All_Pro_Bills

Use of public funds for private professional sports enterprises should be prohibited by Federal law or provide the taxpayers with a guarantee that if the phony cost/benefit analysis numbers they use to 'sell' the expenditure aren't met then the team will re-emburse the taxpayers for any loses above the true realized financial benefit to the community. Its called shared risk. What the NFL does is transfer their risk of loss to the taxpayers while retaining all the potential profits for themselves. It's quite a nice little racket they have going.

Brady does cry to the ref's whenever there's an incomplete pass or he's hit. You see him looking back at him all the time then pissing and moaning afterwards. I'm waiting for Dareus to hit and fall on top of him next year followed by the sound of an exploding tire! (boof!)

This is from Bloomberg news. Talks about the cost of the Colts stadium and the use of taxpayer dollars. I thought it was interesting given the discussions about potential upgrades to RWS. http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-02-02/super-bowl-lands-on-taxpayers-backs-as-stadium-deal-turns-sour.html The NFL is extremely popular and profitable. One of the reasons for their profitability is the ability to dump a lot of their cost structure onto the taxpayers at the various state and local levels. Studies indicate the return on investment localities expect to gain from their investment is usually never realized. While I'm not fan of regulation I also detest the misuse of public funds and the use of threats and intimidation used by ownership in extorting consessions out of already strapped taxpayers. Time has come to see some Federal legislation prohibiting the use of taxpayer monies to fund prviate professional sports facilities. Given our Federal government is for sale to the highest bidder (no matter which party is in charge) its doubtful that is ever going to happen.

You have a good point. I left the area about 30 years ago, coming back to attend one Bills game a season, and I have to say not much has changed. If you want to get mad at somebody get mad at the politicians at all levels of government for doing absolutely nothing to bring about positive change in the region. I also have no problem finding hotel accomodations that are more than satisfactory.

I"ve always wondered why a guy that had one winning season as a HQ during which all the breaks went the Bears way (and then they got dumped in the playoffs) would be offered the job over somebody with a persistent record of success. This was the first and maybe biggest (or was it picking Whitner rather than Ngata?) in a series of blunders made by Marv during his tenure as GM.

My view too. The coaching staff needs to 'man up' and admit they made the mistake by leaving a backup punt returner, who may not been mentally prepared to handle the pressure of the NFC championship game, out on the field after making some critical mistakes prior to fumbling the ball during overtime.

Agreed. They were rushing to get lined up for the kick because they let the play clock run down. With a timeout in your pocket there was no excuse not to slow things down and get it right. Hang this one on the ST coach or HC (although when the TV announcer put the hex on the kicker by saying something like "he's made 18 or 18 in the 4th quarter this season" I knew he was going to miss) .

I forgot about Takeo but I still have his jersey in my closet at home

Add the Bills not making a big splash in the free agent market to the sure thing list along with death and taxes. I think the last big name free agent the Bills signed on defense was Bryce Paup but I'm getting too old to remember that far back. Give me 3 good reasons why a big-time free agent would come here: Are you going to pay me more than anyone else is offering? <No> Are you committed to building a winner that will give me a legitimate shot at getting a 'ring' right now? <No> Who else are you going to bring bring in to get to the next level? <Nobody>

IMO, its a valid point that you need a franchise QB but I think the argument is moot. Identification of the need for a good QB is not the problem nor a solution. It's getting one that's the problem because there are about 1 in 400,000,000 NFL caliber QB prospects out of the entire population of the planet Earth. The Bills have spent the better part of 15 years looking for that guy and the failure to do so has been the result of execution rather than a conscious decision that one is not needed.

I agree the offense needs an upgrade where you suggest and have myself been leaning toward a selection on that side of the ball (an OT if possible). But the Bills were 30th in point allowed in 2011 and the defense sorely needs a pass rusher and upgrades at the OLB position. The draft board will probably change quite a bit between now and April. Good teams seem to find players throughout the draft and not just in the 1st round. Hopefully, last years draft is an indication that the Bills are headed in the right direction with regards to hitting on the draft. All I ask is that whomever they pick that player is an every down starter day 1. In looking at points allowed I ran across something I found curious. The Giants have a negative 6 point differential. Has any team ever made or won the Super Bowl that allowed more points during the season than they scored?

There won't be estate taxes at the time of death since ownership of the team would transfer to his wife. But as I understand the situation, Mrs. Wilson has no interest in managing or owning the team after Ralph passes. If Mr. WIlson's will transfers ownership to another family member or to a non-family member then that might be another story but I am not a tax accountant or estate attorney so I don't have a lot of insight into how that would be handled.

No argument the Bills need to generate a pass rush and they need to upgrade the DE and OLB positions. You give any NFL quarterback as much time and comfort as the Bills have afforded and you're going to get beat. That said I think the draft strategy boils down to value balanced with need rather than just need. If you're sitting at #10 and one of the tops LT's falls to you and relative to the DE's and OLB's on the board if the LT ranks higher you take him. To state the Bills don't need an upgrade at LT is to ignore the issues with the current LT's on the roster. Bell cannot stay healthy and Hairston might not have the footwork and athleticism to handle the QB's blind side. The Bills offensive approach hid the shortcomings in the O-line by utilizing 3 step drops, quick short passes, and generally pass plays where Fitz 'locked in' on a specific receiver rather than having time to go through any progressions.

Field position and turnovers will decide the outcome. A big special teams play by either team could be the difference. In the end I suspect the Steelers will win by a single digit margin of victory. I can't see either team making it past the next round. Watching quite a bit of the Steelers on the Sunday Ticket its hard to reconcile their play this year to a 13-3 record. They've seemed to be just good enough to win most of the time. And its been stellar play by Denver's defense that has allowed Tebow the opportunity to stage these comebacks. If he doesn't turn over the football they might keep it close.

