Delete This Account Posted October 9, 2013 Posted October 9, 2013 Is it your opinion, John, that spending $8M/year on Levitre was a wise investment? my opinion is that the Bills should have locked up Levitre well in advance. and my point is, whatever struggles he's having in Tennessee does not in any way reflect on how valuable he was in Buffalo, and still proves to be given the ongoing troubles the Bills have had in their attempt to replace him. he's a good player, and to suggest he's not 5 games into the season with a new team is a reflection of someone attempting to be a homer, i think. jw
mannc Posted October 9, 2013 Posted October 9, 2013 Okay, but what outcome are you looking for when it comes to having kept Levitre? How would this team be different? Hard to say, but I'm guessing they would have been able to run the ball more consistently between the tackles and that EJ would not have been sacked 8 times against the Jets. It makes a difference when you have even one lineman who is clearly a liability. Defensive coordinators know it and exploit it.
thebandit27 Posted October 9, 2013 Posted October 9, 2013 Wrong, Johnson has been going down hill for years, Levitre was our best lineman and would fill the obvious whole we have at guard. From what I understand in my conversations with my contacts around the league, it's pretty widely accepted that Wood is the better lineman than Levitre. You make a good point, but I'm not convinced yet that (1) Glenn merits being paid as one of the top 10 tackles in the league, and (2) even if he does, that the Bills couldn't "afford" Glenn, Wood and Levitre in 2015, when Glenn's new deal would kick in. The 49ers have at least three former high no. 1 picks on their O-line. How are they able to "afford" that? Also, I don't think Glenn's rookie deal would expire for another two years, so the Bills would not have three "top ten highest paid" linemen on the roster until 2015, right?. And of course, Wood's and Levitre's deal might not even be top ten by that time. I just don't believe that the way to build a championship team, especially in a place like buffalo, is to allow your top players to walk in the prime of their careers, even if you have to "overpay" to retain them. Regarding Glenn, when a young LT is up for a new deal, he's going to look for top 10 money; he'd be crazy not to. As for the 49ers, both Iupati and Davis are still on their rookie deals, so it's not an apples-to-apples comparison. You can be sure that when both of them come up for free agency next year, they won't both be getting long-term contracts. It's not about top-10 money, that was merely a line in the sand drawn for comparison. It's about not investing 25% of your salary cap space in the offensive line. It's not a prudent approach, which is why no successful team does that. The only team that comes close is Tampa Bay, and they're horrible. I think the issue that's arisen here is that folks view Levitre as one of the team's top players. To me, that says more about the low overall talent level on the team than it does about Levitre. He's a good guard, maybe top 10 in the league. Worth $8M/year? Not even close. He's getting more than guys like Chris Snee, Ben Grubbs, Marshall Yanda, Justin Blalock, and Josh Sitton. These are all former pro bowlers and better players. Overpaying at low-impact positions is how a team sets itself up for disaster. my opinion is that the Bills should have locked up Levitre well in advance. and my point is, whatever struggles he's having in Tennessee does not in any way reflect on how valuable he was in Buffalo, and still proves to be given the ongoing troubles the Bills have had in their attempt to replace him. he's a good player, and to suggest he's not 5 games into the season with a new team is a reflection of someone attempting to be a homer, i think. jw Good player, yes. With regard to your statement about locking him up sooner, do you know--since you report on the team and may know something I don't--if Levitre or his agent showed any desire in signing a long-term deal sooner? From the comments I remember, he seemed pretty excited about the chance to test the market.
