How to fix the Bills in 3 moves.....

[MDH]

Thx for the reply.  I was aware of the cap working that way but as you said in the first line, its mortgaging the future.  Although, as you said, you can load up a little for the present by doing this.

546386[/snapback]

 

There's also a method that the Eagles have used to great success in which they do end up with a higher cap figure than the league sets. I don't recall the specifics of it though.

[Adam]

I'm more for signing Bentley, and moving Williams to RG if he takes a pay cut- he is more comfortable on the right side- and trust me, switching sides made him think more than attac this year.

 

Let Adams go, and draft Ngata from Oregon- Bannan and Anderson have played very well.

 

Let Clements go- franchse him and pull another Peerless Price deal if possible. I like King and McGee if we blitz less, and play more cover 2 zone

[The Jokeman]

It's not only a matter of the cap (the cap can always be fudged to get guys under), it's a matter of RW springing for 2 of the best (if not THE best) OL in FA this year along with the best CB in FA.  That just isn't going to happen, the Bills are not going to be able to outbid the rest of the league on the two best OL in FA.

546283[/snapback]

Especially when you consider the top free agent OG last year got a deal of five years worth about $25 million.

 

In terms of this offseason, I think the best plan of attack is to re-sign and keep Nate, even if it means franchising him, as I don't like the idea of McGee and King/Greer as my starting 2 CBs. Although we could draft a CB with our 1st Round pick, I'd much rather use it on the best available lineman, who I currently rate as OT Eric Winston. I would then move Gandy to LG and start Preston at C in 2006.

 

I would also try to sign a quality DT, cap permitting as don't think we're going to have a tons of money as think the only we can keep Nate is by franchising him. Maake Kemoeatu isn't a bad choice but I prefer a guy like Ryan Pickett, who I think is a better all around player. Though in doing so we might not have enough cap room if let go of Eric Moulds, who I think be important replacing with veteran like David Givens or Antonio Bryant. Then I would look to draft a DT in Round 2, guys on my list include Gabe Watson, O'rien Harris or Babtunde Oshinowo (who might be available later).

 

In terms of franching Nate, we could do one of two things. Sign him to a one year contract and hope to draft his eventual replacement with one of our Round 3 picks. One guy who could fall that far but has the talent to replace Nate is Will Blackmon of Boston College. He moved to WR this season and did pretty well but think he'd be more valuable as CB in the NFL and be ideal as we could use 2006 to get him to get reaccustomed to playing nickel/dime CB and then start him in 2007 which allow us to franchise Nate again and then trade him. Another CB that could be had in the 3rd that has the skills to be a successor to Nate is Anwar Phillips of Penn State. That said if sign Nate to a long term contract then there's no need to draft a CB, I'd then advise letting go of Troy Vincent or Lawyer Milloy and take a S with one of our 3rds and then take the best available athlete with our second 3rd rounder.

[John from Riverside]

On D-

 

Adams wants to play rush tackle.  Hovan is a rush tackle...Pat Williams strength was that he took pride in taking up two guys every play to free Fletch and TKO to make plays.  We need another T like Pat Williams.  Ryan Pickett with the extra weight will cost about the same as Hovan and probably be a better fit.  Grady Jackson is older and probably has some physical issues because of his weight, but I also think he would be a better fit.  If we can get another "double every play" DT in here--I think our LB corps as is will be superior...

 

I would franchise Clements and see what kind of offers you get for him.  The franchise fee for a corner dropping to around $5.5 million is a huge strategic win for the Bills in this case.  Let Clements's agent test the market under the franchise tag--come back with offers for trades and contracts that the Bills can ponder.

 

I still want a rush end to go with Kelsay and Schobel--there are several veterans and draftees to look at..I think we lose Denny in the free agent market--which to me is too bad...I think he has been steadily improving and hate to see him go. 

 

On O

 

I know a lot of folks want to blow up the entire OL and start over.  I still believe shoring up the C position will go a long way toward improving this line.  I would lean toward Bentley--Also its somewhat easier for an interior OL with skill to make the College to pro adjustment than an exterior --so I would draft a stud G in the first three rounds who can also compete right away (there seem to be a plethora of those in the draft) and then rely on Gandy and Peters at T again but also draft a T in the first 3 rounds knowing that he will need a year to develop.  Rip me for only wanting to make one immediate certain change--but I think this will make a huge difference--and spend some draft capital on the future.

 

Skill position wise...I would make Moulds a Bill for one more year...if we can get $1 million in cap savings from him by cutting his base the max and giving him additional money up front..do it.  The guy still has skill. 

