Rochesterfan

I did not bold it - you did when you quoted me.

I look at it exactly the opposite way. Team 1 has little control because they have no way of knowing what team 2 will do. They are trying to score, but then have to decide on going for 2. No matter what they do - they can not win on that first drive - only dictate what team #2 needs to do to win. Team 2 knows exactly what they have to do to win when they get the ball. Did team 1 punt or kick a FG? Did they score and kick and XP or get stopped at the 45 yard line? Did they get a TD and make a 2 pt or miss the 2 point conversion? Team 2 knows exactly what they have to do to win and prevent team 1 from getting the ball back. Literally the only way team 1 is guaranteed to get the 3rd possession is a TD and 2 pt on the first drive - even then they don’t win - they only guaranteed a shot with the 3 possession. The 2nd team gets the ball and in most instances has a shot to win the game on their possession.

They still can’t win on that first possession. If they score and succeed at 2 - the other team can still tie. Then the sudden death occurs. There is absolutely no way the team that has the ball first can win on that first possession. The other team will always get the ball. The second team that has the ball is the only one that can outright win, outright lose, or force another tie on their possession. After that it is sudden death and the advantage typically goes to the first team with the ball.

These decisions have been coming more and more already. Baltimore lost 2 games trying for 2 to avoid OT. The Bills went for the TD and the win in Tennessee. The Chargers, the Colts, and the Eagles have all been going for more 4th downs at different and unique places on the field. Pittsburgh has been going for 2 points early in many games trying to get an advantage. The analytics are pushing more 2 point attempts and more 4th down attempts every year. This change is going to push that further I would expect as it will add more data points to the pool.

Or it is an old school defensive struggle and you kick off and pin them deep and try to get field position and kick a FG to win on the second possession. I agree there are a lot of things that can go into the decision and having the ball third is a big advantage, but only if it goes to 3 possessions. If you are in the second position - you have opportunities to control whether there is a 3rd possession. I think it opens up a lot of options and I can not wait to see what analytics come from this.

I am not stating it as fact - it Is what I believe that playoff coaches will decide when the game is on the line and I think the numbers grow every year as teams do more and more analytical work showing how your win percentage alters based on 1 play. If you are the second team in a playoff game and the first team went down scored a TD and kicked the XP and you just matched that and scored a TD - why on earth would any coach just kick to XP in that situation and let it go to sudden death with the other team getting the ball? A 2 point conversion is just below 50% for every team, but tends to run slightly higher than 50% for playoff teams. Therefore, going for 2 would give you better odds of winning outright over losing outright. I believe coaches can justify that decision, but will be rightly questioned if they just kick the XP and let the other team have the ball with a shot to win. Regular season might be different, but playoffs - I can’t see a coach not going for the win, but I am sure there is one old school coach that would play for the tie.

I agree, but I think it applies to a huge % of teams - not just the Bills. Most teams want to control their own destiny and most teams feel they control things when they have the ball. Therefore to me if I want to control my destiny - I want the ball second with everything on the line and I know exactly what I need to do to win this game. Even if I am a defensive minded guy - I want the opportunity to stop them and know a FG wins. I want the pressure and the knowledge every time.

That was the word that made me think it would not be heating at the individual seats, but something like those warming lamps on the ceiling in the more enclosed concourse. He specifically said each seating area would have temperature control features available. When I first heard things - I was thinking something like seat warmers or the heat lamps in the stadium, but my guess is their plan would be for warmers to be in the concourse and give people a place to warm up out of the weather. It is only a guess, but he used some very specific wording versus how the question was asked.

This is 100% true if you assume the game goes to sudden death. The problem is I think most teams would avoid sudden death. The only times I see sudden death happening is: 1) 1st team doesn’t score and the second team doesn’t score either - rare, but could happen with 2 defensive teams or weather. 2) 1st team kicks a FG and the second team is stuck in a 4th and long and has to kick the FG. (I believe many teams will go for it on 4th and short to try and win outright). 3) 1st team scores a TD and a 2 pt conversion - then the best the other team can do is tie. I think in playoff football - a third possession would be rare, but then you are right and getting the ball 3rd would be huge. For me - I want the ball 2nd with all of the data to determine what I need to win and I’ll go from there.

