rstencel

Yeah, its important for someone to backup the safety's in case they miss the tackle.

I hope so, we could use some LB talent. Hopefully they grab a couple in next draft.

They dont have the Colts picking that high.

Maybe he is a good tackling CB, so they can have someone to limit the length of runs for opposing RB's to under 30 yards. You know someone who doesn't take bad angles and can chase down the RB's from behind.

And if he tried to wait that long for the guys to get that far down feild, will end up on his back more often than not. O-Line need to give QB more time, no matter whos back there. If he is going to develop, and Bills have plans for him, they may want to wait till the line has more time to gel, so not to get him in the same habbits as our other developed QB's of worring more about the rush than the throw.

I prefer the parcels way of building a team. Start with the lines, and build inside out. If win the line battles, will win more than share of games. Atlanta won big after getting a new coach and QB, but if look at team, they had a good one already, especially on the lines. Its not like they had been loosing for years, they were like the rest of that division, up one year down the next for a few years. Miami got better after changing coaches as well, and while they picked a new QB off the discard list, it was their line play that made the most improvement, and put them in position to win allot of those battles. We need to improve the run defense, and the blocking on offensive line if team is ever going to get good again. LB play needs a huge improvement as well. QB play hasn't been good, but not allot of teams are successful when they only have 2 - 2.5 seconds to throw on majority of passes attempted. If they fix the line first, then get a new QB, they wont ruine his confidence by making him throw off back foot, and worry more about getting off quick than about where he is throwing it.

Losing Fletcher isnt a big deal. Losing Pat Williams was the big loss. If Williams was still around, the London would have fit in, but he needs protection. Since he tends to runs around the blockers, and give allot of ground before making tackles if not protected. He has that protection with arguably the best Tackle in the game in front of him now. With the small linemen the Bills employ, he would need to take on blockers, which isnt something that he is good at. It seemed like half of his tackles where 8 yards or more off of line of scrimmage, when he was here. While it was nice to have someone who was making the saving tackle in the secondary, would have prefered if it was the saftey. I tend to prefer the type of linebackers where playing near the line, making the tackles that would stop drives, or force 3rd and longs, rather than 2nds and 2's. Not that the Bills have anyone better that's not injured or recovering from them, but I don't miss him with this team at all. His pass defense was poor when needed to cover allot of ground, which is a requirement in the Cover 2 scheme. Once they decided to go cover-2, upgrading the pass coverage of the LB's seemed to be the priority. Most of the LB's on the roster now are pretty solid in coverage. Wish could say the same thing of thier Tackling abilities. Basically, I agree Fletcher was a sure tackler, he isn't a great fit with a smaller line and below average pass defense skills for the type of defense they chose to play, and I think the loss of Pat Williams was the big hit that set the team back on defense. The pickup of Stroud helped a ton, but imaging if they had Stroud lined up next to Williams. Now that would be a tough combo to block.

Doubt it is going to be the Bills, but LA does have a buyer with stadium plans in place, and most of the work done, including permits and all of the buyouts in place to build a brand new 800 million dollar stadium. The group that has this in place according to SI, it is a group headed by billionaire Ed Rouski, and he would require majority ownership in a team before building the stadium however. Timing would have to be right in the sale of the Bills, and no local group would have to come forward to put a big enough bid in to please the Estate Attorneys, but if timings right, Stadium doesn't look like a big issue for LA market anymore.

If you go back far enough, they stole our baseball team too. Way back, but the old Buffalo Bisons moved to Boston and became the RedSox.

Actually they feel they drafted the guy with the most raw talent, but knew he needed work on his route running, since he hadn't played the position long, and was in a very basic offence. They underestimated how much work he needed, but he still has a ton of potential. Hopefully the time off gave him a chance to learn the play books, and watch the way the other receivers run the routes. With TO here, when he does come back he wont see the field allot most likely, but at least will get time in practice to work on his shortcomings, and develop more. I wouldn't be surprised if he was starting next year, but don't expect him to be a top tier receiver.

What hurts this argument is the number of pass plays that the teams you mentioned have attempted, compared to the number the bills have. They both are teams that put the ball up often, and still manage to move the ball and get allot of first downs. Puts them in position to get allot of sacks, due to sheer number of passes attempted. Bills haven't been getting allot of first downs, or attempting allot of passes, like those teams. Also both of those QB's tend attempt a very high portion of their passes in the medium to intermediate range. Also a descent portion of those sacks have come after the typical 3.5-4 second window has elapsed, as they both tend to hold onto the ball till the last second, and try and extend plays giving their receivers a change to do double moves, or get open when the original pattern doesn't work. The Bills QB's have rarely had much time to progress past the 2nd target besides wait for double moves to develop or attempt allot of longer developing pass plays, that these teams have been running consistently. While your numbers are accurate, don't feel like the comparison is very accurate, as both these lines have been very successful at times at giving their QB time to throw. They both have had their struggles at times as well, but allot of that was as much to do with the quality of defensive line playing at time, as was to their bad play. Basically even though both lines have giving up more sacks, feel both have well outplayed the Bills line. Its not even close IMO.

Section I was in had no Bills fans that I could see, but could see allot in the better seats. Definitely could hear them when the Bills were doing well. Was nice being at a game as a fan of visiting team and not be treated like bleep though. Have been to many Bills games where fans of other teams that came to the game were not treated well at all. Washington game about 10 years back comes to mind. There was a whole section that was being belted with peanuts and M&M's for the whole games, and that was the nicest they were treated. A few people were escorted out due to the way they were treating those fans, and a group next to me left, since their kid was getting an education in bad words. Of course that is probably because this is a college area. If went to a UNC game wearing a Duke jersey would be lynched.

