One Bills Live May 5 .. Beane is in the Shopping Market ..

[Thurman#1]

9 hours ago, DCofNC said:

All the more reason they needed to guarantee the inflated salary of Edmunds.  That Beane, what a wizard.

 

 

Correct. They do indeed need to pick up the option on one of their better players, a two-time Pro Bowler, which is why they did it.

 

He is a wizard, but this decision didn't require a wizard. Anybody who was even halfway-smart would have done something to keep Edmunds.

 

4 hours ago, billybrew1 said:

The saints were competing for Super Bowls for ten years. It wasn't until Bress retired that they decided to let the cap catch up to them.

 

 

Not really.

 

The cap constrained them some every year. They were prevented year after year from doing some of the things that made sense.

 

People say that GMs "work magic" with the cap. They don't. What they do is basically completely analogous to putting more of your expenses on your credit card. Which then limits how much you can spend next month. When next month gets here, you can't spend as much. Yes, if you've paid a bit off you can still charge yet more to the next month. But there's a limit. Keep your credit debt near the credit limit and you absolutely will be forced to make compromises.

 

Yeah, the Saints were always able to field a full team, and yeah they could do a few things each year by kicking cans downwind. But that was a team that did an excellent job drafting and yet only got over the hump once with one of the greatest QBs in the modern game. Their cap problems were a real part of that.

 

If you're just about at your credit limit on your cards, you're still not going to starve to death. But yeah, you'll be in line at the supermarket aiming at buying the foods you want and when you get declined, you'll end up buying ramen instead of chicken filet. You won't die, but what you can do will be greatly constrained.

 

Same with teams and the cap.

 

 

Edited May 6, 2021 by Thurman#1

[Doc Brown]

7 hours ago, AmishRifle said:

I thought the most interesting comments were at the end when Tasker jokingly asked him if he'd cut a player to hit a certain "vaccinated player/coach" ratio in order to loosen the COVID 19 restrictions....Beane answered emphatically "yes."  From the sounds of it they are still working through this season's protocols and there will be some leniency provided to teams that reach a certain % of vaccinations.  Beane detailed some of the challenges that social distancing posed in their ability to hold meetings and were especially impactful to their facilities.  Will be interesting to see how it all plays out.  They also pointed out that the State of New York is allowing full capacity for MLB stadiums to vaccinated ticket holders.  More positive signs for the upcoming season.

A message to the fringe players to get vaccinated.  Smart.  Really.

[Thurman#1]

1 minute ago, Doc Brown said:

A message to the fringe players to get vaccinated.  Smart.  Really.

 

 

Yes. Love it!

12 hours ago, Aussie Joe said:

Allens 5th year option is $23m in 2022

 

He might sign a new deal in the meantime but doubt that cap hit increases ...

 

 

Yeah.

[machine gun kelly]

Well, there’s $3 mil. Or so now, and only $11.2 mil. if it goes up to $203-4 mil., as has been projected by some.  The year after some say it should be around $225 mil., and that is what it would’ve been if we didn’t have the pandemic.  2024 is when we really will see a big jump to $255 mil., or so.  After the cap will keep exploding for years to come outside of some catastrophe like this past year.

 

I can see contract extensions structured to take advantage of those years beyond.  This is why I’m not that concerned with Allen and Edmunds extensions.  Diggs already was given some $ up to $14 mil., so I can se them waiting a year or so before we see that one happening.  It’s just MGK speculation so what do I know (sorry for the Jimmy third party talk - Seinfeld).

[mjt328]

7 hours ago, billybrew1 said:

The saints were competing for Super Bowls for ten years. It wasn't until Bress retired that they decided to let the cap catch up to them.

 

People don't remember the players the Saints were forced to let go, because they have done such an excellent job drafting.

That's the only reason it took so long for the salary cap to totally catch-up.

 

Just look at the receiving weapons for Drew Brees.  The year they went to the Super Bowl, their main guys were Marques Colston/Devery Henderson/Robert Meachem/Lance Moore.  The only guy who really got paid from that group was Colston.  As the other guys started leaving or fading off, Jimmy Graham developed into a top tight end and replaced that production.  Before the Saints got into cap trouble with Graham, they traded him away to the Seahawks.  They never missed him either, because that's when Brandin Cooks stepped up on the outside.  Then instead of paying Cooks, they traded him away too and suddenly Michael Thomas became the main target.  

 

Outside of Brees and Cam Jordan, the Saints have mostly been a revolving door for the last 10 years.  

