ICanSleepWhenI'mDead

To put it in the context of a situation that more people are familiar with - - you can sign a perfectly binding contract to buy a house conditioned upon (1) you being able to qualify for a mortgage that you have not yet even applied for, and (2) the house passing an inspection that hasn't been performed yet. If the buyer qualifies for the mortgage and the house passes inspection the deal goes through, money changes hands, and the buyer gets the keys. If the buyer can't get approved for the loan, or the inspection shows that the house is about to fall down, the deal doesn't go through, and the buyer never has to fork over the purchase price. The option to buy or right-of-first-refusal to buy can be structured to deal with the "contingency" that the NFL might not approve the sale, just like the contract to buy a house can be structured to deal with the "contingency" that a future inspection reveals that it is about to fall down.

1. How did it become "my" dig down theory? My OP stated, with respect to the Toronto councilman who talked about "diggiing down:" "there are valid reasons to doubt his credibility" "I don't know how plausible "digging down" is" 2. What's to prevent the Toronto group from buying the franchise and continuing to operate it in Buffalo until they can get a better facility in Toronto? If they can never get a satisfactory stadium built in Toronto they keep the team in Buffalo - - but it would probably be easier for them to get stadium commitments from the local Toronto area elected officials if they already had control of a franchise. 3. I agree that the Toronto group would need to get approval from the existing NFL owners to buy the Bills, but they don't need that approval today in order to get the kind of option or right-of-first-refusal I'm talking about. IF such a deal was already made by Ralph, the Toronto group could also simply walk away and not exercise their rights if, upon Ralph's future death, they still don't have a stadium that meets NFL requirements.

Here's the link I already provided to the 2006 version of the NFL Constitution and Bylaws in connection with fact #2 in my OP - - see the text of "1996 Resolution FC-6" (starting at page 169/292): http://static.nfl.com/static/content//public/static/html/careers/pdf/co_.pdf If no team is owned by a corporation, how does the following text from "1996 Resolution FC-6" make any sense at all (the letters FC appear in the title of the resolution because it was an NFL Finance Committee resolution)? "Further Resoved, that if an NFL club is owned by a privately held corporation that has multiple classses of stock, one of which possesses full voting power and the others of which possess voting power only to the extent required by applicable corporate law, the principal and/or controlling owner shall only be required to have a 30% equity interest in the corporation if such principal and/or controlling owner owns all of the voting stock of the corporation and is not subject to contractual or other restrictions on his ability to vote such stock;" Buffalo Bills, Inc. (a New York corporation) owns the Buffalo Bills franchise (i.e., the team), and Ralph Wilson is the controlling owner of the shares of Buffalo Bills, Inc.

As promised in my original post: 1. The NFL clubs have recently made representations to the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals about the actual legal owners of the teams: http://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca8/11-1898/801649983/ 2. The above document mentions Buffalo Bills, Inc. That happens to be a New York State corporation. Ralph Wilson is commonly referred to as the owner of the Bills because he owns the controlling interest in this corporation: http://appext9.dos.state.ny.us/corp_public/CORPSEARCH.ENTITY_INFORMATION?p_nameid=415664&p_corpid=355631&p_entity_name=%42%75%66%66%61%6C%6F%20%42%69%6C%6C%73&p_name_type=%41&p_search_type=%42%45%47%49%4E%53&p_srch_results_page=0

See the post immediately above.

Good one! But I already stated that I won't be using this as a comedy thread, so all I can do is laugh and not make alternative suggestions about where the contract might be.

