Thurman#1

Yeah, a lot. When he was submitting his drafts to the Huddle Report, the main source for draft accuracy, his five-year average was fourth out of all mock drafters. He's very good. But what he's doing, mocking the draft, is impossible to do with an extremely high rate of accuracy in terms of getting a lot of the direct team-player matchups right. It's just too complicated a system.

You're calculating all of this wrong, for all of these guys. If you want to know how much cap relief/charge it will be to cut a guy you DON'T subtract dead money from cap space. That's entirely misleading. You subtract dead money from the sum total of all they will pay him in cash that year. That's usually salary plus roster bonus plus workout bonus and any other bonuses ... but NOT the amortized portion of the signing bonus. That already counts as part of the dead cap. Kroft's actual total saved would be around $5.1 mill saved, not $6 mill. Lotulelei's total saved would ... wait ... nothing would be saved. You have them saving $2.3 mill when it would actually cost them around $125K, unless he's still on the roster till the league year opens when he receives his roster bonus and in that case it would cost them $625K.

Agreed that cutting Star makes no sense this year, financially or on the field. But you wouldn't even save $2.2 mill. Star's dead cap is $7.8 but they would only cut $7.675M from the cap ($6.425M in salary plus $1M [combination of roster bonus and Per Game Active Bonus] plus $250K workout bonus). Cutting Star would cost them $125K this year. And if he's still on the team in mid-March, he gets the $500K roster bonus then and it costs them $625K in sum, instead of $125K to cut him. Would make zero sense unless you replaced him with someone as good or better, and doing so would mean costing more money. The OP posted two figures for each guy, cap hit and dead cap. But cap hit isn't what you use if you're figuring the impact on the cap to cut a guy.

You act like bringing in new guys is the only purpose of a cap. It's a very videogame-reminiscent focus on change and keeping things moving. More fun. But not what has brought about NFL success. They've made clear what their goals are. Not to get good as soon as possible. Not to make big splashes. Not to churn contracts and certainly not to spend all their money. Their goal is to be a team that consistently competes for championships. Consistently. So you look at the teams that do that, teams like the Steelers, the Pats, the Pack, the Ravens and one or two others. What is their approach? They aren't the teams that make big splash signings. They aren't the ones that spend all their cap space as soon as they can. They're financially conservative, and they all share those same two or three core beliefs: - build through the draft, supplement with mid-level and low-level FAs - prioritize signing your own guys ... you already know they fit and you give continuity a huge boost - maybe don't completely rule out splash signings, but if you do them do them infrequently. Look at those teams, how many make a splash signing more often than every five or six years? That's how those teams operate. It's industry best practice. And it's what our FO have said is their philosophy, again and again and again. Root for a different approach if you want, but you're spitting into the wind.

We will see, Scott. But what we will see is that their core principles don't change. The things they say every single year, will continue to be said every single year and will also be followed through on. That's what you're dealing with here, core principles, things that they have said every single year and at their introductory press conferences. They ain't changing, Scott, because this is how they believe in building a team. Again, they've literally said this since their first moments. They're believers in financial conservatism. And thank goodness they are, because history shows that's how the teams that are consistent competitors go about it. Now, if by "big contracts" you mean $10 or $11 mill, hey, I wouldn't disagree with that. I'd call those mid-level contracts and wouldn't find a couple of those very surprising at all. But two at genuinely high levels? Ain't gonna happen, Scott. Not because I say so. I'm just some schlemiel on a message board. Because they say so, again and again.

Evans 56.8% Perriman 52.2% Evans is terrific. I'd have to go pass by pass to figure out whether the low percentage was on QB or WR. I don't know either way on Perriman, but he's the level of guy I'd expect them to look hard at.

HOFer.

Jeez, Hapless, you've got me curious. Great stuff. I'll think seriously about reading it.