I'm never clear on how reporters get a hold of the owners list of possible candidates but it is interesting that Whaley is included. He's unproven in the GM role both in his experience in Pittsburgh and Buffalo. The 'word' is Nix is stepping down after the draft in April and Whaley will assume the GM role with the Bills. I don't know what the terms of his contract are with the Bills but I assume there's some kind of standard escape clause if you're offered a job at a higher level with another team. Given a succession plan is in place with the Bills I am also not clear what wrinkle that might introduce into the mix here. This is clearly conjecture on my part at the moement but could this be a situation where the Bills could demand compensation for signing away their heir-apparent for the GM post? Like a #1 such as when Billichek bolted from the Jets to the Pats. So would you trade your new GM for Luck?

Been to several Pro hockey and basketball venues and agree this is the single most annoying aspect of the game experience. Used to be able to chat with other fans during the stoppages and now you can't hear anything other than blasting music. Put it to a vote at the gates and I wager 99% of fans would tell them to drop the music. Plus the stupid antics on the basketball court during time outs. Apparently some marketing guys somewhere are convinced that watching some clown shoot tee shirts into the crowd while loud music plays with flashing lights is entertainment. And then you've got the skating girls cleaning the ice between face offs. While I admit I don't mind seeing this as a coach I don't want my goalie being distracting by 5 or 6 chicks skating around him during the game. I want my goalie focused on the game not on some girl's back-end that just bent over in front of him with a shovel full of ice chips.

Not only from sales but watch any NFL game and count the number of beer makers and their commercials. The league and the networks make $100's of millions (if not billions) of dollars thru alcohol advertising. So there's no way they are going to ban beer sales in the stadiums. Frankly, I find the obnoxious drunk to be more of a nuisance at a game than somebody smoking. Once time while watching a game at home as the camera pans thru the crowd showing various fans, my wife asked, 'why don't they show a group of drunken a-holes fighting on the upper deck'? I answered, 'because the commerial sponsors won't like that'. I'm a non-smoker but I never had a problem with letting other's go for a smoke in a designated smoking area. IMO, governments are really hypocrites when it comes to smoking. They issue all kinds of decrees and bans against smokers but have taken billions in payouts from funds negotiated with cigarette companies via litigation. They even issue bonds to fund their pet projects, all backed by the future stream of income from these payments.

If you think Dareus and K. Williams are your 2 best defensive players then you should be playing a 4-3. That would lead to focusing the draft on the best-player-available at DE or OLB to improve the defense. Let see if the teams coaching staff and braintrust reaches the same conclusion that many here, including myself, believe is the most logical path to pursue...

For what its worth, watching a 49ers game (I can't recall which week it was) when the camera took a look at the bench, it looked like Donte added a significant amount of upper body strength between this and last season. I don't want to reach for conclusions because I have a lack of information but I'll throw the question out there. Could this be symptomatic (along with a lot of injuries) of the Bills needing to improve their strength and conditioning program? Anybody know how the Bills compare to the rest of the league here?

Bingo.

I understand what Mr. Wilson is saying. That it might take a 'several more years' to build a contender. In principal I have no problem with that statement. But in the context of the Bills the problem is we've heard this before. And the recent history of the team has not rewarded our patience. So why is this time going to turn out different?

Whether or not those negotiations begin, and what the result might be, should provide some insight into the future. I understand the value of the improvements is thought to be around $100 million. And is the county and state capable of providing that support? I assume one condition the government would insist on is that any investment in the facility be tied to a long-term lease commitment with also binds any potential buyer to adhere to the conditons and remain in the Buffalo market. Two things: 1) Would current ownership agree to such a clause? 2) What would that do to the sale value of the franchise?

If he was playing hurt and the Bills failed to report the injury would that be a violation of the NFL rules regarding the reporting of injuries?

I would agree except for the use of the term 'crackpot'. But don't you agree that generally those types of theories exist only because the conventional explanation is lacking in some respect? How do we explain that an organization, in a profession where the rules are designed to enhance competition, consistently under-performs its peers for over a decade? Defying the laws of probability in relation to the odds of success. The answer must be the organization is not seeking the same objectives as those the rules seek to support. In this case winning a championship on the field of play or at least competing for one. The bottom line is results. And I'm hard pressed to believe that this organization regards winning as any kind of primary objective. And the one constant through the entire era of ineptitude on the field has been Wilson/Overdorf/Littman. Whoever the GM is they'll be subject to the same constraints and oversight so I cannot see why anyone would expect significantly different results regardless of who held the position.

I agree with you in principal but a couple comments. 1) The concept that the 'bean counters' are really running the show can never be proven since if it was then the whole facade of how the organization functions would be revealed. To work it must not be public because if the fans 'knew' the team wasn't being run by the football guys making football decisions then support would disappear. 2) All we're talking about is a credible hypothesis about how the organization makes decisions based on the evidence we have, subject to interpretation by the observer. I don't think any of us can offer up enough 'evidence' to meet the 'beyond a reasonable doubt' threshold of judgment. IMO, a lot of the 'evidence' lends to the credibility of the idea that Ralph's finance guys are the real power behind all the major decisions at OBD. Do I know that for a fact without any firsthand knowledge of the decision process? No. Can I prove it beyond a reasonable doubt? Again, no. But using what events I can observe and what 'facts' I have available along with my personnal experiences, and some cognitive reasoning, plus a review of the events of the past 10 years or so (and looking around the league at successful organizations), it seems highly likely to me that there is an element of truth behind this hypothesis.