ESPN Insider Chat

[Ramius]

You got that right! It makes complete sense. Put a solid OL on this team, firm up against the run, and we will march to the playoffs imo, even without the obligatory 1st round DB.

 

PS: I still support the franchise tag for London and keeping Kelsay if at all possible.

 

Tag deadlines were last thursday, so London is hitting FA.

[apuszczalowski]

Tag deadlines were last thursday, so London is hitting FA.

Unless like some said last week, London is wanting to re-sign and there is a deal being worked out right now for him

[Buftex]

I'm sure even Bill would agree that if it came down to Nate leaving and the Bills getting 2 decent OG's to shore up the lines over resigning Nate and living with Reyes Vilareal, and Gandy, he'd go lines

 

 

I would take signing good, solid, productive OG's over Clements as well, but, weren't the Bills "shoring up" the lines when they signed guys like Reys, Villareal and Gandy? It seems, from what Marv said, these are precisely the kind of free agents the Bills will be targeting.

 

Thirty-nine million dollars can get you a lot of players. There really isn't a reason (other than self-imposed monatary considerations from the owner) the Bills couldn't sign Kelsay, Clements and two servicable to good OG's (assuming those exist in this years FA market).

 

Like I said, it still reamains to be seen what the Bills will actually do, but, from what they have been saying, it doesn't sound like there is going to be a lot of excitement.

 

To me, the only possible positive that might come out of all of this, is that the Bills may be able to get something for Willis McGahee.

[Sen. John Blutarsky]

Our new MLB is already on the team. Either Crowell or Spikes are moving inside and Ellison, or HIS replacement are staying outside. Cover 2 OLBs are generally cheaper and fall later in the draft than standard 4-3 or 3-4 LBs because they are small. Fast, but small.

 

I think a problem with everyone who looks at our defense as being "gutted" is missing the point a bit. Yes there is enough cap space to re-sign guys but why spend 16 million on Clements and Fletcher if you already have Fletcher's replacement and Clements doesn't really fit what we do?

 

BTW: "lockdown" corners are really overrated. Name one lockdown corner from this year's Super Bowl. How about last year's? Hell, the Bills went to Super Bowls with Kirby Jackson and JD Williams at corner. Now, you can't have a traffic cone out there but if you can get after the QB with a good D-line (which also BTW stops the run) you can get away with lesser CBs. Did Charles Woodson make Oakland's defense 10 million better? His skills are (or were before he got hurt) similar to Clements'.

[Sen. John Blutarsky]

I would take signing good, solid, productive OG's over Clements as well, but, weren't the Bills "shoring up" the lines when they signed guys like Reys, Villareal and Gandy? It seems, from what Marv said, these are precisely the kind of free agents the Bills will be targeting.

Villarrial was fine his first year or two but he broke down physically (which is a big arguement against going long term with Fletcher), Gandy was miscast as a LT and he played much better at LG and I wouldn't be shocked to see him back there. Reyes I have no explanation for other than he was a RG who we asked to play LG and those positions are NOT interchangeable.

 

I'd like to see Steinbach or Dielman in here if the price is right but I wouldn't break the bank for either of them. Same with Petitgout, nice player, not great, would have to switch sides.

[Buftex]

Marv wants "character?" Who has more of it than Lee Evans (or so it would seem)? They should rip up his !@#$ contrat and lock him up. They should also do all they can to extend JP. I mean, why not? Marv is announcing the financial plans of the team, and in the next breath saying that he doesn't understand the cap.

 

GO BILLS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

 

I agree, I have been calling for them to work out a new deal with Lee Evans, since early last season. I am sold on JP as well (by the end of the season, him starting didn't make me nervous anymore), although I could understand a financially strapped team holding off until they are positive he is "the man".

 

Lee Evans though, is the one legit star on that offense...it seems if the Bills wanted to build off the good will of a better than expected season, they would approach Evans now...so they don't have to overpay later.

