Bill from NYC Posted August 17, 2010 Posted August 17, 2010 When the Bills give out a big signing bonus, they often have to take out a loan on that money and pay interest on it. Many other teams can simply take cash out of an account. I am not saying you are making this up, but I would like to know where you got this info. The last numbers I remember (admittedly hazy memories) said that Mr. Wilson was making more than 30 million per year profit.
Coach Tuesday Posted August 17, 2010 Author Posted August 17, 2010 Wrong on many counts. Was Pat Williams drafted by the vikings? Did New England draft Addalis Thomas? Did San Diego draft Josh Reed? Did Pittsburg draft Flozell? I assume you're being sarcastic, but you could just as easily have been serious: Minnesota did not draft Jared Allen, Brett Favre, Steve Hutchinson, Pat Williams. Those are all core players - in fact, they're THE core players (except for Adrian Peterson). New England did not draft Randy Moss. In each of their Superbowl runs, they brought in and relied on key free agent veteran acquisitions. Free agency works. The draft works too. They BOTH work. Why do the Bills get a pat on the back for announcing that they're committed to only one of those options?
PDaDdy Posted August 17, 2010 Posted August 17, 2010 IMO more than anything, it boils down to the fact that the Bills have not done a good job of KEEPING the good players that they've had over the years. They've given lucrative extensions to the wrong players, at the same time underpaying their best players causing those players to be unhappy and then leave the team. It's very challenging to find good football players. Once you find them, you ought not to let them go. You may not know it but we said the same thing. My point is that the Bills inability to keep exceptional talent is by design. When you take a look at our draft strategy, undrafted or late round talent at certain high profile positions like LT and our pro bowl/high level talent retention it is painfully obvious that this is THE PLAN not an unfortunate whoa is me result.
Thurman#1 Posted August 17, 2010 Posted August 17, 2010 I keep hearing around here that the Bills have finally chosen to go in the right direction this offseason of "Building Through the Draft." versus signing expensive free agents and veterans, and that as a result we need to be patient because the results will pan out next year or the following year. I'm calling B.S. on this notion. The concept of "Building Through the Draft" is a SALARY CAP approach to running a team. It is financial, not systemic. It is based on the notion that all teams have the same amount of money to spend each year, and so the most efficient use of that money is to draft quality young players and lock them up via rookie deals, essentially guaranteeing you cheap, productive labor and freeing up more of your resources to add additional pieces to the puzzle. However, there is no salary cap any longer, and it may never return. There certainly was no cap this offseason, so if ever there were an opportunity to "catch up," i.e., spend some more money than you normally would in free agency in an effort to right the ship, this was the offseason to do it. The Bills didn't take that approach. Perhaps they didn't like what was out there - yes, that's a possiblity. I don't concur with that thinking, because again, I think it's basically a financial concept. There were players out there. The Bills may not have liked the "value" they were getting in return for what it would have cost to acquire them - but again, this was the year to spend more. The notion of value changes drastically when you remove a salary cap. Now, I recognize that all teams need to use an "internal" cap in order to remain financially viable. But here again I take issue with the notion that "Building Through the Draft" is the only prudent approach. Do we know what Ralph's finances look like? What his lease payments are? His debt payments? His PROFITS? We don't. And without that information, we have no idea if Ralph is pocketing plenty of money each year that coudl be used to invest in better players, coaches, and facilities. And free agent players, not just forced, cheap labor from the college ranks. Just presenting the counter-point here, would like to get some discussion going. Why does everyone naturally assume that "Building Through the Draft" makes sense any longer? That's nonsense. The Pats* haven't worried all that much through the years about the cap. Yet they have built largely through the draft, particularly early in the Belichick years. The Colts don't worry about the cap. They build almost totally through the draft. The Steelers build through the draft. Those are the footsteps I want to follow in. I don't care about it's effect on the cap, honestly, because it is simply the most consistently successful way to build a winning team.
birdog1960 Posted August 17, 2010 Posted August 17, 2010 The Jets for instance, have an operating income twice as much as the Bills do. When the Bills give out a big signing bonus, they often have to take out a loan on that money and pay interest on it. Many other teams can simply take cash out of an account. Regardless of salary cap, big money teams have certain advantages over small money teams. Sure Ralph could overspend if he wanted to... Is it overspending if that's what it takes to be competitive, much less championship caliber? i think you've proven the op's original point: building through the draft is first and foremost a money saving strategy.
