Cash

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.

I tend to agree -- Moorman should not have been cut mid-season like that and was totally hung out to dry by DeHaven. It would have made a lot more sense to cut Moorman in camp and keep Powell at that time. (Logic being that Powell is younger and will get better, while Moorman is older and will get worse, and the difference between them this year isn't enough to make a big difference. Plus Powell would've been the cheaper option before Moorman's salary became guaranteed on opening day.) But I recommend you focus on the fact that this crappy scenario wasn't in any way Powell's fault. Blame DeHaven, and watch Powell with an open mind. Or at least try to.

Catches, yards: Stevie for sure, unless he misses significant time. TDs are a lot more random, so I wouldn't be surprised to see Stevie finish with like 3 or 4 and someone else edge him out. Remember, Megatron only had 5 TDs last year -- in a season where he broke the single-season yardage record! My guess would still be Stevie, but I definitely wouldn't put money on it. I think the better question is who's likely to be 2nd/3rd in catches/yards/TDs, including TEs. Chandler was basically 2nd in everything last year, but coming off an injury in a new offense, can we be sure he'll repeat that? My uninformed guesses will be Woods/Chandler for 2nd/3rd in catches, Graham/Woods for 2nd/3rd in yards, and Chandler/Woods for 2nd/3rd in TDs.

Thanks for posting! Hmm, I wonder which format the NFL will recommend? Maybe the 18-game regular season they've been jonesing for for 2 years? Well, now that they've cracked down on bounties and eliminated concussions forever with Heads Up Tackling , they might as well. The NFL, particularly Goodell, is spectacularly full of BS. They know how unpopular an 18-game regular season is, which is why they keep trying to wrap it in an issue that people will swallow -- reducing preseason games. So far, every attempt they've made has been rebuffed, because the fans and more importantly the players' union are too smart to fall for this nonsense. But every time they get smacked down, they just come back for more. They think they can win a war of attrition, and they may be right. I don't care about the number of preseason games, and the price doesn't affect me because I live out of town, but I do feel for you season-ticket holders having to pay full price for them. I agree with papzoid that there's no way the NFL proposes or accepts a format that gets them less revenue. Now, it might be possible that reducing preseason ticket prices (but not concessions, parking, etc.) could result in more revenues, because 60,000 fans at half price will produce more revenue than 30,000 fans at full price. Or maybe you make kids under 12 free across the board, figuring that families are typically good for more food/merchandise sales than individuals or groups of adults. If other teams do similar "Kids Day" promotions like the Bills do, there might be data to suggest what effect lowering ticket prices would have on overall revenue. As for the regular season, I remain adamantly against expanding it. If anything, it's too long, but I get that there's no way it'll be reduced. I really think the winning move would be to go back to the 16-game, 18-week (2 byes) schedule that they tried one year in the 90s. The owners wouldn't get any extra game-day/ticket revenue, but an extra week of NFL football means a bigger TV deal. The players don't have to play any extra games and actually get more rest, plus the bigger TV deal increases the salary cap. As fans, we now have to suffer 2 weeks without our beloved team, but honestly, that's a good opportunity to either watch RedZone channel all day or go to a sports bar and see as many games as possible.

Re: the bolded -- not necessarily. There needs to be a work/life balance in there, and maybe he had important personal things to deal with. Or maybe he feels that working out on his own is as effective or more in preparing him for the season. Skipping a voluntary activity doesn't in and of itself make one unprofessional. Tend to agree with everything else. He should consider it part of his job to know his contract, especially with that much on the line. Having said that, he's absolutely right to fire his agent. Just because the player screwed up doesn't excuse the professional incompetence of the agent. First off, who negotiates a $2 million drop in salary for missing workouts? I've never heard of such a thing. Second, if you are going to negotiate that, you'd better make that clause VERY clear to your client. Make sure he understands it and is on board with it before the contract is signed. And third, you should remind him that the workouts are coming up, and that missing them will cost him a ton of money.

Communist!! Nah, I salute you for thinking outside the box, but I don't think it's very feasible. For one thing, NFL endorsement money is mostly for a handful of QBs. There's plenty of big-name players who don't get much $$ outside of their actual contract. Example: any offensive lineman, or any defensive player except Ray Lewis. I'm sure there are available if a player really wants to pursue them, but do you really want Stevie Johnson spending all his time filming local commercials instead of working on his game? Good point. Also a good point. How the hell would the Bills ever acquire or retain talent? They couldn't even overpay! It would be kinda fun to see the superteams develop in the big markets and warm-weather cities, though. And any star QB could basically be a kingmaker if his contract was up. Just announce that he's going to team X, and every free agent will jump on board. Can't wait to see the team of 11 running backs all fighting each other for the ball!