 

We probably lose Josh Reed whose agent will go after a number 2 role somewhere else.  Worst case if we lose both Reed and Moulds--there are plenty of veterans out on the Free Agent market this year--but we have to get something out of the diminutive one (#11) next year....

 

Specific to the draft...

 

I think we need:

 

OT, OG, DT, DE, TE, RB, WR, S, CB in some order...all positions can stand to have some competition--With obvious deference to the lines in the first two rounds--after that draft for value....WE NEED TO DRAFT FOR NEED THIS YEAR in the first two rounds....and that NEED is both lines..

546284[/snapback]

 

 

Very good point on the Hovan/Adams thought......we dont need a pass rushing DT because we already have that in adams....what we need is a space eating "anchor" DT who will allow Adams to freelance and not have to worry about staying at home......

 

It appalls me that our mgt did not see this coming this year with the Pat W. going elsewhere......Gabe Watson?

[In space no one can hear]

wait, so you want us to sign nate clements, steve hutchinson, lecharles bentley, and chris hovan....... this isnt the new york yankees. i dont think we can do that and even if we could, where is the money going to come from to sign our top 10 draft pick? we have to reserve at least 5 million for the picks.

546268[/snapback]

 

 

We can't afford too sign both Hutchinson and Bentley.

 

It's is just another posters' fantasy......

[sven233]

You can do it.....no fantasy. If that is what you wanted to do, you could. I along with others have shown that it can be done in these posts.

 

Will it happen? Probably not. So, in a way it is fantasy, but not for the reasons of money. You can always make it happen.

[ATBNG]

You can do it.....no fantasy.  If that is what you wanted to do, you could.  I along with others have shown that it can be done in these posts. 

 

Will it happen?  Probably not.  So, in a way it is fantasy, but not for the reasons of money. You can always make it happen.

546518[/snapback]

 

Actually, no you can't. If say Hutchinson would never come to Buffalo under any circumstances, then nothing the Bills could do could "make it happen." A free agent has that freedom. I hate when people claim teams "could have signed a free agent." Not always - contracts are a two way street.

 

Practically, one should also propose where to cut the fat when advocating big free agent signings.

 

Someone earlier in the thread said RW isn't a factor. Well, of course he is. The cap will be 96 million or something like that as will the Buffalo cap charges, but his out of pocket expenditures can vary wildly from that depending on how much of the year's payroll is allocated between bonuses, past bonuses and salary.

 

Bonus money is indeed paid up front, so if you want to get great players for a small 2006 cap hit, you're looking at RW shelling out 10-15 million dollar bonuses. For instance, you could get a guy at 25 million, 5 years, 10 million dollar bonus, escalating salaries from 1 million to 5 million. That contract would cost Buffalo 3 million against the cap in 2006, but would cost Wilson 11 million in 2006.

[Greybeard]

Someone earlier in the thread said RW isn't a factor. Well, of course he is. The cap will be 96 million or something like that as will the Buffalo cap charges, but his out of pocket expenditures can vary wildly from that depending on how much of the year's payroll is allocated between bonuses, past bonuses and salary.

 

Bonus money is indeed paid up front, so if you want to get great players for a small 2006 cap hit, you're looking at RW shelling out 10-15 million dollar bonuses. For instance, you could get a guy at 25 million, 5 years, 10 million dollar bonus, escalating salaries from 1 million to 5 million. That contract would cost Buffalo 3 million against the cap in 2006, but would cost Wilson 11 million in 2006.

546522[/snapback]

 

 

That would probably be me. And I still don't think RW is an issue. The real issue is pay me now or pay me later.

 

If you say it cost RW in interest because he is paying now for future use, I agree. But I would be willing to bet the interest isn't viewed as a big issue. It is TD's responsibility as a cost to the Bills. It makes it harder to keep them profitable. TD's focus is on the cap, not on the interest, even though he has to account for the bottom line.

 

In the end, bonus money has to be paid off to balance the cap. All that dead cap space the Bills can't spend now is because it was already spent and but still has to be accounted for.

 

If money is such a big issue to RW, he could just as well tell TD not to spend to the cap number. From posts here, I believe there are teams that do this.

[ATBNG]

That would probably be me.  And I still don't think RW is an issue.  The real issue is pay me now or pay me later.

 

If you say it cost RW in interest because he is paying now for future use, I agree.  But I would be willing to bet the interest isn't viewed as a big issue.  It is TD's responsibility as a cost to the Bills.  It makes it harder to keep them profitable. TD's  focus is on the cap, not on the interest, even though he has to account for the bottom line.   