Bill from NYC Posted August 17, 2010 Posted August 17, 2010 And I disagree (respectfully) with your main points. It is FAR from clear what the new CBA will look like. The Union has said many times that once the salary cap goes, it's gone. Granted, the Union is full of crap half of the time, but I would not be so sure that we'll see the salary cap return. And I also disagree that pre-1994 behavior of NFL franchises has "no relevance" to today's market. That was 16 years ago. We're not talking about the 1940s here, and I think that time period is in fact a decent comparison. Without a salary cap, we are the Pittsburgh Pirates or the KC Royals. The only things that ever gave us a chance to compete were the cap and the draft. The thing is, the Bills simply draft bad players, and do so at positions of minimal importance. This is the primary reason that they suck. If the Bills drafted well, free agents would sign with us. Ted Washington did, as did Bryce Paup and TKO. The thing is, Levy/Jauron brought ineptitude beyond proportion. They screwed up this team from day 1 and never looked back. Is it Ralph's fault for hiring morons with no chance to win? Ultimately yes, but Levy/Jauron took stupidity to another level. I meet fans from around the country who actually feel sorry for Bills fans. My point? The only hope for the Bills is twofold: 1) Ralph butts out and lets Nix and Gailey select the players who they want (and this is assuming they, unlike Levy/Jauron, have a clue). 2) The cap is restored so we don't automatically lose every free agent. Without this, we stand virtually no chance of ever being a good team.
Coach Tuesday Posted August 17, 2010 Author Posted August 17, 2010 That's nonsense. The Pats* haven't worried all that much through the years about the cap. Yet they have built largely through the draft, particularly early in the Belichick years. The Colts don't worry about the cap. They build almost totally through the draft. The Steelers build through the draft. Those are the footsteps I want to follow in. I don't care about it's effect on the cap, honestly, because it is simply the most consistently successful way to build a winning team. Your premise is wrong when you say that those teams "haven't worried about the cap." Of course they have. They correctly figured out that in a salary cap system, where each team has the same amount of money to spend, the draft is the most efficient way to build a winner. And they've succeeded under that system. That system is gone, or if it returns, it will be different. The rules have changed and will change again. What worked for the last 15 years is not necessarily what is going to work starting now. That's my key point, and I don't know why it's so controversial to some of you. You say you want to follow Pittsburgh, Indianapolis, and New England. Ok, great - but you can't follow them back in time. I predict that those organizations will change how they do things once the rules change. It happened in baseball and it will happen in football. You watch. Now, an argument can be made that without a salary cap, it is even MORE important for the Bills to build through the draft, because they can't compete for free agents on a level playing field with the likes of Dallas and New England. That may be true, but until I see Ralph's tax returns, I can't be certain, and neither can you.
PDaDdy Posted August 17, 2010 Posted August 17, 2010 That's nonsense. The Pats* haven't worried all that much through the years about the cap. Yet they have built largely through the draft, particularly early in the Belichick years. The Colts don't worry about the cap. They build almost totally through the draft. The Steelers build through the draft. Those are the footsteps I want to follow in. I don't care about it's effect on the cap, honestly, because it is simply the most consistently successful way to build a winning team. Those teams RETAIN their good talent and use the draft to try to get better at positions of weakness. Buffalo unlike the rest of those teams continues to make the same positions of weakness every year by not resigning probowl and high level talent. We keep spinning our wheels, restocking the same positions over and over and over and over. How many DBs do we need to draft in the first round? Try resigning one or two. How many RBs do we need to draft in the first and second round? Antowan Smith(Won a super bowl with the Pats), Travis Henry (1000+yd rusher TD machine), Willis McGahee (TD Machine in Baltimore), Marshawn Lynch (1000+yd rusher, TD machine), Fred Jackson(1000+yd rusher, tds not so much), and now CJ Spiller. Maybe if we signed one or two of them beyond their rookie contract we wouldn't need to keep wasting new draft picks restocking. Apparently this IS brain surgery since the brain trust at 1 Bills Drive hasn't figured that out yet.