[Bill from NYC]

Tag deadlines were last thursday, so London is hitting FA.

 

Thanks, I missed that.

 

We could have kept him for another season, and let him walk in 08 with zero cap hit. Obviously, they have other plans. I hope it works out.

[Buftex]

Villarrial was fine his first year or two but he broke down physically (which is a big arguement against going long term with Fletcher), Gandy was miscast as a LT and he played much better at LG and I wouldn't be shocked to see him back there. Reyes I have no explanation for other than he was a RG who we asked to play LG and those positions are NOT interchangeable.

 

I'd like to see Steinbach or Dielman in here if the price is right but I wouldn't break the bank for either of them. Same with Petitgout, nice player, not great, would have to switch sides.

 

 

I completely agree. I wouldn't be upset to see Gandy, Reyes or Villareal back...it is just that some are justifying letting Clements go (I wouldn't re-sign Fletcher to a big deal either, much as I like him), by saying that we have other needs, and will go after players at those positions. If the Bills game plan is to go after bargains, they could address (though not necessarily solve) all of their needs, and still sign Clements, if they were not operating under their own self-imposed salary cap.

 

My point was, I have seen, or heard nothing to indicate that the Bills will even be interested in seriously pursuing upper tier OLinemen. This regim, and the previous one, seem to think they can find value in journeymen types, like Gandy and Reyes (I realize Villareal was a very good OG at one time), and would rather put their eggs in that basket, than risk "overpaying" anybody. It worked for the Patriots, so why not the Bills, seems to be the logic...

[obie_wan]

Our new MLB is already on the team. Either Crowell or Spikes are moving inside and Ellison, or HIS replacement are staying outside. Cover 2 OLBs are generally cheaper and fall later in the draft than standard 4-3 or 3-4 LBs because they are small. Fast, but small.

 

I think a problem with everyone who looks at our defense as being "gutted" is missing the point a bit. Yes there is enough cap space to re-sign guys but why spend 16 million on Clements and Fletcher if you already have Fletcher's replacement and Clements doesn't really fit what we do?

 

BTW: "lockdown" corners are really overrated. Name one lockdown corner from this year's Super Bowl. How about last year's? Hell, the Bills went to Super Bowls with Kirby Jackson and JD Williams at corner. Now, you can't have a traffic cone out there but if you can get after the QB with a good D-line (which also BTW stops the run) you can get away with lesser CBs. Did Charles Woodson make Oakland's defense 10 million better? His skills are (or were before he got hurt) similar to Clements'.

 

Spikes wasn't in pass coverage when he was healthy. Fantasy land to think he can play MLB in the cover 2 when he can't move.

 

Since the Bills can't afford to buy studs, they have to draft them.

 

Patrick Willis will be a stud and will do for the Bills what Urlacher does for Chicago.

[apuszczalowski]

I completely agree. I wouldn't be upset to see Gandy, Reyes or Villareal back...it is just that some are justifying letting Clements go (I wouldn't re-sign Fletcher to a big deal either, much as I like him), by saying that we have other needs, and will go after players at those positions. If the Bills game plan is to go after bargains, they could address (though not necessarily solve) all of their needs, and still sign Clements, if they were not operating under their own self-imposed salary cap.

My point was, I have seen, or heard nothing to indicate that the Bills will even be interested in seriously pursuing upper tier OLinemen. This regim, and the previous one, seem to think they can find value in journeymen types, like Gandy and Reyes (I realize Villareal was a very good OG at one time), and would rather put their eggs in that basket, than risk "overpaying" anybody. It worked for the Patriots, so why not the Bills, seems to be the logic...

Thats the key, and unfortunately, they are going to have to work under the self imposed cap until times are better.

[Lori]

Reyes I have no explanation for other than he was a RG who we asked to play LG and those positions are NOT interchangeable.

We still haven't heard the real story on Reyes. For them to not only bench him, but basically tell him not to bother showing up for work by the end of the year, there has to be something else going on. Dunno whether it's locker-room friction, the 'family situation' that Jauron mentioned when excusing him from practice, or some combination thereof...

