Jump to content

Thurman#1

Community Member
  • Posts

    14,890
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

Thurman#1's Achievements

All Pro

All Pro (7/8)

4.5k

Reputation

  1. Your question has already been addressed, and very well. But if I can kick in another few words? Take a look at a specific example that's real. Connor McGovern got void years. Go look at his Spotrac page. https://www.spotrac.com/nfl/buffalo-bills/connor-mcgovern-29126/ If you take a look at the top, you'll see that the contract terns say, "3 yr(s) / $22,350,000". So the total amount of the contract is $22,350,000. 2026 is the first void year, 2025 the last real year. So go look at the table, and near the right side you'll find a column labelled "Yearly Cash." That tells how much actual cash the player will actually receive that year. And Spotrac keeps a running count on how much has been spent total. If you look in the Yearly Cash column for the year 2025, the figure in parentheses gives you the total the Bills will have given to McGovern in cash by the end of the 2025 season (assuming he plays with us through 2025). That total is $22,350,000. He will have received all of his money by the end of the real contract. The figures in that table for the void years are only already-paid bonuses that have not yet been amortized on the cap. They have nothing to do with real cash money still being paid at that point, and everything to do with cap money.
  2. Not 100% sure what that sentence means, but you seem (to me) to be saying that void years are beneficial to the cap. They are not. Total overall cap will be the same. They are just another way of improving THIS YEAR'S CAP by borrowing from future cap years. It's not improving the cap. It's making this year's cap figure better, while making future years cap figures worse by the same amount. Once the actual cash has been paid, it MUST be accounted for against the cap. Once you've paid a signing bonus, a roster bonus, an option bonus, whatever there's no way to avoid the entire amount of that bonus from being charged against the cap. There are only ways to borrow from future years. This is just a way to take money actually paid one year and have some of it hit the cap later.
  3. Seventh in yards allowed, despite being consistently put in awful positions by their awful offense. 5th in defensive DVOA. They're absolutely good to great on defense. Maybe closer to good than great, but probably closer to very good than good.
  4. Yeah, it's possible, and not barely possible. An awful lot will depend on the QB. With Cousins, very possible. Me, I'd rather see them bring in Cousins than draft a guy and do a good job with the pick.
  5. IMO they've been traits guys with production. Not elite production, not after #25, but production. Kincaid had 510 yards and 8TDs in '21 and 890 and 8 more in '22. That's serious production for a TE. Elam didn't have a ton of INTs in college by any means but he started and performed very well for two years. I even think it's true of Rousseau despite his missing out on his senior year because of COVID. 15.5 sacks in what should have been his second-last season, and really solid play. Epenesa produced. You're right that they go for traits early, but not traits without production, I would argue.
  6. It really isn't. It could very well be a pass. But it isn't easy. IMO he's not the Bills type at edge, although his build is Vonnish. We tend to draft long guys who can play the run as well. Which does tend to leave us a team without pass-rushing freaks. My guess is he's a part of the four to six guys they'd consider if they're not moving up or back. Maybe not, but maybe. But it's true he doesn't seem to be the type they take in the draft at edge. But I disagree that he doesn't have much to show for all of this. Not many sacks. But a lot of pressures. That's not nothing or nothing much. It's a thing. I agree with you that I'd rather see more sacks. But if he had more sacks, we wouldn't be talking about him because he'd clearly be a top 10 or 15 guy. Guys who fall to the mid to late 20s have something wrong with them, some question or questions. It's the way it is.
  7. The drop-off for edge is a lot sooner and more precipitous than the drop at WR this year. A lot of good WRs deep this year. Edge not nearly so much.
  8. I hear you, but he wasn't really backpedalling. He said he did not "have talks" with them. And he said he "had already talked to" them. Those aren't necessarily the same thing. He might have said, "Come get me," to Veach and Reid on the field after a game and they smiled but didn't say anything. Those two statements aren't necessarily contractictory.
  9. I can't imagine it's tampering for a GM or coach to be talked to about this. How can they control what people say to them? The GM or coach talking back, now that they can control. But Hardman I don't think said anything about that.
  10. "Ending his career," and he doubtless doesn't imagine it will be ending soon. Nothing wrong with that at all. He didn't say anything bad about Buffalo. Just good about his childhood team.
  11. Oh, I don't see anything wrong with this. I don't agree with him. But he's saying he thinks the two younger guys get better and take Douglas' job. I disagree, but for two young guys to take a big leap in their third years is possible. Big enough to take Douglas' job? I disagree, myself, but he's got a right to his opinion.