 

 

 

[Hapless Bills Fan]

15 hours ago, jeremy2020 said:

 

Any deal he signs would be an 'extension' just like Mahomes (As you said, his cap hit will $23m in 2022). Not sure why so many people think Allen "new deal" voids years on his existing deal, but it seems to be a common misconception. 

 

If you go to spotrac and look at the contracts of players whose 5th year options were exercised but who signed new extensions, you will see that their cap hit is uniformly less than their 5th year option.  Tre White would be an example on the Bills.

 

It's not a misconception.  When a player signs an extension, the terms of the extension will dictate when it takes place.  For example, Poyer signed an extension when he was under contract for a year, and the extension superceded the contract and got him paid more money immediately.  Same thing when Shady McCoy was traded to us. 

[Hapless Bills Fan]

12 hours ago, LEBills said:

That was most interesting to me as well and something I would have expected him to side step without answering.

 

Yeah, I was PM'ing about vaccines with a chap and the question came up, how will the NFLPA feel about this?

 

On the one hand, if two backup or practice squad players have roughly equal skill or potential but one player contributes to the team easing covid-19 restrictions while another player does not, the former guy is clearly more valuable to the team.

 

On the other hand, it arguably skirts pretty close to the team requiring vaccines as a condition of employment, which the NFL and NFLPA agreed would not occur.

 

On the gripping hand, if the NFL says over a certain % vaccinated restrictions on in-person meetings, weight facility use, and other stuff can be eased, that's a pretty clear competitive advantage.

 

I'm sure all 32 GMs feel the same way as Beane expressed, but I agree, it might have been wiser to side step.  Beane is a straight shooter though.

 

 

 

[Dr. K]

15 hours ago, AmishRifle said:

I thought the most interesting comments were at the end when Tasker jokingly asked him if he'd cut a player to hit a certain "vaccinated player/coach" ratio in order to loosen the COVID 19 restrictions....Beane answered emphatically "yes."  From the sounds of it they are still working through this season's protocols and there will be some leniency provided to teams that reach a certain % of vaccinations.  Beane detailed some of the challenges that social distancing posed in their ability to hold meetings and were especially impactful to their facilities.  Will be interesting to see how it all plays out.  They also pointed out that the State of New York is allowing full capacity for MLB stadiums to vaccinated ticket holders.  More positive signs for the upcoming season.

Any player who does not get vaccinated is doing a disservice to the entire team. At the very least it will prevent the team preparation from functioning as smoothly as it could, and at worst, if they come down with COVID, unnecessarily deprive the team of their services as much as if they had gotten injured. In a private message with me, another fan pointed out, "If the player gets covid they could have long-term pulmonary or cardiac effects making them less valuable to the team even after they return."

 

People have the right to make their own choices. A star like Josh Allen could get away with it—they're not going to cut him over his refusing vaccination—but in my opinion it would be a mark against him as a teammate.

 

And for what?

Edited May 6, 2021 by Dr. K

[T master]

Given what we know about Beane that comes as no surprise to me the man is always looking to better the team & if nothing else create competition to try and motivate players to give everything they have while they are in practice to make the team as good as they can be .

[Jay_Fixit]

18 hours ago, BuffBillsForLife said:

The Bills have very, very, VERY limited cap space and unless the cap increases massively next year (30m+) we're going to have issues getting Allen's extension on the books without it being a slaughter.  Diggs is also ripe for a big extension.

Or just let them worry about it.

[LEBills]

59 minutes ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

 

Yeah, I was PM'ing about vaccines with a chap and the question came up, how will the NFLPA feel about this?

 

On the one hand, if two backup or practice squad players have roughly equal skill or potential but one player contributes to the team easing covid-19 restrictions while another player does not, the former guy is clearly more valuable to the team.

 

On the other hand, it arguably skirts pretty close to the team requiring vaccines as a condition of employment, which the NFL and NFLPA agreed would not occur.

 

On the gripping hand, if the NFL says over a certain % vaccinated restrictions on in-person meetings, weight facility use, and other stuff can be eased, that's a pretty clear competitive advantage.

 

I'm sure all 32 GMs feel the same way as Beane expressed, but I agree, it might have been wiser to side step.  Beane is a straight shooter though.

 

 

 

I think it will be ok because I doubt everyone who makes the team will be vaccinated so it will show the Bills are not excluding non-vaxed people from employment.

 

This will only affect the fringe guys and cutting a few can be explained away as going with who they thought was the better player. But it does potentially open them up for a grievance (which like I said probably could not be supported). But those comments may be more headache than they were worth in the long run.

