JDG

Actually, I loved Antonio Bryant coming out of college, and did see him do well in Cleveland. The point remains, however, that this guy has had charachter issues surround him his whole career. He was run out of Dallas by Bill Parcells, and despite his production, Romeo Crennel apparently doesn't want him either. I wish Bryant well, but Bryant has two pretty solid strikes against him. I can't say that I predict greatness for him. JDG

Sorry, I usually don't use the word "restructuring" to describe "pay cuts" and "give backs." A "restructuring", to me at least, means offering to convert salary into bonus so as to offer a player the same money but with less of a cap hit in the current year. In other words, simply changing the structure of the contract. I recognize that maybe some people, like the AP writer linked to above, will use the word "restructure" to describe a "pay cut", but in the context of the post I was referring to, it was clearly the former definition being used. JDG

Biggest Draft Lie - Any team with a Top 10 pick is guaranteed to get a quality player.

1) It is true that perhaps Ralph Wilson doesn't want to spend new money on Eric Moulds. If so, however, then we should all just give up on hoping for a winner in Buffalo until Ralph Wilson dies. My analysis is based on the assumption that Ralph Wilson is willing to spend up to the salary cap on players each year. I do think that's a fair assumption. After all, Ralph is either going to spend the $7 mil in cash on this Eric Moulds' salary this year, or else he will spend that $7 million on someone else's salary *plus* spending even more than that on the signing bonus for Eric Moulds' replacement. Thus, if spending cash is an issue (and I hope for all our sake that it is not), then *retaining* Eric Moulds produces less cash expenditure this year than cutting Eric Moulds. 2) WR's like the oft-injured Jurevicious and Givens, or the journeyman Antonio Bryant are available *every* year. Its not like if we keep Moulds that we can't sign such a WR next year, especially since the "dead cap" space of cutting Moulds next year is much lower. JDG

That's fallacious - you're comparing the absolute cost, not the marginal cost. If we could cut Eric Moulds and use the savings to sign Jason Taylor, even I would be in favor. But we can't.... which is why you need to consider marginal, not absolute cost. JDG

You're misunderstanding me. I don't want to throw out the cap numbers altogether. I think that most observers (Bill in NYC might be an exception) agree that if the Bills had unlimited resources for next season, we would keep Eric Moulds. The Bills, of course, don't have unlimited resources. So, what is the constraint on the Bills resources? Cash? Marginally so, but not really. I'm sure Ralph Wilson has some more paintings you can sell. The real constraint on the Bills resources for next season is the salary cap space. No matter what happens, Eric Moulds is going to count $5.3mil against the salary cap for this year. So, the question is, what is the marginal cost of retaining Eric Moulds? The answer is $5.5million less the cost of his replacement. All the other figures you have tossed around aren't particularly meaningful to then decision of whether or not to retain Eric Moulds. Thus, when you start asking "is Eric Moulds worth $7 million", as you did above, you are either intentionally obfuscating, or else you simply don't understand the basics of rational logic decision-making (aka, the basics of economics). Let's say that Eric Moulds could be replaced with David Givens for a $3 million cap hit next season. That means the correct evaluation question is this: "Is Eric Moulds worth $2.5 million more in production to the Bills next year than David Givens"? Or to put it another way, "is Eric Moulds worth more to the Bills next year than David Givens and whomever we can buy with the $2.5 million in cap space?" Repeat that example for every possible replacement, and you arrive at the answer. If the answer is "yes" every time, then you keep Moulds. If not, then you cut him. But the figure for comparison is a lot closer to $2.5 million (and I might be being conservative on how much cap space a player like David Givens will consume next year) than it is to $5.5million, let alone to $7 million. I agree that the Bills are not winning a Super Bowl next year. I agree. The Bills do, however, have goals for next year. The two top ones are probably, in no particular order, ending our playoff drought to reinvigorate the fan base and get our players some much-needed playoff experience; and to evaluate JP Losman as potential starting NFL QB. I think there is no question that Eric Moulds can definitely help us achieve one of those goals, if not both of those goals for next year. So, its not like Moulds is worthless to us next season - and again, we need to compare that worth against the marginal cost, as described above. Finally, there is some truth to considering the costs to the Bills in future years of retaining Eric Moulds this year. After all, retaining Moulds this year does committ the Bills to expending a certain amount of cap space on Moulds in 2007. Of course, cap space in 2007 is less valuable than cap space in 2006, simply because the cap will be higher. Indeed, there might not even be a cap next year. So you need to calculate the present discounted value of cap space in 2007 which is a bit more complex than I'm going to go into here, but based on the figures being tossed around, I don't think that it materially affects the results. JDG