 

In the end, bonus money has to be paid off to balance the cap.  All that dead cap space the Bills can't spend now is because it was already spent and but still has to be accounted for.

 

If money is such a big issue to RW, he could just as well tell TD not to spend to the cap number.  From posts here, I believe there are teams that do this.

546615[/snapback]

 

It's not interest. It's real dollars.

 

Let's look at this a little closer.

 

For the sake of argument, let's say the Bills cap was 65 million in 2001, and 85 million this year, increasing 5 million a year.

 

The cap charges probably were very close to 65, 70, 75, 80, 85.

 

Now the actual money paid out can fluctuate. Ultimately, every dollar needs to be accounted for, but by using bonuses you can stagger cap payments with money up front.

 

Let's say they signed four big free agents in 2002, and none in 2003. Due to those four bonuses paid up front in 2002, cap-staggered through the life of the contract but actually paid up front, their real dollar spending might look like this:

 

62, 102, 55, 70, 86.

 

Now, you can do this...but the owner does have to come up with the 102 in 2002. The owner might not be willing to do that. His projected revenue might only be 75 million and he may not be willing to put himself or his business 27 million in the red. Saying that you don't think Wilson is an issue is preposterous. Every business person from a lemonade salesman to a pro football owner lives and dies by revenues and costs.

 

On your last point, how do you think the fans would react if Wilson didn't spend to the cap? Think that would be a revenue neutral decision?

[/dev/null]

Phase I: Steal Underpants

Phase II: ???

Phase III: Super Bowl

[sven233]

OK, I'm sorry I wasn't clear. IF all these player WANTED to come here, this could be done easliy. I was referring to the specific fact that the actual $ could be fudged and fixed under the cap. That is all I was saying.

 

Who knows whether or not they want to come here. I don't. Nobody does. But what I am saying is that if they wanted to, you could fit them into the cap.

[Bill from NYC]

IMHO, Adams is done. He was brought in for the short term. He makes little effort. I do not see him on the roster next year.

546343[/snapback]

I hope you are right.

[Greybeard]

It's not interest. It's real dollars.

 

Let's look at this a little closer.

 

For the sake of argument, let's say the Bills cap was 65 million in 2001, and 85 million this year, increasing 5 million a year.

 

The cap charges probably were very close to 65, 70, 75, 80, 85.

 

Now the actual money paid out can fluctuate. Ultimately, every dollar needs to be accounted for, but by using bonuses you can stagger cap payments with money up front.

 

Let's say they signed four big free agents in 2002, and none in 2003. Due to those four bonuses paid up front in 2002, cap-staggered through the life of the contract but actually paid up front, their real dollar spending might look like this:

 

62, 102, 55, 70, 86.

 

Now, you can do this...but the owner does have to come up with the 102 in 2002. The owner might not be willing to do that. His projected revenue might only be 75 million and he may not be willing to put himself or his business 27 million in the red. Saying that you don't think Wilson is an issue is preposterous. Every business person from a lemonade salesman to a pro football owner lives and dies by revenues and costs.

 

On your last point, how do you think the fans would react if Wilson didn't spend to the cap? Think that would be a revenue neutral decision?

546659[/snapback]

 

I agree with everything you said. It does cost him real money. The way I thought of it, assuming the team is at least a break even investment every year, is in the year he spends 102M, he borrows the 32Mil. The next year when he is 20 under, he pays back part of the loan as he will in the future with the under cap spending. So net to the organization, he loses the interest paid on the extra money he spent the second year.

 

I also agree that RW would be aware of net spending/profitability as the owner of any business would. But I believe as long as he doesn't lose money, he is not uncomfortable with spending it. Although that only goes so far as he is comfortable about future income flow.

 

And I wasn't suggesting he underspend. You are so very right about what the reaction would be. If Ralph is thought to be cheap now, by some, I could only imagine the reaction if they didn't go all out to win by underspending.

 

In part I thought there was something I did not understand about how the cap works and there may yet be something. But what really got me was injecting RW into the equation. This is an overreaction on my part but everytime I see Ralph mentioned with money I assume it is a veiled suggestion that he is cheap. For some reason I always over react when I see this. And I do understand, the original post I replied to, in no way called RW cheap. The problem was not the post but me.

 

I guess I am just oversensitive to comments about RW, real or not. Although I will admit, in the 60's he did not want to pay premium dollars for the football team.

 

And I appreciate the effort you took putting dollar amounts on everything. It does make it easy to see.