Yeah build around a guy who already let them know he didnt want to play for them, and wouldnt resign when contract was up. That makes sense.

I dont think hes good enough to go out and win games with his arm, but is good enough not to loose the games for us either. He's capable of taking what the defense gives him, and while has allot of turnovers, they usually arent at key times.

Well some of us had families that have been in the area a long time, and grew up watching the Buffalo Bison's before they moved to Boston and became the Red Sox. My Grand parents actually met the first time at a Boson's game as kids. Heard allot of stories about those games, and the semi pro games they used to take My mom to as a kid.

I agree that the NFL's system is better, and that you sure do have a right to support your team. But my opinion is if the Yankees make more money by taking advantage of the system, why shouldn't they. Its good business, and it is what the team is in existence for. Not saying I like the system, as would much prefer a more balanced playing field, and a cap. But no matter how balanced it is, there are going to be teams that do better than others. There will always be teams like the Bills that have to overpay for marginal talent. Also teams like Dolphin's and Pat's who get people to come to them cheap to play for their org, and teams like Redskins and Cowboys who have the revenue to pay huge signing bonuses for long term contracts that players will never finish, so can bypass cap for a few years, and have the salary com off books when cap is higher later down the road. Basically, I am not disagreeing with you that system is flawed, just don't think it is the fault of the teams taking advantage of it, but the league that is supposed to regulate it.

And how much money do the Pirate get from the Yankees and Red Sox alone. Enough to cover the payroll, and they would probably even have fans in the seats, since they would have a chance at winning allot more games.

So blame the Yankees that your teams owner chose to pocket the money rather than spend it. Yes the Yankees way out spend everyone else, but they out earn everyone else, because they outspend them. They put a winning team out on the field year after year, and they send almost as much money to some of the other teams as the teams actually spend. They have an earnings advantage with the NY market, but so do Mets and Dodgers. Boston could easily catch the Yankees in spending, since they have almost as big of a fan base, and also put a consistent product out on the field. Basically Yankees have followed the principal of you have to spend money to make money. They have been following that principle for a long time, and while it doesn't always give you the best team, it keeps their fans interested and the money flowing in. Its good a business model for them, but isn't always the greatest for the rest of baseball. Would work better if more of the owner were willing to pay to keep their good players, to make overall league more balanced. Unfortunately some of the owners pocket as much as they pay out. Would work better if there was a hard cap or way to regulate the game, but as long as they just have to pay revenue sharing to the league, cant blame the Yankees owners for doing whats best for their team, and income at same time.

OK, so the NFL is a collection of the best players the played in college, and say you watch college because the NFL has mediocre talent. How bad does the talent in college ball have to be.

I honestly do not think that was his only option. There are very few holdouts in the league, and most of the agents are able to get their players raises and contracts without having to resort to holdouts. The Bills supposedly even told him they would discuss a contract with him if he would have reported to camp. Not saying he was wrong to hold out, as that is his option, just that he was told before the hold out started, that they were willing to discuss a new contract, but only if he reported to camp. The Bills put themselves in a spot were they couldn't negotiate without looking weak at that point, and I think they did the right thing by sticking to their guns and not negotiating till he came to camp. However it came back and bit them bad. So while allot of people are blaming it on the Bills for not giving him a new contract the first year he held out, I am blaming Peters agent on that one, as he already had gotten the Bills to cave and negotiate. They didn't guarantee they would give him a new contract at that point, but if they would have negotiated, and he could have reported to camp, with the option leave camp if the talks broke down.

If the Bills do move, I would most likely stick with them as my team. The one exception would be if they moved out of the USA. If they moved to Toronto, I couldn't follow a Canadian team. It would be nice if they Bills stayed in Buffalo, and I really hope they can. I just don't see a new owner being able to raise revenues enough to cover the debt burden and still make a profit, unless the revenue sharing model, or collective bargaining share that goes to players changes in the owners favor, with the next agreement.

Great post, there is a good chance you are right that allot of the people that have the means and desire to purchase the bills would have a hard time going through league approval. This is a very possible scenario.

There was approximately 20 million in profits last year. So yes that is allot of money. However if figure the yearly payments on a several hundred million dollar loan, there goes your profits.

Have a feeling the large market teams wouldn't mind seeing one less team they have to subsidize. If there isn't an investment group willing to pay top dollar, doubt that owners would vote against allowing team to move honestly. As far as the profitability of team goes. Allot of that has to do with Ralph owning the Bills outright. He doesn't have any loans to worry about. That and he keeps costs down on staffing and bonuses paid as much as possible. Whoever buys the Bills wont have the luxury of not having any debt, and will likely want to try and improve the product, meaning higher costs for staff, from coaches to gm's. Will probably have to put money into the stadium as well, since will likely be around 10 years down the road before that happens. It is very true, that if there is a group that can bid high enough to satisfy the Estate layers, then the team will stay local, as the League will not want to move the team if can keep it local. The lawyers will have an idea on what the other groups wanting to move the team are willing to go, so they wont get much of a local discount. The lawyers have no incentive to sell local, they are going to try and get top dollar for their clients. Allot can happen between now and then to change everything as well. Since there will most likely be a new collective bargaining agreement in place before then. If the salary sharing percentage goes down, that would really help the team stay local.

Have trouble seeing a group that is trying to keep the team local, being able to keep up with bidding against a investment group planning on moving the team. Area cant afford much as far as incentives to keep the team, and if add the debt burden to the mix, will have a hard time keeping ticket prices low enough to keep the stadium full. That being said, I have a feeling that L.A. market will probably already have a team by the time that the team goes up for sale.