In decreasing order of importance: 1. Ralph Wilson is a sharp guy. He knows that Bills fans (his customers) fervently want the Bills to stay in Buffalo. Yet after he announces the "Bills-In-Toronto Series" deal, at a time when he must have expected to be asked how the deal would impact the team's future in Buffalo, he gave no long term assurances. If there is some sort of plan to keep the Bills in Buffalo, why not re-assure your customers by saying so? On the other hand, I can think of lots of reasons why Ralph would not want to publicize the grant of an option to buy or right-of-first-refusal to buy the team. These facts are far from proof that it happened, but it makes me wonder why it played out that way. From http://www.usatoday.com/sports/football/nfl/bills/2008-02-06-toronto_N.htm?loc=interstitialskip "Ralph Wilson is convinced Toronto is ready to support an NFL franchise. The Buffalo Bills owner wouldn't say whether that team might one day be his. Wilson steered clear from discussing whether the Bills would ever relocate north of the border. "Don't worry right now," was the best answer he could provide at a news conference Wednesday announcing the Bills would begin playing an annual regular-season game in Toronto beginning this season through 2012." 2. There are strong indications that the Toronto group was actively seeking to outright buy a franchise before the "Bills-In-Toronto Series" was announced (fact #5 in the OP), and planned to continue their efforts to outright buy an NFL franchise after the deal was announced (fact #8 in the OP). They were in the process of making a deal with RW, an NFL owner who was already on record as saying that the team would be sold after his death, and it just so happens that Toronto is already in what the NFL Constitution and Bylaws define as the Bills "Home Territory." If the Toronto group eventually buys any team other than the Bills, they will have to pay a hefty relocation fee. And that's IF they can get 24 owners to amend the NFL Constitution so that RW can't exercise what amounts to an existing veto. But if they buy the Buffalo franchise, they can make a strong argument that the team in Toronto is still playing its games in the same "Home Territory." They would argue that having the Buffalo Bills play in the Rogers Center is no different (for purposes of a relocation fee) than having the Jets or Giants switch stadiums from NYC to New Jersey. Why should crossing an international border be different than crossing a state border? - - at least that's their argument. The absence of a relocation fee requirement makes the Buffalo franchise more valuable to the Toronto businessmen than any of the other 31 franchises (for the same purchase price). Some may scoff at this notion, but there is a baseball team already known as "The Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim." So why not "The Buffalo Bills of Toronto" if it saves the Toronto ownership a multi-million dollar relocation fee? I'd be shocked if the Toronto businessmen did not ask for some sort of option to buy the franchise or right-of-first-refusal to buy the franchise exercisable upon Ralph's death. They would'nt be committed to exercising those rights after RW's death - - if the Bills-In-Toronto Series turns out to be an abysmal failure, they simply walk away and don't exercise the option or right-of-first refusal. 3. At least with respect to a right-of-first-refusal, it doesn't negate the possibility of a post-death bidding war that maximizes the proceeds of selling the franchise for RW's estate. If the next Dan Snyder wants to make some crazy-high purchase offer to Ralph's estate for the Bills, that bidder can still buy the team if he offers a price that the Toronto people can't or won't match. This also preserves the possibility that a local ownership group buys the team - - because if they make a bid that the Toronto people can't or won't match, and nobody else bids higher, then the Buffalo group wins the bidding war. 4. The "Bills-In-Toronto Series" deal expires at essentially the same time as the Bills' current stadium lease. In these circumstances, can you think of any reason why the Toronto entity wouldn't at least ASK for a right-of-first-refusal to buy the team exercisable on RW's death? I can't. What I can't predict is how RW would have responded, and his lack of any public assurance that he has made plans to keep the Bills in Buffalo makes me nervous. I'll grant you that none of this is proof - - but it seems to make a lot of potential business sense.

This is from a March 29, 2011 article published by The Sporting News - - "BiggieScooby" was kind enough to provide it in another thread: "The league at one time required the control owner to have 51 percent of the team. That percentage fell to 30 percent, and in 2004, the number was changed to 20 percent for family-owned teams, with the family needing to cumulatively stay at 30 percent. In the wake of the difficulties of the Pittsburgh Steelers’ keeping the team in the Rooney family, the control portion percentage in 2009 was dropped to 10 percent. For non-family situations, the control portion remains at 30 percent." http://aol.sportingnews.com/nfl/story/2011-03-29/nfl-business-dish-owners-discuss-easing-equity-rule-for-heirs By the time of the Toronto deal, the requirement for a controiling owner to have 51% of the team had already changed. Although Ted Rogers got a lot of publicity, as I understand it the "Bills-In-Toronto Series" deal was not made with Ted Rogers individually, so IF an option to buy or right-of-first refusal was granted when the deal was made, it seems likely it would have been granted to the same business entity that signed the Toronto end of that deal. Just my 2 cents, could be wrong.

I have sometimes posted in other threads in attempts at humor. I wanted it to be clear that this wasn't one of those times.