What I found interesting was when he talked about Temperature controlled features - I am not sure he was talking about seating. It sounded more like the concourses would be wide enough and protected from temperature to allow fans in many sections to go “inside” and be warm. It also sounded like you would still be able to view the games - so I really pictured like in Miami - a wide concourse where people can stay warm and lots of video monitors to show the action. The seats will be protected by overhangs allowing some temperature control, but I think more of the concourses will be closed and protected giving warm zones for people at the game.

I think with the analytics that adjust win percentage based on individual plays - 70-80% of coaches or more will be going for 2 as the 2nd team - knowing that both teams just scored on their drives and the other team can win with just a FG. We already see teams near the end of games go for two rather than 1 to win outright rather than tie and go to OT. We also see teams like the Bills go for 4th down TDs rather than tie the game with a FG. Analytics would drive coaches in the 2nd spot to go for the win and try to win with your offense in a 1 play scenario. The real question is what does the 1st team do if they score? How many have the guts to go for 2 to ensure they have life and how many just settle for the XP.

If it is my call - I defer the vast majority of the time. The only exception would be weather games where it is nearly impossible to throw going one way versus the other - then I want to choose direction over ball. I defer because it gives you the most opportunities to win in my eyes. 1) You know exactly what the other team did to set up your drive - do I have to score, do I only need a FG, do I need an XP or a 2 point conversion. You control the destiny of the team and you are the only team that can win (or lose on your drive) - it should almost never go beyond 2 drives in this scenario. 2) You have the luxury of knowing if it is 4 down territory for your entire drive and can play call with that in mind or you might say - well we need a FG to tie, but I have a better chance of getting a first down than winning if I tie the game again. 3) The first team now has to decide how they want to proceed if they score a TD - do you go for two or go for 1. I think it will force most teams that get the ball first to go for 2 because that is their only assured chance at maybe getting the ball back. 4) You know exactly what you need to do to win - so you can have assistant coaches looking for 2 pt plays even while you are driving so that you are absolutely ready with the best play when needed. The interesting piece is how many coaches in the first spot - kick an extra point - it opens up winning and losing potential.

You wouldn’t know it was 50 years old because it is not even close to 50 years old. It opened in 1987 - so less than 35 years and it has undergone multiple massive renovations including over 400 million dollars in 2016. With an additional 50-100 million in 2017 to allow for expansion of tennis matches that forced additional modification. It is a great stadium, but in its 35 years so far they have also put over 1 billion in renovations to bring in baseball (and let it leave), redesign the football, and bring in soccer and tennis. Basically they have rebuilt the stadium twice in the 35 years - similar to what the Bills asked for several years ago to help get Highmark into the future - Buffalo just chose minor renovations rather than putting 500 million into the stadium and basically retrofitting it like KC and Lambeau.

So as you say those are all places without the NFL and other things/entertainment pops up, but then why are Austin, Toronto, Oklahoma City, Salt Lake City, etc - always in talks to try and get an NFL city when a potential moves comes up? Many places like Tucson, Orlando, Raleigh-Durham are already in an NFL teams zone and they already pay taxes that impact the surrounding teams. Whether it is Hotel taxes like in Florida or Tucson or income tax like Raleigh - they provide funding to support the NFL teams that surround them. If the Bills left WNY - what would pop up? Very little as we would have next to nothing to generate any local excitement and even more of our tax money would be spent downstate. If the Bills had left - more than likely the Sabre’s move with the Pegula’s and suddenly you have massive holes n the fabric of the community and your taxable income in the region is dropped significantly. You are correct the money spent on the teams gets reallocated, but nothing says it stays local - more funds and opportunities leave and locations look for ways to bring it back - see Baltimore, Cleveland, Houston, LA, Oakland, St. Louis - just in football. You see the same thing in Basketball when teams move, Baseball, and Hockey - suddenly the location that lost the teams finds all kinds of new funds to build a stadium for a new incoming team.