mannc Posted October 9, 2013 Posted October 9, 2013 (edited) From what I understand in my conversations with my contacts around the league, it's pretty widely accepted that Wood is the better lineman than Levitre. Regarding Glenn, when a young LT is up for a new deal, he's going to look for top 10 money; he'd be crazy not to. As for the 49ers, both Iupati and Davis are still on their rookie deals, so it's not an apples-to-apples comparison. You can be sure that when both of them come up for free agency next year, they won't both be getting long-term contracts. It's not about top-10 money, that was merely a line in the sand drawn for comparison. It's about not investing 25% of your salary cap space in the offensive line. It's not a prudent approach, which is why no successful team does that. The only team that comes close is Tampa Bay, and they're horrible. I think the issue that's arisen here is that folks view Levitre as one of the team's top players. To me, that says more about the low overall talent level on the team than it does about Levitre. He's a good guard, maybe top 10 in the league. Worth $8M/year? Not even close. He's getting more than guys like Chris Snee, Ben Grubbs, Marshall Yanda, Justin Blalock, and Josh Sitton. These are all former pro bowlers and better players. Overpaying at low-impact positions is how a team sets itself up for disaster. Good player, yes. With regard to your statement about locking him up sooner, do you know--since you report on the team and may know something I don't--if Levitre or his agent showed any desire in signing a long-term deal sooner? From the comments I remember, he seemed pretty excited about the chance to test the market. Again, Bandit, you make many good points. I still think the jury is out with respect to whether Cordy Glenn is good enough to worry about re-signing, especially if it means letting Levitre walk. I'm not convinced that's why the Bills did not sign Levitre. And of course, you're right; maybe Levitre just didn't want to play here, but I think the available evidence is that the Bills did not aggressively try to re-sign him. It will be interesting to see what the 49ers do when those guys become eligible to become FAs. By the way, are you sure no good team invests 25 percent or more of their cap-space on the O-line? I'm not disputing it, I'm just surprised. Edited October 9, 2013 by mannc
thebandit27 Posted October 9, 2013 Posted October 9, 2013 (edited) Again, Bandit, you make many good points. I still think the jury is out with respect to whether Cordy Glenn is good enough to worry about re-signing, especially if it means letting Levitre walk. I'm not convinced that's why the Bills did not sign Levitre. And of course, you're right; maybe Levitre just didn't want to play here, but I think the available evidence is that the Bills did not aggressively try to re-sign him. It will be interesting to see what the 49ers do when those guys become eligible to become FAs. By the way, are you sure no good team invests 25 percent or more of their cap-space on the O-line? I'm not disputing it, I'm just surprised. Seems to be the case based on Spotrac's numbers (and from what I can tell they're very accurate). Although it really depends on how you look at it...cap hit and actually cash paid--as you well know--are very different. This post below seems to indicate that, as of 2012, Tampa Bay has the 3rd highest investment in their OL at $22M+ invested in just Joseph and Nicks: http://www.nationalf...r-starters.html EDIT: Actually...a bit more diligence has brought me to our answer. Here's a really, really good breakdown of cap space percentage invested by team. By-and-large, the % spent on the OL is between 10 and 20 % throughout the league. A few teams dip below 10 and a few above 20, but nobody comes close to 25%: http://www.usatoday....roster/2808773/ Edited October 9, 2013 by thebandit27
K-9 Posted October 9, 2013 Posted October 9, 2013 my opinion is that the Bills should have locked up Levitre well in advance. and my point is, whatever struggles he's having in Tennessee does not in any way reflect on how valuable he was in Buffalo, and still proves to be given the ongoing troubles the Bills have had in their attempt to replace him. he's a good player, and to suggest he's not 5 games into the season with a new team is a reflection of someone attempting to be a homer, i think. jw Too bad he wasn't amenable to being "locked up well in advance." He wasn't gonna be cheated out of his "once in a lifetime opportunity" as he put it. More power to him. Or are you suggesting the Bills should have thrown starting LT money at him from the get go? GO BILLS!!!
