K Gun Special

hey you were wrong. Its not a matter of you being smart. You said the vast majority when its incorrect. try not to be condescending.

I'm not saying it does, and its the knock on him. His offense wasnt complex. But he also played JuCo and had a year at Florida. NFL GMs have those tapes and can ask him about that. But basing it on a Gruden interview where he couldnt name a play.......well he didnt call plays and they didnt have names they had numbers. Again, there are no reports suggesting he lacks football IQ. Dont get me wrong not saying he's our guy but cmon

Lets assume the bolded is true, is someone not named al davis going to pay the kid that money? nah. There is no way that offense was that simple. The kid might not be the next big thing but we are oversimplifying things here. And sure there are plenty of legitimate concerns. But if he was really that football stupid, dont you think his stock would be dropping? He has interviewed with a number of teams, i havent seen one report saying he doesnt know his stuff. That carries more weight than a TV special.

Thats a bit overboard dont you think? If you really think this team will draft Newton with that understanding you arent really informed on the Draft. IF they draft him its because they are confident, from interviews and review of tape with him (from JuCo too) that him running a no huddle wont inhibit his growth at the next level. The Gruden tape is evidence of nothing really and those relying on it solely to prove a point look foolish. That being said, the interviews with coaches, not made for tv, will truly show what this kid knows.

Show me your "sure fire" Defensive talent and i will show you so called experts saying the opposite. Nothing is sure fire in the draft. You pick the best player you think has the tools to help your team and coach him the best you can and hope he develops into what you thought he was.

Absolutely, but plenty of other teams had the ball just as much as the Bills O. Some even made the playoffs, NE and IND. The Bills problems cant be solved with the #3 pick, even if it was the love child of jim kelly and bruce smith combined. No matter who they pick all the experts on this board, who have not watched one game tape, will complain. We are going to get a good player at #3 and lets be happy with that.

You understand part of the defensive woes was having our offense fail to convert and keep the D off the field? And it seems more fake draft people are claiming we are taking Von Miller with #3, he's a pass rusher and wont turn the defense into a run stopping machine.

What? NYJ - drafted Sanchez with their #1 IND- Manning Balt - Flacco 1st round KC - Cassel - trade NO - Brees - FA GB- Rodgers 1st round Philly - Kolb rd 2 Vick FA Pitt- Ben 1st round NE- Brady 6th ATL - round 1 #3 overall Chicago - Cutler trade Seattle - Hasselbeck trade So 6/12 QBs were acwuired by trade and one was taken in the late rounds. THat means 6/12 were drafted by their current team and all but one of those was a 1st rounder. I have no idea how you equate that to the vast majority of playoff qb's were acquired by trade or in late rounds. Please look a little bit before you make a post that can be so easily shown to be wrong.

WEO, again that only shows salaries. You know teams can exceed the cap one year, ie the 2009 vikings. So no it cannot be assumed spending over the cap necessarily means it was on player salary. Again, professionals with accesss to the data have disputed your contentions. I will take a professional accouting firm "" Data prepared in 2010 by PricewaterhouseCoopers and obtained Monday by the AP show that about $3.8 billion of the $7.2 billion in incremental revenue over those four years - 52.9 percent - went toward players' salaries and benefits""" http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2011/football/nfl/03/21/revenue.report.ap/index.html over you and your calculator. A link to a website listing player costs does not support your position. I have shown positively that players received far more than you allege. Again, it is telling you cant provide something to say otherwise.

Its not nonsense. The total amount the players recieve also includes benefits like retirement, health care, insurance for their families. ITs a total package not strictly limited to salaries. In the face of a professional accounting of the benefits players received equaling more than you continue to state, you refuse to acknowledge the same. The numbers you eschew cannot be found anywhere but in your simplified math, which is why you cannot show anyone else saying the same. The players received more revenue than you believe. The links I've shown prove that beyond a doubt. If there is something somewhere out the supporting your position that's its closer to 40% I'd like to see it.

Too many people miss the bolded part when commenting on the situation.

do you have a link? no? i didnt think so. your points would matter more if you used links. A professional accounting showed players received 53% of the revenue from 2006-9. http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2011/football/nfl/03/21/revenue.report.ap/index.html Heres a business article showing players got 59-60% http://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/Journal/Issues/2008/03/20080303/This-Weeks-News/Prime-Cut-Goes-To-NFL-Players.aspx heres the GB Packers president saying players got 60% http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/blog/shutdown_corner/post/Expanded-season-revenue-The-NFL-s-math-problem?urn=nfl-249565 The issue is how total revenue is counted or more precisely what revenue is excluded before the calculation is performed. The thing keeping the players from playing in alternative leagues is injury. It would void their current contracts when a deal is reached. Not a smart move since the NFL refuses to guarantee contracts.