We don't pay anyone "on the cap". I did err in saying that we are only paying Moulds $5.5 million this year, the $5.5 million is his marginal cap hit, not what we are paying him. We certainly aren't paying him $11 mil under any defintion, though. You are confusing "paying" and "cap hit", and blurring "new cap space" with "sunk cap sapce." The only factor that matters in any decision is marginal cost. I don't think that breaking that cost into "cash" and "cap hit" is particularly meaningful. We have to presume that Ralph Wilson is willing to spend what it takes to win. Thus, the constraint on the Bills isn't "cash", its "cap space." The marginal cost of keeping Eric Moulds this year, according to today's D&C is $5.5 million less the cost of Eric Moulds' replacement. Period. Either Moulds is either worth that marginal cost or he is not. Bringing other figures into the discussion, like $11million, or $7 million in cash, serves little purpose other than obfuscation. The Bills can't control sunk costs, they can only control the marginal cost. JDG

Read the first post Kelly. The Bills would only pay Eric Moulds $5.5 mil this year.... not $11 million. JDG

There's 7 picks ahead of us... there seems to be near-consensus that those seven picks will include 3 QB's and Reggie Bush, although that isn't quite in stone yet with regards to the QB's. The other three picks could very easily be D. Ferguson, M. Williams, and V. Davis. That sounds a lot like the way even Moulds' critics describe him. In any case, I think that's putting an awful lot of pressure on a rookie to plan to use him like Tony G, Antonio Gates, or Alge Crumpler in his very first year. In the meantime, you're leaving Evans to fend for himself, without a starting-caliber WR on the opposite side of the field. Can Evans handle being double-teamed every play? I hope so - but I can't say that we have any evidence of that. Unless you are planning on going with Sam Aiken opposite Evans, you're not going to have $5mil in savings to use on other positions. Even Jeff Posey had something like a $1.5mil cap hit his first year, which would cut that figure down to $4 million. Signing anyone with name recognition only increases the price. JDG

Let me start by saying that I'd be happy drafting Vernon Davis. I'm a firm believer that you need difference-makers, and Davis is a difference-maker. I think that the Bills have ended up with a great year to be sitting at #8, what with three QB's likely to go ahead of us, at least 1 RB, and maybe 2, and then leaving some exciting potential prospects like Mario Williams, Haloti Ngata, D'brickshaw Ferguson, and Vernon Davis to chose frame. Heck, I wouldn't sneer at a Tamba Hali or Winston Justice at #8. The danger, of course, is that at least 25% of that above group will not pan out - the job of Marv Levy is to figure out which of the above are in that group, and to not draft one of them.... Anyhow, the problem with your scenario is that the Eric Moulds decision probably has to come well before the draft. If we still have Eric Moulds on draft day, and *then* draft Vernon Davis, then the cap savings from cutting Moulds probably don't amount to much. And I don't think we can gamble on Davis being there at #8 at this point. While I do hope that the Bills addres the offensive line in free agency, and with at least one 1st Day draft pick - I don't know why you think cutting Moulds will free up money to sign a solid #3 WR. As I see it, the Bills fully intend to use Parrish as a #3 WR. If the Bills cut Moulds they need to sign a solid *starting* WR - and the mere fact that a bidding war is about to erupt over Antwaan Randle-El is probably all the evidence we need about how thin a crop of free agent WR's is truly available this year. Finally, I also don't think that the prospects of the Bills lining up two rookie TE's is striking fear into the heart of Bill Belichick. O.k., even looking beyond this year, Everett is a huge unknown at this point - he was kind of a gamble when we drafted him, and the injury only adds to the question marks. At this point, if Everett pans out, I consider it a bonus, but my operating philosophy right now is that he is most likely to end up as a footnote in Bills history. That's why I'd be excited about drafting Vernon Davis.... but I don't think that anyone should be projecting Everett to be likely to amount to anything at this point. Hopefully, though, he proves the skeptics wrong, but in the meantime, TE is definitely a viable position of need. JDG

