CBD Posted December 21, 2011 Posted December 21, 2011 JW wrote an article strongly suggesting that this was the case. I can't find the original artile, but here is the Sullivan article referencing it. http://www.buffalonews.com/sports/columns/jerry-sullivan/article539932.ece I recall the article and the ensuing argument regarding it. It's written to suggest that they went behind Nix's back and made the trade without Nix's consent. When reality could be otherwise, there was alot of gray area on the report. Nix very well could have decided to trade Evans (it wasn't saving that much money), Gailey's comments regarding Evans tended to lean that way, and they had Overdorf work the deal. Here's the thread from it: http://forums.twobillsdrive.com/topic/133967-jerry-sullivan-column/
sfladave Posted December 21, 2011 Posted December 21, 2011 Since the Bills wouldn't be in contention to get a proven GM candidate (and I can't even think of one who is available at this point), Whaley is my next best choice. I like the fact that his backround, coming up, was with the Steelers, an organization that is remarkably stable, consistent and focused. I am keeping my fingers crossed, if he ever is the guy, something from his Steelers years will have rubbed off on him. I'm hoping for the best from Whaley also but the Bills track record for former Steeler personel is not the best. Donahoe and Modrack from their front office and Mularkey from their coaches. That being said I hope Whaley doesn't decide to jump ship because he realizes he will always be operating with his hands tied behind his back!
The Big Cat Posted December 21, 2011 Posted December 21, 2011 I'm hoping for the best from Whaley also but the Bills track record for former Steeler personel is not the best. Donahoe and Modrack from their front office and Mularkey from their coaches. That being said I hope Whaley doesn't decide to jump ship because he realizes he will always be operating with his hands tied behind his back! And just like that, the well is poisoned by conjecture, once again.
UConn James Posted December 21, 2011 Posted December 21, 2011 Maybe the possible front office shake up IS Overdorf/Littman. Possible. Now that teams will be REQUIRED to spend 90% of the cap next year, graduating up to 99% in a few years, there's less reason to keep the bean-counters around --- or at least so many of them. Also, look for Ralph to start going into convulsions and foaming at the mouth once the team HAS to spend most of the TV $. You know... less for his coin silos.
DrDawkinstein Posted December 21, 2011 Posted December 21, 2011 Possible. Now that teams will be REQUIRED to spend 90% of the cap next year, graduating up to 99% in a few years, there's less reason to keep the bean-counters around --- or at least so many of them. Also, look for Ralph to start going into convulsions and foaming at the mouth once the team HAS to spend most of the TV $. You know... less for his coin silos. I thought the spending requirements were based on Cash-to-Cap, which the Bills (unfortunately) already do? Looking for link/more info now, but anything anyone else can find is appreciated too.
K-9 Posted December 21, 2011 Posted December 21, 2011 I thought the spending requirements were based on Cash-to-Cap, which the Bills (unfortunately) already do? Looking for link/more info now, but anything anyone else can find is appreciated too. The Bills, Packers, and Steelers have been using a cash-to-cap accounting method for several years. All teams will have to do that as well going forward. What's going to change for the Bills is having to spend to the minimum cap floor. They haven't always done that. Kelly the Dog linked a good article a while back but I can't find it right now. I think all teams have to be at 90% of cap in 2013. I'd be interested to see the info as well. GO BILLS!!!
CBD Posted December 21, 2011 Posted December 21, 2011 (edited) Possible. Now that teams will be REQUIRED to spend 90% of the cap next year, graduating up to 99% in a few years, there's less reason to keep the bean-counters around --- or at least so many of them. Also, look for Ralph to start going into convulsions and foaming at the mouth once the team HAS to spend most of the TV $. You know... less for his coin silos. I thought the spending requirements were based on Cash-to-Cap, which the Bills (unfortunately) already do? Looking for link/more info now, but anything anyone else can find is appreciated too. The summary of the final deal that we obtained on Monday confirms that, indeed, the “minimum team cash spend” applies on a four-year basis from 2013 through 2016, and from 2017 through 2020. No minimum per-team expenditure applies for 2011 and 2012.Still, on a league-wide basis, the labor deal requires the NFL to spend 99 percent of the salary cap in cash in 2011 and 2012. Remember, it’s not cap space but cash spent. So when a team like the Panthers gives defensive end Charles Johnson a $30 million signing bonus on a six-year deal, only $5 million counts against the cap — but $30 million counts against the league’s total spending requirement of $3.8 billion. http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/07/30/per-team-spending-minimum-doesnt-apply-until-2013/ It's 99% for next year as it was this year, however it's league wide and on a cash basis, not on a team by team basis. Edited December 21, 2011 by Carey Bender
sfladave Posted December 21, 2011 Posted December 21, 2011 Can any of us name one example of this actually happening? The Bills threw crazy money at Dockery and Walker a couple years ago. We outbid the Jets for Smith, and the Falcons for Clabo. When have the "bean counters" nixxed a signing? (no pun intended) Well Nix did say he had nothing to do about the decision about trading Evans and that came from Overdorff. That seems to me to be blatant bean counting making personel decisions.
