Mark Anderson released.

[JohnC]

Not sure it would do any good given the rash of your "Ralph is cheap" posts today, but ok.

 

Since the advent of the salary cap, every team has an Overdorf to act in the same role, chiefly to negotiate contracts towards satisfying cap requirements and maintaining cap compliance at all times. This is just not the job of GMs as it's cumbersome and detracts too much from the personnel side of things. It's too fluid a process before, during, and after the season.

 

Your assertion that Littman forwards a budget to Brandon and Overdorf and then forces them to have the GM and coaches pare the roster accordingly is actually backwards. It works in the complete opposite direction. Personnel requirements and decisions are made at the coaching/GM level with NO regard to cap constraints, initially. This is where Overdorf and his critical cap management skills come into play especially. If acquisitions need to and can be made without adversely effecting the cap, that's as far as it goes. This is seldom the case though, for EVERY team, as player acquisitions usually require movement somewhere else in order to maintain all important cap compliance. The cap rules every aspect of player movements on a club, from cutting and signing players, to placing them on IR, etc. Most teams in the league want to operate with a cap cushion as insurance against injury during the season, as well. Littman has nothing to do with any of that.

 

In the case of a huge cash expenditure, he is going to be consulted, like any CFO in any company. Mario is the latest obvious example. But most player-related issues don't even cross his desk. And contrary to the popular negative narrative, most of those expenditures have been given the OK. While Mr. Wilson has always been viewed as a miser, at one time he held the record for making players the highest paid at their respective positions over the years.

 

Then there are common sense player movements like the ones we've seen with Evans and Anderson. The conspiracy theorists like to blame Overdorf/Littman when the simple fact was that both were at salary levels not commensurate with production and/or the direction the team chose to go. EVERY team in the league makes these kinds of decisions all the time.

 

Like it or not, Littman has a financial responsibility to the organization as its CFO and not just as it pertains to player salaries and their impact on the bottom line. Additionally, he spends less of his time on Bills related issues than he does on Mr. Wilson's other business interests, including his work with Mr. Wilson's foundation.

 

I have to run right now. But I'll continue later.

 

GO BILLS!!!

 

Anyone who staunchly believes that the Bills organization hasn't had a history of the Detroit business office mandating personnel cuts based on salary is the type of naive person who believes that Maryilyn Monroe was a virgin and that Liberace wasn't gay.

 

Why do you think that Bill Polian had such an antagonistic relatiionship with Littman and the owner? It was over the constant tug of war over money.

[Thurmal34]

This is utter nonsense. The football people decided to outright cut Langston Walker? To release Lawyer Mallloy? The football people decided to cut Dwan Edwards? To trade Lee Evans? You've got to be joking,

 

RE: Edwards - everyone knew DL was going to be a numbers game at the end of pre-season, someone had to go. It came down to Spencer Johnson vs Dwan Edwards. Why is it so hard to fathom that the football people made this call?

 

RE: Evans - If, as you claim, the money people made this move, then you need to give the money people credit because it was one hell of a move.

[Cash]

Yes.Yes.Yes.Yes.....These players were let go because their skill set was in the decline and their production did not match what they were getting paid or they did not match the scheme run by the new coaching staff. You simply don't want to try to insert a square peg into a round hole!

 

The bolded is only a "football" concern if you are tight on cap space. If you have plenty of cap room, which the Bills typically do, a player's salary is largely irrelevant. The concern shouldn't be "is he worth X million dollars?", but rather "is he better than the street free agent who would take his roster spot?"

 

The Langston Walker cut is the one that really jumps out as fishy. I can't be 100% certain that it was a Littman/Overdorf cut, but it can't just be explained away by "he didn't fit the scheme". Walker was signed to play RT in 2007, and started all 32 games in 2007 & 2008. In 2009, after Jason Peters was traded, it was announced that Walker would be flipping over to LT to replace him. He struggled in this role during the preseason. Prior to the start of the season, it was announced that Demetrius Bell, 2nd-year 7th-round pick with no NFL experience, would be the starting LT. Walker was not kept as a backup LT or starting (or even backup) RT, and was instead released. The same head coach who started him every game in 2007 & 2008 suddenly decided that he wasn't even good enough to be a backup? He wasn't better than Kirk Chambers or Jonathan Scott? That's ridiculous.

