thebandit27 Posted January 24, 2014 Posted January 24, 2014 ill say i appreciate the links, but i think that this is far to surface level to simply link the yearly spend and say good team, bad team, and then declare no correlation simply because its not immediately seen. that said, i dont care to do any type of statistical analysis on it, and will stick by "efficiently spending more money will more often beat efficiently spending less money" even if you think theres no correlation. No question that there's more to the success equation than simple figures...you're entitled to your opinion of course; I just felt that the data were too available not to provide given the context of the discussion.
mjt328 Posted January 24, 2014 Author Posted January 24, 2014 This is great information (I don't have the patience to analyze and digest it all) so, let me offer another hypothesis on whether there is a correlation or not -- take Seattle, this year, most analysts have said that they have a short window, because several of their key players are over-performing their contracts (Wilson, Sherman the most obvious) and once they have to pay those guys, they will have cap issues. Take a look at Dallas, spent a lot and made poor football decisions now they are $25M+ over the cap and will have casualties. A lot of times teams win and then have to spend to keep the core group together, perhaps that clouds the data. I will also say that teams that win consistently spend efficiently. That is critical. I would never suggest the Bills do another Dockery/Walker/Kelsay/Schobel type of off-season. The Patriots seem the best at efficient spending and knowing when not to extend a guy or trade someone right before the downside hits. What I am suggesting for the Bills (this is a clarified position) is for them to OPTIMIZE their spending. Spend smart, on the right people at the right time. I don't want this team to give Fred a 5-year extension or throw big money at a backup QB. I would also hope (and I know Bandit insists it was the case) that the Bills spare no expense to hire the best football people to make those critical decisions. I agree with this completely, and this is why I think some people may have a problem seeing a direct correlation between spending and winning. A team like Seattle is winning, but not breaking the salary cap. But this has more to do with player age than anything else. Russell Wilson, Richard Sherman, Earl Thomas, Bobby Wagner, etc. are still on their cheap rookie contracts. When these guys start hitting free agency, the Seahawks will have to decide whether to pay their guys or not. If they start letting those guys walk, I'm certain the winning will stop. Same thing with Carolina and a young talent base that includes Cam Newton and Luke Kuechley. Even a team like Denver is fairly young, with the exception of Peyton Manning being under center. They signed their big free agent this season (Ryan Clady) to an extension over the summer. On the other end of the spectrum, you have the St. Louis Rams who are still stuck by the pre-rookie salary cap rules - and stuck pending tons of money on the rookie contracts of Sam Bradford and Chris Long. I also think it's misleading to look at rankings when most of the teams are within the $2-6 million range. The difference between the team ranked #10 and ranked #25 is almost nothing. The best way to judge the effect of spending is to simply watch how yearly winners (New England, Pittsburgh, Baltimore, New Orleans, Green Bay) handle their free agents when they have room to operate under the salary cap. I have a very hard time seeing any of those teams letting Jairus Byrd walk with over $18 million to work with under the cap.
Dibs Posted January 25, 2014 Posted January 25, 2014 Bandit -- I agree that you can spend all the money in the world and still suck, BUT, others things being equal, if you spend more you will win more..... I don't agree with this......but I think if you somewhat reverse the statement it would hold a strong element of truth. That being.....if you are unwilling to spend more then you have less chance to win(which I think is your point). ......This is a game of inches and having smart football people and giving them $120M to spend and having smart football people and giving them $100M to spend, I'll bet on the guys with the extra $20M EVERY TIME. The Bills DO NOT spend to win ! This is not a debate, this is a fact. The Bills set a budget based on ensuring they make a certain profit and that budget is BELOW the cap. Do I know this for a fact ? NO. But, ALL the evidence points to that as accurate. I don't believe that the Bills are working with a smaller budget than the cap dictates.......though I don't think that this isn't the case either. It could well be the case......but there are other factors which may give reason to the concept of us not spending to high levels. After coming out of the cap hell incurred in the late 90's(?), the Bills have drafted exceedingly poorly. Very few players, once finishing their rookie contracts developed to even a solid level of play. This greatly reduces ones cap spending as we were continually replacing rookie contracts with other rookie contracts. When we did spend big in FA, the players were bad choices.....leaving us with either mediocre performances on the field or large dead cap hits. We are finally in the position where we have a number of young players that we will be wanting to sign past their rookie contracts. With the recent success we have had with our recent FA signings, those extended rookie contracts will easily boost us up to near cap levels. Like I said, it is possible that the Bills have deliberately set themselves a budget lower than the cap in regards to spending.....but there were plenty of other factors to give doubts. The next few seasons will be quite telling IMO on whether there is some truth to the concept.....and for me, it will start with Byrd.
