dpberr

I agree with Doc. This man cannot be motivated. He's not motivated by money, fame, winning, playing in a big market, or any combination of them. It's not an inspiring move.

Jim Washburn used him just like that last year. Buffalo isn't the only team that switches between the 3-4 and 4-3. All he was asked to do was go after the QB. He failed as an OLB in the 3-4 in Houston. I'm trusting Nix and Co. know that already. I'm surprised he isn't in Philadelphia already. For whatever reason, Washburn got more out of him than anybody else has. He'd be an ok pickup. I wouldn't do a four year contract though.

Hmmm.....good point.

Jacksonville overpaid for Poz. I'm glad we did not.

I don't think many successful teams build through FA. That seems to be a strategy for the guys who think the NFL runs on Madden rules or run the Washington Redskins. Successful teams have successful drafts and development of thoroughbred players and organizational consistency. That's where championships are won. The Bills are recovering from nearly a decade of crap drafts with no thoroughbreds in the mix and a rotating door of coaches, GMs and different philosophies every other year. I'm not one of the fans that will be panicking at low FA activity. I feel we had a blockbuster haul on draft day this year after a solid draft last year, and that's where it counts.

This is an interesting topic and a difficult question to answer. Do you judge the entire body of work, or just a snapshot in time? Only on-field performance, or overall franchise health? Let's take for example, the New York Giants. The Giants have had their rough stretches both on and off the field during the later half of the 60s well into the 70s. They missed the playoffs for nearly 20 years and there was a big meltdown over the Mara family decision to move the Giants to NJ. It wasn't until the mid 80s that the franchise had things turned around, mostly in thanks to Pete Rozelle for recommending George Young run the team (and build those 80s teams of Taylor etc.). For many football fans that's all ancient history and may not matter. My point is for every glory year a franchise has, there are usually two to three bust years.

I don't buy what Chris Brown says at this juncture. I remember all the talk coming from Brown about the draft and its contrast with what transpired. Besides, what does the top 60 FA mean in football speak? 21 position evaluation, ranked by depth? Or top 60 overall like the media usually handles it? 60 players in the largest free agent class in NFL history isn't that big of a deal.

I don't think the Bills will stand still. Doing so would damper the momentum they are trying to generate with the new uniforms, new turf, draft with great grades, etc. I think the last thing the FO wants is to kill that momentum. While I don't think they will have a spending spree of "name" guys, I'd expect them to be competitive in landing a solution to the bigger problem areas. A shorter free agency period is a benefit to the Bills. Players are going to have less time to go around the league, make visits and play offers off one another. They will have to make decisions quickly.

I'm in the camp of Wait and See. The contract is friendly to the franchise. He'll either earn all that money or he won't. The thing about the article is that it's based off a Matt Williamson chat on ESPN. Considering there's been no OTAs or Training Camp, I'm not sure how or where Williamson or ESPN is watching Merriman.

I think you've got to bring back all the linebackers. This is a unit of the defense that needs plenty of depth. Jboys makes an outstanding point about players who are already familiar with the system. That's a distinct advantage for players like AA this year and their respective 2010 teams going into this season.

The owners are going to be the last group in the room rushing a deal through as fast as possible. The large market teams saddled with debt have more to lose than the small market teams do this time around.

Perhaps somebody has already discussed this, but how would the NFL realign itself if a team or two teams moved to LA? I see this issue being the reason that Buffalo stays put. I don't see the majority of NFL owners, especially in the AFC, going along with a vote for a move if it requires massive realignment of the conference. The AFC East and West are the same as they were in 1960. Would the NFL kill those rivalries for the sake of a team in LA?

If Ralph is going to spend money on a free agent, I'd hope it'd be at TE. I'm tired of the Bills being the only team that continues to deny it's existence as a legitimate position on offense in a football game.

Wasn't Ralph Wilson right about the first CBA? If he is objecting to this deal, I trust it's for a valid reason.

I'd put the Redskins as an obvious choice for having a bad year based on MB's post and that Shanahan looks completely disinterested on the sidelines and John Beck is the "starter" going into any theoretical 2011 season. While being a Bills fan can be challenging, I think being a Redskins fan would be misery.

The Tampa Bay Bucs have to be included in any "move to LA" article. The Glazers own the team, but the stadium is largely owned (as the Glazers own some of the property) by Hillsborough County. The Glazers and the County have always had a rough relationship. Coupled with the brothers' financial troubles, the team's attendance, even during their Super Bowl run, was adequate to poor. I don't think Florida can support three NFL teams. It's either the Jags or Bucs.

We can do NBA too, if you'd like. The league allows more playoff teams. I think the analysis of the leagues demonstrates the lack of historical perspective of the commentators that teams swoon for long periods of time, as if that's going to be remotely relevant to what they end up saying anyway on television. Anyways, the candidate for NBA "minor leaguedom" is the Toronto Raptors. Why not the Sacramento Kings (no NBA finals appearance since 1951) or the Timberwolves (last in the playoffs in 2004) or the Clippers (who did not smell the playoffs from 1976 to 1991)? As a long suffering St. Louis/Arizona Cardinals fan, being a Bills fan, while depressing at times, has been way more enjoyable. The Cardinals went decades (not just one) without seeing the playoffs, and outside of their most recent Super Bowl appearance, you had to go back to 1948! It wasn't too long ago the Cardinals, and not the Lions or Bills were considered the worst run and worst performing franchise not just in football, but in major league sports.

I understand your point with baseball. My point was that the Padres before 1984 and the Yankees during their 80s swoon were about 3,000 miles away from the playoffs. They weren't just mediocre teams, but bad teams. While the Pirates have missed the playoffs since 1992, they are hardly the only team that's been that bad for stretches, missing the playoffs, Dave Winfield, like the Nationals (1981) and Royals (1985).

A big so-what to ESPN. The fortunes of teams are in the shape of circles. Just some teams have a longer circle between good, mediocre and bad. At one time, the Heat, Yankees and Patriots were the worst in their respective sports. Hell, Dave Winfield's San Diego Padres finished no better than 4th from 1969 to 1984. He was also part of a crappy Yankees era in which they missed the playoffs 11 years in a row, eight of which while he was in NY.

While I'd absolutely hate to see it, a cancellation of the 2011 football season would probably do the league some good. As of right now, the league, it's players and owners, are locked on a course of unsustainable finances. If it takes a canceled season to strengthen the long term financial prospects of the league and its teams, so be it. MLB is in serious trouble. Their business model may have been viable in 1971 and their hesitation to change it has doomed the entire business.

I listen to Rome and Cowherd. I like my lunchtime radio torture to have some variety. There are times Rome has a guest that's boring or he's talking about lame horse racing strategy and I'll tune into Cowherd. Sadly, both beat listening to the local stuff that just talks Eagles and Phillies. I think the Phillies were more interesting when they were horrible. Dare I say that Rome's show *can* be hilarious despite Rome himself, due to the people who write into the show and the sound effects. I'm a long suffering Buccos fan too, Ryan.

The more I read about Tiger Woods and his fall from atop the golfing game, I see the circumstantial evidence of steroid use. The erratic personality, prevalent use of Ambien, and the chronic tendon and joint injuries makes me wonder.

Anybody who has read "The Penalty of Leadership" would never clamor for a losing season. I had to memorize it in 8th grade, and recite it, but the lesson lasts a lifetime. I see a losing season, any losing season, as the hammer of mediocrity patiently chipping away at the granite of a proud franchise. http://caddyinfo.com/wordpress/?tag=saturday-evening-post

Steroids wage war on your body. Your immune system. Joints. Tendons. Emotions. Cognitive process. It's the credit card of substances. You'll pay later, for what you get up front, and Merriman did with the years of injuries. The longer you use, the more you pay. You use heavy or for a long time, you end up either like Lyle Alzado or Chris Benoit. If Merriman been clean for a while, with the steroids long gone from his system, it's *possible* his mind and body have recovered. Certainly, I believe either the Bills or Merriman himself have invested a lot of time and money into getting his body detoxed from the steroids. It's just as fans, we would never hear or read about it. In my opinion Nix's confidence in Merriman stems from how well he has detoxed and repaired his body from the steroid use.

Nope, not the only one. I found his PbP obnoxious.