has not shown himself to be a long term keeper yet. In regards to FA needs however, there is little to no chance that we are looking to replace him at this point.....therefore he would have a "minimal need". The same thing could be done with several players. In terms of FA need.....I would have Urbik & Darius at "minimal".....Bradham at "moderate" (as I believe that all things considered, his starting job is relatively safe).....and in regards to Searcy, I would have also listed Scott & Williams, making that area "minimal". Also, Anderson would fall under "moderate" as his contract alone means that his position is one that we won't be overly looking at replacing this FA period.

I didn't mean that it was irrelevant to the concept of starting a rookie QB(though I believe that it was going to be the case even if we kept Fitz). It was irrelevant to your thread premise......which was that "if you're going to start a rookie QB you want a strong OL". Cutting or keeping Fitz does not effect the thread premise......it's a different issue entirely. (I never diminished Levitre's play.....nor did I even comment on it.) That's all well and good......but where would your line be? 9m/year? 10m? 12m? What price would he need to have for you to agree to not re-sign him? There would definitely be a price level where you would have to conclude that it was better for overall team cap management to let him walk. Therefore, you actually agree with the base concept that overall team cap management plays a factor in the re-signing of players(& the signing of FAs). Even though you might disagree with the cap management professionals that the milti-billion dollar organization employs to figure these things......you cannot disagree that what they did is exactly the same in principle to what you yourself would do. With all of the clear cap arguments relating to paying top dollar for an OG when we have limited cap resources and many areas to fill......the argument that not re-signing Levitre was the incorrect move seems somewhat emotional.

It's a little early for this sort of analysis of the team isn't it? We still have 21m under the cap and FA is just starting. I think you realize that we kept our starting RG(Urbik).......and that letting Fitz go was a fait accompli & irrelevant to your point about starting a rookie QB. Therefore your point is "Why let Levitre go......?" With 8m(or close to it) we can likely get a downgraded OG......and a solid #2 WR. I'm not saying that this will happen.....or that the new OG(I'm hoping for Moore myself) will definitely be solid.....but there is a clear logic to doing this in a year where we needed to pay for a starting OG, WR(x2), TE, LB(x2) & SS. There comes a point in every negotiation where the money simply becomes too much for the situation. Would you have been wanting him for 8.5m/year? 9m/year? 10m/year? At what point would you deem it too expensive, all things considered, to re-sign Levitre?

Actually, Polamalu retains top spot with a contract that has on average 9.87m/year. Bell comes 2nd with 8.34m/year. Goldson is 3rd(assuming the numbers quoted are correct) with 8.25m/year.

Agreed......but not on your use of the word analytics. Analytics literally means......the science of logic analysis. It astounds me that it has only been in recent times that multi-billion dollar companies have switched to more logical processes of running their businesses. Perhaps it was a catch 22. One needs logic to figure that it is better to use one's brains to make decisions rather than one's gut.....one's heart.....or one's arse.

Lol....that's very clever. I don't think the Chicken Littles will understand the simple subtlety of it though.

Heh......irony.

Really? I don't think anybody noticed.

Nah.....it would only be 5.4m dead cap hit for us this year.......and a paltry 17.8m dead cap hit next year. After that we are clear though.

Yep.....it's star player......or crap. There is no in-between for Bills fans.

If there was, he would be selected within the first 4 picks. Reality check - we don't have a top 4 pick in the draft anyway.

If the FA period was only a one day affair, I would agree with you. As it is though, there are still a great number of good FAs available.....and even a few big names. I fail to see how anybody can come to the conclusion that FA is over.....and that a conclusion can be drawn that we have taken a step backwards in FA when it is only the first day.

I understand the thoughts on the QB situation that you have. For me.....ignoring all of the complexities....it boils down to the concept that I see us at best a mediocre team with Fitz(4-6wins.....up to 9 wins in the best situation), and I really don't care too much about the possibility that we instead might regress to a 2-6 win team. Losing is losing......and cutting Fitz as they did at least gives us the best cap situation possible.

But those feelings were obviously not as strong before FA started.......therefore it is the lack of apparent movement so far in FA which is causing a greater level of consternation. The article linked by Cash above should help alleviate those feelings somewhat. We are effectively in the same situation as yesterday(albeit 7.45m richer in cap space with the Fitz cut).......and the article suggests that the FA market will likely be of great value for a team like the Bills. We have a lot of holes, and with a bit of patience we might be able to fill those holes with good solid veteran starters at a very modest price.....if we are patient.

Though not a cap expert.....I have a pretty good handle on this. The new NFL year started on March 12. Fitz's roster bonus was due on March 13. Cutting Fitz before March 12.....meant that the full 10m left of his amortized money would hit as dead cap in the 2013 year. Cutting Fitz on March 12.....meant that the 2013 amortized money amount(3m) counts in the 2013 year......and the remaining 7m would hit as dead cap in the 2014 year. Cutting Fitz after March 12.....would have meant the same as cutting him on March 12......with an additional payment on 3m(both in cash & cap) for the 2013 year. When I saw this confirmed the other day, it became not only obvious what the Bills would do, but showed that even though the Fitz contract was terrible, it wasn't structured as badly as originally thought.

Thanks Cash. That article should be a must read for all the Bills fans here......particularly the ones ready to commit suicide due to us not having signed anybody yet.

Some of the pros are cons. They're always a risk.