DJasper Probincrux III Posted January 25, 2014 Posted January 25, 2014 So, double or triple the ticket prices and everyone here pony up the money to fill the stadium. That seems reasonable - until not enough people in Buffalo can afford to go, attendance dwindles and the team ends up in Toronto or LA. I won't purport to know for sure if the TV revenue is enough for the Bills to spend to the full cap every year without losing money, but I definitely believe that the playing field is not level in terms of team revenue and profits. I am very comfortable guesstimating that the Bills are in the lower 25% of the league in profitability. Each team gets an equal share of the TV money plus 1 for the league. It works out to 125 million each. That's before they sell 1 ticket, hot dog, beer, shirt, parking spot or corporate sponsorship.
DJasper Probincrux III Posted January 25, 2014 Posted January 25, 2014 I don't agree with this......but I think if you somewhat reverse the statement it would hold a strong element of truth. That being.....if you are unwilling to spend more then you have less chance to win(which I think is your point). I don't believe that the Bills are working with a smaller budget than the cap dictates.......though I don't think that this isn't the case either. It could well be the case......but there are other factors which may give reason to the concept of us not spending to high levels. After coming out of the cap hell incurred in the late 90's(?), the Bills have drafted exceedingly poorly. Very few players, once finishing their rookie contracts developed to even a solid level of play. This greatly reduces ones cap spending as we were continually replacing rookie contracts with other rookie contracts. When we did spend big in FA, the players were bad choices.....leaving us with either mediocre performances on the field or large dead cap hits. We are finally in the position where we have a number of young players that we will be wanting to sign past their rookie contracts. With the recent success we have had with our recent FA signings, those extended rookie contracts will easily boost us up to near cap levels. Like I said, it is possible that the Bills have deliberately set themselves a budget lower than the cap in regards to spending.....but there were plenty of other factors to give doubts. The next few seasons will be quite telling IMO on whether there is some truth to the concept.....and for me, it will start with Byrd. Players the Bills have drafted or signed as UDFAs since 2000. Marshawn Lynch, Nate Clements, Jason Peters, Andy Levitre, Fred Jackson, CJ Spiller, Lee Evans, Stevie Johnson, Eric Wood, Robert Woods, Paul Pozluzny, Kiko Alonso, Leodis McKelvin, Stephon Gilmore, Terrence McGee, Donte Whitner, Jairus Byrd, Cordy Glenn, Aaron Schobel, Kyle Williams, Justin Bannan, Marcell Dareus, Chris Kelsay, Alex Carrington, Aaron Williams, Nigel Bradham, EJ Manuel That's not too shabby. The biggest issue is we didn't keep hardly any of them. That and we don't really have a QB yet. If we just kept our own damn players we'd be decent - then we could tack on and build something.
Dibs Posted January 25, 2014 Posted January 25, 2014 Players the Bills have drafted or signed as UDFAs since 2000. Marshawn Lynch, Nate Clements, Jason Peters, Andy Levitre, Fred Jackson, CJ Spiller, Lee Evans, Stevie Johnson, Eric Wood, Robert Woods, Paul Pozluzny, Kiko Alonso, Leodis McKelvin, Stephon Gilmore, Terrence McGee, Donte Whitner, Jairus Byrd, Cordy Glenn, Aaron Schobel, Kyle Williams, Justin Bannan, Marcell Dareus, Chris Kelsay, Alex Carrington, Aaron Williams, Nigel Bradham, EJ Manuel That's not too shabby. The biggest issue is we didn't keep hardly any of them. That and we don't really have a QB yet. If we just kept our own damn players we'd be decent - then we could tack on and build something. Your list not including 2009+ players(where I believe we started to draft better)....9 drafts(& UDFAs)....13 players(I deleted Justin Bannan from the list as he took 6 seasons to become an NFL starter). 