Bills Working on extensions for Gilmore & Maybe Tyrod

[KDIGGZ]

it looks as though we arent going to get a long term deal done. but i hope we aren't stupid like Carolina and we at least franchise him and lock him in for next season. we are in win now mode and we need this guy

[Bill from NYC]

The only reason that a team wouldn't deal a 1st for Gilmore (or any other player of his caliber) is that they'd have to part with the pick AND a hefty sum of guaranteed money, whereas drafting a player in the 1st round is a very small monetary investment.

Bandit, the above is 100% true, no doubt. Still, the difference is that Gilmore has a body of work to which to refer. If he is as great as you may (I don't know) think, what would be the problem? Would teams be unwilling to pay Brady because Carson Wentz is cheaper? Would they be unwilling to give up a draft pick AND a contract for Luck, Miller, etc.?

 

For the record, I think that Gilmore is good. Do I put him in the class of a game changing defender who deserves to be the highest paid player on the Bills? Of course not. He may or may not be the best corner on the team.

 

Of course, the above is jmo.

Edited June 20, 2016 by Bill from NYC

[thebandit27]

 

 

I love this: first it's "Who was the last Super Bowl winner that wasn't paying an elite CB top-10 money when they won the title?", then, when it pointed out to you by multiple posters that there have been several in the past 6 years alone, it becomes: "let's not bang the 'where are the rings' drum too loudly".

 

You should have looked it up before you posted it. Don't blame others if you have to backtrack.

I'm not backtracking at all.

 

The fact that Seattle hadn't paid Sherman yet doesn't change the point.

 

If you want to ignore the results on the field, that's fine, but I think it's obtuse to do so.

 

 

I'm arguing exactly that.

So what position is it okay to pay?

 

Not LT

Not CB

 

Besides QB, who are you okay with giving a market-level deal?

[thebandit27]

Bandit, the above is 100% true, no doubt. Still, the difference is that Gilmore has a body of work to which to refer. If he is as great as you may (I don't know) think, what would be the problem? Would teams be unwilling to pay Brady because Carson Wentz is cheaper? Would they be unwilling to give up a draft pick AND a contract for Luck, Miller, etc.?

 

For the record, I think that Gilmore is good. Do I put him in the class of a game changing defender who deserves to be the highest paid player on the Bills? Of course not. He may or may not be the best corner on the team.

 

Of course, the above is jmo.

I think it's more about the investment of both picks and gtd money than it is about one or the other.

 

Obviously QB has much greater positional value than any other spot, so I think teams are much more willing to do what's necessary to get their guy.

 

For me, I think Gilmore's a top-7 CB. I think it's possible that a team will be willing to make a deal for him and pay him, but much of it will depend upon the market, his health, and how close that team believes they are to winning a championship

[RyanC883]

it looks as though we arent going to get a long term deal done. but i hope we aren't stupid like Carolina and we at least franchise him and lock him in for next season. we are in win now mode and we need this guy

 

exactly. Franchise the guy, and trade him during the year if warranted. Draft another CB next year.

I think it's more about the investment of both picks and gtd money than it is about one or the other.

 

Obviously QB has much greater positional value than any other spot, so I think teams are much more willing to do what's necessary to get their guy.

 

For me, I think Gilmore's a top-7 CB. I think it's possible that a team will be willing to make a deal for him and pay him, but much of it will depend upon the market, his health, and how close that team believes they are to winning a championship

 

The Steelers may be willing to part with a 1st for Gillmore. They are desperate for a CB. That said, we may have two of the top ten CB's in the NFL on our team. Might make more sense to keep Gilmore as long as we can until a replacement is ready and Darby shows he can replicate his year 1 success.

[FireChan]

I'm not backtracking at all.

The fact that Seattle hadn't paid Sherman yet doesn't change the point.

If you want to ignore the results on the field, that's fine, but I think it's obtuse to do so.

 

So what position is it okay to pay?

Not LT

Not CB

Besides QB, who are you okay with giving a market-level deal?

Oh bandito.