300 Parkside Avenue is the address for the Buffalo Zoo. I just googled "striped ass ape" and based on a quick scan of the "hits" it appears that my interpretation is wrong and your initial usage of the term was correct after all. Maybe I've got an "Uncle-Brother Darryl" that my momma never told me about.

This isn't a comedy thread - - far from it. Could Toronto businessmen already have either an outright option to purchase the franchise or a right-of-first-refusal to match anybody else's offer to buy the franchise - - both triggered by Ralph's death? Could they have such rights either with or without having already purchased a minority ownership interest in Buffalo Bills, Inc.? I would actually LIKE people to shoot this theory down if they can - - I'm not claiming it's actually happened, but I'm having difficulty seeing why it's not plausible. It's easier to understand the rationale for this theory if I lay some facts out in roughly chronological order: 1. It's beyond dispute that the Buffalo NFL franchise is actually owned by Buffalo Bills, Inc. - - a New York Corporation. The Brady suit made ownership allegations that NFL court pleadings, including those filed in the 8th Circuit, have confirmed. I've previously posted a link to official New York State corporation records showing that Ralph Wilson is connected to that same company. If anybody wants proof I'll go back and dig up the links upon request. 2. The NFL Constitution and Bylaws (as amended through 2006 which is the most recent version I've been able to find online), establishes a few more facts: (a) The "Home Territory" of the Buffalo franchise, as that term is defined in Article IV, Section 4.1, at page 14/292 of the Constitution and Bylaws, extends for 75 miles in every direction from the corporate limits of the City of Buffalo. This "Home Territory" therefore includes Toronto. (b) The Constitution and Bylaws, at Article IV, section 4.2© at page 15/292, prohibits any other NFL club from playing a game within the home territory of the Buffalo franchise unless the Buffalo team is a participant in the game. © Notwithstanding the above, per Article III, section 3.1(B) at page 5/292, a new Toronto team could be admitted into the league if 24 of the 32 team owners vote in favor of doing so. http://static.nfl.com/static/content//public/static/html/careers/pdf/co_.pdf 3. On August 29, 2005 Hurricane Katrina hits New Orleans, damaging the Superdome and creating speculation about the future of the Saints franchise in New Orleans. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_Hurricane_Katrina 4. "Early in September 2006 Canada ’s two most important sports entities began the process that might one day create one of the largest sports ownership groups in North America ..." There are people with money, or access to money, in Toronto who have wanted, for a long time, to buy an NFL team and have it play games in Toronto. See this October 12, 2007 posting of an article apparently originally written by Howard Bloom for Sports Business News - it gives some background about several Toronto businessmen and their interest in bringing the NFL to Toronto: http://sportsbiznews.blogspot.com/2007/10/nfl-expansion-to-canada-will-not.html 5. According to SI's Peter King, an otherwise unidentified Canadian consortium made an offer to buy the Saints for a billion dollars that was turned down by the Saints' ownership. A Toronto newspaper speculates, in an article published on September 25, 2006, that the consortium was probably a group from Toronto. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/archives/article843833.ece 6. In an interview with the Buffalo Evening News that took place no later than June 17, 2007, Ralph Wilson confirmed for the umpteenth time that the team will be sold upon his death. He also said that he would not leave the team to his wife. Perhaps significantly in my view, this is the very last time that I can find any public comments by Ralph Wilson where he was willing to say much of anything specific about what would happen to the team after his death. I have seen lots of articles saying the team will be sold after Ralph's death to the highest bidder, but NEVER with quotation marks indicating that Ralph actually said the words "to the highest bidder." I think that's significant, because IF Toronto businessmen already own an option to purchase or a right-of-first-refusal the team WOULD be sold AFTER Ralph's death - - just not necessarily as the result of a bidding process. As far as I can tell, all the articles reporting that the team will be sold to the highest bidder are just assuming that there will be a bidding process because that's the most common way for assets to be sold after someone's death. But I don't see why an outstanding option to buy or right-of-first-refusal would be inconsistent with the exact phrasing of any statement RW has made at any time since the 5 year Toronto Series was announced. "Also out of the question, according to Wilson, is the prospect of selling part of the team to a Western New Yorker while he’s still alive in order to perhaps give that person an advantage in eventually taking over the club. “That’s absolutely out,” he said." http://www.nflgridirongab.com/2007/06/17/ralph-wilson-says-he-wont-sell-the-bills/ 7. "In October 2007, Bills owner Ralph Wilson petitioned NFL owners to allow his team to play one “home” game per year (over five years) in Canada." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bills_Toronto_Series [Editorial note - - I don't consider Wikipedia very authoritative but I could not immediately find anything else specifying this date in the chronology] 8. The 5 year Bills in Toronto Series deal was announced by Ralph Wilson and Ted Rogers on February 2, 2008. The deal runs through and includes the 2012 season. "The deal with the Bills wouldn't preclude Rogers and Tanenbaum from making bids to buy and relocate other NFL franchises if they go up for sale." http://www.usatoday.com/sports/football/nfl/bills/2008-02-06-toronto_N.htm?loc=interstitialskip 9. Here's Erie County Executive Collins' press conference after the announcement: 10. Here's the Bills' stadium lease with Erie County. It expires on July 31, 2013. So the last regular season games it covers are the ones played in the 2012 NFL season. http://www.erie.gov/billslease/stadium.phtml 11. Whoever owns the Bills franchise (either before or after Ralph Wilson's death), can exercise an escape clause by paying a fee to buy out the remaining term of the stadium lease if they choose to do so. http://www.bizjournals.com/buffalo/stories/2003/03/03/story2.html?page=1 12. On or about December 3, 2008, shortly before the Bills play the first regular season game in the Toronto Series, and shortly after the death of Ted Rogers, ESPN.com reports - - " Rogers Communications was the creation of Ted Rogers, who as a law student built his holdings in an FM radio station into a wireless and cable empire that employs 24,000 and is worth an estimated $18 billion. Rogers Communications already owns the Blue Jays, the Rogers Centre and the Argonauts of the Canadian Football League. The death of Rogers, at 75, on Tuesday -- five days before the first NFL regular-season game was to be played in his building -- might not have a big impact on a potential move by the Bills. Phil Lind, the Rogers vice chairman and a huge Cleveland Browns fan, is said to be the driving force behind the push for the NFL. Rogers has the diversity and the cash flow to spend the $1 billion it would take to buy the franchise. Certainly, the $78 million U.S. price tag to effectively lease those eight games is a powerful sign of interest." 13. The same December 3, 2008 ESPN.com report also stated: "Buffalo fans have been nervous since the Bills signed an offseason deal worth $78 million with Rogers Communications that will take the Bills to Toronto for eight games, three of them preseason contests, over a span of five years. There were rumors that the deal included a right-of-first-refusal clause when the team is sold, but that hasn't been confirmed." [Editorial note - - I would love to see somebody ask RW if anybody already has a right-of-first-refusal or option to buy the franchise and get a direct, responsive answer] 14. Although there are valid reasons to doubt his credibility, some time between January, 2011 and May 11, 2011 Doug Ford, a Toronto councilman, claimed in an interview, when discussing the seating limitations of the Rogers Center, that "he has spoken with officials at Rogers communication about digging down to add an additional 15,000 seats. The renovations wouldn’t cost taxpayers a dime and furthermore, he added, thousands of jobs would be created. “(The NFL) can’t keep ignoring a market this size,” Ford said. And what about scarce turnout when the Buffalo Bills occasionally play in town? “If we had our own team,” Ford told the Score, “we’d treat it like it’s our own and build up a fan base.” There is a “big difference.” http://www.thestar.com/mobile/NEWS/article/987073 [editorial note - this guy might just be a shill but I included his comments here because I had not seen the idea to expand the Rogers Center posted here before - - maybe I just missed it and I don't know how plausible "digging down" is] 15. There is some precedent for an NFL owner granting someone an option to buy the franchise at a future date. There may be other examples, but it's undeniable that a former owner of the New England Patriots once did this. See paragraphs 71-74 (under the heading "The Murray Option") of this otherwise long and complex court opinion: http://openjurist.org/34/f3d/1091/sullivan-ii-v-national-football-league Somebody please convince me that there's no possible way that anyone in Toronto already has a right-of-first-refusal or outright option to buy the Buffalo NFL franchise upon Ralph Wilson's death, because I want the Bills to stay in Buffalo.