13 players in 9 years is really not good.....especially considering that several of those players who become decent players only last 8-10 years in the NFL. We kept 8 of those 13.....and of the 5 that left, only Poz might be considered due to the Bills and not the player. (Lynch a mess, Clements enormously over-paid, Peters would not stay, Whitner rejected Bills offer & ended up playing for less elsewhere). Marshawn Lynch: Was a train wreck in Buffalo. Couldn't be kept. Nate Clements: Obviously greatly overrated in FA. Bills wisely knew he was not worth a record breaking contract. Jason Peters: Did not want to stay......Bills got Wood as compensation. Fred Jackson: Re-signed & productive Lee Evans: Re-signed & over-paid Stevie Johnson: Re-signed & arguably over-paid Paul Pozluzny: Better player desired(than he showed with the Bills) Leodis McKelvin: Re-signed & productive Terrence McGee: Career Bill(10 years).....not a star player Donte Whitner: Better player desired(than he showed with the Bills) ....plus he didn't want to stay. Aaron Schobel: Career Bill(9 years)....not a star player Kyle Williams: Re-signed & productive Chris Kelsay: Career Bill(10 years)....not a star player From those 9 years, we had very few decent sized contracts come through our systems, let alone big contracts. The last 5 years(2009-2013) we get another 13 players(though I personally don't think Bradham should be counted, but Robey should be added instead.)......a much better yield of productive player. Andy Levitre, CJ Spiller, Eric Wood, Robert Woods, Kiko Alonso, Stephon Gilmore, Jairus Byrd, Cordy Glenn, Marcell Dareus, Alex Carrington, Aaron Williams, Nigel Bradham Nickell Robey, EJ Manuel All teams have good-solid players walk. It is simply the nature of the FA era NFL. We obtained Mario.....we can't keep Clements. That's just how it goes. Finding only 13 players in 9 years though is not enough IMO to be competetive. Mind you, having a top QB would pretty much solve everything. Not only would we be a playoff team(IMO)......but the extra $15m in QB salary would bring us right near the top in cap spending(ceasing any real discussions about the Bills being cheap).
OCinBuffalo Posted January 25, 2014 Posted January 25, 2014 (edited) To many posters here: Ossie Newsome says "right money for the right player". Now, is anyone going to question Ossie Newsome's GM abilities? No? Why not? OK, then when Whaley says something equivalent(and he basically already has in the quotes above), we can't attack the philosophy, just because it's not coming from Ossie Nesome. The problem for the Bills has ALWAYS been: right money for the WRONG player + bad draft choices. From Rob Johnson, through Mike Williams, through Langston Walker, to Ryan Fitzpatrick. The first big FA signing this team has done since "the change"? Mario. Right $ for the right player? Obviously. The first draft for Whaley/last for Buddy puts a solid rookie QB with high upside and the DROY of the year on the team, never mind 2 stud WRs, and 2 good DBs? That's one hell of a draft. When was the last time we had a draft like that? EVER? The first big trade for this team puts Jerry Hughes on the team for a backup LB. Raped the Colts. Given that, I think Whaley et al have earned the right to avoid having any old cherry-picked failure of the past, some from 5 years ago, auto-atrributed to them, or, used as an indicator of how they will behave today. Some posters are looking at the upcoming FA period all wrong. Given what we've seen so far, you should not be thinking: "I wonder if we will spend our cap $ and/or spend an extra 1-2 mil on Byrd" Not even close. Given what we've seen so far? You should be thinking: "I hope we'll have enough money left over for Spiller/Dareus/Hughes, when we go out and sign T.J. Ward" See? T.J. Ward wasn't even in your brain, was it? Don't lie.... However, it should be. Is Mario Williams on this team? If Mario Williams can be on this team, why can't T.J. Ward be on this team? That's the problem: your brain. Your brain is the real "same old same old" problem here, and it's time for change. Edited January 25, 2014 by OCinBuffalo
thebandit27 Posted January 25, 2014 Posted January 25, 2014 The best way to judge the effect of spending is to simply watch how yearly winners (New England, Pittsburgh, Baltimore, New Orleans, Green Bay) handle their free agents when they have room to operate under the salary cap. I have a very hard time seeing any of those teams letting Jairus Byrd walk with over $18 million to work with under the cap. You make some good points, so I just want to hit on this last one. It's funny you mention these teams, since each of them let their most important free agent(s) walk out the door this past offseason. New England let Welker go, Pittsburgh didn't re-sign Wallace, Baltimore traded Boldin for a 6th rd pick and didn't re-sign Cary Williams, New Orleans let their LT defect to Chicago, and Green Bay lost Greg Jennings to a division rival. All had plenty of cap space... Now, I'm not saying this proves anything, just that I think it speaks to the idea of correctly determining value over simply re-signing guys because you have the money and cap space to do so.
