ICanSleepWhenI'mDead

We don't know what Wang can do yet, but if this was the regular season, I think they might switch Levitre to LT and replace him in the starting line-up with their best interior line back-up (Hangartner?). I vaguely recall that Levitre pulled some LT duty as an emergency regular season injury replacement somewhere along the way, and did OK. Can't remember who it was against, though. In the preseason, when you are trying to build cohesion of the OL, and if you expect Bell to be back soon anyway, you don't make the double switch. You see what Wang can do - - because sooner or later you have to see if he can play OT. Just my 2 cents.

Update on status of the proposed (but far from approved) new downtown LA stadium: http://www.dailynews.com/ci_18632387?source=most_viewed

Hey Beerball! Just read this thread. Thanks for all the good links you provide. The following info might help answer your question. The links below address comparative state income tax rates from the perspective of retirees, but they still contain info about the range of marginal state income tax rates for each state - - but for a precise answer you would need to look at the tax rate tables for each state and not just the ranges. I haven't done that, but it is highly likely that most of Clabo's salary would be taxed at any state's highest marginal rate. Georgia: http://www.kiplinger.com/tools/retiree_map/index.html?map=7&state_id=11&state=Georgia'>http://www.kiplinger.com/tools/retiree_map/index.html?map=7&state_id=11&state=Georgia New York: http://www.kiplinger.com/tools/retiree_map/index.html?map=7&state_id=33&state=New York The answer may not be that straightforward, though. It turns out that professional athletes pay income taxes in all of the states where they play their games. If you really want to get into the details, check out these articles: http://articles.latimes.com/2009/apr/12/sports/sp-jock-tax12 Finally, there may be ways for an athlete to arrange the timing of his signing bonus so that it is taxed by a state with a lower or no state income tax - - Bills' players may have an incentive to maintain their permanent off-season residence in a lower tax state (Schobel comes to mind; TX has no state income tax). See: http://zzrllp.com/28.htm [this article appears to be fairly old but also has a more comprehensive analysis of how athletes are taxed] Probably way too much information, but hey, be careful what you ask for! P.S. If any fellow Bills fans are interested in the relative tax burden (of all kinds) imposed by various states, you can click on any state in the USA map at the link below and see a detailed breakdown - - updated as of 6/11. It's especially useful for anybody thinking about leaving the cold Buffalo winters after retirement. http://www.kiplinger.com/tools/retiree_map/index.html?map=7

Thanks for the info. Consistent with the post by BillsVet above, I think the key phrase in the Sullivan article is "on their own books." Like any business, the Bills are required to calculate their profits for tax purposes. So it makes sense that they would want to treat the full amount of any signing bonus paid in year 1 as a business expense on the Bills' own books for tax purposes - - they reduce their taxable income in year 1 that way. But consistent with the comments by BillsVet above, the official salary cap accounting is maintained by the League office, and has nothing to do with a team's business profits or losses. So after reading the Sullivan article, I still think my tentative understanding about this is correct. Even if the Bills always spend less total cash on player compensation than what the NFL salary cap would allow for a given year, any signing bonus they pay up front that year on a multi-year player contract is still pro-rated over the full term of the contract for NFL salary cap purposes. I would be more confident that I'm right about this, though, if I had a link from a reputable source confirming it. Seems like it would be more fair for the NFL to give a team the option to avoid pro-ration of the signing bonus for salary cap purposes if the team spent less total cash in year 1 than the salary cap would allow. Why should a team that was under the cap in year 1 anyway have less money to spend in year 2?

Sadly, it's my tentative understanding that even in any year when the Bills pay less actual cash for player compensation than what the salary cap allows, the NFL league office still requires any signing bonus, paid that year as part of a multi-year contract, to be pro-rated over the entire length of the contract. I think the League office prorates all signing bonuses the same way, whether or not a team spends actual cash less than the permitted cap amount for the year in which that signing bonus is paid. If (1) the league let the Bills apply a signing bonus "to the cap all at once," and (2) the Bills consistently spent less actual cash on player compensation than what the salary cap allows, then there would be no salary cap hit when the Bills released a player before his contract expired. But I periodically read about the cap hit that the Bills would take if they cut so and so mid-contract. Doesn't seem fair. Why should some of the signing bonus cash that the Bills spend in year 1 reduce the amount of cash they can spend in year 2, when they already spent less total cash than the salary cap would allow in year 1 anyway? But I think that's how it works. If anybody has a link showing I'm wrong about this, please post it. I didn't see the Sullivan article you referenced - - did it actually say that any signing bonus the Bills pay as part of a multi-year deal gets allocated in full to the salary cap in year 1 rather than being pro-rated over the life of the contract?

That's a nice story but it's not quite what really happened. According to Matt Hand, the Bills' scout: http://www.buffalobills.com/news/article-2/NT-Jasper-brings-gigantic-intrigue/1441bfd2-c3b5-4aae-a893-c2872093c105 It's premature to make decisions about active roster spot vs. practice squad for anybody right now. I hope he plays great, but let's see how he does in preseason.

Tried to multitask It turned out I could not count. I have fixed it now.

The Stadium Wall Donte Whitner good or bad? Frisco's question now!

A change in the DC's priorities. When you know early in the 2010 season that you have the worst run defense in the entire NFL [see link below], and it's so bad that you start changing your basic defensive scheme less than half way through the season, and you are coming off a 2009 season where your secondary had a huge number of INTs, you will start your best run-support strong safety. That was Whitner. http://www.buffalorumblings.com/2010/10/11/1743000/bills-run-defense-ranked-dead-last-in-nfl For 2011, with Dareus, Barnett and a reportedly bigger and stronger Troupe, the DC will be less desperate to stop the run, and is more likely to play his best all-around strong safety. Reasonable people can differ about whether that's Whitner or Wilson, but it gives Wilson a better chance to start even if Whitner returns.