I don't view Eric Moulds' numbers going up once we got a real NFL QB under center as a knock against him. Indeed, I think it proves what Moulds is really capable of, and demonstrates just how bad Losman really was last season. Moreover, given the state of the Bills' WR's, I'd be happy to have a player who could catch 80 balls for an *8* yard per catch average. As for Moulds' 2007 contract, that shouldn't be part of the equation. The Bills will have to assume the cap hit for already paid signing bonuses at one time or another. So, there really isn't much difference between accounting for that cap hit this year versus next year - it all has to be accounted for eventually. If anything, given the pressure to "win now" in Buffalo - i.e. to at least break our playoff-less streak, there might be a slight preference for spreading out the cap hit so as not to hamstring the team for this upcoming season. In any case, come the end of next season, you once again conduct the same exercise: look at Moulds' last season production, look at the production of Moulds' possible replacements, and compare with the price of retaining Moulds vs. the cost of replacing Moulds. But logically, it is a fallacy to bring the 2007 contract into it - *unless* you have a strong preference for "taking the medicine" this year, not seriously competing for the playoffs, and building with a view towards 2007. I personally don't have that preference, and given the general atmosphere in Buffalo, I don't think it would necessarily be a wise decision. You talk about "heading in another direction" - well, which direction is that? The Sam Aiken direction? I've already gone over the underwhelming free-agent crop of WR's this year. Cutting Moulds and spending yet another 1st-day draft pick on WR is simply going to keep us from using that 1st day pick to address one of our other needs. The Bills have too many holes as it is this year to create another hole for this year. Let's focus on the holes we have, and worry about creating holes with a vew for "improvement in another direction" next year. JDG

According to published reports, the Bills have not offered Moulds a restructuring. You say that Moulds is not worth $5.5mil to the Bills. Come again? How many games do you think the Bills will win with Evans-Parrish-Aiken-some rookie as our WR's? Its hard to see this message board, which has villified Parrish all year as getting excited about Randle-El. Do we bring in a head-case journeyman like Bryant? Or a David Givens who hasn't managed to distinguish himself on one of the best offenses in the League the past few years? The Bills should be seeking to fill holes, not to create them. JDG

A new cap deal will probably mean that the owners have agreed to share a greater portion of overall revenues. The salary cap is set as a proportion of shared revenues, and indeed, under a new deal that propotion is expected to go up. Thus, a new cap deal will probably dramatically increase the cap well beyond the already-expected normal modest increase for this year. JDG