NoSaint Posted January 25, 2014 Posted January 25, 2014 You make some good points, so I just want to hit on this last one. It's funny you mention these teams, since each of them let their most important free agent(s) walk out the door this past offseason. New England let Welker go, Pittsburgh didn't re-sign Wallace, Baltimore traded Boldin for a 6th rd pick and didn't re-sign Cary Williams, New Orleans let their LT defect to Chicago, and Green Bay lost Greg Jennings to a division rival. All had plenty of cap space... Now, I'm not saying this proves anything, just that I think it speaks to the idea of correctly determining value over simply re-signing guys because you have the money and cap space to do so. The saints had 508k in cap space this year and will be trimming next year as they are projected over even without a bushrod contract. The steelers had 1.3m in cap space, the ravens 1.5m All 3 had to wheel and deal to get there even. The saints did spend on FAs too though, with the money saved by bushrod. Pick and choose your spots but really, until we are up against the cap we don't have to pick and choose quite as conservatively. So I might still say spend wisely but do not be afraid to spend to the limits
GA BILLS FAN Posted January 25, 2014 Posted January 25, 2014 Seeing is believing. I can't in good conscious give Brandon the benefit of the doubt. He was too much a part of the decision making apparatus of this franchise over the past decade that has failed miserably on the field. This off season I want to see the Bills go after a couple key FA's (WR, TE, ILB, LG and/or RT) and I want them to extend a couple talented young players before they hit FA. Glenn, A Williams, Spiller and/or Hughes are all heading into the last year of their contracts. The Schwartz hire is a positive step to replace Pettine. I need to see others to believe. Ideally, Brandon would announce the cancellation of Toronto series in a few weeks, then you'll see me post, it's a new day. Stay tuned.
machine gun kelly Posted January 25, 2014 Posted January 25, 2014 Other than the Cowboys, how many teams are paying off stadiums that they paid for? I may be wrong, but I don't think many teams pay for their own stadiums, especially $1B ones. Now, I am not saying that the Bills don't have a good stadium deal, but it isn't likely any better than most teams get (especially considering that the stadium is what, 43 years old). i don't think that you can ignore that ticket prices are among the lowest in the league, they have almost no luxury box income (which teams like Dallas, Jets, Giants, Washington don't share with other teams) and their merchandise sales are surely among the lowest in the league. I am just not seeing how the Bills have the finances to spend like the Cowboys, Jets, Giants, Redskins etc can.. Beyond that, I don't see where that spending has gotten the Cowboys, Jets and Redskins very far anyway. Sure, I'd love it if the Bills could go on a spending spree this offseason and nail some high priced free agents like the Dolphins did last year, but where did that get the Dolphins? I would argue that the Bills approach to FA (which mirrors that of the Steelers and Pats in terms of signing mid-tier players) is as effective as big-splash free agent signings (Of course, there are exceptions like Peyton Manning). You make some very good points viewing the situation pragmatically, just as the Toronto situation sucks, but is providing more revenue for the franchise. At the end of the day any business has one single goal to be profitable. Conversely, an investment in your product should denote more revenue in increased sales and profitability. Had we had a winning franchise for a decade with at least one to two superbowl appearances, and we would have tons of merchandise sales, sold out stadium even in December, and tons of opportunities for MNF, SNF, and so on. I truly believe the NFL wants the Bills in Buffalo, and would get lots of press. Our front office can't necessarily spend to the cap, as they still have to hold some money back for injuries, but they can manage their talent better. This is a morbid thought, but one of the best things for this franchIse is for Mr. Wilson to pass now as the stadium deal keeps the Bills are handcuffed for at least 5-6 years. I say that with respect for Mr. Wilson as I really am appreciative he kept this team in Buffalo, and for all of his faults, was a decent owner. He tried during the Polian years to win a superbowl and spent money back then before the cap. With a new ownership group keeping the Bills in Buffalo would invest wisely in the team, and I believe would move towards us back to greatness. That's the real answer to spending properly close to the cap on a long term basis.