habes1280 Posted October 9, 2013 Posted October 9, 2013 I think it was an error in letting him walk, no matter how badly he's perceived to be playing in Ten. He's better than Colin Brown, no doubt. The Bills are 20 MILLION dollars under the cap. There's no excuse to let ANYONE walk when you have that much coin laying around. Agreed. The issue isn't whether or not we should have paid him the huge contract, it is whether or not we should have let him walk. There are plenty of ways to extend your players without ponying up record-setting contracts, and most of them begin by entering contract negotiations in the year BEFORE the contract expires, like they did this year with Eric Wood (and, whether rightly or wrongly, like they did with Fitz, when they rightly or wrongly determined that he was the answer at QB). In this way, you provide the player security and a display of loyalty, and AVOID letting a depleted market determine his value. If memory serves, the Bills entered these talks with Levitre in his contract year, but when those talks broke down, they abandoned them fairly quickly. In so doing, the Bills took a rather risky and short-sighted approach-- they saved money in his contract year, but it cost them all of their leverage once he entered the free agent market. Tennessee overbid, and whether or not the Bills were wise to opt out, they lost a good player that they will now have to spend another draft pick to replace. This keeps happening, and it's maddening. If you're going to build through the draft, at some point you have to invest in those core players who have proven their value.
transient Posted October 9, 2013 Posted October 9, 2013 Hard to say, but I'm guessing they would have been able to run the ball more consistently between the tackles and that EJ would not have been sacked 8 times against the Jets. It makes a difference when you have even one lineman who is clearly a liability. Defensive coordinators know it and exploit it. Hard to argue our running game would be too much better. We're 3rd in the league in rushing having faced 2 of the top 5, and 4 of the top 10 defenses in rushing yards allowed despite teams knowing that we're likely to be run happy with a rookie QB, CJ and Fred. I'm not suggesting that Brown doesn't suck, just that we're doing ok on the ground without Levitre.
K-9 Posted October 9, 2013 Posted October 9, 2013 Agreed. The issue isn't whether or not we should have paid him the huge contract, it is whether or not we should have let him walk. There are plenty of ways to extend your players without ponying up record-setting contracts, and most of them begin by entering contract negotiations in the year BEFORE the contract expires, like they did this year with Eric Wood (and, whether rightly or wrongly, like they did with Fitz, when they rightly or wrongly determined that he was the answer at QB). In this way, you provide the player security and a display of loyalty, and AVOID letting a depleted market determine his value. If memory serves, the Bills entered these talks with Levitre in his contract year, but when those talks broke down, they abandoned them fairly quickly. In so doing, the Bills took a rather risky and short-sighted approach-- they saved money in his contract year, but it cost them all of their leverage once he entered the free agent market. Tennessee overbid, and whether or not the Bills were wise to opt out, they lost a good player that they will now have to spend another draft pick to replace. This keeps happening, and it's maddening. If you're going to build through the draft, at some point you have to invest in those core players who have proven their value. If Levitre were an all-around, dominant G, perhaps the Bills would have made more of an effort, but that wasn't gonna change his mindset about his "once in a lifetime opportunity." Or are you, too, suggesting they should have just offered starting LT money right from the get go? I maintain that's just too much for Levitre given his rather average ability as a run blocker and his tendency to get overpowered at the POA more than you'd like to see. Great pass blocking tactician though. But that's not enough. GO BILLS!!!
BillnutinHouston Posted October 9, 2013 Posted October 9, 2013 Can anyone here recall a game in which Fitz relinquished a lead late in the game? How about last year's loss to the Titans?
BuffaloBob Posted October 9, 2013 Posted October 9, 2013 I think it was an error in letting him walk, no matter how badly he's perceived to be playing in Ten. He's better than Colin Brown, no doubt. The Bills are 20 MILLION dollars under the cap. There's no excuse to let ANYONE walk when you have that much coin laying around. Dude, just because they are 20 million under right now, does not mean they are $20 million under next year based on current commitments. People who make this argument are 2 dimensional thinkers at best. You don't just have to worry about what the cap space is right now, this season. You have to worry about what the cap space will look like next year, and the next 4 years after that, and especially when adding the type of contract Levitre signed in Tennessee on top of the raises and additional bonus money that will be due current players in the future. Moreover, there are other players they want to extend, and that adds an additional level of complexity in balancing the books for future years. Stop looking at as if it only matters what the cap space is THIS season. Unless you're signing him to a ONE YEAR CONTRACT, this year's cap space is only a small part of the total story.
