Cash

He's been healthy. I've definitely seen him on the field in the second halves of preseason games 1-2 (didn't see any of #3, thankfully), and I've heard his name in a preseason report or two. Nothing super impressive, but he's been getting consistent 3rd team reps. When the news came out that he'd been switched to WR, I was sure he was a goner, and didn't feel much better when I found out the switch to TE was his idea, not the coaches, but you never know. We know Marrone likes speed, and Dickerson has it, and any coach likes a guy with versatility. I think ultimately he's pretty similar to Gragg, and Gragg is Marrone's guy, so Dickerson probably gets cut. I'm pulling for him, though, if only because he's a sick FB in Madden. (It takes a season or two of upping his stats before he can block worth a damn, but his speed makes it well worth it. He can take checkdowns 15-20 yards routinely.) I don't know the answer for sure, but my very strong guess would be yes, it is guaranteed. Full IR guarantees the salary unless an injury settlement is reached. Being on the opening day roster guarantees the salary for a vested veteran like Kolb. It would be pretty surprising if IR-return is a loophole that avoids guaranteeing the salary. Since they plan to keep Gilmore on the active roster, I think it's a guarantee that they keep at least 10 DBs to start the year. I can't remember the Bills ever keeping 8 healthy DBs to start the year. I think 11 is more likely than 10, honestly. I predict Robey makes the team, probably over Heath. I'm less confident after he screwed up that punt last week, but he's mostly looked good in preseason, supposedly was great in training camp, and looked (before last week) like a legit punt returner who doesn't also double as a full-time player the way McLovin and Woods do. Wow, didn't realize that. Although with our new D, I guess Mario, Hughes, Jamie Blatnick, and Kourtnei Brown are sorta considered linebackers. But whatever you call them, I think we're looking at 6 kept at the DE/DT/NT positions, 6 kept at "true" LB positions, and probably 3 of the above 4 at the "Jack" LB/DE/pass rusher spot.

The OP uses a fact about the Pats' poor DB drafting to suggest that their FO is not as great as it's cracked up to be. The response to that was along the lines of, "they win all the time, so yeah, their FO is really good." The rebuttal went something like, "they only win because they have Tom Brady, not because of their FO." One poster (the one I was replying to) went so far as to say "They would be nothing w/o [brady]". I pointed out that they went 11-5 without Brady in 2008 after going 16-0 with him the year before, so one would think he's worth about 5 wins a year. The last 3 years they've gone 12-4, 13-3, and 14-2. Those are good records. Obviously Brady is their best player and plays the most important position, so he's the biggest factor in those records. But I don't see where anyone can say they'd stink without him. Be average? Sure. But if they started investing 1st-round picks into QBs instead of future-bust DBs, they'd probably find someone at least good enough to take the rest of the team to the playoffs. Honestly, the only thing the OP's stat shows is that the Pats are bad at identifying and/or developing DB talent in the draft. And they've been bad at that pretty consistently -- I think the current regime inherited Lawyer Milloy, Ty Law, et al, and supplemented them with free agent pickups like O-T-I-S Smith. Rodney Harrison was either a trade or FA. Aqib Talib was a trade. McCourty seems to be a good S, but was drafted to play CB. (Hi, Aaron Williams!) Dennard and Asante Samuel are the only 2 Belichick-era DB draftees that come to mind as being successes. On the other hand, they've shown to be consistently strong at identifying/developing talent in the defensive front 7 and on the offensive line. They've had mixed results at TE & RB, and have been pretty bad with WRs in the draft. And obviously they haven't needed much in the way of QB, but based on the limited data (Kevin O'Connor, Cassell, Hoyer, maybe Mallett), they don't seem to be world-beaters in that area. (Thankfully!)

No Rob Johnson on the worst Bills ever list. Egregious oversight. I almost registered for a Kinja account just to complain about it.