I know that I have the right to remain silent, but sometimes I just don't have the ability. From a larger perspective, we seem to agree that LA is not going to get an NFL team any time soon - - we just disagree about why. 1. We agree that the LA market has been open for at least 14 years. It's certainly possible that I simply missed it, but I cannot recall one time during those 14 years where an elected official called a press conference to point out that the lowlife owner of the city's NFL team had threatened to move the team to LA. I don't want to put words in your mouth, but I'm guessing your position will be that no such press conference ever occurred because no such threat was ever made. I'm dubious, but admit that I cannot prove you wrong. BTW, you might actually get my vote if you ran for office, but I'm not sure you'd win. Maybe in Montana. 2. Glad to hear you considered the possibility that maybe the political climate got worse elsewhere while LA stayed the same - - that gives your arguments more weight in my view. It seems likely to me that, based on the "OC" in your screen name, a logical but not necessarily required reference to "Anaheim" in one of your above posts in this thread, and the right-of-center political leanings evidenced by your "signature" (if that's the right term) in each post, you've actually lived in Orange County. Admittedly, that makes you more of an expert on LA than most people who post here. FWIW, I concluded a long time ago that LA is simply a sucky football town where loons and dirtbags almost outnumber rational people. We only disagree about the ratio. I'd put it at about 49/51. But from an NFL owners' perspective, a dollar from the loons and dirtbags is worth the same as a dollar from you. 3. "Which LA judge is going to rule AGAINST the mandatory interpretive dance alternative for those people that demand the "equality" of being able to attend the football game, but don't want to watch football?" I've lived in several areas of the country, and spent significant amounts of time for work in a few more. Before he became a judge, I played poker and watched ESPN at presently undisclosed times and locations more than once with this guy - - From http://www.dgs.ca.gov/oah/About/OAHOffices.aspx "ALJ Howard W. Cohen has been an Administrative Law Judge with the Los Angeles regional office of the Office of Administrative Hearings since October 2009. ALJ Cohen received his bachelor's degree from UCLA in biology. ALJ Cohen received his juris doctorate degree from the University of Michigan Law School. ALJ Cohen has completed the required training necessary to conduct mediations and administrative hearings." I'm pretty confident I know how he would rule on the "mandatory interpretive dance alternative" issue. I agree with you that stadium approvals are likely to take longer in LA than most places, and freeway congestion is a consideration (though not insurmountable). Most of your remaining statements on point #3 exhibit more than just the usual satire of LA "culture" - - they border on vitriol. I'm big on personal privacy, so I won't criticize you if you choose not to answer, but when you were in Orange County did you lose a court case, get divorced, get laid off or get swindled by somebody? OC to Buffalo is a somewhat unusual move if I'm reading between the lines accurately (and I certainly might not be - - reading between the lines is always risky). 4. I can't force you to use google, but I know you can because the link you kindly provided in my "Reorganizing The Scouting Department" thread had some pretty funny stuff in it. 5. You make some good points here - - my only disagreement is how much the franchise would have to win to "have any chance." I think that's something about which reasonable minds can legitimately differ. 6. "Why should one team get special consideration in a league that is supposed to be about parity?" A London franchise could make a pretty forceful argument that special consideration was required to MAINTAIN parity. They simply argue that they are already at a competitive disadvantage because their team makes an international flight 8 times a season, whereas no other team has to do it more than once. They would argue that avoiding Sunday and Monday night games reduces the existing competitive disadvantage that is already forced on them by geography - - bringing them back closer to parity. 7. "In contrast to the rest of the country, WNY is also very laid back. ... You cannot develop the same intensity for your team as NY people have for theirs if you have already left the stadium by the 2nd quarter" This is internally inconsistent. LA sports fans do leave early, but that is evidence of how laid back they are compared to WNY. Ive been to football games in several places, but never in Miami. I also don't know anything about Cowherd, so I have no basis to comment about either of them.