[thebandit27]

 

exactly. Franchise the guy, and trade him during the year if warranted. Draft another CB next year.

 

The Steelers may be willing to part with a 1st for Gillmore. They are desperate for a CB. That said, we may have two of the top ten CB's in the NFL on our team. Might make more sense to keep Gilmore as long as we can until a replacement is ready and Darby shows he can replicate his year 1 success.

 

Not sure Pittsburgh would do that--they're pretty frugal with how they invest both picks and money, and they just spent a first on Burns this year

[BarleyNY]

I'm arguing exactly that.

Ok. Then please clarify your stance. Arguing against something isn't the same thing as saying what you're for.

[Mr. WEO]

I'm not backtracking at all.

 

The fact that Seattle hadn't paid Sherman yet doesn't change the point.

 

If you want to ignore the results on the field, that's fine, but I think it's obtuse to do so.

 

So what position is it okay to pay?

 

Not LT

Not CB

 

Besides QB, who are you okay with giving a market-level deal?

 

I'm obtuse?? You asked what teams have won a SB without a top 10 salaried CB on the roster and we have given you 4 recent SB winning teams. Now you are saying something about ignoring the results on the field. You've lost me.

 

Where has rewarding a CB with a massive second or third contract (top 10 salary) worked out for a team? How about dumping a ton on an LT? History has proven the errors with these moves. Of course you pay your QB first and foremost, if he is your man--or if you only are pretty sure he is. His impact is immediate and depended on every week. Same for a top WR. Or a superstar TE.

 

Ok. Then please clarify your stance. Arguing against something isn't the same thing as saying what you're for.

 

I'm pretty clear that it is foolish to pay CBs that much money.

[BarleyNY]

I'm obtuse?? You asked what teams have won a SB without a top 10 salaried CB on the roster and we have given you 4 recent SB winning teams. Now you are saying something about ignoring the results on the field. You've lost me.

 

Where has rewarding a CB with a massive second or third contract (top 10 salary) worked out for a team? How about dumping a ton on an LT? History has proven the errors with these moves. Of course you pay your QB first and foremost, if he is your man--or if you only are pretty sure he is. His impact is immediate and depended on every week. Same for a top WR. Or a superstar TE.

 

I'm pretty clear that it is foolish to pay CBs that much money.

 

That's so vague that it's meaningless. You're just whining about Taylor not getting a deal yet. He'll get one if and when he earns it.

[Mr. WEO]

That's so vague that it's meaningless. You're just whining about Taylor not getting a deal yet. He'll get one if and when he earns it.

 

 

Holy cow...

[thebandit27]

 

I'm obtuse?? You asked what teams have won a SB without a top 10 salaried CB on the roster and we have given you 4 recent SB winning teams. Now you are saying something about ignoring the results on the field. You've lost me.

 

Where has rewarding a CB with a massive second or third contract (top 10 salary) worked out for a team? How about dumping a ton on an LT? History has proven the errors with these moves. Of course you pay your QB first and foremost, if he is your man--or if you only are pretty sure he is. His impact is immediate and depended on every week. Same for a top WR. Or a superstar TE.

 

 

I'm pretty clear that it is foolish to pay CBs that much money.

 

I made my point clear.

 

You said that it's an error to pay a top CB like a top CB.

 

I responded by asking when the last time a team won a Superbowl without paying an elite CB like an elite CB--yes, I admit that I thought Sherman got his money in 2013, not 2014. The point remains the same: great teams pay top CBs, or they suffer for not doing so.

 

Seattle won a championship with Sherman, and paid him huge money. They not only went back to the Super Bowl the following year, but have surrendered the fewest points in the NFL for 4 consecutive seasons.

NE won a championship with Revis, paying him top-5 CB money. They chose to let him go last year; did they get better, or worse?

Denver paid Talib top-10 money in FA (remember, Jenkins and Trumaine Johnson weren't getting stupid money last season), and they won a championship.

 

I'm sorry if I'm not stating my point very well, but I feel like it's quite clear: the teams that are contending for the league title have great-to-elite CB play. That's not coincidental, and I see zero evidence that the decision to pay an elite CB as though he's an elite CB proves to be a bad decision.

