For the 2018 Bills, Mack = Mario

[Shaw66]

Mario was a good move at the time, because he was symbol.   

 

The Bills had done more or less nothing for years.   They didn't have good players, they lost some of their best players to free agency, and football fans didn't think it was POSSIBLE for the Bills to compete for good players.   

 

When the Bills signed Mario, everything changed.   It appeared that the Bills were working at being relevant, at being good.   And that effort continued from the signing of Mario through the Nix-Whaley era.   They didn't succeed, but they were doing things that hadn't happend since Donahoe.   It was exciting. 

 

Big-time free agents are rarely worth on the field what they get paid.  Mario was worth it because he marked a turning point for the franchise.  

[4merper4mer]

8 hours ago, joesixpack said:

 

And then what happened?

Cuz ___ Sux

 

Fill in the blank.

[HardyBoy]

Think Miami and Suh is a better comp actually. Bills didn't (and still don't) have a franchise qb contact taking a huge chunk out of the cap. The dolphins were on the verge of a potentially huge qb contract and it hamstrung them everywhere else. Suh played really well in Miami, but it was a dumb deal.

 

Ha, so since we don't have a franchise qb contact on the books, the Mario/Mack comp might actually be more solid than Suh/Mack!

Edited September 5, 2018 by HardyBoy

[StrikeParry]

3 hours ago, ddaryl said:

 

Teams still not ready. I think you're throwing numbers. Look at all those numbers

I’m not throwing numbers, I am showing numbers. The real numbers. “Team still not ready”... are the Bears ready to make a playoff run? No. But they aren’t p****** either.

[Sammy Watkins' Rib]

12 hours ago, joesixpack said:

 

And then what happened?

 

He got old like they all do.  Still not a bad signing though. We got exactly what could have been expected out of him. 

 

With Mack it's a little different because of the draft picks given up. You're going to want to either be a perennial playoff team with him for three straight years or at least have him play at a high level for 5 years instead of just 3.

 

And with Mario I am guessing we would have gotten a lot more out of him in his fourth season with us if we hadn't switched the defense and hired Rex.

[Scott7975]

12 hours ago, joesixpack said:

 

So it wasn't a fall-off in his production due to age?

 

Fascinating, tell me more.

 

Mario was a splashy signing, meant to put asses in seats. But was his signing enough to take us to the promised land?

 

Unless your team is a player away or that one signing happens to be a premiere qb… a singular signing pretty much is never enough to take a team to the promised land.  Mario played very well  while he was here.  He was a bright spot on the team until Rex.  That is not to say Rex ruined him, who knows why, that is to say until that point he played really well.  Now we have pretty much zero pass rush even though we overpaid Hughes for riding the coat tails of a stout line.

[george c]

13 hours ago, BringBackOrton said:

Well, NE traded their first last year for a non-QB. I think they went to the Super Bowl.

...and lost. 

 

Although, I do agree with your post. The difference is that NE is the perfect team to sign someone like Mack because with Brady, Gronkowski and co., the are always ready, and the timing is always right with the GOAT on your team.

No such talent here..yet. 

12 hours ago, StrikeParry said:

 

Except he’s wrong. Assuming the salary cap continues to increase at a steady rate over the course of Mack’s Chicago deal, he will take up around 10.5% of the Bears cap per year. Not 25%, not 33%. Don’t throw around numbers without doing the math. He don’t “get it”

He do “get it”. 

Obviously, McBeane gets it too..

 

Also, nothing like making a hypothetical response sound like fact... you know what they say about “assume”. We can assume the cap goes up in the same way we can assume injury to said player, and the sudden hole to fill without cap space for the position.

Edited September 5, 2018 by George C

[Royale with Cheese]

6 minutes ago, George C said:

...and lost. 

 

Although, I do agree with your post. The difference is that NE is the perfect team to sign someone like Mack because with Brady, Gronkowski and co., the are always ready, and the timing is always right with the GOAT on your team.

No such talent here..yet. 

He do “get it”. 

Obviously, McBeane gets it too..

 

Also, nothing like making a hypothetical response sound like fact... you know what they say about “assume”. We can assume the cap goes up in the same way we can assume injury to said player, and the sudden hole to fill without cap space for the position.

 

Beane knew it was going to be a steep price and he still tested the waters on Mack.  He wanted him but the Bears offered more.  We just lost out on the bidding war.

 

And the bolded isn't correct.  Injuries are completely random, the salary cap inflation is not.  There is a financial formula that is used to project the cap. 

[BringBackOrton]

15 minutes ago, George C said:

...and lost. 

 

Although, I do agree with your post. The difference is that NE is the perfect team to sign someone like Mack because with Brady, Gronkowski and co., the are always ready, and the timing is always right with the GOAT on your team.

No such talent here..yet. 

He do “get it”. 

Obviously, McBeane gets it too..

 

Also, nothing like making a hypothetical response sound like fact... you know what they say about “assume”. We can assume the cap goes up in the same way we can assume injury to said player, and the sudden hole to fill without cap space for the position.

I guess 31 teams make stupid moves every year because they don’t win Super Bowls.

