THE ROCKPILE REVIEW - Horrible

[teef]

13 minutes ago, Shaw66 said:

Well, I think Scott has a point.   The salary dump was more important than the sixth round pick, so why not take advantage of his services for the season.   You can always cut him to dump salary in 2018, and the cap hit would be there regardless of when they got rid of him.  

 

And it's hard to argue that they miss him in the middle.  NO ONE ran like that against the Bills when Dareus was in the lineup.  

 

I'm guessing they traded him because McDermott didn't want to have to deal with him any more.   

 

 

so...the bills are going to take a cap hit no matter what?  there's no financial benefit to trading vs cutting dareus?  (i'm asking because i honestly have no idea).  if there's no savings to be had, i would have kept him until the end of the year too.  that being said, how does keeping him increase he trade value as scott mentioned?

 

i loved the player dareus, and it's even the last jersey i bought, but unfortunately he ran his course here.  i think he can still be great, but he was a wild disappointment  how it worked out after he was given a contract.  

[Shaw66]

8 minutes ago, GoBills808 said:

Dolphins #2 comes to mind, not as bad as this Sunday but I think Ajayi still went over 200 with Dareus out there. 

That doesn't mean Dareus didn't make a difference.   Maybe without Dareus Ajayi would have had 300.

 

Bills wouldn't have won Sunday with Dareus in the lineup, but I'm sure he would have made a difference.    

[QCity]

22 minutes ago, ScottLaw said:

 

You don't trade a player like Dareus when your team is 4-2 playing good ball. Wait till the offseason to make that move.... when he stock is in all likelihood higher. 

 

A 6th round pick and salary cap does 0 in season... almost Over 500 yards rushing the past two games without Dareus. It's awful.

 

How many yards rushing did Oakland put up on us without Dareus? 53? Do you know that Dareus was only playing around ~25 snaps a game? If this was 2014 Dareus, you would have a great argument, but he wasn't playing anywhere close to that. Do you think Dareus would have stopped the Saints running attack when he was standing on the sidelines for 70% of the snaps, exactly like he was during that 4-2 start?

 

 

[Shaw66]

1 minute ago, teef said:

so...the bills are going to take a cap hit no matter what?  there's no financial benefit to trading vs cutting dareus?  (i'm asking because i honestly have no idea).  if there's no savings to be had, i would have kept him until the end of the year too.  that being said, how does keeping him increase he trade value as scott mentioned?

 

i loved the player dareus, and it's even the last jersey i bought, but unfortunately he ran his course here.  i think he can still be great, but he was a wild disappointment  how it worked out after he was given a contract.  

I'm not a cap guru, but I think the cap hit the Bills are taking in 2018 would be exactly the same if they'd kept him through the end of this season.  

 

That's why I think he was a daily headache.   For example, I don't know but I'd guess that McD doesn't want anyone who doesn't practice hard every day.   I don't know but I'd guess that Dareus is not a great practice player.  

[teef]

Just now, Shaw66 said:

That doesn't mean Dareus didn't make a difference.   Maybe without Dareus Ajayi would have had 300.

 

Bills wouldn't have won Sunday with Dareus in the lineup, but I'm sure he would have made a difference.    

i think this is the problem with the majority of the guys the bills let go.  they help on sundays, but they never put the bills over the top, (along with many other factors). at the end of the day, would guy like watkins or gilmore put this team over the top?  i just don't think so  unfortunately.  i think dareus is in that mix.  his presence is certainly missed, but i also don't think it's the sole reason for a defensive collapse.

[Shaw66]

1 minute ago, QCity said:

 

How many yards rushing did Oakland put up on us without Dareus? 53? Do you know that Dareus was only playing around ~25 snaps a game? If this was 2014 Dareus, you would have a great argument, but he wasn't playing anywhere close to that. Do you think Dareus would have stopped the Saints running attack when he was standing on the sidelines for 70% of the snaps, exactly like he was during that 4-2 start?

 

 

In other words, on 30% of the defensive snaps, Dareus would have attracted an extra blocker.   Do you think that wouldn't have made a difference?

 

 

1 minute ago, teef said:

i think this is the problem with the majority of the guys the bills let go.  they help on sundays, but they never put the bills over the top, (along with many other factors). at the end of the day, would guy like watkins or gilmore put this team over the top?  i just don't think so  unfortunately.  i think dareus is in that mix.  his presence is certainly missed, but i also don't think it's the sole reason for a defensive collapse.

I agree, and I said that.   Bills wouldn't have won with Dareus.

 

I really don't have a problem with the trade.   I'm not arguing it shouldn't have happened.   All I said in the OP was that he would have attracted double teams which would have helped in the running game, because the blocker not needed on Dareus was usually all over Preston Brown, leaving no one to fill the inside running gaps.  

[QCity]

1 minute ago, Shaw66 said:

In other words, on 30% of the defensive snaps, Dareus would have attracted an extra blocker.   Do you think that wouldn't have made a difference?