Very good post. As a fan, I very much hope that things really have changed, but I've been burned too many times to expect it until I see it. (And even then I've been burned -- see 2008 & 2011.) When an organization has such a strong pattern of failure over such a long period, I have to take a step back and say that regardless of what went into each individual decision, there is a fundamental organizational problem. K-9, you can defend each individual decision all you want, and you can blame every indefensible one on a since-fired coach, but the bottom line is that if every team really was run like the Bills, then the Bills would be average. Instead, they're moribund. It's hard to be really good in the NFL, but it's also hard to be really bad for very long. Between the draft and the huge amount of variance in such a short season, even a bad organization should get passable for stretches here and there. Even Mike Brown's Bungles have had some recent success, and I don't think anyone would claim he's a good owner or deny that he's cheap. I hope change is in the air, but even if it isn't, I'll still keep hoping for the best every year. If Mike Brown can skinflint his way to Marvin Lewis and 4 playoff appearances in 10 years, than so can Ralph!

Thanks for bringing up Hangartner -- that one had slipped my mind. That's another guy who was snapped up by his former team (in that case, the Panthers) as soon as the Bills cut him, and wound up starting that year. Very similar to the L. Walker situation -- I find it very difficult to believe that the coaching staff really felt that a multi-year starter had no use to the team, not even as a depth player. Walker could have went back to RT where he'd started the previous 2 years, or been kept as the swing tackle. Hangartner could have been moved to RG (where he started for Carolina) or kept as the primary backup to all 3 interior line positions. K-9, you and the Bills appear to agree that if a player was signed to be a starter, and no longer factors in as a Week 1 starter, he should be cut in favor of a cheaper player. I think that unless the team has budget or cap space problems, it would be vastly preferable to keep an experienced backup on the roster. And I also think that if there are Littman/Overdorf-driven cuts, this is where they happen: on the margins, with veteran players who aren't starting. The coaching staff can justify parting ways with a backup, and the fans (except us obsessives) don't care. I doubt cutting Walker or Hangartner ever cost the Bills a dime in revenue. Failing to give a huge contract to OJ or Jimbo or Bruce would have cost a huge amount in terms of ticket sales, merchandise, etc. So I don't think the fact that Ralph has given out big contracts tells us much about whether he and/or his finance guys have been meddling with the roster. I can't say I'm sure that Ralph/Littman/Overdorf have made those kind of moves, but I think the evidence points more towards yes than no.

Any of you guys wind up in this? Fred Jackson surprises season ticket holders

The bolded is only a "football" concern if you are tight on cap space. If you have plenty of cap room, which the Bills typically do, a player's salary is largely irrelevant. The concern shouldn't be "is he worth X million dollars?", but rather "is he better than the street free agent who would take his roster spot?" The Langston Walker cut is the one that really jumps out as fishy. I can't be 100% certain that it was a Littman/Overdorf cut, but it can't just be explained away by "he didn't fit the scheme". Walker was signed to play RT in 2007, and started all 32 games in 2007 & 2008. In 2009, after Jason Peters was traded, it was announced that Walker would be flipping over to LT to replace him. He struggled in this role during the preseason. Prior to the start of the season, it was announced that Demetrius Bell, 2nd-year 7th-round pick with no NFL experience, would be the starting LT. Walker was not kept as a backup LT or starting (or even backup) RT, and was instead released. The same head coach who started him every game in 2007 & 2008 suddenly decided that he wasn't even good enough to be a backup? He wasn't better than Kirk Chambers or Jonathan Scott? That's ridiculous. Now, a lot of fans will probably explain that one away as simply gross incompetence on the part of Dick Jauron, and the sad thing is, I can't totally discount that. But it seems more likely to me that Jauron would've preferred to keep his 2-year starter as an experienced backup swing tackle, but wasn't allowed to keep a backup at Walker's salary.

Ah, now this makes more sense. Anderson would've been cut back when Wilson & Barnett were, but he wasn't healthy. As soon as he passed a physical, he went out the door. It's important to differentiate between cap room and actual money. Cutting Anderson costs the Bills cap space, but saves actual money. As uncle flap pointed out, hopefully the Bills accelerate all of the $4.5 million of dead money into this year's cap, because they're WAY under it. (Spotrac - scroll to the bottom) But in terms of actual payroll, all the dead money was part of Anderson's signing bonus -- the Bills don't need to cut him a check. Instead, they avoid paying his $2.4 million base salary. Whomever takes Anderson's roster spot will almost certainly make less than that. Again, I don't think money was the primary motivator for Anderson's release, but it was definitely part of the consideration. That doesn't make the Bills unusual -- if you don't think a guy will fit into your scheme, why pay him $2.4 million? But let's not pretend that this move ran counter to the Bills' financial interests. They have cap room to spare, so there's no competitive penalty to absorbing Anderson's dead money, and this move will cut costs this year, probably by $1.5 million to $2 million.

Good stuff, thanks for posting!