All_Pro_Bills Posted December 21, 2011 Posted December 21, 2011 You do realize, that the way you've constructed this argument, taken in a vacuum, and applied to ANY OTHER CIRCUMSTANCE would be immediately dismissed as a crackpot conspiracy theory right? I would agree except for the use of the term 'crackpot'. But don't you agree that generally those types of theories exist only because the conventional explanation is lacking in some respect? How do we explain that an organization, in a profession where the rules are designed to enhance competition, consistently under-performs its peers for over a decade? Defying the laws of probability in relation to the odds of success. The answer must be the organization is not seeking the same objectives as those the rules seek to support. In this case winning a championship on the field of play or at least competing for one. The bottom line is results. And I'm hard pressed to believe that this organization regards winning as any kind of primary objective. And the one constant through the entire era of ineptitude on the field has been Wilson/Overdorf/Littman. Whoever the GM is they'll be subject to the same constraints and oversight so I cannot see why anyone would expect significantly different results regardless of who held the position.
CBD Posted December 21, 2011 Posted December 21, 2011 Well Nix did say he had nothing to do about the decision about trading Evans and that came from Overdorff. That seems to me to be blatant bean counting making personel decisions. When did Nix ever say that?
Dawgg Posted December 21, 2011 Posted December 21, 2011 The bean counters have been running the show for a while now. If you can't notice this then i'm sorry for you. Was it the "bean counters" who drafted Whitner when Ngata, was the obvious choice? Was it the "bean counters" who traded up and drafted McCargo when Mangold was the obvious choice? Was it the "bean counters" who rewarded Derrick Dockery with the richest contract in Buffalo Bills history when there were better guards available on the market? Was it the "bean counters" who signed Langston Walker to $5M/year deal when no other team viewed him as a starting caliber tackle? Was it the "bean counters" who signed Peerless Price to an over-valued long-term deal when the rest of the league knew he was washed up? Was it the "bean counters" who traded up for Poz when David Harris was a better prospect all-around? Was it the "bean counters" who drafted Troup when there were far better options at DT (Not to mention Gronkowski)? Bean counters are a problem, certainly. But there is a far bigger problem at OBD: a repeated pattern of poor personnel decisions that has eroded the depth and competitiveness of this franchise.