Nice post! I think there'll be 3 RBs for sure, and the 4th spot will come down to Summers or Dickerson. Dickerson is a better athlete, offers more versatility to play H-Back, TE, WR in a pinch, FB in a pinch. Summers only has one role -- true blocking/ST FB, but he's probably better at that role than Dickerson is at anything. Agreed. I'm surprised Antoine Caldwell never got a shot at this job -- he has more starting experience than Legursky, and on a much better O-line. As for Legursky, initial reports were that he signed a 4-year deal, which had my head spinning, but spotrachas him at 1-year, $900k, which is very cuttable. I'd be surprised but not shocked if he gets cut. Another option for Kolb could be IR designated to return, since Marrone has said that Kolb intends to continue his career. Doubt it, but we haven't heard definitively that he's out for the year, so thought I'd throw it out there. As for the other guys, I think the coaches will definitely want a veteran with the team, which probably means Leinart gets the spot over Thad. Hope not, though. I don't think he's the kind of veteran influence the team needs. EJ: "How do I tell if this LB faking a blitz, then dropping back to take away the quick slant?" Leinart: "Let me give you some advice, EJ. Don't ever make a girl go down on you in a hot tub. She has to come up for air like every 30 seconds, and it just winds up being frustrating. And if you sit up on the edge so she can breath, you get chilly. Just bang her instead. Does that answer your question?" The early cut of Rogers simplifies this a lot, since most people expected him to make the team on potential no matter what. Kaufmann hasn't played any special teams, so I think he's PS at best. I'd be surprised to see Smith cut now that he's re-done his contract -- he's a "team player" veteran influence and good special teamer, even on coverage units. The only way I could see us keeping 5 WRs is if Dickerson is kept as a 4th TE. I have to think our base offense will be K-gun style 3WR 1TE 1RB, and most teams with a 3WR base keep 6. I think both of these guys are safe -- can't keep less than 3 TEs unless you want to commit to spread formations at the goal line. Dowtin is Pettine's boy from NYC, and every time he's been mentioned by Marrone or Whaley, it's been in a positive context. I think he's safe. I haven't watched much of the preseason this year, but I really can't recall seeing Scott at all. Also don't remember hearing much about him (positive or negative) in practice reports. Weird. I think Butler is our starting LCB for at least 4 weeks. I think whoever gets cut will be a tough call, but not in a good way. Compounding things is that all of these guys have been hurt and missed time. Pretty rare to cut a 5th-round pick as a rookie, and someone else is likely to claim him on waivers. See Tank Carder last year. I think we keep 5 safeties, with the rationale that they play special teams, and both Williamses can play CB in a pinch. I wouldn't be shocked if Searcy winds up a surprise cut.

Wow, nice breakdown. Certainly a candidate for worst series in sports.

Doesn't 2008 prove that Brady was worth 5 wins to the Patriots? 16-0 in 2007, 11-5 without him in 2008. And Matt Cassell sucks and always has. Brady is very good, and I hate the Patriots very much, but I would hardly say the Patriots would be nothing without him.

Standpoint.

Yeah, now. But they lasted all of 2012 on NFL rosters.

Past Maddens have often had a coaching slider to dial up or down the aggressiveness of the defense. If that still exists, you may want to try sticking with the default playbook and just upping the aggressiveness to 70-80%.

We actually had a few of our cuts picked up last year -- Mark Asper, Tank Carder immediately come to mind, but I think there were 1-2 more as well... We've heard this spiel about "it'll finally be tough to make cuts" before, in fact we heard it last year. I'll buy it when the team starts winning.

I like it! Over/Under C.J. Spiller- 1500 yards rushing UNDER E.J. Manuel- 20 touchdown passes OVER Robert Woods- 60 receptions UNDER (but close) KIko Alonso- 110 tackles OVER Mario Williams- 11 sacks OVER Leodis McKelvin- 20 plays where he looks in position on a play and then the pass is still completed haha, UNDER Stevie Johnson- 2 fines for inappropriate touchdown celebrations UNDER Dustin Hopkins- 3 kickoffs out of bounds UNDER Matt Leinart- dresses for 3 games Unfortunately, this will be way OVER Wins- 7 Even more unfortunately, this will be UNDER.