Thurman#1 Posted August 17, 2010 Posted August 17, 2010 Wrong on many counts. Was Pat Williams drafted by the vikings? Did New England draft Addalis Thomas? Did San Diego draft Josh Reed? Did Pittsburg draft Flozell? Did Buffalo draft Brian Brohm? Or in terms of FAs, did Buffalo draft Andra Davis, Dwan Edwards or Cornell Green? Josh Reed? Are they paying him the huge bucks in S.D.? Flozell is a perfect example of an Andra Davis / Cornell Green type, a guy who you don't have to pay huge bucks but he can fill a hole. Nobody said the Bills aren't going to pick up any FAs ever ever ever under any circumstances. The idea is absurd. But it's telling that you had to go back a few years to find Adalius Thomas, NE's last big FA, and that he was a flop. NE doesn't often bring in high-paid FAs. They fill in the gaps with low to medium guys while getting their core players from the draft. The Pats* may get more desperate as they fight to keep from getting old. But they built their dynasty through the draft, filling in using very few high-salary big-prize FAs. Same with the Steelers and the Colts.
DanInUticaTampa Posted August 17, 2010 Posted August 17, 2010 Is it overspending if that's what it takes to be competitive, much less championship caliber? i think you've proven the op's original point: building through the draft is first and foremost a money saving strategy. No, building through the draft is the best way to build the team (rather than sign FA), not just a money saving standpoint. The OP was arguing "why can't we do both?" Well.... doing both is expensive. But the best way to build a team always has been building through the draft and using the FA as a stop gap fixer. Teams like the bills can't make a huge splash in both. But it should be obvious the draft is the best way to go. The players are much younger and serve as a long term solution. Older FA just aren't the type you can really build around. and San was right, we haven't been able to keep our good players. Evans and Mcgee are the first ones I can remember us keeping.... even though we might have overpayed them. I am hoping Nix owns up to what he says, about keeping the good players. It will totally suck if Wood, Levitre, and byrd all become pro bowlers and starting on other teams in a few years.
PDaDdy Posted August 17, 2010 Posted August 17, 2010 They fill in the gaps with low to medium guys while getting KEEPING their core players from the draft.
tennesseeboy Posted August 17, 2010 Posted August 17, 2010 Every single team in the NFL "builds through the draft" each year. They all get new draft picks every year. Every single team in the NFL "builds through free agency" each year. They all sign new free agents every year. The Bills are just bad at drafting, and unable to sign any high profile free agents. Why would a top player want to play in Buffalo for God's sake? Exactly..."Building through the draft" is like saying you are going to build a house with a hammer. The tools you need are there in the draft, in free agency, in trades and in judicious decisions on the waiver wire...(look at how we got Jack Kemp, Steve Tasker, and how many players have we cut who were successful elsewhere) The problem with us is this...draft, free agency, trade and now the waiver wire..we ain't freaking building. As to free agents coming here...you can get them if you pay and give some good reason to come here. McNabb wouldn't come here, I suspect, more because our offensive line sucked and we didn't have a full complement of receivers than because he didn't like the city.