 

Now, a lot of fans will probably explain that one away as simply gross incompetence on the part of Dick Jauron, and the sad thing is, I can't totally discount that. But it seems more likely to me that Jauron would've preferred to keep his 2-year starter as an experienced backup swing tackle, but wasn't allowed to keep a backup at Walker's salary.

[K-9]

Anyone who staunchly believes that the Bills organization hasn't had a history of the Detroit business office mandating personnel cuts based on salary is the type of naive person who believes that Maryilyn Monroe was a virgin and that Liberace wasn't gay.

 

Why do you think that Bill Polian had such an antagonistic relatiionship with Littman and the owner? It was over the constant tug of war over money.

 

And anyone who staunchly believes that the GM and coaching staff is given a budget and ordered to make personnel moves accordingly is just wrong.

 

Polian left for a number of reasons, money being only one of them. Who do you think was saying OK to record deals to Kelly, Smith, Bennett, etc?

 

I don't wish to relive every "Ralph is cheap", "Ralph is a meddler" moment through the years. It's been done ad nauseum. For every imagined instance you can come up with to support the notion that Littman makes personnel decisions that everyone else has to get in line with, I can come up with examples that refute that.

 

GO BILLS!!!

[GG]

Not sure it would do any good given the rash of your "Ralph is cheap" posts today, but ok.

 

Since the advent of the salary cap, every team has an Overdorf to act in the same role, chiefly to negotiate contracts towards satisfying cap requirements and maintaining cap compliance at all times. This is just not the job of GMs as it's cumbersome and detracts too much from the personnel side of things. It's too fluid a process before, during, and after the season.

 

Your assertion that Littman forwards a budget to Brandon and Overdorf and then forces them to have the GM and coaches pare the roster accordingly is actually backwards. It works in the complete opposite direction. Personnel requirements and decisions are made at the coaching/GM level with NO regard to cap constraints, initially. This is where Overdorf and his critical cap management skills come into play especially. If acquisitions need to and can be made without adversely effecting the cap, that's as far as it goes. This is seldom the case though, for EVERY team, as player acquisitions usually require movement somewhere else in order to maintain all important cap compliance. The cap rules every aspect of player movements on a club, from cutting and signing players, to placing them on IR, etc. Most teams in the league want to operate with a cap cushion as insurance against injury during the season, as well. Littman has nothing to do with any of that.

 

In the case of a huge cash expenditure, he is going to be consulted, like any CFO in any company. Mario is the latest obvious example. But most player-related issues don't even cross his desk. And contrary to the popular negative narrative, most of those expenditures have been given the OK. While Mr. Wilson has always been viewed as a miser, at one time he held the record for making players the highest paid at their respective positions over the years.

 

Then there are common sense player movements like the ones we've seen with Evans and Anderson. The conspiracy theorists like to blame Overdorf/Littman when the simple fact was that both were at salary levels not commensurate with production and/or the direction the team chose to go. EVERY team in the league makes these kinds of decisions all the time.

 

Like it or not, Littman has a financial responsibility to the organization as its CFO and not just as it pertains to player salaries and their impact on the bottom line. Additionally, he spends less of his time on Bills related issues than he does on Mr. Wilson's other business interests, including his work with Mr. Wilson's foundation.

 

I have to run right now. But I'll continue later.

 

GO BILLS!!!

 

You've described how a normal franchise is run. But it's not the way the Buffalo Bills are run.

 

From day one, the franchise goal has been to maximize operating profit for Ralph Wilson Enterprises, and the heavy hand if the purse strings from Detroit always influenced the personnel decisions. Whether it was Littman, McGroder or the guys before, they held the seat of power more often than not. But that description isn't as simpleminded as a Ralph is Cheap smack. Wilson is a competitive person and he does want a winning franchise, because most people know you don't buy pro sports franchises to earn a lot of yearly income. The payoff usually comes upon a sale of the franchise.