Well, it looks like insanity is going to reign over reason, but here goes..... based on numbers in today's D&C. No matter what happens, Eric Moulds will count at least $5.3 million against this year's cap. Nothing can change that, so that $5.3 million is essentially off the table. Thus, the only question is - is Eric Moulds worth $5.5 million in cap space this year. Granted $5.5 million is a lot. It sounds like the Bills want to put the maximum 30% pay cut on that to get it down to $3.67 million. It doesn't look like Moulds is biting, but if he did - Moulds for $3.67million would be a no-brainer. So, since that is unlikely, the question is - is Moulds worth $5.5mil in cap space? Well, the problem is that the Bills certainly should not plan on going into next season with just Evans, Parrish, Aiken, and some 2nd or 3rd round draft pick or some mid-tier free agent at WR. That means trying to sign a top free agent WR, i.e. an Antwaan Randle-El, David Givens, or Antonio Bryant. Antwaan Randle-El is going to be a huge bidding war, and with signing bonuses only able to be pro-rated over four years as of today, that's going to be a first year cap figure of probably close to $4mil or $5mil. Even those other players are going to require first-year cap figures of $2mil or $3mil. Is it really worth cutting Eric Moulds just to get an extra $1.5-$2.5mil of cap space to use on other positions? Last year Eric Moulds caught 81 passes for 816 yards in 15 games with 4 TDs, despite playing half those games with a QB who was in the bottom 10% of the League, and the other half of those games with a QB who famously loved to throw underneath passes. Moreover, Moulds clearly showed in his last three games that he still has the talent to play in this League. And who are we going to replace him with? Antonio Bryant? He's a head case who got run out of Dallas, and whom Cleveland isn't thrilled about re-signing, even though their best WR isn't even going to be ready for training camp. He caught only 69 balls for 1000 yards, and the same number of TD's as Moulds last year anyways. David Givens? 60 catches for 700 yards, in 10 starts and 13 games due to injuries - with a whopping 2 TD's. He's never even started a full season. And even if we win the Antwaan Randle-El sweepstakes, we'd still be getting a WR who caught just 35 passes for 550 yards and a single TD in his first full season as a starter on one of the best teams in football. Its not like we need Randle-El to return kicks for us. So what exactly is the rush to replace Eric Moulds? Getting rid of our best offensive player does not seem like a path to getting better. Indeed, measuring up Moulds' accomplishments on a very below-average team, it is not at all clear that we could replace Moulds with a comparable talent. The Bills are not like the Redskins and stuck in salary cap jail. Under the circumstances, downgrading our WR position for $1.5-$2.5mil in cap space would be penny wise and pound foolish. JDG

This is actually hugely important, as Snyder has so far been one of the major obstacles to a new revenue-sharing deal, which is at the heart of the issues holding up the new contract. JDG

But even he is a free agent! KC really does have the most dire QB situation in the League.... if they weren't in the same division as San Diego, they'd be the most logical destination for Rivers. JDG

If I have disagreed with you 1,000 times on TBD, I have *never* disagreed with you more strongly than on this point. I think that Herm Edwards is an outstanding coach. Three playoff berths in five years. He has gone to the playoffs every single year in which his starting QB has stayed healthy. He turned a 1-4 start into a division title in a very competitive division. He has two huge playoff wins on his resume, including going in to San Diego on the road last year, and blowing out Peyton Manning and the Colts 41-0 (think about that for a moment.... 41-0 in the playoffs! Belichick never dominated Manning like that.) He was an idiot kicker away from the AFC Championship Game in 2004. Moreover, he has done all this while playing the difficult AFC East schedule, in the same division as the dynastic New England Patriots. Moreover, and this will go against everything you hear in the national media, Herman Edwards is one of the most outstanding clock managers in the NFL. A close examination of the record will bear me out on this - despite the conventional wisdom. He knows how manage the clock to be the last man with the ball, and the last chance to win. He understands that a 5 yard delay-of-game penalty can be well worth the price of saving a timeout for late in the game. Now, Kansas City has a lot of problems - Trent Green is going to be 36 this year, and there is no replacement QB on board. Their offensive line isn't going to be around for forever, and they still have deficiencies on defense to correct. Nevertheless, Kansas City has been one of the best-run organizations in football for decades, and now they have one of the best coaches in the game. A lot of luck goes into these things, but I would not be at all surprised by a Super Bowl in the next 10 years. JDG

Albany - Herm Edwards was Bradway's guy. This is the culmination of a palace coup in the Jets organization, which is why Edwards was forced out (nota bene the paltry compensation KC got away with paying), why Mangini was fired (he was a close friend of the new GM, Tannenbaum), and now that Bradway had been thoroughly marginalize - why Bradway was fired. So yeah, the new guy will support Mangini - he was in fact the force behind hiring him in the first place. I've also heard that one of the themes of the press conference was words to this effect: "the last regime was good enough to get the Jets to the playoffs. But that's not good enough, their goal is to get to next level." If true, Bills fans can take comfort that amidst all the chaos at OBD, there is at leat one franchise that is apparently even less well-run then ours - and they play in our division. I wonder how Jets fans are going to feel once KC wins a Super Bowl a few years from now..... JDG

