The cap situation McBeane inhereted

[PlayoffsPlease]

3 minutes ago, oldmanfan said:

They have some vets to guide younger guys.  Vets like Kyle and Zo and Shady. In the next year or two some if not all of those guys will be gone as they bring in you get talent.  Now they may bring some vets in then too for experience.  But by then guys like Allen and White will be your leaders.

Riddle me this batman.  27 teams have an younger roster than the Bills. How do the Bills gain on the 27 younger teams by gaining experience? Won't all the other younger teams actually be gaining more experience? Or is this like the Nate Peterman experiment spread across the entire roster - our experience will be better because we are facing more adversity having our butts handed to us over and over again? 

[oldmanfan]

Just now, PlayoffsPlease said:

Riddle me this batman.  27 teams have an younger roster than the Bills. How do the Bills gain on the 27 younger teams by gaining experience? Won't all the other younger teams actually be gaining more experience? Or is this like the Nate Peterman experiment spread across the entire roster - our experience will be better because we are facing more adversity having our butts handed to us over and over again? 

I can't answer for other teams.  You are somehow equating age and talent.  The Bills future depends on drafting really good talent and identifying key FA additions.  Emphasis on the draft.  

 

If my 25 year old is way better than your 22 year old, does it matter that he's 3 years older?

[PlayoffsPlease]

Just now, oldmanfan said:

I can't answer for other teams.  You are somehow equating age and talent.  The Bills future depends on drafting really good talent and identifying key FA additions.  Emphasis on the draft.  

 

If my 25 year old is way better than your 22 year old, does it matter that he's 3 years older?

 

You miss the point.  You claimed in an earlier post the Bills are a "young team" and will get better by gaining experience.  But it is just factually inaccurate that they are younger.  In terms of existing talent, based on the first two weeks, the Bills have the worst talent in the league.   The facts are we are older and worse than almost every team.  

[oldmanfan]

Just now, PlayoffsPlease said:

 

You miss the point.  You claimed in an earlier post the Bills are a "young team" and will get better by gaining experience.  But it is just factually inaccurate that they are younger.  In terms of existing talent, based on the first two weeks, the Bills have the worst talent in the league.   The facts are we are older and worse than almost every team.  

I don't think so.  You said another poster did.  I recognize we have some older guys, and said that you will see them replaced over the next year or two with younger talent.

 

Right now we are older and not playing well.  But you have young talent at key positions such as QB, LT, MLB, S, CB as a solid nucleus to build on.

[Batman1876]

40 minutes ago, MAJBobby said:

Thanks for clarifying, Ahhh so then really doing Nothing, because contracts get adjust all the time and structured in a way where bigger cap hits land on more space years.  You know like GOOD NFL teams do..  And some (like Dareus) could have been moved this year instead of last for lesser impact... But you know that is Chess and here at OBD we play checkers

And you trust this regime to smartly use that money.  I mean the only two they same to be right on are Hyde and Poyer and the Kicker, out of 35M in cap space spent in 2017 and who out of this class?

We agree on something! They could have restructured some and let talent leave more slowly. That is what they done for the previous 7 years or so. Although teams having cap casualties or cap crunch is common. Some teams get bad at that point, worse if they don’t have a QB. 

[CaptnCoke11]

3 hours ago, I am the egg man said:

 

.....if this season continues as it presently is, no quality FA will want to come here and those who do will have to be overpaid.   

 

A catch-22 dog chasing it's tail conundrum that has been going on here for quite some time.

Wait we can’t just offer a contract and automatically get the guy?  Worked on Madden

[LABILLBACKER]

3 hours ago, Rigotz said:

There are educated fans and uneducated fans.

 

The educated fans understand the financial side of things and the reasonable expectation that you don't build a super bowl winner over night.

 

The uneducated fans want to GIT ER DONE OBD every single season, which leads to a 7-9 record for two decades.

 

Thank god this franchise is finally aligned with educated fans. We all knew this season would be bad. It's only surprising to the Git Er Done crew.

This argument is a no brainer. Unfortunately the get er doners are lacking that big slab of muscle between the ears...

[Mango]

3 hours ago, Batman1876 said:

Background- Whaley spent to the cap in the 2013 season, 2014 season, 2015 season and 2016 season.  He never rolled over more than 2 mil in any single year. In order to sustain this spending contracts had to be back loaded and contracts needed to be reworked.  These things are common in teams making a championship push, we never made that push but we did pay for the attempt.

 

2017- Heading into the off season we had 24 million in cap space. Our major free agents were Woods, Goodwin, Gilmore, Zack Brown and Lorenzo Alexander. In order to have resigned them they would have needed to rely on cheep contracts now that become expensive later, as well as renegotiating other contracts. Looking ahead these choices would eventually lead to not being able to retain talent, just like retaining Woods, Gilmore and Goodwin was going to be tough in 2017. 