What's the default D (and O) for us?

NoSaint, thank you for fighting the good fight in this thread. There are some spectacular leaps of illogic floating around with regards to Fitz's dead money. (And I would also add in Mark Anderson's dead money.) My only hope is that there's some cap rule I've never heard of where teams can absorb next year's dead money into this year's cap at the end of the year or something like that.

Agreed. The dropoff from McKelvin to whatever chump we roll out there if he gets hurt is, in my opinion, much smaller than the dropoff from McKelvin to Woods or Nickell Robey. To my knowledge, Goodwin hasn't been used as a PR at all in preseason or even in practice, so I don't think he's a realistic option.

Thanks for providing that! It's literally the first "report" I've seen suggesting that. So maybe there is something to it. But I have to wonder who/how accurate his source is. Most of the stuff I've read, whether local or national, whether early in the process or very recently, has made it very clear that the author has no insight as to the particulars of the negotiations. Whoever Benigni's source is doesn't seem to have talked to anyone else. Or has talked to other reporters, but they chose not to use the info because either they didn't find the source credible enough or couldn't verify with a second source. I haven't made any guesses about Byrd's demands during this process, because I can't claim to know. It's very plausible to me that he would want to be the highest-paid safety (or maybe just FS) in the NFL, and that the Bills wouldn't meet that demand. It's also very plausible to me that he'd be willing to accept a hair under what Dashon Goldson just got, but the Bills wouldn't meet that demand because they feel like the franchise tag gives them enough leverage. It's been a while since the Bills re-signed/extended one of their own players to a top-market contract. (They've re-signed/extended a lot of players recently, but I don't believe any of them were top 5 contracts for their position, and I wouldn't be surprised if none were top 10. Stevie was probably the closest.) Now, it's fair to point out that the Bills haven't exactly had a ton of top-value players to re-sign in the first place, but that doesn't tell us much. If Stevie had demanded top-five WR money instead of mid-tier WR money, would he still be a Bill? I dunno. What I do know is that I'm concerned about what I've heard from the Bills since Byrd signed. On one hand, you have the Bills trying (and failing) to get a roster exemption for the first 2 weeks of the regular season and Whaley talking about how great extra roster spots are. On the other hand, you have Marrone talking about how little time it'll take Byrd to get up to speed and how he can't wait to get him in the lineup. Why the disconnect? These roster exemptions are typically for 2 weeks, so why did the Bills request a 4 week exemption? I hope this isn't the case, but it really does strike me as a putative attempt to cost Byrd a couple of game checks. If that's the case, it would have had to have come from up high -- above Marrone and probably above Whaley as well. Candidates would be Brandon, Ralph, and (if the rumors are to be believed) Littman/Overdorf. I'm reminded somewhat of Angelo Crowell being placed on injured reserve right before the 2008 season, with the alleged reason being that the Bills needed a roster spot for week 1. (Note that Crowell's recovery from surgery did wind up being longer/more serious than first believed, but at no point during the initial round of explanations did the Bills suggest that Crowell would be out more than a couple weeks. I'm convinced that Crowell was placed on injured reserve to "stick it" to him for the timing of his surgery.)

An interesting thought. Personally, I think even Gronkowski's 2011 alone is more valuable than a 10-year career as backup/journeyman DT. Would you rather have Mike Lodish for his whole 11-year career, or 1 year of a healthy Gronkowski? I definitely take the 1 year of Gronkowski and hope I find another good TE once he gets hurt. With Lodish, I know what he'll give me, but that's not much of an upgrade over replacement level. How many games does it cost me to replace Lodish with Lauvale Sape? I'm guessing like 1-2 over 11 years, max. But if I replace 2011 Gronkowski with Visanthe Shiancoe, I probably lose a few extra games just in that season.

