Orton's Arm

FFS/Pyrite Gal did a good--if lengthy--job describing cash over cap. Here's the short version: You sign a guy to a four year contract, and give him an $8 million bonus. Instead of taking the cap hit for that bonus all at once, you get hit with $2 million of cap hit a year for four years. If there's a year when you pay out a bunch of bonuses like this, the actual cash you pay out to players will exceed the salary cap space you've been given. But you can only do that for so long. Eventually, you're required to even things out. You can postpone the day of reckoning, but in the long run, cash paid out must not exceed salary cap space. So if the cash you paid out in 2002 exceeded the cap by $10 million--which you can do through bonuses--at some point you'll wind up only being allowed to pay $10 million less than the cap to your players.

The problem with cutting Wire is that Lawyer Milloy's already been cut. So we'd have to sign two SSs.

I disagree with you about Losman, Vincent, and the DEs. But even if I'm wrong about all that, Lawyer Milloy is no longer on the roster: http://www.democratandchronicle.com/apps/p...RTS03/603020380

We need a lot more than that. Who's our SS going to be? Is Troy Vincent really the answer at FS? What if Preston doesn't work out at C, or Losman doesn't work out at QB? Where is our elite DE that great defenses tend to have? Who will replace Moulds if or when he's cut? You say we only need one guard. Who's the guard we have right now that you want to keep?

No, but I have a very firm idea as to how much the Bills should be willing to spend on that position--$3 - $4 million per year at most. If Bruce won't sign for that money, find someone else. If Givens won't sign for that, find someone else. If nobody in that category will sign for that money, then go into the season with Sam Aiken as your #2, and use the full $7 million a year from Moulds on the lines. Granted if you did things this way you'd have to draft a WR relatively soon. But this team's going to have holes come opening day of 2006 no matter what Levy does. Better they be at WR than on the lines.

Good point about the climate. But even if Bruce is a slight downgrade from Moulds, it's worth that downgrade to get rid of the $7 million a year Moulds salary. It's time this team spent some cash on the lines!

Congrats.

The Bills are realistically two years away from being a playoff threat, so it's not like the most gaping holes need to be filled this year. Take the whole debate between Ngata and Davis. Yes, DT is a bigger need. So let's say the Bills took Ngata instead of Davis, and let's say with Ngata's help they went 7-9 instead of 6-10. Would an extra win in a non-playoff year really be worth abandoning a superstar TE to get a reasonably solid DT? I don't think so. At some point, the DT position will have to be addressed, as will the OL. As long as both lines are ready to go for the 2007 season, I'll be happy. But it's important to think with a 2 - 3 year horizon here, and to think in terms of player upgrades. The way I think about the situation is like this: start off by imaging the Bills don't have a 1st round pick this year. Now imagine them building their roster as best they can to be ready for opening day of 2007. Let's say they've used their 2nd - 4th round picks in this year's draft on the OL, and have used their first two picks in the 2007 draft on DL. So the team's in reasonably good shape. Now add the Bills' first round pick of 2006 into the mix. You can use it to take Davis, to give the hypothetical 2007 team an upgrade at TE. Or you can use it on Ngata, to give the 2007 team an upgrade at DT, while freeing up a 2007 draft pick for some other position. Which action would upgrade the 2007 team the most? Once you've answered that question, you know what to do with your pick.

Good point. This team has too many needs at too many positions to focus on drafting a position where the class is weak. Since this year's draft is strong and deep at OL, the Bills' main focus should be there.

Despite missing all those games in 2005 due to injury, Bruce has accumulated more yards than Moulds over the last three years. Their birthdays are less than a year apart, so I don't see age necessarily being more of a factor for one than the other. But the main advantage to Bruce isn't that he might represent an upgrade over Moulds. It's that there's no way the Bills would pay him anywhere near the $7 million a year they'd have to pay to keep Moulds. We're not getting an elite WR at that position no matter what we do, so there's no sense in paying for one. Save cap space on that position, and go shopping.

The problem you're referring to is that the minimum a player must be paid goes up the longer he stays in the league. This means that you're paying maybe $600,000 minimum to a veteran as opposed to say $200,000 for a rookie. What the league needs to do is to maybe have minimum wage be at least $500,000 a year for all players. Teams will still fill up their rosters. So you're looking at $26.5 million a year that would need to be paid out in the form of minimum wage salaries, significantly cutting into what can be paid to the more expensive players.

Thanks for the complete response! Maybe you're right about Anderson starting to show something towards the end of the year. But a bigger, slower guy like that would seem better suited to RG than LG.

Just as long as the arm they're shelling out isn't me!