 

And again, I'll ask: aside from QB, since everyone and their brother already knows you need a good one, to what player position is it okay to pay an "elite level" salary?

[Mr. WEO]

 

I made my point clear.

 

You said that it's an error to pay a top CB like a top CB.

 

I responded by asking when the last time a team won a Superbowl without paying an elite CB like an elite CB--yes, I admit that I thought Sherman got his money in 2013, not 2014. The point remains the same: great teams pay top CBs, or they suffer for not doing so.

 

Seattle won a championship with Sherman, and paid him huge money. They not only went back to the Super Bowl the following year, but have surrendered the fewest points in the NFL for 4 consecutive seasons.

NE won a championship with Revis, paying him top-5 CB money. They chose to let him go last year; did they get better, or worse?

Denver paid Talib top-10 money in FA (remember, Jenkins and Trumaine Johnson weren't getting stupid money last season), and they won a championship.

 

I'm sorry if I'm not stating my point very well, but I feel like it's quite clear: the teams that are contending for the league title have great-to-elite CB play. That's not coincidental, and I see zero evidence that the decision to pay an elite CB as though he's an elite CB proves to be a bad decision.

 

And again, I'll ask: aside from QB, since everyone and their brother already knows you need a good one, to what player position is it okay to pay an "elite level" salary?

 

 

The fact remains that the Broncos, Seahawks, Giants, Ravens all won recent SBs without a CB getting top 10 salary that year they won. The Seahawks D gave up 20 ppg in the post season last year. The Cardinals D gave up 34.5 ppg. Both with top paid CBs.

 

NE won a bunch of SBs before they met Revis--and they did so churning through the CBs.

 

Go back and look at the list of top top paid CBs over the past few years (Revis, Asomougha, Trumain Johnson, Haden, Byron Maxwell, etc).

 

Again I would reply to your other question: WR, TE (if truly elite), a top pass rusher or elite LB

Edited June 20, 2016 by Mr. WEO

[thebandit27]

 

 

The fact remains that the Broncos, Seahawks, Giants, Ravens all won recent SBs without a CB getting top 10 salary that year they won. The Seahawks D gave up 20 ppg in the post season last year. The Cardinals D gave up 34.5 ppg. Both with top paid CBs.

 

NE won a bunch of SBs before they met Revis--and they did so churning through the CBs.

 

Go back and look at the list of top top paid CBs over the past few years (Revis, Asomougha, Trumain Johnson, Haden, Byron Maxwell, etc).

 

Again I would reply to your other question: WR, TE (if truly elite), a top pass rusher or elite LB

 

Churning through CBs? They had Ty Law as a mainstay at LCB for all 3 of those Super Bowl wins.

 

And Talib was indeed a top-10 paid CB last year for the record (I'm going according to AAV for the record; not cap hit).

 

And it's not as though the others you mention were outliers. Baltimore had L. Webb (who was 12th-highest paid) when they won. The Giants' Corey Webster was 16th-highest. I should also mention, for the sake of context, that I typically consider a field of 96 corners when discussing "starters" (or perhaps "full time players" would be a better way to say it), since the average team plays with 3 corners on the field about 70% of the time.

 

My apologies for misreading what you said about WR and TE--I thought you were saying "same for WR/TE" with respect to CBs, not QBs.

 

It's fine if you don't believe that the position is worth paying; I'm saying that there are relevant data that indicate otherwise.

 

On a more general note: the way the cap is set up, there's room for a team to pay as many as 6 "elite" salaries". If you figure that elite salaries average about $10M AAV for non-QBs, and $20M AAV for QBs, then you're looking at $75M or so in cap room dedicated to your 6 elite salaries. You should be able to manage the rest of your roster with the remaining $90M in cap space (projecting forward, the 2017 cap should be around $165M), provided that a team is landing the high side of the league-wide average 2-3 starters per draft. At the moment, Buffalo has ~$72M tied up over 9 players' salaries. Obviously, that will have to change should they decide that they want to pay Tyrod Taylor like a franchise QB, but when guys like Kyle Williams/Manny Lawson/Corey Graham come off the books, and guys like Aaron Williams and Eric Wood aren't on the high end of salary ranges anymore, they'll end up right in the target are of 6 elite salaries.