Sisyphean Bills Posted January 25, 2014 Posted January 25, 2014 Actually, your chart proves just the opposite. With the exception of the Chargers (who got into the playoffs by referee error/missed FG) no team at the Bills level or below made the Playoffs last season. You don't have to be the biggest spender, but there is some minimal level of spending that is necessary to field a competitive team. You're correct. The chart actually does show a correlation between spending and winning. The top 10 teams in the table had a combined winning percentage of 52.5%, The bottom 10 teams on the other hand had a combined winning percentage of 40%. If we take the top 12, they averaged 54.2% and the bottom 12 had a winning percentage to 38.5%. (The middle 8, fwiw, had a winning percentage of 60.9%.) The data supports the old cliche: you get what you pay for.
thebandit27 Posted January 25, 2014 Posted January 25, 2014 The saints had 508k in cap space this year and will be trimming next year as they are projected over even without a bushrod contract. The steelers had 1.3m in cap space, the ravens 1.5m All 3 had to wheel and deal to get there even. The saints did spend on FAs too though, with the money saved by bushrod. Pick and choose your spots but really, until we are up against the cap we don't have to pick and choose quite as conservatively. So I might still say spend wisely but do not be afraid to spend to the limits I must've looked at the wrong year's cap data then--those figures aren't what I saw--I'll have to trust them since I can't look it up on my mobil. If that's the case then your point stands to reason. Seeing is believing. I can't in good conscious give Brandon the benefit of the doubt. He was too much a part of the decision making apparatus of this franchise over the past decade that has failed miserably on the field. This off season I want to see the Bills go after a couple key FA's (WR, TE, ILB, LG and/or RT) and I want them to extend a couple talented young players before they hit FA. Glenn, A Williams, Spiller and/or Hughes are all heading into the last year of their contracts. The Schwartz hire is a positive step to replace Pettine. I need to see others to believe. Ideally, Brandon would announce the cancellation of Toronto series in a few weeks, then you'll see me post, it's a new day. Stay tuned. I can't speak to Toronto; I do think you'll see Buffalo spend their FA $ on some OL help though You're correct. The chart actually does show a correlation between spending and winning. The top 10 teams in the table had a combined winning percentage of 52.5%, The bottom 10 teams on the other hand had a combined winning percentage of 40%. If we take the top 12, they averaged 54.2% and the bottom 12 had a winning percentage to 38.5%. (The middle 8, fwiw, had a winning percentage of 60.9%.) The data supports the old cliche: you get what you pay for. Two things: 1) when only one of the top 12 spending teams makes the playoffs, that by definition strikes down any correlation to being a winning team in the truest spirit if this discussion. 2) same sentiment applies when, as you point out, the middle 8 had a higher winning percentage than the top 10.
NoSaint Posted January 25, 2014 Posted January 25, 2014 I must've looked at the wrong year's cap data then--those figures aren't what I saw--I'll have to trust them since I can't look it up on my mobil. If that's the case then your point stands to reason. I can't speak to Toronto; I do think you'll see Buffalo spend their FA $ on some OL help though I can't vouch for accuracy 100% but here's the link: http://overthecap.com/nfl-cap-space.php?Year=2013 Now, I will say it matches the narratives I watched here in New Orleans and matches the Baltimore slashing post Super Bowl due to flaccos huge boost - so I didn't dig much deeper to double check (likewise on mobile)
8-8 Forever? Posted January 25, 2014 Posted January 25, 2014 I haven't been a fan of paying Byrd top dollar, but I'd agree if he walks and the money isn't spent somewhere then that would be...unimpressive. Being a 'Pro Bowler' means absolutely nothing. Why do people keep using as some sort of judge for talent? Pro Bowl = Beauty Contest = worthless
NoSaint Posted January 25, 2014 Posted January 25, 2014 (edited) You're correct. The chart actually does show a correlation between spending and winning. The top 10 teams in the table had a combined winning percentage of 52.5%, The bottom 10 teams on the other hand had a combined winning percentage of 40%. If we take the top 12, they averaged 54.2% and the bottom 12 had a winning percentage to 38.5%. (The middle 8, fwiw, had a winning percentage of 60.9%.) The data supports the old cliche: you get what you pay for. Combine the often slim gap in the top 2/3rds, and then the often big fall off in spending and performance I think you are touching on the point I've been making as well. It's no promise, no guarantee, there are exceptions but more spending tends to create more opportunities if you aren't a drunken sailor about it. Edited January 25, 2014 by NoSaint
Sisyphean Bills Posted January 25, 2014 Posted January 25, 2014 ... That's the problem: your brain. Your brain is the real "same old same old" problem here, and it's time for change. Can't say that I like blaming other fellow fans for the team's losing track record. (I assume you are kidding, though.) Every team has to make value judgments about their rosters. The Patriots did that with Wes Welker. He was an excellent player for them, but they had to decide if what he wanted in terms of cap could be replaced by other players and balance the cap better. They let him go and went after Amendola. That was their cost vs. production judgment. The Jairus Byrd situation is coming to a similar point. Do the Bills franchise tag him again? Or do they let him go? And if he goes, then what? There will be other free agent safeties out there; so, if they let an excellent player go, will they aggressively sign another starter on the FA market to plug in? Or will they wait for the dust to settle and pick over the bones? Or throw a mid-round draft pick at a replacement, who'll have to start? We shall see.