Most of those "reports" were just forum posters with an axe to grind. I never saw anything remotely substantiated about either what Byrd was asking or what the Bills were offering.

And Sir Nigel was a 4th-rounder. So your errors canceled out, I guess.

Would love to respond to the OP's argument, but the formatting hurts my eyes.

It's not so much that Spiller was a luxury pick, it's that the pick was indicative of poor team-building. Drafting RBs in the top 10 is not typically how to build a championship nucleus. Drafting a RB when (arguably) the two best players on your team are already RBs doesn't usually lead to extra wins. (Note that the Bills have continued to lose most of their games even when Spiller has played very well.) But all that is irrelevant if the RB you picks turns out to be a HOF-type talent. (Example: Adrian Peterson or Marshall Faulk.) Spiller has shown flashes of that kind of ability, and he certainly is fun to watch, but over the last 3 years, Marshawn Lynch has been the better player. And despite PTR's assurances of a HOF plaque for Spiller, the committee typically requires more than 2,973 yards from scrimmage before inducting a running back. I hope that last year winds up his sixth or seventh best season for the Bills, but let's not get ahead of ourselves here. Travis Henry's first 3 years were pretty nice. So were Willis McGahee's. Spiller is awesome right now, but the NFL is littered with RBs who started out great but couldn't maintain it due to injury or other factors. With respect to the OP's broader point: I think you're being a little over-optimistic, but if you can't be optimistic in the offseason, when can you be? The only parts I really agree with are Spiller and Carrington: Both look like infinitely better players entering 2013 than they did entering 2011. Carrington's development in the new D will be very interesting to watch. He showed some flashes of quality play last year (and I loved his performance on the FG block unit!), and the new coaching staff has universally raved about him. Maybe he can be Pettine's Buffalo version of Muhammad Wilkerson? Even if he just becomes a solid starter, that majorly upgrades the 2010 draft class over what it looked like a year or two ago. I don't have anything but the faintest hopes for the rest of the draft class, however. Easley's looked really good in preseason, but we've seen that before. I don't think he's even guaranteed himself a roster spot yet, and even if he does make the team, he'll be no higher than 4th on the depth chart. Not many 4th receivers make much of an impact around the league. Troup is a similar situation -- I don't necessarily expect him to make the team, and if he does, he's not guaranteed a lot of playing time. If we get any positive production out of either of those guys, awesome. But I think it's a longshot that either one is a "significant contributor", much less both. As for Moats, I've liked him from Day 1, and very happy to hear that he's playing well as the backup MLB. Any time a 6th-rounder is still on the team 3 years later, the pick was at least somewhat successful.

Hahaha, now that I re-read my post, it does read like I'm hoping for any of those 6 scenarios. (Of course, to read it that way, one would have to ignore the last paragraph completely, but since when do people read everything on the internet?) Edited to clarify a bit. And yes, I would definitely rank your scenario #1 on top of my list as well.

I also play in multiple leagues, to the point where usually every game has at least some impact on one of my scores, and I usually do track my scores live. But mostly I hope my guys who aren't going against the Bills blow up and I win despite a bagel from Brady or whomever. If I have Brady against the Bills (and no other Pats), and the Pats get to the goal line, here's the [EDIT] likely scenarios, ranked from most to least favorable: 1. Pick 6! (note that this would cost me points, potentially a lot in the one league that specifically penalizes INT-TDs) 2. Regular turnover 3. FG 4. Passing TD to someone that none of my fantasy opponents have, or QB sneak 5. Passing TD to someone I'm going against 6. Non-sneak rushing TD The first 2 would make me happy, #3 would be a sort of a moral victory ("at least we held 'em to 3), #4 would make me unhappy, but at least with a silver lining, and #5-6 are just misery.