 

Looking ahead to 2018- Talent was going to be lost on the way to 2018, no way around it.  There wouldn't be cap room to replace that talent either meaning the reliance was going to be solely on the draft to fill those gaps. If you look at how our cap would have projected you can see the crunch we were in.  These figures are based on the actual 2018 cap hits of these players or the cost to have kept their contracts in the case of traded players. Some of these players may have had larger cap hits for us as a consequence of squeezing them under our 2017 cap.

 

The players we did not resign

Gilmore- 12.5

Woods-5.5

Goodwin-6.2

Total 24.2

 

The players we traded

Watkins- 13.2 (cost of 5th year option)

Darius- 16

Glenn-15

Tyrod-16

Total-60.2

 

The retirement

Wood- 9

 

Players we kept

Mccoy-9

Clay-9

Hughes-10.4

K Williams- 5.5

Total 33.9

 

The total for that core group of players that our 2016 roster was built around would have been 127.3 million in 2018

 

Leaving 50 Million to sign 2017 rookies, 2018 rookies and fill a total of 41 other roster spots an impossible task.

 

 

I am a little unclear on this.

 

what was our cap situation in the offseason leading to 2018?  Is it the 24 mil you cited? 

 

What would our cap situation be sans controllable factors/dead cap space this year if we hadn’t traded Dareus, Darby, or Watkins last year (not including the 5th year option)? 

 

What was our cap space thus year minus Murphy and Star? 

[Straight Hucklebuck]

3 minutes ago, LABILLBACKER said:

This argument is a no brainer. Unfortunately the get er doners are lacking that big slab of muscle between the ears...

Yeah, Beane and McDermott continue to look great compared to the rest of the NFL. 

 

Vlad Duccasse starting for two years now, keeping Mike Tolbert as the only backup RB last year, benching Tyrod last year, signing Vontae Davis who was shot before retiring, the Trent Murphy signing is looking good, all the great work they’ve done with the WRs - Anquan, Kerley, Clay, trading for Coleman. 

 

Do these guys guys look like they can build a top flight offense? With McDermott being as conservative as he is? With Beane’s obsession with old Carolina guys? 

 

I thibk its it’s okay to use your brain and critically analyze whether these two look like they know what they are doing and not use cliches like you can’t win a Super Bowl in one year. 

[Batman1876]

4 minutes ago, Mango said:

I am a little unclear on this.

 

what was our cap situation in the offseason leading to 2018?  Is it the 24 mil you cited? 

 

What would our cap situation be sans controllable factors/dead cap space this year if we hadn’t traded Dareus, Darby, or Watkins last year (not including the 5th year option)? 

 

What was our cap space thus year minus Murphy and Star? 

The figures I quoted were before 2017. If we picked up Sammy’s 5th year and kept Darius we would have had about 10 million in available cap space at the end of last season. 

[Mango]

8 minutes ago, Batman1876 said:

The figures I quoted were before 2017. If we picked up Sammy’s 5th year and kept Darius we would have had about 10 million in available cap space at the end of last season. 

 

I guess that’s the point (I didn’t hate the Sammy trade) but if we’re talking pure cap, Sammy’s 5th year option is a conversation on if it is the best way to spend available money, not just assume it’s continued. Take it off the board.  

 

So whats the cap situation this year with a few moves...or not making moves?  

 

Dareus without Star? Does that bring the cap number to 20? 

 

No Sammy? 33? 

 

Darby without Vontae? 35? 

 

Glenn is one I’m not sure on in 2018.

 

If my numbers are close, were we in cap hell, or did we create it? 

 

I havent been able to dig up the “what if numbers”. Honest question because I’m curious. 

Edited September 17, 2018 by Mango

[oldmanfan]

Just now, Mango said:

 

I guess that’s the point (I didn’t hate the Sammy trade) but if we’re talking pure cap, Sammy’s 5th year option is best way to spend available money, not just assume it’s continued. 

 

So whats the cap situation this year with a few moves...or not making moves?  

 

Dareus without Star? Does that bring the cap number to 20? 

 

No Sammy? 33? 

 

Darby without Vontae? 35? 

 

Glenn is one I’m not sure on in 2018.

 

If my numbers are close, were we in cap hell, or did we create it? 

Just off the top of my head, somewhat both.  We dumped a lot of salary quickly which put us in cap hell this year.  But if we had kept all the guys as listed on the OP then we'd be paying a lot this year for some guys that underperformed and would have had less money to fill out the other parts of the roster.

[OldTimeAFLGuy]

...so where is Overdorf, the Senior VP of Administration in charge of player contracts and capology in all of this?...that was his "official" promotion in 2008........don't see how Whaley is to blame for Dareus, Glenn or Tyrod messes......he was more of a "go get personnel grunt" versus a bonafide decision maker as McBeane appears to now be IMO..........