 

The problem for Wilson is that he rarely put together a front office that was competent enough to sustain a winning culture. That's why you have constant rebuilding programs and perennial reaches for the free agent shiny objects that outlive their contract value within two seasons of signing, and that's when Overdorf comes down from his hiding place and gives the GM of the month the mandate to pare the roster to get under budget.

 

Who knows, maybe the new Brandon regime is changing things. But from what I'm hearing and what's been happening this year on the contract front, the more things change, the more they stay the same.

[JohnC]

And anyone who staunchly believes that the GM and coaching staff is given a budget and ordered to make personnel moves accordingly is just wrong.

 

Polian left for a number of reasons, money being only one of them. Who do you think was saying OK to record deals to Kelly, Smith, Bennett, etc?

 

I don't wish to relive every "Ralph is cheap", "Ralph is a meddler" moment through the years. It's been done ad nauseum. For every imagined instance you can come up with to support the notion that Littman makes personnel decisions that everyone else has to get in line with, I can come up with examples that refute that.

 

GO BILLS!!!

 

I never said that Littman makes specific personnel decisions. You are distorting my comments. What I said was that this franchise has a history of forcing moves based on costs, even when there wasn't a cap imperative to do so. If you don't believe that then that is your view.

 

Have things changed now that the owner is not directly involved with the football operation? Probably so.because the cap system has changed compelling all teams to spend to 95% of the cap.

 

When Paul Hamilton described on WGR that during Levy's tenure that he was required to shed a certain amount of salary from the roster there was no surprise to that news. There was nothing surprising about a practice that has gone on for the history of the franchise. There is nothing unusual about the business side of a franchise to make personnel decisions based on money. But let's be realistic here Ralph Wilson and his business minions have taken this squeezing approach to a much higher level. Why do you think the Bills' historical record is dominated with losses? His business model was not quite the same as most of the other franchises.

[K-9]

I never said that Littman makes specific personnel decisions. You are distorting my comments. What I said was that this franchise has a history of forcing moves based on costs, even when there wasn't a cap imperative to do so. If you don't believe that then that is your view.

 

You implied that Littman hands down an operating budget and demands that his GM and coaches craft the roster to comply with that budget. If what you really said is that the franchise has a history of making moves based on costs, then why do you conveniently fail to mention that's EXACTLY WHAT EVERY TEAM IN THE LEAGUE DOES AS WELL? While the cap is always at the forefront of player movement relative to salary, salary isn't the only component of player costs and player costs aren't the only expense component of running a franchise. Every team closely guards what their actual revenue/expense items are. But it's more fun to imagine Mr. Wilson sitting in his vault counting his money while he commands his minion to bring him more and more.

 

Why did Litman demand that these players be signed in the first place, I wonder. Or is he only involved in cutting players?

 

 

Have things changed now that the owner is not directly involved with the football operation? Probably so.because the cap system has changed compelling all teams to spend to 95% of the cap.

 

What's changed, exactly?

 

Not sure where you're getting that 95% number. But I doubt the Bills have any extra incentive based on that anyway. While it doesn't fit your narrative, history shows that, on average, the Bills have ranked in the middle of the pack in terms of player salaries. I've already stated that they've had more top paid players at their respective positions as well. They've never had a problem paying good, productive players.

According to the CBA's Article 12, Section 9:

A) For each of the following four-League Year periods, 201 3-201 6 and 2017-2020, there shall be a guaranteed Minimum Team Cash Spending of 89% of theSalary Caps for such periods (e.g., if the Salary Caps for the 2013-1 6 and 2017-2020 are$100, 120, 1 30, and 1 50 million, respectively, each Club shall have a Minimum Team Cash Spending for that period of $445 million (89% of $500 million)).

If a team fails to meet that standard, the CBA continues:

B) Any shortfall in the Minimum Team Cash Spending at the end of a League Year in which it is applicable (i.e., the 2016 and 2020 League Years) shall be paid,on or before the next September 15, by the Team having such shortfall, directly to the players who were on such a Team's roster at any time during the applicable seasons, pursuant to the reasonable allocation instructions of the NFLPA.