Some people say the Bills can improve if they practice addition by subtraction. I was always dubious, but then I found this spy cam video of a Patriot player workout during the lockout. It was organized by the players while Brady was off pursuing his antitrust suit against the NFL, and they were left to their own devices to get ready for training camp. Turns out the Patriots are real masters of addition by subtraction. Who knew?

How so?

I loved the Wesley Snipe cameo appearance in that movie. He's a great actor. I bet if you were hunting for an audio clip of him from a movie instead of Van Miller's call of Johnson's drop, you'd probably get lots of people to help look - - even if he doesn't pay his taxes. They even talk about movies more than the Bills on WGR these days. I wonder if Stevie pays his taxes?

Here's how it worked under the recently expired 2006 CBA - - don't know if it will be any different under the 2011 CBA but have no reason to think it has changed: http://www.askthecommish.com/salarycap/faq.asp

The 99% requirement applies to combined league-wide cash spending on player compensation during the 2011 league year - - there is absolutely NO floor amount of cash that any individual team must spend in 2011. Here's an article (with relevant excerpt) that Numark recently posted, but it was apparently little noticed during the flurry of free agency postings because the thread got closed: http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/07/30/per-team-spending-minimum-doesnt-apply-until-2013/ The above analysis of audiotaped comments by the Ravens president is consistent with the previously posted text of a powerpoint presentation given by the NFLPA to player agents. Here's a link and the relevant excerpt: http://bizoffootball.com/index.php?view=article&catid=54%3Anfl-labor-news&id=857%3Atext-of-brief-of-new-nfl-cba-to-player-agents&format=pdf&option=com_content&Itemid=79

It's hard to stretch in the NFL!

See this thread (in particular post #14): http://forums.twobillsdrive.com/topic/132196-reminder-from-the-professor/page__pid__2198981#entry2198981

I'm temporarily out of video clips, but I tend to think of Gailey as the mad scientist tinkering with Brad Smith as the next "Slash" to create a never before seen offense. The Bills offense will be ALIVE! Maybe Littman should play Igor (Marty Feldman with a shifting back hump) while he's counting Ralph's money.

I figured you were just setting up the blind man video clip for me, but it was still too funny to pass up. One of my favorite comedies of all time. When did you know it would come to this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NWrCf7rAytc Go Bills! Go Frankenstein!

I think of our DC George Edwards (who starts Kelsay at OLB) as inviting Barnett (a real monster when healthy who lets his play do the talking) back to Edwards' house for some soup, some wine, a cigar and an espresso to seal the deal after the dinner at JoJo's http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yd91A3Qcfkw Go Bills!

A riot is an ugly thing, but I think it is just about time that we had one! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XazOmi4yIbU&NR=1

What I find funny is that Captain Checkdown is going to a team run by an owner who is famous both for meddling on game day and for being in love with the vertical passing game. Al Davis doesn't get much respect these days, but maybe this is proof that he really has lost it.

What makes you think he'd catch it?

First, thanks for the info. Second, for comparison purposes, I found a 1996 study (15 years ago) that estimated that the Bills had a $111.5 million gross economic impact on the local community in 1996. That 1996 study was done at a time when possible renovation of Ralph Wilson Stadium was being debated, so it could be a biased position paper of sorts. On the other hand, you would expect the gross economic impact of any NFL team to have grown significantly over the last 15 years, given the increased overall popularity of the NFL during that time. I don't know if the 1996 study was the source of the Packer VP's Buffalo number - - seems unlikely because it's so old. But if it WAS the source, you would need to use a "Buffalo community" population figure of 3.28 million people to arrive at the $34/person Buffalo figure. I'm no expert on Green Bay, but it doesn't seem fair to me use 250,000 people to calculate a "Packer impact" number while using 3.28 million people to calculate a "Bills impact" number. Finally, it still seems odd to me that the Packer VP presumably had easy access to community impact numbers for OTHER NFL cities. It seems like the figures may have been in something put out by the league office, because it seems unlikely that the Packer VP would have much incentive to look up or calculate such numbers on his own initiative. Do you happen to know if that Packer VP sits on any NFL committees? It might help us figure out where the Buffalo $34 number came from. http://www.ppgbuffalo.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/sports-subsidies-issue-fact-sheet-final.pdf

Upon reflection, I wondered if the NFL commissioned some sort of league-wide study that they could use to try to get communities to help fund stadium construction and/or improvements. Doing a few google searches to see if I can find some horsespit study that matches the Packer VP's comments. Nothing yet, but I did find some horsespit being passed off as economic research. I did not see a date on this horsespit, but it cites a 2006 study by others, so it can't be too old. http://web.mst.edu/~davismc/winning%20proposition%20revised.pdf

http://www.jsonline.com/sports/packers/126369858.html I tend to be a numbers guy, but I'm clueless on this one. The referenced shareholders' meeting was two days ago. Anybody got any ideas on how the Packers VP comes up with these numbers? I suppose a small population like Green Bay has would tend to make a team's "economic impact per person" higher, but there must be more to it than that. Dallas and San Diego have much bigger populations than Buffalo, but both teams are cited as having a much greater "econmic impact per person" on their communities than the Bills do. I'm stumped.