  12. I don't think so. Douglas and Benford are good. Benford played really well the second half of the year. His injury for the playoff game was a big factor in the defense not being good enough. He just wasn't himself. But yeah, depending who's still on the roster, we might definitely need some new depth guys. Elam is good? Where's the proof? Elam needs to play? No, no he doesn't. Hopefully he plays well enough in the off-season that they can't keep him off the field. But if he doesn't, he absolutely does not need to play. What he needs to do, he needs to earn the right to play.
  13. Yes, agreed. A trade is still not likely, IMO, but far more likely than cutting him. Agreed also that if cut it would absolutely be before the salary guarantees. Thoughtful. I appreciate it.
  14. You keep using cap numbers for specific years to attempt to get us to look away from the obvious disaster this move would be. So let me focus you, and anyone bothering to read, on the dumb move you're suggesting. Answer this simple question. If Stefon Digg is still on the roster after 3/17, his salary will guarantee. Once his salary guarantees, if they cut him at the time you're suggesting, will that guaranteed money hit the Bills salary cap as dead cap or not? I'm not asking about the year. I'm asking if he's cut, will it or will it not hit our dead cap total? Because unless you want to argue that it will disappear and never hit the Bills cap, you are saying you think it is a move the Bills should consider to add $18.5M to the cap for two things, first the right to watch Stef NOT play for the Bills and second the ability to move some cap money from the 2023 cap to later cap years. And the thing is, they can move money from 2023 to later cap years in other ways - restructures and other such vastly more sensible options - without adding $18.5M to their cap without even seeing a guy play for us in exchange for accepting the dead cap hit. Oh, and I fully understand the word brazen. One really good example of brazen behavior would be a guy arguing that his guess about something - what Spotrac precisely means by "Potential Out," for instance - must be a fact even though he hasn't checked it because it fits his narrative and he's spent a bunch of time on a website ... though, he has again NOT checked his facts. That's shameless behavior, and thus brazen. Of course, brazen people often don't recognize that they're being shameless. In fact, that's a symptom. The brazen guy would next never back down. He's keep right on arguing that he must be right even without proof, because he thinks it's so. But again, if Diggs' contract is guaranteed and he's then cut, post 6/1 or not, will that guaranteed salary hit the Bills dead cap? And again, don't try the whole "well, this year is this and this year is that" nonsense. Will it have to be accounted for on the cap or not if he's cut?
  15. I didn't need 2 pages of directions. I need one line, which you refused to provide for two pages. Probably because what was revealed there in the context of the whole page is such weak sauce. And you needed two pages also to see that they do not list him as a potential out in 2024. We heard nothing about that from you till now despite me pointing it out again and again and again. Took you two pages to notice, apparently. And I love this from you, "'As far as I know, Spotrac doesn't use post 6/1 moves as potential outs because they are pretty rare in general." "As far as you know," meaning you are completely guessing. Pretty brazen, dude, just flat-out guessing like that. What's infinitely more likely is the wildly obvious reason why Spotrac - and everyone else in the world but you, apparently - thinks it would be an even worse Idea to cut Diggs post 6/1. Because it would cost the Bills much more money. If they cut Diggs now, they'd have to deal with $31M of dead cap. If they cut him anytime after his 2024 salary guarantees on 3/17, the dead cap hit for cutting him jumps up from $31M to $50M. His guaranteed salary for the year, $18.5M, would be added to the dead cap money, as well as his roster bonus and most likely his work out bonus as well, a total of $19M more dead money. Yeah, only $8M of it would be due this year, but that would leave $42M of dead money for one guy in 2025 ... a guy who at that point would not played with us since the 2023 season two years before. He'd probably have been paid most of his workout bonus as well by the time he was cut That's what would happen if we had made him a post 6/1 cut. Instead of paying $31M over one year to NOT have him play for us, that dumb move would have us pay $49.5M over two years to NOT have him play for us. Even stupider than cutting him now. His potential out is in 2025 for very good and obvious reasons. The only thing dumber than paying $31M dead cap money for the privilege of NOT having an excellent player play for us ... is paying $50M dead cap money instead for the privilege of NOT having an excellent player play for us. If the If the Bills want to borrow money from the 2025 cap to clear a bit of 2024 space, there are many ways to do it that would be INFINITELY smarter, ways that would NOT require them to pay $19M EXTRA for a player to NOT play for us.
×
×
  • Create New...