You are a lawyer who negotiates million dollar deals?

what makes you say Smith doesnt have the PA's best interests at heart?

Thats entirely possible. BPA philosophy doesnt mean you have to. If Green is rated a 90 but a front 7 guy is close, you take the front 7. BPA means you dont take a front 7 guy when there are much better players available. I dont think we trade down though. they have an opportunity to get a special player at #3.

There will be a FA period. Both sides are aware of the weaknesses of their positions and understand a deal asap is in their best interests. This may alter draft plans slightly but i do not think teams will be drafting for need. Successful teams arent built by drafting for need. The Bills will not get better by drafting all D to address the run defense. Btw, part of that problem was the O couldnt stay on the field. at #3, the Bills will have a choice of very similarly rated football players, and it will likely fill a hole while being a BPA. some on this board, and not you specifically, have said just draft D no matter what. SO even if a starting TE or QB is available and rated higher than an available DE/OLB, we should take DE/OLB. I can see why this is alluring and makes some sense, but the Bills will not be a better football team in the long run.

jeez you people are dense. BPA doesnt mean that if you have a guy rated a 90 and one rated 89 you have to take the 90 even tho the 89 guy is a need. BPA means you dont draft a tackle who you have slotted as a 80 because you neeeeed him when you're drafting at #3 and can get a 90 rated player. Its a relatively simple concept please try to follow along. Bill Polian built the 90s Bills on BPA and built the Colts on BPA. The Pats have done the same as have all of the successful franchises. Im glad Nix is doing the same.

As we speak there are damages accruing bc of the lack of free agency, damages are not limited to missed games.

Yes there are, an injunction is temporary in nature, there would and will be damages. For example, the players will argue the lockout has robbed them of one year of playing time on their careers. Also, it prevents them from entering into legal contracts etc etc etc.

There would still be a lockout, the injunction is temporary and forces them to operate under the old rules. Suit remains as if there was a lockout. Same damages. Players arent being paid. The owners cant be forced to give a deal they dont like, but they can be told by a court they are a monopoly which of course would be very bad. The league knows this but it will never get to that point. The judge today essentially told each side to work this out without judicial intervention. It sounds like she was leaning towards the players but one can never be certain just from oral arguments.

They are still an organization, remember? You understand that decertifying was strictly for collective bargaining purposes. You really think Manning is attaching his name to the biggest media followed lawsuit and no one realized he has no standing to be a party? cmon man. No, a ruling wouldnt necessarily change all of that. The liklihood of it getting that far is unlikely, the appeals process to finalize the decision would be lengthy. The players immediate goal is winning the injunction. Regardless of your political beliefs, this should be your goal too, it gets football moving again. The basis for damages would be lost wages, in that the owners collaborated to lock out the players to prevent them from working. In an antitrust suit, such as this one, should the players prevail they get treble damages, or three times the amount they can show in damages. Because of treble damages theses types of cases rarely go to verdict, and this one surely wont. I think the owners are gambling here, they know they will have to show the books during this suit. This will be an interesting ride for sure.

he's a player rep of the organization that is being locked out.

The NFLPA was a collective bargaining unit and could therefore negotiate with monopolistic NFL. Thats how courts have viewed it. Once they decertify as a unit there is an antitrust suit against the NFL for locking them out. The discovery process will force the owners to give up financials they didnt want to during prior talks. If they win the get treble damages, which would be very very high. As a fan, you should be rooting for a prelimiinary injunction which would get the league running again under the old rules while they sort this out. Of course to win that, the players would have to show they will probably win at trial, its a high hurdle.

agreed. I would only add that from a management position a farm system for the NFL would be riskier. You draft a kid, pay to develop him, but bc of the very physical nature of football is injured. wasted pick. In the current system you can simply not draft him.

No, you are actually mistaken. He said its a better system to evaluate future picks, you know, guys you havent picked yet who isnt in your system yet. So, its not like baseball where you draft kids out of high school and hope they develop. The NFL gets guys who are trained and developed for free at major colleges.