GA BILLS FAN Posted January 25, 2014 Posted January 25, 2014 You make some very good points viewing the situation pragmatically, just as the Toronto situation sucks, but is providing more revenue for the franchise. At the end of the day any business has one single goal to be profitable. Conversely, an investment in your product should denote more revenue in increased sales and profitability. Had we had a winning franchise for a decade with at least one to two superbowl appearances, and we would have tons of merchandise sales, sold out stadium even in December, and tons of opportunities for MNF, SNF, and so on. I truly believe the NFL wants the Bills in Buffalo, and would get lots of press. Our front office can't necessarily spend to the cap, as they still have to hold some money back for injuries, but they can manage their talent better. This is a morbid thought, but one of the best things for this franchIse is for Mr. Wilson to pass now as the stadium deal keeps the Bills are handcuffed for at least 5-6 years. I say that with respect for Mr. Wilson as I really am appreciative he kept this team in Buffalo, and for all of his faults, was a decent owner. He tried during the Polian years to win a superbowl and spent money back then before the cap. With a new ownership group keeping the Bills in Buffalo would invest wisely in the team, and I believe would move towards us back to greatness. That's the real answer to spending properly close to the cap on a long term basis. I think Jerry paid off his palace already -- he sold over $500M in suites/licenses in year 1 and he keeps all that money as it isn't part of revenue share !! . . . I believe he spent approx. $700M of his own money on the palace --- so, given he's had 5 years operating the place, I'd say he is either free and clear of debt or pretty close
Sisyphean Bills Posted January 25, 2014 Posted January 25, 2014 Two things: 1) when only one of the top 12 spending teams makes the playoffs, that by definition strikes down any correlation to being a winning team in the truest spirit if this discussion. 2) same sentiment applies when, as you point out, the middle 8 had a higher winning percentage than the top 10. Regarding (1): I say, meh to the qualifiers. Winning is winning. One doesn't have to qualify it with which winners make the playoffs. Everyone knows there are winning teams that don't make the playoffs because of the selection format of the NFL playoff system, for instance. Besides, the mathematical correlation between spending and winning isn't "stuck down" because one finds a playoff team in the top third, middle third, and bottom third of the chart. I know you know that. Regarding (2): I included the "middle 8" for completeness. It is interesting though that many of the playoff teams and much of the winning is towards the middle of this chart. Perhaps it is an indication that some teams have better leadership and talent evaluation -- they are able to maximize the talent that composes a winning football team without having to spend like a drunken sailor on the "shiny toys" and such. The top 20 teams in spending had a significantly better winning percentage than did the bottom. For arguing "it's a business", you could flip this around. The teams that maximized their business by minimizing "total cash spending" (maximizing their total cash "savings" if you will), did so at the expense of winning.
KGUNBILLS Posted January 25, 2014 Posted January 25, 2014 Can't say that I like blaming other fellow fans for the team's losing track record. (I assume you are kidding, though.) Every team has to make value judgments about their rosters. The Patriots did that with Wes Welker. He was an excellent player for them, but they had to decide if what he wanted in terms of cap could be replaced by other players and balance the cap better. They let him go and went after Amendola. That was their cost vs. production judgment. The Jairus Byrd situation is coming to a similar point. Do the Bills franchise tag him again? Or do they let him go? And if he goes, then what? There will be other free agent safeties out there; so, if they let an excellent player go, will they aggressively sign another starter on the FA market to plug in? Or will they wait for the dust to settle and pick over the bones? Or throw a mid-round draft pick at a replacement, who'll have to start? We shall see. Past experience shows that they will go after a mid round pick and start that individual. Byrd is as good as gone or they would have him pinned down already. Also, referring back to the beginning of this thread, anyone who claims they have no hidden agenda, usually 99% of the time has a hidden agenda.
Recommended Posts