[apuszczalowski]

We still haven't heard the real story on Reyes. For them to not only bench him, but basically tell him not to bother showing up for work by the end of the year, there has to be something else going on. Dunno whether it's locker-room friction, the 'family situation' that Jauron mentioned when excusing him from practice, or some combination thereof...

it seems like the Reyes situation is more of "Off Field Problems" rather then production on field. He was not bad enough on the field to warrant being benched for the rest of the year, so I tend to believe he had issues with the team and in the lockerroom. I believe the one knock on him was that he was lazy and did not give 100% all the time

[Sen. John Blutarsky]

Spikes wasn't in pass coverage when he was healthy. Fantasy land to think he can play MLB in the cover 2 when he can't move.

 

Since the Bills can't afford to buy studs, they have to draft them.

 

Patrick Willis will be a stud and will do for the Bills what Urlacher does for Chicago.

Which is why I said either Crowell or Spikes. I think Crowell is more likely but Spikes is possible. Doesn't change the situation either way.

 

Also, "Stud" Patrick Willis got straight up owned at the Senior Bowl so I'm not willing to refer to him in the same volume of literature as Brian Urlacher. Repeatedly walled off and knocked backwards, didn't make one impact defensive play the entire game. Admittedly he didn't play every down but if he were that obvious a "stud" at LB you'd expect him to come up with at least one play against other future rookies. I saw him doing what Fletcher does now, making tackles downfield, getting driven backward by RBs but running side to side well. I was underwhelmed at best.

[Orton's Arm]

Okay. I'm confused.

 

Do we get more cap dollars over the years if we do big prorated bonuses now? Or does not prorating crazy bonuses give us flexibility and more cap room in future years? Are we being blamed for not taking advantage of a loophole that let's us spend more now but forces less later (when prorated bonuses force us into cutting players and having less to spend). I don't see how not mortgage our future is a bad business decision, and I think it instead is a strategy that will allow us to be MORE competitive year in year out.

. . .

In the words of Stephen Colbert....Tell me where I'm wrong....

There are two ways you can employ a "cash to the cap" philosophy. With Method A, you try to minimize the amount of signing bonuses paid out, and you give very high first contract-year base salaries instead. A player signed under Method A would have a very high cap hit his first and sometimes second years, and a much lower cap hit in subsequent years. The idea behind Method A is that if you know you'll have $30 million in unused salary cap space for the upcoming year, you may as well restructure players' salaries in order to move much of their salary cap hit from later years to the upcoming year. When Antoine Winfield signed with the Vikings, they had a lot of unused cap space. They gave him a very high base salary his first year--taking a large cap hit right away, and a smaller hit in subsequent years.

 

Then there's Method B. If Method A's objective is to free up cap space for future years, Method B's objective is to allow the owner to spend less money. Once again, consider a team with $30 million of unused cap space. This team signs some guy to a five year contract with a $25 million bonus and a base salary of $2 million for the first year. This contract only creates a $7 million hit against the real cap (1/5 of $5 million, plus the $2 million in base salary). But in cash-to-the-cap eyes, it's a $27 million contract, because that's the amount of cash that was paid out. The difference between the real cap figure ($7 million) and the cash to the cap figure ($27 million) means that for the upcoming season, the team will have $20 million in unused salary cap space. That space isn't helping you build for the future. It's just sitting there, unused, and at the end of the year it goes away.

 

If a team is far below the NFL's real salary cap, and if that team watches high priced free agents slip through its fingers due to financial concerns, it's a pretty good indicator the team is using Method B. Method B is designed to save the owner money; not necessarily to win as many football games as possible.

[MadBuffaloDisease]

We still haven't heard the real story on Reyes. For them to not only bench him, but basically tell him not to bother showing up for work by the end of the year, there has to be something else going on. Dunno whether it's locker-room friction, the 'family situation' that Jauron mentioned when excusing him from practice, or some combination thereof...