DrDawkinstein Posted December 21, 2011 Posted December 21, 2011 (edited) I thought the spending requirements were based on Cash-to-Cap, which the Bills (unfortunately) already do? Looking for link/more info now, but anything anyone else can find is appreciated too. The Bills, Packers, and Steelers have been using a cash-to-cap accounting method for several years. All teams will have to do that as well going forward. What's going to change for the Bills is having to spend to the minimum cap floor. They haven't always done that. Kelly the Dog linked a good article a while back but I can't find it right now. I think all teams have to be at 90% of cap in 2013. I'd be interested to see the info as well. GO BILLS!!! http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/07/30/per-team-spending-minimum-doesnt-apply-until-2013/ It's 99% for next year as it was this year, however it's league wide, not on a team by team basis. Carey, you're on fire in this thread. Great link! So, if Im reading this correctly, The Bills do NOT have to spend up to the cap limit. All 32 teams must reach a minimum percentage of Cash-to-Cap, of which the Bills have already been hitting. So, Bills fans... dont expect the team to go gang-busters with spending. Doesnt seem like we'll be required to spend anymore than we have been. Crap. Edited December 21, 2011 by DrDareustein
dwight in philly Posted December 21, 2011 Posted December 21, 2011 Was it the "bean counters" who drafted Whitner when Ngata, was the obvious choice? Was it the "bean counters" who traded up and drafted McCargo when Mangold was the obvious choice? Was it the "bean counters" who rewarded Derrick Dockery with the richest contract in Buffalo Bills history when there were better guards available on the market? Was it the "bean counters" who signed Langston Walker to $5M/year deal when no other team viewed him as a starting caliber tackle? Was it the "bean counters" who signed Peerless Price to an over-valued long-term deal when the rest of the league knew he was washed up? Was it the "bean counters" who traded up for Poz when David Harris was a better prospect all-around? Was it the "bean counters" who drafted Troup when there were far better options at DT (Not to mention Gronkowski)? Bean counters are a problem, certainly. But there is a far bigger problem at OBD: a repeated pattern of poor personnel decisions that has eroded the depth and competitiveness of this franchise. your points are well taken, for sure, but anyone who does not reconize that the "bean counters" rule the roost is delusional. it is the "bean counting" mentality that permeates throughout the organization, hence a lost decade and counting, and a reputation as such.
Buffalo Barbarian Posted December 21, 2011 Posted December 21, 2011 I wouldn't put much credence in this normally, but since it's from Jason LaCanfora, I'm inclined to give it more credibility. He works for the league and isn't putting random crap out there to drive up ratings, like anyone working for a network. Anyway, the line is this: "There are some rumblings that a front office shakeup of some sort in Buffalo is not out of the question" It's buried in his round up of the week's games: http://www.nfl.com/news/story/09000d5d82541a13/article/teams-left-for-dead-a-month-ago-still-fighting-for-playoff-lives?campaign=Twitter_features "rumblings" that a "shakeup" is "not out of the question" is a very, very long way away from "Buddy Nix is likely to be fired," so I mean, don't go nuts. But it's the only thing I've heard yet that the Bills are considering changes this winter. Nix had a great draft this year so I doubt its him, Maybe we are getting a new owner
DrDawkinstein Posted December 21, 2011 Posted December 21, 2011 your points are well taken, for sure, but anyone who does not reconize that the "bean counters" rule the roost is delusional. it is the "bean counting" mentality that permeates throughout the organization, hence a lost decade and counting, and a reputation as such. can you provide that many examples of how the bean counters "ruled the roost"? otherwise, all you are saying is "great evidence and point, but Im still going with this conspiracy theory based on nothing". I guess that is pretty relevant thinking for Christmas time
K-9 Posted December 21, 2011 Posted December 21, 2011 Carey, you're on fire in this thread. Great link! So, if Im reading this correctly, The Bills do NOT have to spend up to the cap limit. All 32 teams must reach a minimum percentage of Cash-to-Cap, of which the Bills have already been hitting. So, Bills fans... dont expect the team to go gang-busters with spending. Doesnt seem like we'll be required to spend anymore than we have been. Crap. Not until 2013 at least. Then we'll have to be at that 89% threshold (I was close when I recalled 90%). I don't know to what percentage the Bills are spending right now, but I think it's a safe bet to assume that they'll have to spend more to get to that 89%. By making it a league wide 99% to cap, it prevented penalties against those teams that would have been over the cap this year and next. By the same token, it allows some teams like the Bills, Bengals, Chiefs, and others to save a ton and improve their financials before 2013. That's gonna piss off a lot of the "Ralph is cheap" crowd but businesses do this all the time in anticipation of higher expenditures in the future. More importantly, spending more doesn't equate to success. Not by a long shot. Just ask Dallas and Washington. I believe those were two teams projected to be above the cap, although I may be wrong about Washington. GO BILLS!!!