mannc Posted October 9, 2013 Posted October 9, 2013 Dude, just because they are 20 million under right now, does not mean they are $20 million under next year based on current commitments. People who make this argument are 2 dimensional thinkers at best. You don't just have to worry about what the cap space is right now, this season. You have to worry about what the cap space will look like next year, and the next 4 years after that, and especially when adding the type of contract Levitre signed in Tennessee on top of the raises and additional bonus money that will be due current players in the future. Moreover, there are other players they want to extend, and that adds an additional level of complexity in balancing the books for future years. Stop looking at as if it only matters what the cap space is THIS season. Unless you're signing him to a ONE YEAR CONTRACT, this year's cap space is only a small part of the total story. It's certainly a fair point. Do you have any information regarding what the Bills' cap situation looks like for next year? I assume that some contracts will come off completely, and other cap numbers will either rise or fall. Of course, there are many variables that we just don't know right now.
BuffaloBob Posted October 9, 2013 Posted October 9, 2013 Agreed. The issue isn't whether or not we should have paid him the huge contract, it is whether or not we should have let him walk. There are plenty of ways to extend your players without ponying up record-setting contracts, and most of them begin by entering contract negotiations in the year BEFORE the contract expires, like they did this year with Eric Wood (and, whether rightly or wrongly, like they did with Fitz, when they rightly or wrongly determined that he was the answer at QB). In this way, you provide the player security and a display of loyalty, and AVOID letting a depleted market determine his value. If memory serves, the Bills entered these talks with Levitre in his contract year, but when those talks broke down, they abandoned them fairly quickly. In so doing, the Bills took a rather risky and short-sighted approach-- they saved money in his contract year, but it cost them all of their leverage once he entered the free agent market. Tennessee overbid, and whether or not the Bills were wise to opt out, they lost a good player that they will now have to spend another draft pick to replace. This keeps happening, and it's maddening. If you're going to build through the draft, at some point you have to invest in those core players who have proven their value. You are making an assumption that Levitre would have been a willing participant in that process. You are assuming that he would have gladly signed a discounted contract if only the Bills had been willing to do that. But based on the snippets of conversation that came out over the course of last season, he wasn't interested in doing that. He stated flat out that he WANTED to hit free agency. When a guy wants to roll the dice and test free agency, he isn't thinking about signing a deal before he does so. The whole point of hitting free agency is seeing what the market will bear. He clearly wanted to do that. He supposedly rebuffed Bills overtures to talk saying just that. So unless the Bills wanted to overpay him to keep him from doing that, he wasn't there to be had for a less than market contract as you suggest.
The Big Cat Posted October 9, 2013 Posted October 9, 2013 How about last year's loss to the Titans? You mean the one we already broke down? The one when we didn't have a lead until the closing seconds of the third quarter?
K-9 Posted October 9, 2013 Posted October 9, 2013 You are making an assumption that Levitre would have been a willing participant in that process. You are assuming that he would have gladly signed a discounted contract if only the Bills had been willing to do that. But based on the snippets of conversation that came out over the course of last season, he wasn't interested in doing that. He stated flat out that he WANTED to hit free agency. When a guy wants to roll the dice and test free agency, he isn't thinking about signing a deal before he does so. The whole point of hitting free agency is seeing what the market will bear. He clearly wanted to do that. He supposedly rebuffed Bills overtures to talk saying just that. So unless the Bills wanted to overpay him to keep him from doing that, he wasn't there to be had for a less than market contract as you suggest. And why on earth would the Bills or ANY team for that matter, bid against themselves? GO BILLS!!!