[ddaryl]

9 hours ago, StrikeParry said:

I’m not throwing numbers, I am showing numbers. The real numbers. “Team still not ready”... are the Bears ready to make a playoff run? No. But they aren’t p****** either.

 

 

 

23.3 million a year average works out to about 13% of there salary cap but 90 million is guaranteed. SO one knee injury and that is a lot of coin wasted.. Lots of risk for team that was 5-11 last year and most likely has lots of holes. I have to claim ignorance here but I don't see a 5-11 Bears team becoming super bowl champs because of Mack. But now they are down 2 - 1st rd picks a 3rd and a 6th in the next 2 drafts so if it doesn't pan out they will be in dire straights for 5 or so seasons because of it.

 

I am very ok with the Bills not giving up that many assets and coin for Mack given the fact that this team is no where near a Mack away from SB victory.

 

 

[DasNootz]

Mario was a FA that cost the Bills only obscene money...  Mack would have cost draft picks plus obscene money.  There's the difference.

[Royale with Cheese]

10 minutes ago, DasNootz said:

Mario was a FA that cost the Bills only obscene money...  Mack would have cost draft picks plus obscene money.  There's the difference.

 

I think that Beane was more worried about the draft capital than the contract.  I think he would have gladly paid and extended him.

[george c]

2 hours ago, BringBackOrton said:

I guess 31 teams make stupid moves every year because they don’t win Super Bowls.

Well not every team has the GOAT at QB..

And the 32 team that does win a lot of Superbowls (NE) may be the most refrained FA spender of the 32. In fact, they usually let their best, most potentially expensive cap killers walk.

Coincidence? 

Edited September 5, 2018 by George C

[StrikeParry]

10 hours ago, George C said:

...and lost. 

 

Although, I do agree with your post. The difference is that NE is the perfect team to sign someone like Mack because with Brady, Gronkowski and co., the are always ready, and the timing is always right with the GOAT on your team.

No such talent here..yet. 

He do “get it”. 

Obviously, McBeane gets it too..

 

Also, nothing like making a hypothetical response sound like fact... you know what they say about “assume”. We can assume the cap goes up in the same way we can assume injury to said player, and the sudden hole to fill without cap space for the position.

Pfff no Georgie. What you call an assumption I call a projection, based on historical data and trends. In actuality, my projection of the cap steadily rising is a conservative one. If anything, the cap will probably rise exponentially as new and bigger tv contracts get signed in the future. So no, daryl don’t get it and obviously neither do you. Weak.

[Jauronimo]

The Mario changed the narrative that no free agents will ever come to Buffalo and that Buffalo isn't serious about winning.  Mario put up double digit sacks 3 out of 4 years with 43 sacks in 4 seasons.  He single handedly beat the Packers.  Hes 34th all time in career sacks ahead of some names like Cam Wake, McGinest, Tamb Hali, Trent Cole.  But yeah, total bum.

 

TBD's ideal player is a high motor try hard with marginal NFL talent earning vet minimum who was selected in the 5th round of the draft or later.  The resentment for any player selected in the first rounds of the draft or making big guaranteed money is real.

 

 

Edited September 5, 2018 by Jauronimo

[george c]

37 minutes ago, StrikeParry said:

Pfff no Georgie. What you call an assumption I call a projection, based on historical data and trends. In actuality, my projection of the cap steadily rising is a conservative one. If anything, the cap will probably rise exponentially as new and bigger tv contracts get signed in the future. So no, daryl don’t get it and obviously neither do you. Weak.

.

 

You’re on Probation? 

Let me guess why..?

My “projection” from your “historical trends” are that you won’t be allowed to post in the near future. 

 

Edited September 5, 2018 by George C

[StrikeParry]

16 minutes ago, George C said:

.

 

You’re on Probation? 

Let me guess why..?

My “projection” from your “historical trends” are that you won’t be allowed to post in the near future. 

 

You don’t need to guess Georgie I will fill you in - all new accounts are on probation. Why won’t I be able to post? Because I opposed your opinion and you can’t handle it?  

10 hours ago, ddaryl said:

 

 

 

23.3 million a year average works out to about 13% of there salary cap but 90 million is guaranteed. SO one knee injury and that is a lot of coin wasted.. Lots of risk for team that was 5-11 last year and most likely has lots of holes. I have to claim ignorance here but I don't see a 5-11 Bears team becoming super bowl champs because of Mack. But now they are down 2 - 1st rd picks a 3rd and a 6th in the next 2 drafts so if it doesn't pan out they will be in dire straights for 5 or so seasons because of it.

 

I am very ok with the Bills not giving up that many assets and coin for Mack given the fact that this team is no where near a Mack away from SB victory.

 

 

13% over the life of the deal on average or 13% this year? Still less than the 25% or 33% you quoted earlier. 

 

I do respect you don’t want to give up those picks. In addition to the contract that is a steep price. I just disagree I think draft picks are lotto tickets for the most part and Mack’s proven value justifies it. Plus who knew you could wrench a 2nd rounder back from Oakland in addition to Mack?