Buffalo Barbarian Posted December 21, 2011 Posted December 21, 2011 As I look at our FA list for this year, we're less than a handful of internal signings away from being able to bring some talent through FA and the draft and have some honest to God depth on this team. 2012 will be the year of the upswing. 2013 will be the year when we finally see some traction. And if we continue on the same trajectory as we've been on the last two years, 2014 and beyond could be the most stable years we've seen in a LONG LONG time. To blow the whole thing up would be a monumental mistake. This
Dawgg Posted December 21, 2011 Posted December 21, 2011 your points are well taken, for sure, but anyone who does not reconize that the "bean counters" rule the roost is delusional. it is the "bean counting" mentality that permeates throughout the organization, hence a lost decade and counting, and a reputation as such. Yawn. The bean counters have nothing to do with the poor draft choices, especially since the draft is slotted. If anything, the Bills have overpaid for a series of underachievers by virtue of their poor drafting year-after year. Yes, bean counters don't extend stars, but please: name me the last player who was top 5 at his position that the Bills failed to re-sign? Jason Peters. That's about the only one - and the less-than-intelligent fans on this board were celebrating when the Bills got rid of Peters, calling him fat, lazy and greedy. Let's not get delusional here. It's not like there have been a litany of top-notch prospects that have come through Buffalo and failed to get paid. When the Bills let Greer go, they paid big money to McGee. When the Bills let Peters go, they had committed a combined $70 million to Dockery and Walker. When the Bills let Marshawn Lynch go, they had drafted CJ Spiller and signed him to a rich contract. Who are the top-notch players you speak of that these evil bean counters blocked the Bills from retaining? Personnel decisions are the bigger issue.
dwight in philly Posted December 21, 2011 Posted December 21, 2011 (edited) can you provide that many examples of how the bean counters "ruled the roost"? otherwise, all you are saying is "great evidence and point, but Im still going with this conspiracy theory based on nothing". I guess that is pretty relevant thinking for Christmas time huh???? you are kidding .. right?? "evidence", try looking at their record since 1999! they let phillips go , then , he either had to fight to get his salary, or ralph tried to stiff him, do not recall exactly. so , the fact they traded evans for a 4th round pick that reeked of overdorf's involvement, cutting hangartner. the total lack of an aggressive approach to free-agency is another. sure they hide under the guise of "building thru the draft", but please, T O, ????that was brandon pumping up season tickets. i am not going to go further, but since 1960, the team has made some horrific decisions and 99% of them were made due to the "bean counters", and that mentality. Yawn. The bean counters have nothing to do with the poor draft choices, especially since the draft is slotted. If anything, the Bills have overpaid for a series of underachievers by virtue of their poor drafting year-after year. Yes, bean counters don't extend stars, but please: name me the last player who was top 5 at his position that the Bills failed to re-sign? Jason Peters. That's about the only one - and the less-than-intelligent fans on this board were celebrating when the Bills got rid of Peters, calling him fat, lazy and greedy. Let's not get delusional here. It's not like there have been a litany of top-notch prospects that have come through Buffalo and failed to get paid. When the Bills let Greer go, they paid big money to McGee. When the Bills let Peters go, they had committed a combined $70 million to Dockery and Walker. When the Bills let Marshawn Lynch go, they had drafted CJ Spiller and signed him to a rich contract. Who are the top-notch players you speak of that these evil bean counters blocked the Bills from retaining? Personnel decisions are the bigger issue. personnel decisions based on "bean counting".. remember chuck knox?? do you know why he left??? THE BEAN COUNTERS!.. he became agitated with the constraints put on him in conjunction with the personnel dept. Edited December 21, 2011 by dwight in philly
RyanC883 Posted December 21, 2011 Posted December 21, 2011 In addition what player had Buddy let go that was a key or cornerstone player. not one team in the league would keep Harnerter at his salary as a backup. Dallas faced with a similar situation cut there starting center from a year ago. Evans was not a number 2 reciever , he is broken and barely plays mathis and freeney at thier age are not coming to a rebuild. Maybe they talk avril into coming will see Who cares about "rebuilding," this is a win now league, and with Mathis or Freeney, you get a great DE, and he can help the younger guys along. Also, who cares about Harnertern's salary? We are 30 million below the cap. Good teams eat that to keep depth because THEY want to win. Not the Bills, they'd rather raid other teams practice squads mid-season. Also, pretty sure Buddy let Ingognito go, and he looked pretty good blocking for Miami when Bush was running all over last week as he had a key block in the loooooong TD run. And are you saying that we are better off w/o Evans on this team?!!? He is a #2 WR. But, I guess you like watching footballs bounce of Brad Smith's hands.
Recommended Posts