OldTimer1960

Do you know that prior to Mccown's magical stint in Chicago, he had thrown more INTS than TDs in hi s 10 year career? Before this year, Mccown had only 1 season in which he had more TSS than INTS (11-10). Manuel did better than that in his rookie year while missing considerable time in the preseason and regular season. Why do some here hold such a low opinion of Manuel, but yet think that many other QBs are so much better?

How do you know this?

Fair point, but do you expect the Bills, Bengals, Jaguars to be able to compete with the Cowboys in terms of spend? Let's assume for the sake of argument that the Cowboys' average operating profit over those same 12'years was only $100MM/yr (less than 1/2 of what they made last year). Given that assumption, the Cowboys had $1.2BILLION vs the Bills $357MM over that same time period. Further, pretty sure that the Cowboys spent more on payroll each year that isn't reflected in those numbers. If you still want to argue that Ralph Wilson was less committed to winning than Jerry Jones because Jerry spent more, but made A LOT more, then I'll concede. I guess part of my point is that it isn't lack of spending that has held the Bills' down, but some poor choices (in hindsight) and some bad luck. No doubt that the Bills have made personnel mistakes, but yet a team that can/has spent considerably more hasn't exactly outdone the Bills by much at all. I think that management skill plays a big part, but blind luck also has a huge hand in NFL success. For instance, the Colts had Peyton Manning miss considerable time the year that Andrew Luck came out and "won the lottery". While I'll grant that in hindsight the Bills missed on not selecting Russel Wilson and Colin Kaepernick, the entire Nfl missed on those guys. If any QB NEEDY TEAM(there are 15 or so per year) thought that they would have been as good as they seem to be, then they'd have each been top 15 picks. The Bills haven't been quite bad enough at the right time to inherit Andrew Luck, Cam Newton, etc.

I think that KC, SF and Seattle all built much of the rest of their team before getting their QB. Do you disagree?

But the Cowboys CAN afford to spend to the cap whereas the Bills and many other small market teams struggle to do so without losing money.

Based on the Forbes data, the Cowboy"s extra revenue from just 4 years is about $1BILLION, so yes they can afford to pay for their stadium. BTW, I don't see Dallas winning much since Jimmy Johnson left.

Pretty telling in what way? That the consensus best QB in at least the last decade (whom the Bills did not have a shot at) looks to be better than EJ Manuel so far? Who'd have thunk? Besides aberrations Kaepernick and Wilson, what great QB prospect have the Bills passed on? I'll grant that Nick Foles looked good this year, to, but I saw Nobody claiming that Wilson, Kaepernick and Foles were can't miss prospects- if there were, they'd have been picked early in round 1 by any number of QB-needy teams.

But what (little) profit are the Bills' turning? Here is a link to a look at 2012 profitability (in terms of operating income) by Forbes - certainly an independent view: http://www.forbes.com/nfl-valuations/ You may note that the Cowboy's operating income is more than 20x that of the Bills while the Cowboys spent considerably more against the cap than the Bills. The Bills are in the lowest quartile in operating income (I didn't take the time to do the math, but likely in the lowest 10%). If you want to argue from that list that there are teams, besides Detroit, that are operating at a loss in order to field a winner, then I will accept your point.

Stop it now. Perhaps you'd like to buy the Bills and operate at a loss? Why would ANYONE do that unless they were SOOOO rich that it didn't matter? I, for one, am thankful that Mr. Wilson didn't move the team or sell the team to someone who would move it to a much more profitable market. Teams can and do compete very well without spending to the cap and teams that spend to the cap don't necessarily win. The trick (and I'll agree with some here) is to field a good team for a reasonable amount of $. The Bills haven't been good at that - yet, I acknowledge that it is more complicated than just spending a lot of money.

You are VERY wrong on this. Ever hear of luxury boxes??? Teams in big markets sell them for high prices and those don't count in SHARED revenue. How about Personal Seat Licences? Those are fees charged to season ticket holders for the right to buy season tix. Those don't count in SHARED revenue. The Bills have 0 revenue from these. How about merchandise sales??? This isn't shared revenue. Surely you know that the Cowboys, Giants, Jets, etc have significantly higher merchandise sales than the Bills. Let's consider ticket prices. Let's say the Cowboy's average ticket prices is $100 and the Bills' average price is $50 (probably over-estimated. While those revenues are shared, the Bills come out on the short-end of the revenue stick for ticket revenue. We can examine this further, but the reality is, the Bills' revenue is in the lower 25% of the league. They can't afford to spend to the cap and also break even. I don't know many businesses that will turn a loss on purpose.

Yes, it is. Of course there is UNSHARED revenue to consider too. Total Reveue = SHARED revenue + UNSHARED revenue. Teams like the Cowboys, Giants, Jets, etc have A LOT more UNSHARED revenue than other teams (like the Bills). So, what are the Bills to do if the salary cap exceeds their TOTAL revenue (as it does)????

The team has the CAP SPACE, much different than having the money. Why stop with your list? Why not sign the best G, S, LB, TE, WR, RT, etc??? Not very realistic, man...

Let's put it this way. The salary cap is a limit put on all teams to TRY to allow all teams to compete on even footing. Just because the league limits team spending on (whatever it is, say $128MM) doesn't mean that all teams can afford to spend that much. I don't know what your household income is, but whatever it is, there is NO imposed limit on what you can spend on housing, cars, etc, BUT there is a real limit on what you can responsibly spend given your actual household income. Let's say that your household income is $100,000/year. You COULD buy a $1MM house, but that isn't practical given your income. If your wife called you CHEAP because you wouldn't buy that $1,000,000 house and a Mercedes, that would be equivalent to the argument that the Bills are CHEAP because they aren't spending what the salary cap allows them to. You are SO uninformed. What is your mortgage and car payment vs. your income? Whatever it is, YOU are cheap for not spending more! BTW, glad you aren't running my business!

Are you saying that if he was drafted as a safety and did as well as he did this year, then he'd have been a good pick? But, because he was athletic enough to try at CB first, before moving to S, then he was a crappy pick? Man, some can spin anything....

Tell that to every business operating today. FWIW, I work for a MAJOR health care company and my division consistently makes a profit, but not enough of a profit for corporate. So, within a few weeks we will be sold to a Private Equity firm who will cut costs as much as possible without putting us out of business and then sell us again. The personal situation for me and my co-workers will certainly be much worse than current, but that is the way of the world. The Cowboys wouldn't spend as much as they currently do if their revenue didn't substantiate it. Neither would the NY Yankees.... NO business considers past performance and profits when they make current financial decisions.

The cap is really mostly relevant for those teams that actually have enough revenue to spend up to the cap. There are lots of small market teams that can't spend to the cap because they don't take in enough revenue to get there. The Bills are one of the lowest revenue teams in the NFL. I believe that they are spending as much as they can without losing money.

But that wouldn't support the argument that it is just that "the dumb Bills" don't realize how important a great QB is. It is SO obvious that they should "do whatever it takes" to just go get one!

I think that he is quite a bit more risky of a pick than RG 3 was two years ago when Washington gave up a ton to get him. He might turn out great or he might end up being Doug Flutie with attitude and off field issues. I think trading much for him would be a bad move. That being said, if he was sitting there at 9 and it only cost the Bills' thei one pick, the risk reward might then warrant the move

I agree. All things being equal, a 6'4" WR would be better than 6'1", but all things are rarely equal. It isn't like he is 5'9". It isn't really the height as much as someone who can make contested catches frequently and someone who can catch passes that aren't dead on target.

I will concede that I think that the constant turnover of coaches in Cleveland is counter-productive to building a winner (yet many here are already discussing who should replace Doug Marrone) However, there are professional and civil ways to ask the question. The "reporter" could have said something like: "Based on fan posts to our station's web page, many are concerned about the stability of the organization. Can you comment on why you are confident in this decision and in your leadership team?"

Interesting, what line of work is that? I can say that I've worked in engineering and product development for 30 years and while everyone knows who isn't pulling their weight, I've never seen a case where a co-worker "called them out". I have seen cases where management has had to intervene, but not co-workers.

But, you just said elsewhere that RB3 was almost certainly a franchise QB. Hasn't he missed more time than Manuel and wasn't his injury more serious? Again, I am not here to say that EJ Manuel will or won't become a good starting QB, only to say that it is too soon to tell and in comparison to RG3 after this year, I don't see a lot to tell the two apart - yet you seem to think that there is a world of difference between them. To be clear, would I trade Manuel for RG3 straight up right now? Yes, I would, but given this year I wouldn't throw in a lot more to get Griffin. He might become a great QB, but it isn't a sure bet. Just as it isn't a foregone conclusion that Manuel will fail. Let Manuel grow with some of the young receivers for another year (or heaven forbid 2 years) and see where they are. In the meantime, If an Andrew Luck type QB prospect happens to be available at #9 this year (won't be), then by all means draft him. Else, if there is a decent QB prospect available in a later round (maybe someone who got hurt this year like Aaron Murray) then sure nab him, but don't give up on Manuel so soon - especially given the immaturity of the rest of the offense that he was saddled with.

You liked the whiney little "b*tchy" tone of that question? I think it is disgraceful that fans and ignorant media feel that it is their job to be sarcastic and "hold the management accountable". In the context that it is used on this board, "holding someone accountable" = "blame someone because I am not happy and I can't accept step-wise improvement". "Wah wah, wah I have waited too long for a winner so nothing is good enough other than an instant turnaround into a SB team". IMHO, reporters like this should be thrown out and not allowed back. They aren't "analyzing" anything. They are just being smart-asses and stating the obvious that things didn't go well. What would their plan be? What would they have done differently? I will be happy the day some coach punches one of these losers in the face.

Wait, RG3 is a certain "franchise QB" while Manuel will never be any good? RG3 in his SECOND season had a QB rating of 82 while Manuel's in his rookie year (while missing considerable time) was 79. RG3 had 16 TDs and 12 INTs, while Manuel had 11 TDs and 9 INTs with only 1 experienced WR. Now, I am not saying that Manuel is equal to RG3, but it sure seems like you've graded RG3 on a much easier curve than you have EJ Manuel.

Man, you and your agenda... You make it sound like EJ Manuel is lazy and not trying. THE biggest selling point with Manuel was his intelligence and work ethic. Now, you can argue that it was over-sold and EJ is sitting home eating Bon-Bons, but I haven't seen any evidence that he is anything less than very bright and hard-working. To be clear, that doesn't always translate into success on the field, but I think it gives him a reasonable chance of success - and (I think) that he played pretty well for a rookie (the Tampa Bay melt-down aside). I really don't know how anyone could judge a rookie QB walking into this situation. Going into the season, other than Stevie Johnson, the Bills WR corp had: 11 starts and 31 receptions among them (all by TJ Graham). Woods, Goodwin, Hogan and Easley had never started an NFL game or even made a regular season catch! What could anyone have reasonably expected from an offense set up like that? I am not saying that I know that Manuel is the answer, but I do think that the Bills knew going into the season that there would be A LOT of growing pains for the offense.