Tell me more about that scouting service. How many starting offensive guards have a grade lower than 72? How many are higher, and how high do the grades go?

Agreed. Most GMs are smart enough to hold onto their OL drafting successes. In order to maximize your line's continuity, you need to build it through the draft, and make sure that your successful OL draft picks spend their whole careers with your team.

Great post. NFL players are overpaid already, and there's no reason why the percentage of revenues they receive needs to increase. If Upshaw wants to lobby for anything, it should be for an increase in the minimum player salary. That way the guys at the bottom of the totem pole would get more, thereby taking away money from the richest players.

It's not an either/or thing. I'm 100% behind the Bills fixing the OL, but they may need to fix the QB position too. Even when your offensive line is good, there might be times when it doesn't play well, or where it gets dominated by the other team. You need to have a QB who can make the best of a bad situation, instead of being another Bledsoe where everything has to be just perfect for the QB to produce. Not that Losman has demonstrated Bledsoe's passing ability.

Very well put. I think you have to look at need, but also at a player's potential to reach greatness. If you think Ngata will be just another guy--good but nothing special--while Davis will be the next Gates, you have to go with Davis. But to take advantage of the TE position, the Bills will need to address the offensive line. Too many guys on that line are incapable of blocking defenders one-on-one. If the TE is always made to stay in and help mask others' incompetence, his pass catching skills will be rendered useless. That said, no OL other than the Brick is worthy of going #8, and this draft is nice and deep at OL.

At least in the short run, this could be good for the Bills. Think of it: the Bills have a solid amount of free cap space, and can get lots more by cutting Moulds. There are a lot of teams that are over the cap. Not only will these teams have to make painful cuts, they won't be able to sign expensive free agents. This will create a buyer's market for free agents, and the Bills will have plenty of salary cap space/spending power to take advantage of it! But in the long run, the owners and the union need to come to an agreement for the good of the league.

I see where you're coming from. Certainly the Bills have enough needs along the line of scrimmage that you could easily spend the 2006 draft just on that! But to make the best decision, the Bills have to look at all the factors: - How the QBs in this year's draft compare to those likely to be available next year - The chances of Losman being a success - The quality of the player the Bills would have to give up to draft a QB For example, let's say Cutler fell to #8. Also let's say the following was true: - The Bills felt Cutler was a lot better than anyone they could take next year - The chances of Losman being a success were low - The best non-QB available at #8 wasn't that great Now you're looking at a situation where it would make sense to take Cutler. It takes so long to develop a QB, that if the Bills don't yet have the QB of the future on the roster right now, they'd do well to acquire him as soon as possible.

Deanie-baby strikes again!

What I was getting at is that if the Bills pay Moulds $7 million in new money (which they'd have to do if they kept him) they'd create $7 million in additional cap burden. It's like putting $7 million more on your credit card. However, $1.7 million in existing credit card debt would be paid in 2007 instead of 2006 if we kept him. So of the $7 million in cap space that would be created by cutting Moulds, a little over $5 million would be received in 2006, and a little less than $2 million would be received in 2007. When people quote the $5 million cap savings for cutting Moulds, they are looking at cap savings for 2006 only. You do bring up a good point about the possibility of a collective bargaining agreement extension allowing teams to spread the cap hit over two years.

By no means am I saying Holcomb is the second coming of Montana. He's probaby better than 1/3 of the starters in the league--guys like Boller and Frerotte and so forth. But the Bills should seriously examine upgrading the QB position through the draft.

Holcomb led the offense to 23 points against the Bengals. There were over ll minutes left when the Bills' offense completed its final TD drive, so it was anything but a garbage time TD. The final Bills drive began with 7 minutes on the clock, and ended with less than a minute. The drive resulted in a FG, putting the Bills up by 3. On the ensuing Bengals drive, Terrence McGee returned an INT for a TD in the final seconds of the game, to make the lead 10 and seal the win. The fewest points Holcomb ever led the offense to were 14, and that was when the team failed to get off the plane against Oakland. During Losman's second stint, the only time he led the offense to at least 14 points was against Miami.

Easy. I'm looking at the total number of points the offense scores, not just TD passes. What do I care if a drive ends with a one yard McGahee run, or a 1 yard TD pass? It's seven points either way. Also, bear in mind that during Losman's second stint, two of his TD passes were from drives that began inside FG range. It's great that he helped turn three points into seven, but it's not like he drove the offense the length of the field to get those points. When looking at total team scoring, it's obvious Holcomb was far more efficient at moving the Bills down the field and putting points on the board. An average of seven points per game more efficient.