 

So the question then becomes, which players and/or positions do you want to dedicate 45% of your salary cap to on an annual basis?

 

For this team, it's shaping up to be:

 

Taylor (guessing $20M AAV)

Watkins (figure $15M on his new contract)

Glenn ($12M)

Dareus ($16M)

 

And then you need to decide which CB, LB, or S you want to spend your other $12M/year on...if it's my decision, I'm going for a CB that I can match against another team's top WR.

[Big C]

 

The fact that Seattle hadn't paid Sherman yet doesn't change the point.

 

 

 

It does, though. If Seattle never wins another championship after having paid Sherman, it proves the exact opposite of your point. But of course it's all a balancing game with paying your top talent, drafting new talent, values in free agency, etc. If you have two young guys performing comparably or maybe slightly worse and you're looking at paying your franchise QB, you have to let the CB go if you're choosing between the two. But if you have the money and the corner is at the top of his game, sure you gotta do what you can to keep the guy. I still think we can come to some reasonable agreement with Gilmore, but I would be shocked if we offer him top 5 $$ to stay.

[Kirby Jackson]

 

It does, though. If Seattle never wins another championship after having paid Sherman, it proves the exact opposite of your point. But of course it's all a balancing game with paying your top talent, drafting new talent, values in free agency, etc. If you have two young guys performing comparably or maybe slightly worse and you're looking at paying your franchise QB, you have to let the CB go if you're choosing between the two. But if you have the money and the corner is at the top of his game, sure you gotta do what you can to keep the guy. I still think we can come to some reasonable agreement with Gilmore, but I would be shocked if we offer him top 5 $$ to stay.

Kind of. If they run the ball at the goal line then they would have won a Super Bowl with paying Sherman.

 

I agree on Gilmore. My guess is $13M (ish) is where the Bills will try to stay. I could see him getting tagged and traded next year if they can't agree.

[thebandit27]

 

It does, though. If Seattle never wins another championship after having paid Sherman, it proves the exact opposite of your point. But of course it's all a balancing game with paying your top talent, drafting new talent, values in free agency, etc. If you have two young guys performing comparably or maybe slightly worse and you're looking at paying your franchise QB, you have to let the CB go if you're choosing between the two. But if you have the money and the corner is at the top of his game, sure you gotta do what you can to keep the guy. I still think we can come to some reasonable agreement with Gilmore, but I would be shocked if we offer him top 5 $$ to stay.

 

I don't think it does...if Russell Wilson scores on a bootleg or Beast Mode on a RB dive instead of running a pick route at the goal line, does it somehow make Sherman's contribution different?

 

EDIT: I see Kirby made that point already.

 

As to the top-5 money thing, well, Janoris Jenkins and Trumaine Johnson are getting top-7 money, and Gilmore is a better player than those guys. He's not signing for less than they're getting, and IMO he won't sign for less than Peterson-type money.

Edited June 20, 2016 by thebandit27

[Big C]

 

I don't think it does...if Russell Wilson scores on a bootleg or Beast Mode on a RB dive instead of running a pick route at the goal line, does it somehow make Sherman's contribution different?

 

EDIT: I see Kirby made that point already.

 

As to the top-5 money thing, well, Janoris Jenkins and Trumaine Johnson are getting top-7 money, and Gilmore is a better player than those guys. He's not signing for less than they're getting, and IMO he won't sign for less than Peterson-type money.

 

You know, I originally phrased that as it "kind of proves the opposite," but for some reason I edited it to be more matter-of-fact. That's my bad. I think most of us here are arguing the exactness of the numbers being thrown out which is silly. Top 5, 7, 10, 11, whatever the number is, your point is that good teams pay top corner talent. You're not wrong about that. Even the Packers, with the almighthy Aaron Rodgers, won their title with two pro bowl corners, giving undrafted & outperforming Tramon Williams an extension mid-season.