 

 

 

It would have made a difference, but not as much as fans think. They would have still ran for 200+ with him in a Bills uniform. The issue last Sunday wasn't with one person. His absence is  just a convenient excuse at this point.

[teef]

3 minutes ago, Shaw66 said:

I'm not a cap guru, but I think the cap hit the Bills are taking in 2018 would be exactly the same if they'd kept him through the end of this season.  

 

That's why I think he was a daily headache.   For example, I don't know but I'd guess that McD doesn't want anyone who doesn't practice hard every day.   I don't know but I'd guess that Dareus is not a great practice player.  

if that's the guess than it must be an attitude problem.  he never struck me as a guy who verbally gives problems, but maybe he was so lazy it just rubbed that staff the wrong way.  it's too bad.  he could have been a force.

[Maine-iac]

4 minutes ago, Shaw66 said:

In other words, on 30% of the defensive snaps, Dareus would have attracted an extra blocker.   Do you think that wouldn't have made a difference?

 

 

I thought about this also.   Why were we able to play the run when he was only playing part time.  This is what I was thinking.   Do they keep tabs every single play as to whether Dareous is in or out?  If they game plan for Dareous and his back up comes in are they still running plays like Dareous is in there?  As in blocking schemes to account for him.  If he's gone you can run a whole game plan for the defense not having him and take advantage.  If there's a chance he's playing 30 percent of the snaps you can't.

[Shaw66]

12 minutes ago, Maine-iac said:

I thought about this also.   Why were we able to play the run when he was only playing part time.  This is what I was thinking.   Do they keep tabs every single play as to whether Dareous is in or out?  If they game plan for Dareous and his back up comes in are they still running plays like Dareous is in there?  As in blocking schemes to account for him.  If he's gone you can run a whole game plan for the defense not having him and take advantage.  If there's a chance he's playing 30 percent of the snaps you can't.

They game plan for guys.  That's why you hear players and coaches talk about opponents by number.   

 

When a play is called in the huddle, blockers still don't know their assignments, because they don't what defensive alignment they're going to face.  So they come to the line, the center calls out the blocking assignments based on the defensive alignment.   Each of the blockers knows that his assignment is one thing if 99 is in front of him and it's something else if 99 isn't.  

 

There was a good SI article a couple years ago with some star left tackle who described his assignment on a particular play.   His assignment depended on the alignment AND on the personnel.   

[BadLandsMeanie]

So far I only have one rational theory about what happened. I don't believe it, but it is the only possibility that has some chance of being true that I have thought of so far.

 

Many players think of it, reasonable, that they have only so many plays in their bodies. Obviously there are other factors that may even matter more. But Ross Tucker for example once wrote an article saying he and many other players, truth be told, would rather not go to the playoffs because of the extra wear and tear.

 

I am not saying the Bills don't want to go to the playoffs. I think they do.

 

But they may have realized at some point that the Saints were going to kill them no matter what they did. And they may have decided to just get through the game with as little wear and tear as possible.

[HappyDays]

3 minutes ago, BadLandsMeanie said:

So far I only have one rational theory about what happened. I don't believe it, but it is the only possibility that has some chance of being true that I have thought of so far.

 

Many players think of it, reasonable, that they have only so many plays in their bodies. Obviously there are other factors that may even matter more. But Ross Tucker for example once wrote an article saying he and many other players, truth be told, would rather not go to the playoffs because of the extra wear and tear.

 

I am not saying the Bills don't want to go to the playoffs. I think they do.

 

But they may have realized at some point that the Saints were going to kill them no matter what they did. And they may have decided to just get through the game with as little wear and tear as possible.

 

I thought the same think. And I think it is an NFL-wide problem, not just the Bills. It seems to me there are a lot more crazy blowouts this year. I think the players don’t care as much as they used to. If they’re winning, sure, they’ll play hard. Once the losing starts they’re thinking about how quickly their friends are getting traded or cut, how major injuries are piling up every week. It has a demoralizing effect. Once they’re down 3 TDs and there are no signs of a comeback I think they go into self-preservation mode.

[QCity]

My theory is similar - that they were so completely dominated that by the 3rd quarter they were just playing not to get injured. I see a few fans comparing this to the "Ajayi game," but it really reminded me of that 50 - whatever beatdown that Seattle unleashed on us back in Toronto. That day the defense was helpless to stop them and basically quit in the 2nd half while Seattle racked up something like 280 yards rushing in that massacre (and yes, Dareus was playing that day).

[toto8]

22 hours ago, Shaw66 said:

I seriously considered doing exactly that.   

 

I really meant it when I said there's nothing to say that's why I wrote some of the stupid stuff I wrote.  

 

Thank you for review. Always good.

 

I don't think it was stupid. It was funny.

[Thurman#1]

11 hours ago, ScottLaw said:

I'd rather have him this year and next then the cap space and a 6th round pick. Who gives a **** about the 6th round pick.

 

 

You don't have to deal with the locker room problems he was apparently creating. McDermott does.

 

Agreed that a 6th ain't much, but that exactly shows how badly they wanted to get rid of him.