But how far removed is *any* NFL team from the Super Bowl? Only two teams will make it next year, and only two teams the year after that. The Bills are "in the pack" of the NFL, and will need to get the right coach with the right team to make it. As for when that will happen? Who knows? JDG

I actually feel very strongly that Roethlisberger scored. I think it is weird the way the call was made on the field, as the ref clearly changed his mind while running towards the spot (what, did he think that Roethlisberger would *not* reach the ball over the goal line after hitting the ground????) - but I think that the replay shows almost conclusively that the ball just ever-so-slightly, yet clearly, broke the plane of the goalline. I also think that the offensive pass interference was the right call, if ticky tacky. The NFL actually needs more of that. (Although, wasn't it Darrell Jackson called for it?) The worst call, however, was a non-call. On a huge 3rd Down run by Roethlisberger, a WR is holding his man in open space. Its a ticky-tack call, but no moreso than the offensive interference, and one that is called frequently. It should have been called. JDG

Under NFL rules, that is not a catch, and therfore not a TD. The rule about "the ball crossing the plane" *only* applies *after* establishing a catch. Darrell Jackson did not get two feet in bounds with the catch, therfore it was not a catch, and therfore not a TD. JDG

I saw Emmit Smith get a TD that way once.....

Speaking of patience and the development of players.... let's consider the Bills #1 developmental project, JP Losman. I have to say that I sometimes wonder if JP Losman might not be similar to Rich Gannon. There's some obvious similarities, they're both running QB's, both came from small schools. Anyhow, Rich Gannon spent his first three years on the bench, before finally getting to start for three years. During those three mediocre years, he struggled with his completion percentage, and ran about 45 times a year. He then lost his job, and spent six years as a backup. By the time he got a chance to start again, in his 13th year, he was a solid player. By his 15th year he was NFL MVP. It makes you wonder what might have happened had Minnesota stuck with him for another year or two. Or if maybe it just took that long to develop? Or get into the right situation? Who knows? I hope JP Losman beats that mark by about 12 years, though. ;-) JDG

I agree with your second point. I think that Mularkey managed to prove his incompetence in just two years. I think that we were possibly a little hasty on Gregg Williams - although Donahoe completely set him up to fail by not acknowledging the nature of the rebuilding project in the first year, undermining his authority by cutting Larry Centers, pressuring him to fire his asisstants, and then giving him a lame duck year on his contract and using the 1st Round draft pick that year for a player who would have to redshirt his first year. I have a deep fear of Gregg Williams being very succesful when (note, not "if") he gets his next HC job. I think it is arguable, however, that Bills Nation was not patient enough with Donahoe. Donahoe came into a rebuilding project and in three years he built a new team centered around Bledsoe - Henry - Moulds and Reed with Gregg Williams as the coach, and Donahoe saw that it was not good. Thus, Donahoe made the decision, and I concede that it was probably the correct decision, to rip all of that up and rebuild over around Losman - McGahee - (Moulds?) - Evans - Parrish (and Everett?) with Mike Mularkey as coach. We then fired Donahoe before this second project could be fairly evaluated.... so the ironic thing is that the next two years of the Bills franchise are largely going to be dependent upon the players built by Tom Donahoe. On the other hand, given the way in which Tom Donahoe undermined Gregg Williams and then hired Mike Mularkey over Charlie Weis, it probably was better to fire him sooner rather than later - i.e. after a fair evaluation of his second project. JDG P.S. To Kelly the Fox News Dog - Great post to lead off this thread. I think that "patience" is something that far too many fans don't understand, and in particular, that players can be better or worse over time, and better or worse depending on the right situation.