 

When Paul Hamilton described on WGR that during Levy's tenure that he was required to shed a certain amount of salary from the roster there was no surprise to that news. There was nothing surprising about a practice that has gone on for the history of the franchise. There is nothing unusual about the business side of a franchise to make personnel decisions based on money. But let's be realistic here Ralph Wilson and his business minions have taken this squeezing approach to a much higher level. Why do you think the Bills' historical record is dominated with losses? His business model was not quite the same as most of the other franchises.

 

 

In a word, poor personnel decisions. From GMs to coaches to players. Mr. Wilson was clueless more often than not. He let loyalty and fear of getting outside his comfort zone dictate some wrong moves over the years. More specifically? Lack of a franchise QB for most of the team's history. But money had little to do with it, at least in terms of player salaries. Ralph was always willing to pay at the top of the scale for proven talent. Now there was a period where he skimped on player amenities over the years for sure. But that started changing when Knox arrived and was forever eradicated under Polian.

 

For EVERY player let go in a cost cutting measure, I can come up with a football reason to do so from the GM/coaching perspective. And again, that's no different than any other team.

 

We'll just have to agree to disagree on all of this. This is just rehashing old ground. Carry on.

 

GO BILLS!!!

[K-9]

This is utter nonsense. The football people decided to outright cut Langston Walker? To release Lawyer Mallloy? The football people decided to cut Dwan Edwards? To trade Lee Evans? You've got to be joking,

 

What's utter nonsense is your convenient forgetfulness of the mitigating circumstances surrounding each release and your complete disregard for the fact that this is how EVERY TEAM IN THE LEAGUE OPERATES at one time or another.

 

Langston Walker - completely unsuited for the hurry-up no-huddle being implemented in '09. He got his ass handed to him in preseason games and practices alike. If I could get the same or better results from another player at half the price, why wouldn't I do that?

 

Lawyer Milloy - along with Adams and Campbell, released to clear $9m in cap space a week prior to the start of free agency in '06. New regime coming in and wanting to re-sign Moulds as well. But let's act like releasing high-priced veterans just before free agency in order to clear cap room or a new staff wanting to go in a different direction is unique to the Buffalo Bills.

 

Dwan Edwards - scheme change more than anything necessitated this release. He was brought in to play DE in a 34 and it was clear that the Bills desired a different type of player to man the RDE position after signing Anderson (ironically) to the squad. So they save on the peaches (Edwards) and lose on he pears (Anderson) Can you really fault them for not wishing to pay a backup the same salary at a suddenly crowded position in a scheme he wasn't suited for? Oh, and is this the same Dwan Edwards that the Panthers released after the season "in a cost cutting cap move?"

 

Lee Evans - the same Lee Evans who resided in Gailey's doghouse his last two seasons? The same Evans that Gailey publicly chided about not wanting to run certain routes? His days were numbered until a team could be found to make a deal with.

 

I'll ask again: why would the miserly Mr. Wilson and his his meddling minion Littman even bother to sign and pay these guys to begin with?

 

Bottom line: the GM/coaches knew fully what was going on with each of the players you mentioned. And the Bills saved some good coin to boot. A win, win for anyone not a cynic that needs to satisfy a tired narrative. And EVERY TEAM IN THE LEAGUE DOES THE SAME DAMN THING.

 

Utter nonsense indeed.

 

GO BILLS!!!

Edited July 25, 2013 by K-9

[Sisyphean Bills]

And anyone who staunchly believes that the GM and coaching staff is given a budget and ordered to make personnel moves accordingly is just wrong.

 

Oddly enough, people that have worked for the organization have said that it is actually how things work.

[GG]

 

I'll ask again: why would the miserly Mr. Wilson and his his meddling minion Littman even bother to sign and pay these guys to begin with?

 

 

Because they need to sell hope & change to the ticket buying public every year?

[K-9]

Oddly enough, people that have worked for the organization have said that it is actually how things work.

 

Well, I've known some of these people over the years and not knowing if they're the same ones or not, you'll have to forgive me if I take this with a bolder of salt. No disrespect intended.

 

There is a certain faction of former employees from the Stew Barber days that hold enormous resentments. Some of them justified, imo.

 

GO BILLS!!!

 

Because they need to sell hope & change to the ticket buying public every year?

 

NFL teams have to actually "sell" something to their customers? This is unique to the Bills? Even so, is that wrong? Even the most hardened cynic can't object to teams wanting to sell tickets.