At present, I only have access to data for the 2009 season. "Lurker" recently provided the link below, from Forbes magazine: http://www.forbes.com/lists/2010/30/football-valuations-10_NFL-Team-Valuations_Income.html When you click on the above link, an annoying commercial runs first, but you eventually get a 32 team chart. When you get that, click on the blue column header in the upper right hand corner of the page labeled "Operating Income." That will sort the column. Scan down to the bottom of the column. According to Forbes, the Detroit Lions and Miami Dolphins both had negative "operating income" in 2009, and if you read the related footnotes, such "operating income" was BEFORE "interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization." If you want to see more details for those two franchises, click on the blue team hyperlinks in the far left column. I think the current CBA situation involves a lot more greed than stupidity, but I celebrate neither.

Some of your points I agree with - - some I don't. I don't claim to be an expert on why the Rams and Raiders left, and I'm not sure if anything significant has changed. 1. As I posted above in this thread, I think the NFL uses the open LA market as a way to get negotiating leverage for owners in other cities. Even if, for the sake of argument, you are 100% right about LA, that doesn't mean that the city mayors and county executives in those other cities share your point of view. If they don't, the NFL owners can still try to take advantage of such fears about losing their existing team, even if the fears are totally misguided. 2. With respect to whether anything significant has changed, I do have a question. Is it possible that although LA remains just as politically hostile to the NFL as ever, the thing that's changed is the political climate ELSEWHERE? It's hard to have a good sense of the political climate in places you don't actually live. But my impression is that maybe many cities were willing to pony up lots of public $ to get teams to move back in the days when the Rams and Raiders left LA, and LA essentially wouldn't match, so both teams moved. But what if ALL (or at least most) of the other major cities now have enough financial problems so that they are no more willing than LA to support an NFL team with public $? If the playing field for getting public $ is now more level in cities around the US, LA becomes relatively more attractive to NFL owners (compared to 15 - 20 years ago), not because things in LA got better, but because the political climate everywhere else got worse. I'm not claiming this is true, I'm just asking if you considered that possibility. 3. No question that LA has more than its share of assorted loons and nutjobs, but I'm not sure how signicant that is to sports issues. The SoCal baseball teams seem to draw pretty well. I suppose stadium approvals might be impacted because of environmental concerns or "Not-In-My-Back-Yard" Syndrome, so your point seems valid on that sub-issue. 4. There are people with money trying to get an NFL franchise in LA. See links above in this thread. 5. London may be a pipe dream, but not because of where free agents choose to sign. If the NFL owners think it will be profitable enough, they won't hesitate to go there. Whether a London franchise could attract quality free agents is a minor factor in any future London team's potential profitability, but not a major one. Ralph Wilson doesn't sign a lot of top $ free agents, and he's not going broke. 6. You're probably right about the general impact of the rigors of frequent flights. The "3 am" idea is way wrong, though. I don't know the exact number, but I think London is something like 5 hours ahead of the East Coast. So a 1 pm Eastern start time would be something like 6 pm back in London. Even a 1 pm west coast start time would only be something like 9 pm in London. Just avoid Sunday or Monday night games in the US, and there's no "3 am" problem. 7. SoCal football fans are WAAAAAY more laid back and less intense than WNY football fans, and there is lots more competition in SoCal for disposable sports fan income than in WNY. That tends to be offset, though, by the very large population in SoCal. Anyway, just my 2 cents.

Sorry K-9. I misinterpreted your post #64 above. I thought I read something between the lines that it turns out wasn't really there. Entirely my fault. I've enjoyed our discussions. Take a look at my post #57 above, where I was trying to make a light-hearted comparison of (1) your use of Southern colloquialisms to (2) Vanilla Ice's (a Caucasian feller) use of rap in his music. Does that make sense now? Apology accepted?

Gotta admit, that's a pretty insightful analysis. But if you truly believe that in most cases finding players isn't the key, I'm assuming you would have no objection to my proposal to reallocate some of our limited scouting resources from west coast colleges to high schools in the South and Southeast.

If you're just joining this thread, we've been discussing a suggestion I made to improve the team's long-term drafting results. The short version is that I think that over the long term the Bills would be better off if they stopped spending time and effort scouting prospects at west coast colleges, and reallocated some of their scouting resources to investigate high school prospects in the South and Southeast. After all, Buddy Nix is a pretty sharp guy, and he seems to draft mainly from the South and Southeast anyway. If we identify the best talent early, we will have more time to thoroughly evaluate it before it comes time to make draft decisions that shape the team's future for years. I think the Patriots might be doing this already. Some people disagree with my approach, but I'm open to any well reasoned point of view here.