[oldmanfan]

Just now, OldTimeAFLGuy said:

...so where is Overdorf, the Senior VP of Administration in charge of player contracts and capology in all of this?...that was his "official" promotion in 2008........don't see how Whaley is to blame for Dareus, Glenn or Tyrod messes......he was more of a "go get personnel grunt" versus a bonafide decision maker as McBeane appears to now be IMO..........

We've discussed Overdorf before.  I always wonder how much his hands were tied by Littman .  What is Overdorf's job now anyway?

[Mango]

1 minute ago, oldmanfan said:

Just off the top of my head, somewhat both.  We dumped a lot of salary quickly which put us in cap hell this year.  But if we had kept all the guys as listed on the OP then we'd be paying a lot this year for some guys that underperformed and would have had less money to fill out the other parts of the roster.

 

I guess that’s the second point I’m trying to make. Based on the above numbers, if they’re correct. We wouldn’t need to spend 10 mil on Star. Wouldn’t need 4 mil on Davis. We’d have more money and less holes. More currency to spend on things like OL. 

[oldmanfan]

Just now, Mango said:

 

I guess that’s the second point I’m trying to make. Based on the above numbers, if they’re correct. We wouldn’t need to spend 10 mil on Star. Wouldn’t need 4 mil on Davis. We’d have more money and less holes. More currency to spend on things like OL. 

Yeah but I don't think that factors in unless I'm reading it wrong.  All he was doing I think was adding up what the salary cap contribution would have been if the 12 named players had still been here in the contracts they had.

[Socal-805]

3 hours ago, SoCal Deek said:

Nobody would debate that the current regime wasn’t dealt a good hand.  But...when you’re in a hole STOP DIGGING!!  It doesn’t look to me that they’ve done much better with regard to the veteran contracts that they’ve brought in. They’d have better off going with a 53man all rookie roster.

 

 

Correct.

 

+1

 

Star

3 hours ago, SoCal Deek said:

Nobody would debate that the current regime wasn’t dealt a good hand.  But...when you’re in a hole STOP DIGGING!!  It doesn’t look to me that they’ve done much better with regard to the veteran contracts that they’ve brought in. They’d have better off going with a 53man all rookie roster.

 

 

Correct.

 

+1

 

... AND next year McCoy and Clay are probably gone aw well.

 

 

[BADOLBILZ]

 

 

Bills cap situation was pretty standard before they started murdering the money and burying the bodies in 2018.

 

The OP's post is completely context-free and subsequently nonsensical rhetoric.

 

This wasn't a cap-based teardown.

 

It was done in McD's fear of a lack of buy-in due to his extreme(and out of touch) ideas about how to build a winning team in a league that is becoming increasingly more of a "player's" league.

 

Like all pro sports.

 

 When the rules continue to make things easier for the more talented players to succeed it's stupid to backslide in favor of *perceived* try-hard JAGs.......most of which are just feigning the trust in the process for the paycheck.    As evidenced by all the business decisions we saw the last two weeks.

 

 Simple fact:  Tanking doesn't pay in the NFL.

 

The consistent winners in the NFL rose there from mediocrity........not tanking.

 

[John from Riverside]

3 minutes ago, BADOLBILZ said:

 

 

Bills cap situation was pretty standard before they started murdering the money and burying the bodies in 2018.

 

The OP's post is completely context-free and subsequently nonsensical rhetoric.

 

This wasn't a cap-based teardown.

 

It was done in McD's fear of a lack of buy-in due to his extreme(and out of touch) ideas about how to build a winning team in a league that is becoming increasingly more of a "player's" league.

 

Like all pro sports.

 

 When the rules continue to make things easier for the more talented players to succeed it's stupid to backslide in favor of *perceived* try-hard JAGs.......most of which are just feigning the trust in the process for the paycheck.    As evidenced by all the business decisions we saw the last two weeks.

 

 Simple fact:  Tanking doesn't pay in the NFL.

 

The consistent winners in the NFL rose there from mediocrity........not tanking.

 

Its too early to make a determination of any of this whether is gonna work out or not...we wont know till next year.

[oldmanfan]

7 minutes ago, BADOLBILZ said:

 

 

Bills cap situation was pretty standard before they started murdering the money and burying the bodies in 2018.

 

The OP's post is completely context-free and subsequently nonsensical rhetoric.

 

This wasn't a cap-based teardown.

 

It was done in McD's fear of a lack of buy-in due to his extreme(and out of touch) ideas about how to build a winning team in a league that is becoming increasingly more of a "player's" league.

 

Like all pro sports.

 

 When the rules continue to make things easier for the more talented players to succeed it's stupid to backslide in favor of *perceived* try-hard JAGs.......most of which are just feigning the trust in the process for the paycheck.    As evidenced by all the business decisions we saw the last two weeks.

 

 Simple fact:  Tanking doesn't pay in the NFL.

 

The consistent winners in the NFL rose there from mediocrity........not tanking.

 

I know of no successful organization that does not have a plan and just lets employees do whatever they feel like doing.