"Expressed methods or not - this team lacks superstars in every way." First, it's just not true. Tre'Davious is an All-Pro. Not a Pro Bowler, an All-Pro. He's a superstar. And guys like Josh Allen, Singletary, Tremaine Edmunds and Ed Oliver could easily be superstars in the near future. But second and more important, saying that is like saying, "Sidelines or not, that ball he caught behind the bench should've been complete." The expressed methods are the main point. They're how it's going to happen. The expressed methods are how things get done while Beane and McDermott are the decision-makers. The fact that you might do it differently is entirely beside the point unless you become GM sometime soon. OK, now you've explained more clearly your meaning on "responsible." Which is more responsible, two superstars or four mid-level guys? Go find a recent Super Bowl winning team which signed two superstars in FA in one year. That's your answer. Teams that win Super Bowls don't operate in the way you would like to. It's not responsible. Now how many SB-winning teams have signed four mid-level FAs in a year? All of them, multiple times. It's responsible to do so. And look, you can pretend there are "massive differences" between the two situations if you feel like it, that's your business. But it's simply not true. Differences, yeah, but the differences are minor and the figures will change significantly by the time March rolls around. And you keep leaving out the difference that cuts the other way. Last year they had no core guys they wanted to re-sign to 2nd contracts while this year they could re-sign Tre'D, Dion Dawkins and several others, and Beane has indicated that signing their own guys is a higher priority. They could easily end up spending $20 mill, $30 mill or even more on making sure those guys don't get away.

Yes, they have the ability to sign a couple big FAs and still re-sign their own. They had the same ability last year, and did they? The point isn't whether they can afford it. The point is that their methodology isn't compatible with what you want here. Signing a couple of big FAs and you're in the running for winning the offseason. That's pretty much what winning the offseason means. Yeah, they need an influx of talent. And yeah, that influx can be provided with the draft, mid- and low-level FAs and a high-priced FA every five or six years. If that wasn't enough, New England, Pittsburgh, Green Bay and Baltimore, all teams that run similar conservative processes that include very few genuinely high-priced FAs, would never have won all their titles. What you want and what I want means nothing. What matters is the methods that the FO wants to use. And every single year they say the same thing, this year included, about not going into the deep end of FA and building through the draft and yadda yadda yadda. And every single year people do their best to forget what Beane says and expect him to grab a lot of high-priced guys. And it doesn't happen. Feel free to repeat this every-year mistake if you must, but they've made themselves clear.

Cool! Thanks.

Money is the issue. Not in terms of the total amount of money we have to spend. We could get any three or so guys we wanted if that were the big concern. The money concern isn't total pool available, it is how this regime has said (again and again, and every year) that they will spend free agent money. And been as good as their word every step of the way. What'd he say about being surprised if they go into the deep end? Something like that. Take him at his word. A lot of people here want to play Madden and spend every penny and get the biggest guys. They want to win the offseason. But teams that win the offseason rarely seem to do as well during the actual season. Expect the Bills to continue to be Beane-esque and McDermotty.

These are reasons the players would want it? You're right as far as you go, but if rollovers weren't allowed, why wouldn't an owner not interested in being competitive leave $100 mill unspent cap money this year and then since it doesn't roll over just apply it to his balance sheet and not bother bringing in players with it. This is directly against the interests of the players. Right now owners can do that but must publicly choose to do so, which would drive the fans insane. They wouldn't have to do that if rollovers aren't allowed and the decision publicly announced. There's no such thing as rolled over cap space expiring. Each year you can roll over all your space. That ability was not limited under the present agreement. EDIT: I see. MajBobby understood you where I couldn't, and his response is right on point as well. You seem to be talking about the four year moving average thing where a team must spend 90% of their cap. That has nothing to do with rollover, and it also isn't bad for the players. Each year counts for four years, so they're all equal. The players shouldn't mind that either.

Yeah, this. It's not in the interest of either side to not allow the rollovers. The only ones who would benefit are the relatively few owners not interested in being competitive if it means spending money, even if it's cap money.

I'd argue that signing both just would not fit their expressed methods. They've said again and again that they build with the draft and fill in with FAs and that they don't do a lot of expensive FAs. Assuming they are going to pick one or the other (unlikely but possible, IMO), yeah, I absolutely think one is more responsible than the other. The one who has played in 62 of 64 games the last four years over the one who has played in 35 of 48 games the last three years and will be 32, an age where injuries tend to increase. https://www.spotrac.com/nfl/buffalo-bills/cap/ Yeah, the Bills right now have 53 players under contract, and $89 mill available. Yeah, but that includes guys like Christian Wade, Kaare Vedvik, Cam Lewis, Tyrel Dodson and Victor Salako and you can say they have 53 guys, but those guys are absolute minimum salaries against the cap right now. It's not very different at all from last year. But last year we had basically nobody they could re-sign. This year quite a few guys could possibly be re-inked, including Tre'D or Dion Dawkins, though they also might wait to do 'em.

Well, if you seriously consider a "top 5" guy as a headliner ... not much I can say to that beyond that you're using "headlining" in a way that not many other people would ever use it. Yeah, another $10 mill or so a year contract is a very reasonable possibility this year and every year if it fills a need. Not so much $18 or $20 mill, though.