Fan in Chicago Posted October 9, 2013 Posted October 9, 2013 I had and have been a supporter of signing Levitre and was disappointed that we did not. BUT, no matter where you fall in the Levitre debate, it is clear that the Bills failed to adequately replace him. In this discussion about whether or not we should have signed Levitre, a point is being missed (I haven't looked at the entire thread to see if it was made here). It was one made by NoSaint in another thread - there were other lower priced free agent Guards available in free agency. Fine if Levitre was 'too expensive' . Why did we not pursue Vasquez who signed with the Broncos @ 4 year - $23.5 million ? How about Willie Colon (may have been short gap but still viable) ? See this list: http://walterfootball.com/freeagents2013G.php What possible explanation is there to not have even pursued, say, Vasquez ?
BuffaloBob Posted October 9, 2013 Posted October 9, 2013 It's certainly a fair point. Do you have any information regarding what the Bills' cap situation looks like for next year? I assume that some contracts will come off completely, and other cap numbers will either rise or fall. Of course, there are many variables that we just don't know right now. Nope. I used to spend lot's of time doing that sort of thing, but it's silly unless someone is paying one to do that. My point is that those who simply make that argument, that this year right now we are x dollars under the cap, and therefore we should sign every free agent to a huge crazy contract because the numbers work out THIS season are doing so out their butts. Whether a team commits that sort of money (including the guaranteed money) to any player has to be evaluated with a view down the road, probably 3-5 years out. Teams routinely got themselves in cap hell on a regular basis by writing contracts for the now, and only thinking about what can I fit under this year's cap, without consideration of what happens when the cap hits keep escalating down the road. Then you're stuck cutting guys you want to keep to get under the cap, and crippling yourself with dead cap money into the future by doing so. You have to have a working 3-5 year plan of what you think the overall allowable cap increase will be each year, what the escalators are for each guy as the years pass, which guys contracts are going to expire and do you want to extend them. What market contracts look like for those guys in the future. Then you have to also prioritize importance of the position because no matter what you do, you won't be able to keep everybody. The issue is just way more complex than, "Hey man, we're $20 million under the cap this year, so what's the problem? Pay the man his money." I had and have been a supporter of signing Levitre and was disappointed that we did not. BUT, no matter where you fall in the Levitre debate, it is clear that the Bills failed to adequately replace him. In this discussion about whether or not we should have signed Levitre, a point is being missed (I haven't looked at the entire thread to see if it was made here). It was one made by NoSaint in another thread - there were other lower priced free agent Guards available in free agency. Fine if Levitre was 'too expensive' . Why did we not pursue Vasquez who signed with the Broncos @ 4 year - $23.5 million ? How about Willie Colon (may have been short gap but still viable) ? See this list: http://walterfootball.com/freeagents2013G.php What possible explanation is there to not have even pursued, say, Vasquez ? Well, maybe they didn't want to pay a guard $6 million per year either! How many guys on any NFL roster can you pay $6 million per year? Do the math! Maybe, you hope you can get a guy that you can develop for an average of $2 Million per year for four years.
GG Posted October 9, 2013 Posted October 9, 2013 and yet Andy proved so valuable in Buffalo, that the BIlls are still scrambling in their search to replace him. jw Lather, rinse, repeat.
BuffaloBob Posted October 9, 2013 Posted October 9, 2013 Lather, rinse, repeat. Yeah, well that PROVES it then. He's worth $20 million per year!!!
mannc Posted October 9, 2013 Posted October 9, 2013 I had and have been a supporter of signing Levitre and was disappointed that we did not. BUT, no matter where you fall in the Levitre debate, it is clear that the Bills failed to adequately replace him. In this discussion about whether or not we should have signed Levitre, a point is being missed (I haven't looked at the entire thread to see if it was made here). It was one made by NoSaint in another thread - there were other lower priced free agent Guards available in free agency. Fine if Levitre was 'too expensive' . Why did we not pursue Vasquez who signed with the Broncos @ 4 year - $23.5 million ? How about Willie Colon (may have been short gap but still viable) ? See this list: http://walterfootball.com/freeagents2013G.php What possible explanation is there to not have even pursued, say, Vasquez ? or perhaps investing a 5th round pick on the position.
Recommended Posts