2 hours ago, BadLandsMeanie said:

So far I only have one rational theory about what happened. I don't believe it, but it is the only possibility that has some chance of being true that I have thought of so far.

 

Many players think of it, reasonable, that they have only so many plays in their bodies. Obviously there are other factors that may even matter more. But Ross Tucker for example once wrote an article saying he and many other players, truth be told, would rather not go to the playoffs because of the extra wear and tear.

 

I am not saying the Bills don't want to go to the playoffs. I think they do.

 

But they may have realized at some point that the Saints were going to kill them no matter what they did. And they may have decided to just get through the game with as little wear and tear as possible.

 

 

Tucker's article said those players were the exception rather than the rule, that many of those players didn't think their team would go far in the playoffs even if they got in, and that those guys were 

 

"And isn't that what makes the NFL playoffs so special in the first place? That it really isn't about the money. It is about the pursuit of a title, the chance for a ring, and the glory and lifelong memories that come as a result of it."

 

"For the vast majority of NFL players, the answer is yes. For a select few, sadly, the answer is no."

 

https://www.si.com/more-sports/2008/12/23/takes

 

 

The Bills didn't give up. They were dominated. There's a huge difference.

[Thurman#1]

4 hours ago, Shaw66 said:

I'm not a cap guru, but I think the cap hit the Bills are taking in 2018 would be exactly the same if they'd kept him through the end of this season.  

 

That's why I think he was a daily headache.   For example, I don't know but I'd guess that McD doesn't want anyone who doesn't practice hard every day.   I don't know but I'd guess that Dareus is not a great practice player.  

 

 

 

Shaw, they save around $5 mill in cap space in 2018 on Dareus. 

 

His salary, $5.735 mill, was guaranteed, but the Jags will be paying, not the Bills. The Jags are also paying the rest of his 2017 salary which will also go off our cap this year and thus probably be rolled over. That's something like $3 mill more.

 

But I agree that the most logical thought is that he was causing problems consistently. Maybe small ones, but the guy had a history of being late, and I agree with you that maybe he was a bad practice player. Either that or his talents didn't fit the system and I just don't think that would have been a problem if he'd bought in and was giving his all.

 

 

 

 

As for why we were playing well before and poorly now, my guess is simply that early on we were facing bad teams. It didn't seem like that at the time, but that's what has been shown by season results. We were performing well against weaker team - and for whatever reason the Carolina offense hadn't come together early in the season when we played them. They're good now but didn't appear to be good then. That's my best guess.

Edited November 15, 2017 by Thurman#1

[Foxx]

Shaw, it looks like your blind spot took a knockout punch to the jaw. I think you need to eat quite a bit of crow these days. after all the belittling you did to me and others because you could not see objectively past your blindspot is kind of rewarding right now.

:rotflasao:

 

i'm thinking the defense got exactly what it wanted here.

Edited November 15, 2017 by Foxx

[Shaw66]

23 hours ago, Thurman#1 said:

 

 

 

Shaw, they save around $5 mill in cap space in 2018 on Dareus. 

 

His salary, $5.735 mill, was guaranteed, but the Jags will be paying, not the Bills. The Jags are also paying the rest of his 2017 salary which will also go off our cap this year and thus probably be rolled over. That's something like $3 mill more.

 

But I agree that the most logical thought is that he was causing problems consistently. Maybe small ones, but the guy had a history of being late, and I agree with you that maybe he was a bad practice player. Either that or his talents didn't fit the system and I just don't think that would have been a problem if he'd bought in and was giving his all.

 

 

 

 

As for why we were playing well before and poorly now, my guess is simply that early on we were facing bad teams. It didn't seem like that at the time, but that's what has been shown by season results. We were performing well against weaker team - and for whatever reason the Carolina offense hadn't come together early in the season when we played them. They're good now but didn't appear to be good then. That's my best guess.

Not that it matters, but wouldn't they have saved the $5 million in 2018 cap if they'd traded him after the end of the season?   

 

I didn't know that you can roll cap savings forward into a future season.   

 

Anyway, we agree that the difference in cap money isn't significant - he was moved when he was moved for reasons other than the cap.  

 

[BadLandsMeanie]

The move cleared about $5 million in 2017 salary-cap space and about $2 million in 2018 cap space, in addition to erasing about $47 million in cap hits from 2019-21.

In all, the Bills saved about $54 million over five seasons by trading Dareus. The Jaguars owe Dareus about $5 million in guaranteed salary for the remainder of this season as well as $7.35 million of his salary in 2018. There are no guarantees after 2018.

 

It is also an unexpected development for a team that might have released Dareus after this season at a higher cost to their salary cap. Had the Bills released Dareus in March, they would have been on the hook for the guaranteed $7.35 million of his 2018 salary, in addition to the $14.2 million in signing bonus proration they had to swallow with a trade. In this case, the Jaguars absorb that $7.35 million.

 

That's what I know, from Rodak

 

http://www.espn.com/blog/buffalo-bills/post/_/id/29701/bills-save-54-million-in-cap-space-in-dumping-marcell-dareus-contract