We're not underestimating the cap they've got this year. It's nearly exactly what they had last year. And last year they didn't have the opportunity they have this year to use a bunch of that money to re-sign their own guys, and yet they still didn't bring in the high contracts. And they left $25 mill unspent so they'd be in good shape this year, something they might well want to make a continuing practice. I mean, if you consider one $11 mill a year contract and several around $7 or $8 like last year a lot of spending then we agree, they're very likely to spend at that kind of a general level. Oh, and responsibly very often does mean inexpensively. Expect conservative cap spending practices, it's what these guys are about. Check their record at Carolina and their public statements.

Agreed, those two aren't the same thing. But neither of those describes Star. What Star is is a very good run stopping defensive tackle. He's a guy who does what McDermott needs done. The fact that he doesn't do things the way a few keyboard warriors would like is beside the point. McDermott was very aware what he was getting, he coached him in Carolina and paid what he felt that role was worth to him and Star is doing much the same thing here.

Yes, it's in a different place last year. That will undoubtedly call for different strategies. But it will absolutely not call for changing core principles. And building your core through the draft and filling in with low- to mid-level guys is a core principle with them. As it is just about without exception for the teams that are consistently good, the Ravens, the Pats, the Pack, the Steelers. It's industry best practices. And it's what they've publicly said are their principles. Now, those teams do indeed bring in a high-level FA every once in a great while, like every five or six years. But two in one year? Nah. I mean, if by "better FAs" you're only referring to talent then hopefully you'll be right. But if you're talking about money, it's virtual certainty they won't bring in two top-level guys. One? I doubt it, but again, even those class organizations do it once in a blue moon. Maybe this will be the year for us. They say they're going to find starters? Absolutely. They did it last year with Morse, Brown, Beasley, Spain, etc. I absolutely expect a few of those types again.

You wouldn't call an $11 mill a year player mid-level? I would. Star was even less. And pretending Morse and Star are "big name signings" is ridiculous. Morse was the 16th highest FA signing in terms of average salary, if you only look at last year's FAs. That is certainly not top-level. I wouldn't be a bit surprised to see them sign another $10 or $11 million FA this year. I'd be very surprised to see them sign a high-level guy, though.

They didn't overpay for him. They may not be getting what you want, but they got what McDermott wanted and that's why they valued him that way. Since he's been here, they've had two absolutely top-flight defenses. McDermott knows how to put together an excellent defense, and he values Star. That you don't is very much beside the point. Nonsense. You measure a guy by how well he plays his position. Star plays his very well, and so does Clowney. Clowney's better but in no way twice as good.

Same way it was last year, with lots of mid- to lower-level guys. With a bunch of re-signing our own guys thrown in. And there's no requirement that every last dime be spent. Last year they left a bunch unspent to be rolled over into this year, and they might very easily do the same thing again.

I don't think it's as clear as you apparently do that they were in on trading him. They might just have been doing their due diligence. As for your main question, no, I don't think so. Yeah, but it doesn't take a rocket scientist to know the difference between knowing and guessing and yet smart people who are actually guessing think they know things all the time. That's what people say when the facts don't back them up.

People want to pretend that getting to the Super Bowl only takes one game, and that's absolute nonsense. It takes 16 to start and then two or three more. It absolutely is a passing league. It's not a mistake that the two teams in the SB are 5th and 7th in offensive passer rating, or that the top seven teams in passer rating (Saints, Ravens, Titans, Seahawks, Chiefs, Vikes and 9ers) made the playoffs. Now look at defensive passer rating ... both SB teams are again in the top seven. The top seven in the most equivalent stat (there isn't a really good equivalent, but this is probably the best) for running, YPC, had two of the top seven teams make the playoffs, the Ravens and Titans. The Ravens, Cards, Titans, Browns, Cowboys, Panthers and Giants are the top seven. That's not murderers row. Defensive YPC? The Niners are 22nd, allowing 4.5 per carry and the Chiefs 28th, allowing 4.9 YPC. And for those who say you have to look at total running yards, you're confusing cause and effect. Teams that are ahead run more. So of course teams that are good will run more as they try to burn clock while ahead. The question is which teams run best. And YPA is the best measure we have of that. Not that having a good run game doesn't help. It absolutely does. But it's less important than a good pass game.

Yeah. I've wondered this before. Will we find out someday that he had CTE? No way to know, but it looks possible to me. Whatever the problem, I hope he gets over it, but the odds don't look good.