 

One final note, not just for you GG. I admit I've been tweaked over the years when it comes to the "Ralph is cheap" crap that gets bandied about by the conspiracy theorists. It bugs me because I've personally seen so much evidence to the contrary, both from a football operations standpoint as well as a charitable one.

 

Bottom line is you're right. Until the Bills start winning again and become a serious contender, none of these presumptions will change. We'll just agree to disagree on where Mr. Wilson went wrong and why.

 

GO BILLS!!!

[Delete This Account]

what's convenient to forget, too, is how the decision to switch Langston Walker to left tackle and then cut him 10 days before the start of the season created two holes on the offensive line. right and left tackle. The Bills could've have used him that season at his natural position, RT.

 

and yet, i'm not sure how anyone can explain why Spencer Johnson was cut, or Geoff Hangartner.

 

Hangartner's release was particularly curious after he was informed by Chan Gailey days earlier that his job on the team was safe. turns out, the Bills could have used depth on the O-line that season after the line was decimated by injuries.

 

i know Jerry Sullivan's not popular on this board, and yet he makes a perfectly valid point in today's column regarding Anderson's release. and i quote: "The Bills squander more than $18 million on Merriman and Anderson, but they play contract hardball with a home-grown star and Pro Bowler, safety Jairus Byrd."

 

jw

[Fan in Chicago]

 

i know Jerry Sullivan's not popular on this board, and yet he makes a perfectly valid point in today's column regarding Anderson's release. and i quote: "The Bills squander more than $18 million on Merriman and Anderson, but they play contract hardball with a home-grown star and Pro Bowler, safety Jairus Byrd."

 

jw

I am still miffed at not retaining Levitre. I thought the money is being saved for some good FA signings but no significant (high $$) ones happened this season. Levitre and Byrd should have been signed and retained.

[Delete This Account]

I am still miffed at not retaining Levitre. I thought the money is being saved for some good FA signings but no significant (high $$) ones happened this season. Levitre and Byrd should have been signed and retained.

 

question is, what happens now with Eric Wood? ... Two years ago, Buddy Nix was looking forward to having his offensive line intact for the long run. This year, it's unclear.

 

this is but one symptom of the Bills never-ending carousel of change that's dominated the past 13 seasons. new GMs are so busy filling the needs of their new coach, that by the time things appear set, a new GM and coach have arrived. so, a case could be made that Mark Anderson and Fitzpatrick's contract ate up some of the room to re-sign players such as Levitre and Byrd a year ago. Barnett and Merriman, too.

 

jw

[K-9]

what's convenient to forget, too, is how the decision to switch Langston Walker to left tackle and then cut him 10 days before the start of the season created two holes on the offensive line. right and left tackle. The Bills could've have used him that season at his natural position, RT.

 

That points to idiocy in coaching and player management more than anything. But as long they were committed to that hurry-up no-huddle, Walker was ill-suited for EITHER tackle position.

 

and yet, i'm not sure how anyone can explain why Spencer Johnson was cut, or Geoff Hangartner.

 

Hangartner's release was particularly curious after he was informed by Chan Gailey days earlier that his job on the team was safe. turns out, the Bills could have used depth on the O-line that season after the line was decimated by injuries.

 

What's the mystery? Hangartner had an abysmal camp and preseason leading up to his release as well. No doubt they could have used his depth. But sometimes the numbers don't justify keeping a player when others can fill the role at a lower cost. Hard financial decisions are part of the process. For every team. If Gardner had even a GOOD camp that summer, I would be more apt to agree that it was PURELY for dollar reasons. But his play didn't justify keeping him OR his salary.

 

You'll have to forgive my dismissal of the term " turns out." The luxury of hindsight is just not available at the time decisions are made.

 

Spencer Johnson is another vet that got caught up in a numbers game. Not suited for DE in Wanny's 43 scheme and lumped in a DT rotation that included a Pro Bowler and an All Rookie team member. Again, his salary no longer justified the playing time he was going to see in the new scheme.