purple haze Posted August 17, 2010 Posted August 17, 2010 I keep hearing around here that the Bills have finally chosen to go in the right direction this offseason of "Building Through the Draft." versus signing expensive free agents and veterans, and that as a result we need to be patient because the results will pan out next year or the following year. I'm calling B.S. on this notion. The concept of "Building Through the Draft" is a SALARY CAP approach to running a team. It is financial, not systemic. It is based on the notion that all teams have the same amount of money to spend each year, and so the most efficient use of that money is to draft quality young players and lock them up via rookie deals, essentially guaranteeing you cheap, productive labor and freeing up more of your resources to add additional pieces to the puzzle. However, there is no salary cap any longer, and it may never return. There certainly was no cap this offseason, so if ever there were an opportunity to "catch up," i.e., spend some more money than you normally would in free agency in an effort to right the ship, this was the offseason to do it. The Bills didn't take that approach. Perhaps they didn't like what was out there - yes, that's a possiblity. I don't concur with that thinking, because again, I think it's basically a financial concept. There were players out there. The Bills may not have liked the "value" they were getting in return for what it would have cost to acquire them - but again, this was the year to spend more. The notion of value changes drastically when you remove a salary cap. Now, I recognize that all teams need to use an "internal" cap in order to remain financially viable. But here again I take issue with the notion that "Building Through the Draft" is the only prudent approach. Do we know what Ralph's finances look like? What his lease payments are? His debt payments? His PROFITS? We don't. And without that information, we have no idea if Ralph is pocketing plenty of money each year that coudl be used to invest in better players, coaches, and facilities. And free agent players, not just forced, cheap labor from the college ranks. Just presenting the counter-point here, would like to get some discussion going. Why does everyone naturally assume that "Building Through the Draft" makes sense any longer? Building through the draft is the way most teams focus on doing things. You can draft more players than you can sign free agents. What are you going to do sign 53 free agents? You draft players and let them grow into the system in place. You don't overpay for what could very well be little in return. You can get free agents, but they won't comprise a majority of any teams roster. A team is better off drafting well. Those are young players who will grow and like Nix said, and thank God he did, a team should resign players who play well for them so you don't constantly have to replace them.
BuffaloBillsMagic1 Posted August 17, 2010 Posted August 17, 2010 Doesn't the NFL have a revenue sharing thing among teams with TV contracts? Isn't our stadium always filled? If I am correct then why can't we spend money to get real good free agents? If I am wrong please let me know.
Bob in STL Posted August 17, 2010 Posted August 17, 2010 I'm calling BS on your BS-calling... Ask yourself two questions: (1) who are the top-notch organizations in today's NFL? and (2) how did they get that way? Answer #1: Indianapolis, New England, San Diego, Pittsburgh, Minnesota, Green Bay, NY Giants Answer #2: By drafting quality players year after year. Not one of those teams was built through free agency. Now, there may be a free agent acquisition here or there (i.e. Randy Moss, Brett Favre), but if you look at those teams, the overwhelming majority of their personnel are draft picks. For example: - Indy's starting OL, QB, RBs, WRs, TEs, DL, LBs...all draft picks - NE's QB, starting OL, RBs, DL, LBs, DBs...all draft picks - SD's QB, starting OL, RBs, WRs, TEs, DL, LBs, DBs...all draft picks - Pit's QB, starting OL, RB, WRs, TEs, DL, LBs, DBs...all draft picks - Min's QB (until Favre comes back), staring OL, RB, WRs (assuming Harvin starts over Berrian opposite Rice), DL (save Jared Allen), LBs...all draft picks I could keep going, but I think I've made my point. Great organizations become great by building through the draft, which is what Buffalo is trying to do. Will they do it well enough to become great? Who knows? I personally have my doubts. Now, if you disagree with that, I'd love to see an example of an organization that has created and sustained long-term NFL success in any way other than drafting well and not blowing money on free agents, I'd love to hear it. Until then, I call BS on your BS-calling... ^^^ For a Great Post See ABove ^^^
BillsVet Posted August 17, 2010 Posted August 17, 2010 The fact that RW hires Marv Levy, then promotes Mr. Smithers-Brandon, and then a former retired national scout/Asst GM tells me everything I need to know. Good companies have good management. Bad companies have bad management and go out of business, but this being the NFL, the subsidies and emotionally driven fan base keep them afloat. From 2001-2008, Buffalo probably had about 2 decent drafts: '01 and '03. And yet Modrak is still here, although he can be overruled at anytime.