Appropriate usage of "foghorn leghorns" (I always enjoyed that cartoon), but you're a little off on the "striped ass ape" part. I don't really have any brothers named "Darryl" or any sisters named "Darlene," and I don't really have any "Uncle-Brothers" at all. Mortons Corners (in a still unspecified part of the country), however, is a very real place, and I did spend quite a bit of time there when I was growing up. So maybe I can help you. The full expression is "She's faster than a striped ass ape." Because there are some posting standards here and I don't know exactly where the boundaries are (I may have pushed them a bit), let's just say that the sprinters on the U.S. Olympic women's track team aren't the only females who are "fast." In some ways that the word "fast" is used, you can be "fast" even if your time in the 40 yard dash is slower than Ryan Mallet's. It's been quite a while since I've been there, but I think you can probably still go to 300 Parkside Avenue in Buffalo. Ask them to put trousers on the monkeys - if they do, you'll be amazed at how quickly you hear the telltale huffin' and puffin' sounds alerting you to the fact that you are in the vicinity of a pant snake. Monkeys are known for being, shall we say, "active," even if they've just been introduced to each other. Hence, the expression in question. P.S. - I'm going to be expectin' a lot better effort from K-9 in the future. And I'm with 'ya on Seal Team 6.

That snake would hafta be dumber'n my youngest sister Darlene, and she was born 6 weeks early and couldn't get 'nuff air. When she was born, the doctor slapped my Momma first for makin' bad choices. But back to your reckless snake. Only snake I ever heard of bein' that reckless was what we called a "pant" snake back home. Most people think they're rare, but they's really just pretty reclusive, and usually nocturnal, so you rarely see one out in the open. Lots a times you can hear a muffled huffin' and puffin' sound bein' made when you're in their vicinity without ever seein' the actual snake - that's how they got the name "pant" snake in the first place. You meet up with the kinda frog I'm talkin' 'bout, though, and he ain't just "happy to see" no snake, he's got a for real loaded pistol in each pocket. Your snake think he's invincible jus' cause he's wearing a bullet proof vest? What if the snake shot 'em in the foot? Well OK, bad example on my part - - snakes ain't got no feet. But even snakes got parts the vest don't protect. What if the frog shot 'em in the right eye? Then ya' got a whole passel a trouble. For starters, you gotta rush the snake to the vet. What if it happened in OT of a Bills game? Ya still gotta go - - your snake's down to only one good eye. The vet bill's gonna be astronomical. For starters, the vet's gonna have to remove the protective bullet proof vest so he can properly work on the snake to try to save his one good remaining eye - - but that ain't no sure thing. You wouldn't a had time to find no eye specialist snake veterinarian - - in that kind of sitcheeation you feel lucky just to make it the herpetological emergency room with a snake that's still movin.' So all things considered, there's a fair to middlin' chance that your snake not only loses his right eye, but goes blind in the left one, too. Then where are you? All you got is a blind, one-eyed pant snake slitherin' around out in public with no protection. If you think that's a good thing, you best have a chat with Travis Henry's accountant. And if you can't find him, try Willis McGahee. My Granny says this was a long walk for not much groceries. She's usually right. But speakin' of Travis Henry, I weren't no fan of his off-the-field choices, but he ran hard, he ran often, and he went to the Pro Bowl. He played his college ball at the University of Tennesse, and guess where he went to high school? Florida (big surprise). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Travis_Henry We need to divert some of our scouting efforts from western colleges to Southeast high schools, so we can find more players as talented as Travis Henry ahead of the other 31 teams. I bet the Patriots are doin' stuff like this already but just not talkin' about it.

My youngest brother Darryl thought this was a fair criticism - how come Buddy drafted a guy from Texas if most of the best talent is in the South and Southeast? But then my oldest brother Darryl (he finished the 8th grade and has always had wisdom beyond his years) set my youngest brother Darryl straight. He pointed out that my Uncle-Brother Darryl growed up with Buddy in Talladega and knew him well. According to my Uncle-Brother Darryl, Buddy is as sly as they come, and when Buddy drafted Aaron Williams Buddy was just throwin' them other NFL GMs off the scent. Them other NFL GMs know that Buddy's been a-scoutin' fellers since afore they wuz born. Word gets around right quick when Buddy starts draftin' folks. Them other NFL GMs said to theyselves, "Looky here, it's only round two and Buddy has already done stopped draftin' players from the the South and Southeast and has commenced to draftin' players from Texas. We better start draftin' players elsewhere, too if we'uns is gonna keep up. But 'