Mr. WEO
-
Posts
47,450 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Gallery
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Mr. WEO
-
-
Hardy Har Har. Joke's on us.
Looks like it's back to pistol whipping Pops in the back yard.
-
I have a problem with those Leprechaun movies.
Ahhhhh.....feelin better.
-
this discussion is completely silly.
Ralph is a top notch businessman. He has attorneys working for him who understand the tax implications.
He does not own the team outright but owns the corporation who does; therefore the situation you are all describing isnt relevant.
Ralph cares very much about his legacy, and isnt going to "let the team leave with the highest bidder"
Yes, I have direct knowledge of this.
There is no corporate ownership of teams in the NFL. It has to be owned by an individual or individuals New ownership requires one owner to have at least 30% stake in the team.
-
If you want I am pissing myself
.
No thanks. But I'm betting you do it anyway.
-
"...IF my aunt had balls, she'd be my uncle"
or
"Balls", said the Queen. "had I two I'd be King".
-
From the limited time that I saw him at camp it appears that he throws a really nice ball.
Maybe. But from what I saw at camp he had really slow feet--certainly not mobile. Seemed easily winded. Hopefully he was just really out of shape.
-
Here's an article about it;
When Johnson and Houshmandzadeh did get their hands on the ball, they paid a painful price. No one felt the Bills' defensive wrath more than Johnson, who was carried off the field on a stretcher late in the fourth quarter after being hit by strong safety Donte Whitner. It was a clean hit and; Whitner warned Johnson beforehand that it was coming.
"[Earlier in the quarter] we were in a coverage and I took a bad angle. I should have had a shot on him," Whitner said. "That's the ball that he dropped. I said to him, 'Hey, you better watch out.' And he said, 'Well, bring it.' He came across the middle again, we were in a Cover-2, he tried to hit me with a double move and that's pretty much all I remember. It goes so fast it was like, 'Here he is. Hit him. Bam! Play's over.' "
Whitner didn't try to hurt Johnson. Whither said he had a job to do and he did it.
"We want to be a physical defense," he said. "We want to show people that if you catch that football you're going to get hit."
Ah Donte Whitner.
Those were the days......
-
Well thanks for the interesting hypothetical but I was just posting his actual line, not woulda coulda shoulda's. And no, based on his performance you cannot say he looked as good as or better than the current Bills quarterbacks. Both Edwards and Fitzpatrick have posted far better lines in their respective careers than Jimmy did last night, and they performed against starters. Jimmy's underwhelming performance was against backups.
Dude, it was his first apperance in an NFL game.
I believe the poster was referring to the QBs we have now as they are right now. We'll know if he is wrong after a peak tonight at both.
-
Jaguars are going to LA. It's inevitable.
The Bills will not move in the forseeable future. IF they do, it would be only after every effort was made to keep them here.
The NFL does not need or want another PR disaster like the Browns on their hands. Loyal, blue collar fans who pack the stadium having their team RIPPED from them.
The Jags, quite frankly, few would care. People in Jacksonville apparently don't even care enough about the team to go to games.
Oh? When are they moving? Where is the stadium they are moving to?
And what is the history of the people in LA? Have they cared enough to go to games?
-
If Ralph dies before January, his family gets the team tax-free.
His wife can have it tax free any time he kicks.
-
I'll make this as level-headed as I can.
This is a Bills board. Brett Favre doesn't play for the Bills. Brett Favre plays for the Green Bay Packers New York Jets Minnesota Vikings, and pulls a drama queen act every year. There are other sites - such as "www.dramaqueen.com" where you'll find endless chat related to Brett Favre.
The Bills are playing on TV tomorrow night. You know...the, er, "Buffalo Bills". Ring a bell? Let's get excited!
"Sailing Shoes" - Robert Palmer
There are 4 active threads on page 1 devoted to the drama that is the Jets/Revis/Ryan.
-
I agree that Ralph is a businessman first and foremost, but you're ignoring the fact that he could have made a lot more money by moving the team any number of times. I'm not saying we owe him anything (I also don't think he owes us anything), but if money was all he cared about he would have moved the team long ago.
Holy cow...
-
i was just watchin espn a few minutes ago and chris carter said that the vikings would be better off without favre because tavaris jackson is a great quarterbak. i very much disagree with this. what do you guys think? also is anyone sick of the merry-go-round that favre is givving the nfl and the vikings? its highly annoying. he should just retire and stop wasting everyones time.
Yeah, last year he totally wasted everyone's time playing as well as he did. They should have gone with Jackson LAST year.
-
I still think you have trouble understanding but eh. Let's continue the analogy a little further. If I offer Bills Gates an order of magnitude more money than 120 million say....1 billion...is that enough compensation to buy Microsoft? See? It's still not enough. To be honest as another poster mentioned I don't know that you can EVER spend a crap load of money on a corner even one as incredibly gifted and hard working as Reevis. It means you lose elsewhere.
A penny pincher, at least in my estimation, is not just someone who is unwilling to spend a lot of money but a person who is always trying to pay less than something is worth and getting the best of the guy in a deal. For all you and I know they could be quibbling over 30 vs 30.5 million guaranteed. If you're willing to go that far and pay that much 500K isn't worth squabbling about. I have no idea about those example numbers but why drag this out. This isn't some run of the mill guy. This is a GREAT GREAT guy.
Any how, lighten up dude. "Penny pincher" is a common colloquialism. Don't get all Matlock on me. Drink some prune juice and loosen up.
You can concoct any number of awkward analogies and mangled metaphors (forget that Microsoft is a publicly held corporation and that Gates hasn't "owned" it for many years, or that all but 1 NFL team is privately held, or that there is only one Microsoft and there will be another "best CB in the league" every year.....)---they do not advance your point. Trust me.
Anyway, if the 120 mil offer (it has a big chunk guaranteed, to be sure) was the offer of an obvious penny pincher and tightwad, , what do you think is a reasonable offer? It seems clear you don't understand that the parties are NOT "500K" apart, but more like 30-40 million apart. What number did you have in mind.
-
The NFL Ticket is much like those buying tickets. They choose to play the game (as do the owners, as do the players, as do the season ticket holders). But if you think you watch the games on FOX or CBS for free, you are WRONG. Your shopping bill is higher because of it. Even if you don't buy the Nikes, the guy who sells you your tires does, and he has to pay for them. Everything gets paid for by the fans and viewers. If you can't understand that, you are too far gone for me to devote my time to.
I get it--we all pay more for advertising.
But your point is that there is something unique in this regard re: the NFL. You could say the same about any broadcast on network TV or commercial radio. Why aren't all entities producing content for TV and radio considered to be "screwing the fans"?
If one NEVER choses to watch a game on network TV, he or she STILL pays the extra price of all advertised goods per your argument. So therefore there is no added cost to the viewer if he chose to flip from CSI over to the football game--or from the newspaper to the game.
I think watching all away and most of the home games on TV for the tiny increase of the price I pay for many goods (that you say I am already paying anyway) is a great deal. In my "too far gone" mind, I'm gonna call that "free" football!
Sorry if I've wasted your time.
-
Well it would be a reach and make no sense. But of course you completely misunderstood the point.
You said you see the games for free. You do not.
You don't pay directly, but the cost of advertising is included in every product you buy. If you pay $100 for Nikes, some portion of it is due to the cost of advertising during NFL games. Nothing is FREE. But, as I also said, the ones getting hit hard are the fans who buy tickets.
I have no problem with them paying the $$ for the tickets. I do, when I can afford it and have a chance to go. But in the crying about salaries, contracts, etc. the truth is everyone is making big money in the NFL (the owners making the most) and the fans are footing the bill. Fans who blindly support owners and blame the players are freaking stupid, IMO.
No, I understand your point. I disagree with it. That's a nuance you haven't considered.
Even if I buy the Nikes, they were just as likely seen advertised on any TV show, not just NFL broadcasts. Therefore, the NFL in particular isn't screwing any viewer watching free TV.
Buying an NFL ticket is not like paying your electric bill. It is a luxury item. Fans who buy them do so willingly--and gladly, I would assume. Sure, everyone wishes they were cheaper. We wish everything was cheaper. I don't call fans who take a side in this argument "stupid"--they are free to voice an opinion. They are not "blindly supporting the owners", they are supporting their team and are paying for live entertainment.
-
Apparently you have a problem making associations. I would imagine to most it was self explanatory but I will elaborate. Claiming that 120 million over 10 years is sufficient for Reevis' contract is ignorant of his actual worth and the value of NFL players who have hit the genetic lottery and are quite literally often 1 in a million who are able to accomplish the feats they do on the field. I made the Bill Gates reference as an illustration of the absurd concept of claiming that a number just because it is high for people like you and I is sufficient compensation for what is being obtained for that amount of money. Simply put, 120 million over 10 years may be a big number but it may not be sufficient compensation. Get it?
It doesn't ignore anything I posted earlier. It was just a response to your comments about a number being enough without knowing any of the other details of the contract proposals and the fact that the number may not be enough. Hope this helps.