I never mind drafting Brady because it's win-win for me: if he sucks on the field (or doesn't play at all), I'm happy. If not, then my fantasy team is winning games. A guy's performance is not affected by whether he's on my fantasy team or not. The real-life game is going to play out the same regardless of who I start or sit, so I might as well try to take advantage of it. Most of the people I've me who have similar views to the OP seem to be concerned with fans rooting against the Bills in favor of their fantasy team, or cheering when one of their players scores against the Bills. And I will admit, I have seen one or two examples of that actually happening, and that is weak sauce. If your favorite team is your fantasy team instead of the Bills, then get out of my Bills bar. Try to organize a "fantasy team" watching party somewhere else. Having said that, these people are few and far between in my experience. I think most cases of "fantasy team over real team" are imaginary. And I have no problems personally with watching a Bills game where they're going against my fantasy players. If I have Brady, I'm still bummed when he throws a touchdown. Not as bummed as I would be if I was going against Brady instead of having him on my team, but still bummed. Now, I have no problem with the OP's attitude, and it's shared by many. J.G. Wentworth says: It's YOUR fantasy team, manage it how YOU want it. I know of a Bills fan-only league where if you start a player against the Bills, his fantasy points are deducted from your score instead of added. That's a bit harsh, but also kind of a fun wrinkle that really devalues divisional opponents. Gronk had the best fantasy season in TE history a couple years ago, but something like 15 of his 17 TDs were against the Bills, which means his season wasn't nearly as good in that league.

Happens all the time? The last one I can distinctly remember was Romo's famous "Oh no Romo" botched snap in 2007. (And even that one I mis-remembered as an extra point upthread. It was actually a 19-yard field goal attempt.) I really can't remember when the Bills last botched a snap on a punt or FG. I could be way off, but I feel like the Bills were one of the earlier teams to have their P function as FG holder, and I think that's been the case since at least Chris Mohr, maybe earlier. Now, I mostly watch the Bills these days, so I'm sure I miss some of the botched snaps that happen league-wide. But what does it mean that they happen all the time? How many were there last year? I would guess three or less.

Opportunity cost is exactly right. Does having an extra "real" player on the roster (and active on gameday) help? Sure. But does it help enough to outweigh the cost? Most teams these days have a LS who doesn't play another position, and use the P as their holder on kicks. (Some probably still use the backup or 3rd-string QB as the holder, but the days of having the starting TE as the holder seem to be long gone.) The big advantage to this setup is that your 3 specialists can practice FGs by themselves while the rest of the team practices anything else. You'll never have the LS drawn away from FG practice because he has to run a D-line drill, for example. The first cost to having 1 guy be both K/P is that presumably at least 1 of your kicking or punting gets worse. The second is that you need to have a position player serve as the holder. That one's not a big deal if you can just use the 3rd-string QB, who gets virtually no practice reps. And if your kicker or punter already stinks, maybe it's worth your while to see if the other guy can do both? At least for this year, then sign a guy in the offseason? The first cost to having a position player (presumably a backup) serve as the LS is, again, practice time. The more he has to practice his "real" position, the less time he has to practice long snapping. The second cost is that if he's a "real" player, he'll probably be playing at least a couple snaps a game as a C/DE/TE/whatever, and there's a chance he gets hurt. Or if the guy in front of him gets hurt, now he has to play full-time, can't hardly ever practice his snapping, and there's a good chance he goes down in a game. In this scenario, you'd probably want to have at least a couple of guys take some time every week to practice long snapping. It would probably still work okay, at least most of the time. If I was a coach, I think I would definitely take the "everyone does it that way" approach and just dedicate 3 roster spots for K, P, & LS. By the way, in the CFL, every team carries exactly 1 K/P and that's it, so it's not like it's impossible. But their rosters are significantly smaller (46 total, 42 active, with 12 players on the field at all times), so there's a bigger benefit to keeping another position player vs. a second specialist. I don't know whether CFL teams usually keep dedicated long snappers, but I tend to think they don't.