I heard that, like Willis, Reyes didn't study the playbook.

[Lori]

I heard that, like Willis, Reyes didn't study the playbook.

Thinking it was Gandy who supposedly voiced his displeasure re:Reyes' work ethic, not long before King Tut was benched?

[MadBuffaloDisease]

Thinking it was Gandy who supposedly voiced his displeasure re:Reyes' work ethic, not long before King Tut was benched?

Ayup. The report was that Gandy saw what a slug Tuts was and asked to be moved inside to LG, for the good of the team. Doesn't make sense since Gandy stood to lose a lot of money going from LT to LG, but stranger things have happened.

[Orton's Arm]

Ayup. The report was that Gandy saw what a slug Tuts was and asked to be moved inside to LG, for the good of the team. Doesn't make sense since Gandy stood to lose a lot of money going from LT to LG, but stranger things have happened.

Maybe Gandy figured he'd earn more as an average guard than as a below-average LT.

[Koufax]

There are two ways you can employ a "cash to the cap" philosophy. With Method A, you try to minimize the amount of signing bonuses paid out, and you give very high first contract-year base salaries instead. A player signed under Method A would have a very high cap hit his first and sometimes second years, and a much lower cap hit in subsequent years. The idea behind Method A is that if you know you'll have $30 million in unused salary cap space for the upcoming year, you may as well restructure players' salaries in order to move much of their salary cap hit from later years to the upcoming year. When Antoine Winfield signed with the Vikings, they had a lot of unused cap space. They gave him a very high base salary his first year--taking a large cap hit right away, and a smaller hit in subsequent years.

 

Then there's Method B. If Method A's objective is to free up cap space for future years, Method B's objective is to allow the owner to spend less money. Once again, consider a team with $30 million of unused cap space. This team signs some guy to a five year contract with a $25 million bonus and a base salary of $2 million for the first year. This contract only creates a $7 million hit against the real cap (1/5 of $5 million, plus the $2 million in base salary). But in cash-to-the-cap eyes, it's a $27 million contract, because that's the amount of cash that was paid out. The difference between the real cap figure ($7 million) and the cash to the cap figure ($27 million) means that for the upcoming season, the team will have $20 million in unused salary cap space. That space isn't helping you build for the future. It's just sitting there, unused, and at the end of the year it goes away.

 

If a team is far below the NFL's real salary cap, and if that team watches high priced free agents slip through its fingers due to financial concerns, it's a pretty good indicator the team is using Method B. Method B is designed to save the owner money; not necessarily to win as many football games as possible.

 

Okay. But in your Method B the $25 million paid this year in a bonus would be spread over the cap for five years by rule? It couldn't be counted all $25 million this year, meaning the team has more space the following year? I guess I'm confused on what the "rules" are for signing bonus proration vs the "option" a team has.

 

With the example $25 million bonus there are three things to determine, and I'm not sure what the flexibility and choice is for each:

 

#1) When the player gets paid the cash

#2) How the cash counts against the cap over the years

#3) How the cash counts in the owners imaginary budget

 

We know Ralph is going to say that all of the bonus is this year for #3. But is #2 determined by rules, or can a team decide between counting it all this year vs spreading it for either #1 or #2? Are #1 and #2 linked to each other or does changing one not necessarily change the other?

 

I'm pretty sure there is a healthy dose of Ralph being cheap when the dust settles, but there also seems a healthy dose of smart future planning and avoiding getting into bad situations a couple years after a signing. Without guaranteed contracts this might not be as big as the bad deals are in baseball, but would seem to have its advantages. Maybe we can be smarter and better for it. But I hate the thought of a Billionaire penny pinching and not trying to win one before he passes away.

[MadBuffaloDisease]

Maybe Gandy figured he'd earn more as an average guard than as a below-average LT.

That's the only thing I could come up with myself, but it's a big risk as well.