The players salaries are not new, but without a new stadium that revenue could leave if the team moves on. You can not say that it pays for itself, but you can use that revenue source as a source that would potentially leave if the team moves. So the money itself is used elsewhere, but only comes in because of the money outlayed on the stadium.

It means next to nothing. Beane has been very clear when he talks about negotiations. He works very closely with players and agents and he has a contract and level in his mind. We have no idea what the Bills may have offered or the terms of the contract - even if it was nearly identical to the Bears - his agent would be incompetent not to do everything to see what he is worth on the open market. The 2 sides may have had preliminary talks and the agent felt he could get a bigger deal and Beane said go right ahead. What we have for facts at the moment are the Bills liked Bates enough to tender him at a rate where they could match, but did not feel the level with a 2nd round tender afforded them much more. We also now know for a fact that they were willing to pay 4 years 17 million with 8.8 million coming in guaranteed money in the first 2 years. From the Bates side we do not know if NE or Minnesota made any offers that the agent declined - we do know that Chicago with Cunningham as an assistant GM (from Philadelphia) and Getsy as OC (his mentor was Moorhead who coached Bates at PS) provided Bates with some familiarity and a safe place to land. I think what the process says is that Bates wanted something familiar - be that a return to Buffalo or Chicago with some familiar faces and Beane had an AAV in mind that was within matching range of the offer. Why I think Beane played this perfectly is simply because there was very little options that give you the player back at an affordable deal long term. The player got to explore the market and set a deal at what he was worth and the Bills get him for longer term. RFAs rarely get offered sheeted - the last 3 include Chris Hogan going to NE and CJ Anderson with the Broncos going back to 2016 and 2015 respectively. I think in an ideal world Beane and the agent agree on a longer term contract without the RFA tag, but the agent owes it to the players to see what is out there - all it takes is one team to overpay by a ton - see Hill in Miami.

Some people will still argue it was a mistake to move on, but holding for XP and FG leads to more points than his punting did. Huge impact on kicking game and it hurt GB most of the year.

Do you know that Beane did not offer a similar contract? No you do not. What incentive would Bates and his agent have to sign a long term deal as an RFA - especially with the little tape on him? Almost all RFA’s end up signing their qualifying offer for 1 year and hit the market the next - just like Wallace did for the Bills this year. His agent would of been asinine to sign a long term deal this year - 1 year away from unrestricted free agency when next year the salary cap is beginning its huge jump - without testing the market. The problem is no one knows what discussions Beane, Bates, the coaching staff, and the agent have had - so you have to go based on previous discussions and things Beane has said. He has repeatedly stated he doesn’t mind letting guys test the market to find their worth if he thinks they are looking for more than he thinks is fair. He has done it with several players. My take from all this is the Bills had an AAV in mind and wanted a longer term deal. The agent and maybe the player wanted to hit FA next year. Using the tag allowed the agent to go find his worth around the league and still allowed the Bills a chance to resign. My guess is if Chicago decided he was worth an AAV of 5-6 million or more - Beane walks away and uses that money to sign another Veteran guard. If it was around 4 AAV - he obviously matches and gets a deal done. It makes the agent and player happy as they essentially tested the market and gave Beane control over the situation. The problem I have with your logic is twofold - you make a primary assumption that Beane and the agent did not have discussions on a long term deal or what the parameters around that might be. We do not know that either way, but based on other RFAs across the league - it is common that these guys end up signing a tender and hitting FA the next year. The second issue is that you say he literally couldn’t have paid more and that will not be answered until next year. If he had signed the tender - plays most of the games and the Bills as expected win and go deep into the playoffs or even win it all - how much is he worth on the open market next year when the CAP goes up by 10-15 million. Beane is not perfect, but he used the tools he had to get a guy signed long term that the team obviously likes (they traded for him to start with) and got him locked up long term to an AAV they seem comfortable with. My gut tells me Beane would of preferred an AAV of 3.5 rather than 4, but I believe long term 4 was acceptable. The final thing is we do not know if this was the biggest offer - that was the offer he signed. There is always a chance a team like NE offered him more on a 1 year deal and he was uncomfortable with the situation. There is also the chance that Chicago wanted to structure the deal differently ( @GunnerBill heard up to 8 million for 1 year), but Bates and his agent made the structure they would sign something the Bears were fine with and if they wanted the Bills could match. Whatever deal came out had to be something agreeable to Bates and his agent and they did not have to sign the biggest offer nor did they have to sign the offer that was hardest for the Bills to match. We will never know, but we can now see that the Bills valued him and wanted a long term deal and around 4AAV was acceptable.

Well maybe, but the best deal he got was 250 thousand over the 2nd round tender and the bears would have had to give up a 2nd round pick. I doubt very much they make that offer with having to give up the pick potentially. The NFL seemed to agree his worth was right near that higher tender and the 2nd round pick would have been a steep price for a team - maybe someone does it, but I highly doubt it for Bates - a UDFA with 5 games worth of experience.

With the 2nd round tender - no one was going to make an offer. The 2nd round tender for a guard was the stupidest way to go because it meant paying him 3.9 million for the year AND then he gets to be a FA next year with and entire year of film available. Instead we get a 4 year deal locked into place with a touch more up front and a better bargain later on.

He could go IR in camp or more likely in my mind he starts on PUP where he still has a chance to get activated if the recovery looks ok and we have a need. That would give him potentially 6-11 weeks I believe to get activated - before moving to IR. Plus on PUP - even though he doesn’t count as a roster player - I believe he can attend meetings and rehab - so he can learn the Kromer system if he wants to come back later.

Because instead of 5 games as a starter - after next year - he has hopefully over 20 games as a starter and as an unrestricted FA with prices going up - most likely cashes in at a bigger rate. Bates is a nice fit with Kromer - who like athletic lineman and should be an excellent fit and benefit from better coaching in a better scheme fit. Basically your idea is a very short term savings of 250K for this year and then hope you can get something done as a FA next year. Beane decided that a small increase this year might be worth the long term stability of the added 3 years he got on this deal. Short term and I mean very short term your contract saves a tiny bit. Long term planning - Beane has you beat badly in this. Sorry, but you are just wrong as far as most seem to be concerned.

What is peculiar about this? As has been stated numerous times - the Bills obviously wanted to do a longer term deal with Bates, but as an RFA it would be a disservice for the agent to sign a deal with 1 year before FA. If they had been stupid and used the 2nd round tender - you get him at 1 year 3.9 million and then with a full year of tape - he becomes a FA and you most likely lose him. I am sure Beane had an AAV that he wanted on a longer term deal. Playing the matching card makes it easy to get the long term deal done. Using the RFA tag perfectly - get a fair contract on limited snaps and signed before a year with Kromer as an agile lineman. What you are missing is Beane played this perfectly. And would have only been 1 year rather than 4.

About 3.9 million - maybe 0.5 million less, but then he would be a FA next year and would have a full year of tape in Kromers system. A 2nd round tender would have been the absolute stupidest thing for the Bills to do. There was never a reason to use the 2nd round tender - long term that was always going to be the costliest decision. The ideal would of been to get a long term deal done before tendering him, but there was no reason for the Bates camp to do that. The next best option was exactly what Beane did - it was textbook for handling the situation.

It should always be something a good GM is thinking about when drafting in the 1st round. Ideally you are doing what the Bills do which is pick BPA. The problem is how people judge and think about BPA. BPA almost always must incorporate some type of positional bias based upon the premium paid to that position. The best guard and the 6-8th best WR, 5th best CB, 3-4th best DE, 3rd best QB, 4th best Tackle might all end up equivalent as BPA because the replacement level play of guard is so minor. To me guard and RB have similar issues and there is little reason to grab either in round 1. Both positions can be replaced easily with later round picks and even UDFA’s and therefore as you have said - that renders the 5th year option moot for those players - therefore wasting one of the biggest advantages of having the round 1 pick. Again - if you get to that pick and Guard/IOL or RB is by far your best player - go ahead and take them, but if there is a premium position player left that is close - I 100% take that first. Pre-draft - give me CB or WR all day long - day of we need to see the board to make the call.