But it was certainly an honest moment that really shows Beane’s thinking regarding our team and really underscores how calculated our rise to success has been by doing all the little things to be as competitive as possible.

[Saxum]

10 hours ago, Doc Brown said:

A message to the fringe players to get vaccinated.  Smart.  Really.

 

Even some non-fringe players.  If player comes in and says something like "I do not plan on getting vaccinated ever" player may end up on trading block.  Some agents may try to force trades that way but unlikely unless they were dissatisfied with playing time despite large salary like Quittin' Spain especially this year.

[Doc Brown]

2 hours ago, Limeaid said:

 

Even some non-fringe players.  If player comes in and says something like "I do not plan on getting vaccinated ever" player may end up on trading block.  Some agents may try to force trades that way but unlikely unless they were dissatisfied with playing time despite large salary like Quittin' Spain especially this year.

Maybe.  You'd have to find a trade partner willing to deal with that player though.  The league seems to be doing everything possible right now for those who don't get the vaccine to make life as uncomfortable to them as possible.  Getting tested once a week > Getting tested daily.  That along with peer pressure makes me think at least 95% of players will get vaccinated.

[YoloinOhio]

2 hours ago, Limeaid said:

 

Even some non-fringe players.  If player comes in and says something like "I do not plan on getting vaccinated ever" player may end up on trading block.  Some agents may try to force trades that way but unlikely unless they were dissatisfied with playing time despite large salary like Quittin' Spain especially this year.

Beane said he would do it to ensure he has a competitive advantage, which he feels he would not have if his team didn’t reach the percentage needed to operate as “normal” and discussed how difficult it was with the constant testing, social distancing in meetings, masks, etc. Not every player needs to be vaccinated, just a certain percentage. If a starter for example doesn’t get vaccinated, and it would be a competitive disadvantage to not have this starter on the team, he’s not cutting or trading that player. But if they need to reach the percentage that the league has laid out there in order to move to normal team operations and there are unvaccinated guys who are “replaceable” - he sees it as a real option to go that route. 

[DJB]

I hope he's in the market for a MLB

 

[Einstein's Dog]

6 hours ago, LEBills said:

This will only affect the fringe guys and cutting a few can be explained away as going with who they thought was the better player. But it does potentially open them up for a grievance (which like I said probably could not be supported). But those comments may be more headache than they were worth in the long run.

But it was certainly an honest moment that really shows Beane’s thinking regarding our team and really underscores how calculated our rise to success has been by doing all the little things to be as competitive as possible.

Or the comments may provide a large benefit.  

 

This message was crystal clear, management is pro vaccination.  Even starters who want to get in line with the Bills culture, know what to do now.  The previous message coming from Josh was wishy-washy.

 

So, while Beane may risk some type of grievance penalty, he may have snuffed out any limitations on practices by ensuring vaccination percentage compliance.  We'll never know for sure.

[LEBills]

21 hours ago, Einstein's Dog said:

Or the comments may provide a large benefit.  

 

This message was crystal clear, management is pro vaccination.  Even starters who want to get in line with the Bills culture, know what to do now.  The previous message coming from Josh was wishy-washy.

 

So, while Beane may risk some type of grievance penalty, he may have snuffed out any limitations on practices by ensuring vaccination percentage compliance.  We'll never know for sure.

This is what I meant about the comments being a nuisance for him in the future. No big deal but I would have been surprised if the NFL didn’t say something 

 

https://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/31405722/buffalo-bills-gm-brandon-beane-gets-nfl-call-hypothetical-cutting-unvaccinated-player-source-says

[TheFunPolice]

How could a guy on the bubble prove that he was cut because he wasn't vaccinated?

 

[Einstein's Dog]

29 minutes ago, LEBills said:

This is what I meant about the comments being a nuisance for him in the future. No big deal but I would have been surprised if the NFL didn’t say something 

 

https://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/31405722/buffalo-bills-gm-brandon-beane-gets-nfl-call-hypothetical-cutting-unvaccinated-player-source-says

But what you said was "these comments may be more headache than they were worth in the long run".

 

IMO, if this is all he gets, a call from the office, it looks well worth it.   Beane made it very clear what the front office wants.  Doesn't have to (and won't) say it again. 

 

We now need to wait to see if the Bills hit the vaccination rate needed for the relaxed restrictions (as I now suspect they will).

[Einstein's Dog]

My fearless forecast is that the next interview with Josh there will be a blurb that Josh has been vaccinated.  

 

It's what a leader would do.  If he wants to get the best environment for his team to practice in, they need to meet this goal.  He sets an example.  It would show Josh is doing this for the team and others should follow suit.