JohnC Posted August 17, 2010 Posted August 17, 2010 I am not saying you are making this up, but I would like to know where you got this info. The last numbers I remember (admittedly hazy memories) said that Mr. Wilson was making more than 30 million per year profit. San Jose is correct that the Bills borrow money to pay up front bonuses. What it comes down to is internal cash/flow mangement. Instead of maintaining a bulk of stored money to pay the bonuses they manage their cash flow to pay the bank off at the end of the year to cover the (prepaid) bonuses. There are a number of ways to manage the cash flow and operate the franchise. This is the best fiscal way to cover one's personnel expenses (bonuses) without dipping into the accounts. It is smart money management. San Jose also made an excellent point that the Bills like some other smaller market teams in contrast to the bigger revenue teams have less of a margin of error when signing free agents. The solution to that problem is to make smarter free agent decisions. The Dockery and Langston Walker free agent decisions were bad decisions on player performance and financial standpoint. In other words making smart football decisions makes good business sense.
thebandit27 Posted August 17, 2010 Posted August 17, 2010 Wrong on many counts. Was Pat Williams drafted by the vikings? Did New England draft Addalis Thomas? Did San Diego draft Josh Reed? Did Pittsburg draft Flozell? Really man? Pat Williams I'll give you, but Adailus Thomas doesn't start for NE...in fact, he's probably going to get cut. Josh Reed? You mean the WR that languished on the FA market for 4 months before San Diego signed him to compete with Legedu Naane and Craig Davis to be their #3 WR until Vincent Jackson comes back from suspension/holdout? Are we talking about the same Flozell Adams that wasn't signed until both Willie Colon and Jonathan Scott went down with injuries for Pittsburgh? Those examples don't exactly disprove my point.
Coach Tuesday Posted August 17, 2010 Author Posted August 17, 2010 Really man? Pat Williams I'll give you, but Adailus Thomas doesn't start for NE...in fact, he's probably going to get cut. Josh Reed? You mean the WR that languished on the FA market for 4 months before San Diego signed him to compete with Legedu Naane and Craig Davis to be their #3 WR until Vincent Jackson comes back from suspension/holdout? Are we talking about the same Flozell Adams that wasn't signed until both Willie Colon and Jonathan Scott went down with injuries for Pittsburgh? Those examples don't exactly disprove my point. I think he was being sarcastic. But see my posts above, I think he could've made the point for real had he tried.
thebandit27 Posted August 17, 2010 Posted August 17, 2010 All of those organizations got where they were during the salary cap era, so you're missing my point entirely. The rules have changed. Maybe permanently, maybe not, but certainly for the forseeable future. If you want points of comparison, you've got to go pre-salary cap. The 49ers and Cowboys dynasties (and the 1990s Bills) all drafted well, but they also willingly shelled out money on excellent free agent acquisitions (Deon, Charles Haley, Bryce Paup, etc.). I respectfully opine that you, Coach, are the one that missed the point. I asked you to tell me when any team in recent history has gotten good by shelling out tons of money...your response was to date back to the pre-salary-cap era. I understand your point, but a 49ers' or Cowboys' team that has recently won multiple Superbowls shelling out money for Deion Sanders is quite different than a perrenial 7-9 team tossing around money in an attempt to boost their long-term competitive viability. Same goes for a mid-90's Bills' team that still had Superbowl-caliber talent giving money to Bryce Paup. That's not what you're asking this team to do. Your asking them to spend excessively to create an overall winning culture, not to get the one piece that could put them over the top. Again, if you can show me when this approach has ever worked, I'd be very intrigued, but I don't believe it ever has in the NFL.
Recommended Posts