No, I have trouble following your always goofy logic.
Look, this is what you said:
That bastard owner has had the best CB and possibly the best football player in the NFL playing for peanuts as the lowest paid CB on his team much less the entire NFL. The owner is pinching pennies and doesn't want to reward an exceptional employee with the compensation he is due. The owner looks at it like a business and sees he is getting an incredible deal paying this guy nothing and wants to keep miking him but not as badly as he was milking him before.I pointed out the 120 million offer. No matter what the incentives, my guess is that this offer is not, as you claim, an attempt at penny pinching or further "milking". It is likely a deal that will reward him in a way at least an order of magnitude better than now.
-
I heard Ross Tucker on Sirius NFL Radio this morning say a similar thing. He's not convinced Sanchez is a very good QB, and stated they will not go to the Superbowl with him as the QB
Ross Tucker's standards are so exacting that only Ross Tucker can meet them. No wonder a guy like Sanchez cannot hope to get Tucker's renowned seal of approval.
-
I've been avoiding this thread because just the thought of millionaire players trying to squeeze more millions out of billionaire owners depressed me .... but I'm wasting time at work so I thought I'd give it a read, which has started me thinking (always a bad thing).
What exactly are the contracts for the football players for anyway?
We can safely say the contract for a first round draft pick is a contract for that player to contribute to the team.
But isn't the contract for a .... oh say .... a seveenth round draft pick really a contract to eventually work his way into the line up.
And a contract given to an UDFA only a contract to try and make the team.
Lets take my point to the extreme for discussion purposes ....
A UDFA signs with team "A" and no one expects him to be more than "camp fodder". The UDFA not only makes the team but because of his stellar play ends up as the starter. At the end of the season he is statistically the best player in the league at his position.
Could it then be said that the original contract that he signed is now considered "out of scope" and he therefore deserves a new big buck contract?
He can certainly try for one. But the market determines whether he deserves one.
-
Both Sanchez and Henne have a chance to be in the top dozen or so QB's in the league. Eli Manning won a Super Bowl with an incredible defense and strong running game, but I don't think anybody would consider him an "elite" QB at this point. I could see Sanchez and Henne in his class, but not in the Brees-Peyton-Brady-Rivers top tier of QBs who can literally make any team a legit contender.
Sanchez showed more in one year than Edwards has shown in three. At least on 3rd and 8 he is willing to throw a 9 yard pass.
Good points.
-
I think I'll offer Bills Gates 120 million for Microsoft since that is apparently a lot of money and must surely be fair compensation for anything. Let's also ignore the actual details like bonuses and other provisions that you and I have no clue about in contracts.
Keep up with the one sided players are evil belief though. Sorry you weren't good enough to play in the NFL and consider it an honor and be happy to make nothing doing it.
I really have come to enjoy your posts---so much to see!!
Bill Gates? Holy non sequitor! And it completely ignores what you just posted immediately prior!
Keep it coming.
-
Actually, WE weren't talking about anything - I made the wise decision to ignore you and all of your idiotic comments long ago.
I simply made a comment about Edwards in response to another poster when, out of nowhere, you decided to try to stir something up with...
I guess that fact that all but one of Leach's QBs made it to the NFL means he didn't prepare them for the NFL, by your convoluted logic.
That's called irony. Wow.
You should really go back to ignoring my idiotic comments.
-
I understand the model - but I believe that the average fan will be the over on this. In fact, from what I understand in Vegas, when teams are realy bad, the only betters ar ethe die hard optimist fans...and in this case, you know every die hard Bills fan will bet over....
Then the O/U will change accordingly. I would bet now for the over.
-
As far as I'm concerned the guy can sit too. Maybe we can do something against the Jets and not rely on a boat load of interceptions to compete.
That being said. I agree greed does know no bounds. That bastard owner has had the best CB and possibly the best football player in the NFL playing for peanuts as the lowest paid CB on his team much less the entire NFL. The owner is pinching pennies and doesn't want to reward an exceptional employee with the compensation he is due. The owner looks at it like a business and sees he is getting an incredible deal paying this guy nothing and wants to keep miking him but not as badly as he was milking him before. Reevis is probably looking at a new contract to try to make up for playing for so cheap but the past is the past and he should only look at getting paid for his value going forward.
The owner offered 120 million dollars over 10 years.
But hey, keep with the crazy, PDaDdy.
Preseason game 1- Bills @ Redskins "Gameday" thread
in The Stadium Wall Archives
Posted
Maybin