 

i know Jerry Sullivan's not popular on this board, and yet he makes a perfectly valid point in today's column regarding Anderson's release. and i quote: "The Bills squander more than $18 million on Merriman and Anderson, but they play contract hardball with a home-grown star and Pro Bowler, safety Jairus Byrd."

 

Again, the luxury of hindsight. Nobody uses it more to make disparate points than Jerry Sullivan. Playing hardball with Byrd? By exercising their strategic right to make him the 4th highest paid safety in the league? Is Jerry really comparing the relative play by play impact of DEs and FSs?

 

GO BILLS!!!

[JohnC]

what's convenient to forget, too, is how the decision to switch Langston Walker to left tackle and then cut him 10 days before the start of the season created two holes on the offensive line. right and left tackle. The Bills could've have used him that season at his natural position, RT.

 

and yet, i'm not sure how anyone can explain why Spencer Johnson was cut, or Geoff Hangartner.

 

Hangartner's release was particularly curious after he was informed by Chan Gailey days earlier that his job on the team was safe. turns out, the Bills could have used depth on the O-line that season after the line was decimated by injuries.

 

i know Jerry Sullivan's not popular on this board, and yet he makes a perfectly valid point in today's column regarding Anderson's release. and i quote: "The Bills squander more than $18 million on Merriman and Anderson, but they play contract hardball with a home-grown star and Pro Bowler, safety Jairus Byrd."

 

jw

 

Some things are obvious to some and not to others. The primary reason for the transactions you just described is blatantly obvious to most. For some people they were smart football decisions that by happenstance hurt the team's chances to compete and improved the ledger sheet.

[BillsVet]

what's convenient to forget, too, is how the decision to switch Langston Walker to left tackle and then cut him 10 days before the start of the season created two holes on the offensive line. right and left tackle. The Bills could've have used him that season at his natural position, RT.

 

Ironically, that decision was made during Russ Brandon's tenure as GM. Nothing like having someone without personnel experience making decisions on players. Because I highly doubt DJ and Sean Kugler would switch Langston Walker to play a position he wasn't physically suitable nor acquired to play.

 

But I suppose if people are looking for overwhelming objective evidence that the team is managed by financially driven people at the expense of the roster well, you can go on believing what you want. The results across multiple "regimes" indicate their organizational priorities are way out of line.

[K-9]

Some things are obvious to some and not to others. The primary reason for the transactions you just described is blatantly obvious to most. For some people they were smart football decisions that by happenstance hurt the team's chances to competele and improved the ledger sheet.

 

Smart or not isn't the question. The Bills do plenty of stupid things. Your intractable point of view prevents you from remotely being able to consider the accompanying football-related issues that led up to the release of every player mentioned. When savings meets football reasons, that player is gone. Just like EVERY TEAM IN THE LEAGUE.

 

GO BILLS!!!

[Delete This Account]

Smart or not isn't the question. The Bills do plenty of stupid things. Your intractable point of view prevents you from remotely being able to consider the accompanying football-related issues that led up to the release of every player mentioned. When savings meets football reasons, that player is gone. Just like EVERY TEAM IN THE LEAGUE.

 

GO BILLS!!!

 

but every team in the NFL has made the playoffs at least once since 2000. the one exception is the Buffalo Bills. not sure how you repeating this "every team" claim is justifiable in this instance.

 

jw

[K-9]

Ironically, that decision was made during Russ Brandon's tenure as GM. Nothing like having someone without personnel experience making decisions on players. Because I highly doubt DJ and Sean Kugler would switch Langston Walker to play a position he wasn't physically suitable nor acquired to play.

 

But I suppose if people are looking for overwhelming objective evidence that the team is managed by financially driven people at the expense of the roster well, you can go on believing what you want. The results across multiple "regimes" indicate their organizational priorities are way out of line.

 

And those results can all be more easily quantified by boneheaded mismanagement of GM hires, coaching hires, and player personnel deficiencies, particularly as they relate to the utter lack of a franchise QB for most of their history. THAT is what's blatantly obvious more than anything.

 

The history of Ralph Wilson's player salaries refutes the idea that money is the sole reason personnel decisions are made.

 

You act as if no other team looks at the dynamic of comparative performance and salary when making decisions to cut ties with them.

 

GO BILLS!!!