 

Gilmore could be entering his prime. I'm not as well-read about our cap situation as others here, so I don't want to speculate too much with #'s, but it does seem like we can be competitive, with our newly drafted D starters replacing some more expensive ones, and value pickups this free agency.

[Mr. WEO]

 

Churning through CBs? They had Ty Law as a mainstay at LCB for all 3 of those Super Bowl wins.

 

And Talib was indeed a top-10 paid CB last year for the record (I'm going according to AAV for the record; not cap hit).

 

And it's not as though the others you mention were outliers. Baltimore had L. Webb (who was 12th-highest paid) when they won. The Giants' Corey Webster was 16th-highest. I should also mention, for the sake of context, that I typically consider a field of 96 corners when discussing "starters" (or perhaps "full time players" would be a better way to say it), since the average team plays with 3 corners on the field about 70% of the time.

 

My apologies for misreading what you said about WR and TE--I thought you were saying "same for WR/TE" with respect to CBs, not QBs.

 

It's fine if you don't believe that the position is worth paying; I'm saying that there are relevant data that indicate otherwise.

 

On a more general note: the way the cap is set up, there's room for a team to pay as many as 6 "elite" salaries". If you figure that elite salaries average about $10M AAV for non-QBs, and $20M AAV for QBs, then you're looking at $75M or so in cap room dedicated to your 6 elite salaries. You should be able to manage the rest of your roster with the remaining $90M in cap space (projecting forward, the 2017 cap should be around $165M), provided that a team is landing the high side of the league-wide average 2-3 starters per draft. At the moment, Buffalo has ~$72M tied up over 9 players' salaries. Obviously, that will have to change should they decide that they want to pay Tyrod Taylor like a franchise QB, but when guys like Kyle Williams/Manny Lawson/Corey Graham come off the books, and guys like Aaron Williams and Eric Wood aren't on the high end of salary ranges anymore, they'll end up right in the target are of 6 elite salaries.

 

So the question then becomes, which players and/or positions do you want to dedicate 45% of your salary cap to on an annual basis?

 

For this team, it's shaping up to be:

 

Taylor (guessing $20M AAV)

Watkins (figure $15M on his new contract)

Glenn ($12M)

Dareus ($16M)

 

And then you need to decide which CB, LB, or S you want to spend your other $12M/year on...if it's my decision, I'm going for a CB that I can match against another team's top WR.

 

 

If you want to change your point to "top 20 paid CBs" instead of top 10, I can undersrtand why.

 

As for who to pay, if Glenn or Gilmore suddenly vanished from the face of the earth, I don't see the Bills being suddenly a lot worse off. I don't see this being the case for Taylor, Watkins or Dareus.

 

I'm assuming you can get Gilmore's real impact production at a lower price with the next guy up--we just did so last year with Darby.

[thebandit27]

 

 

If you want to change your point to "top 20 paid CBs" instead of top 10, I can undersrtand why.

 

As for who to pay, if Glenn or Gilmore suddenly vanished from the face of the earth, I don't see the Bills being suddenly a lot worse off. I don't see this being the case for Taylor, Watkins or Dareus.

 

I'm assuming you can get Gilmore's real impact production at a lower price with the next guy up--we just did so last year with Darby.

 

I'm not really changing my point; I'm saying that the examples of teams that weren't paying top dollar are also teams that weren't far off from doing so; the contrast is hardly stark.

 

I definitely don't agree on Glenn. You're telling me that you'd feel totally confident that we'd have the #1 rushing offense and that Taylor would put up the same numbers if Cyrus Kouandjio were starting at LT last year? I think you're on an island with that one.

 

As to Gilmore's impact, Darby wasn't the next man up behind Gilmore--he was the next man up behind McKelvin; a much lesser player. It's also no coincidence that Darby's play tailed off once Gilmore got hurt (in the very same game even). You may be comfortable saying that there's no difference between Gilmore and Kevon Seymour/Corey White/Sterling Moore, but again, I think you're on an island with that opinion.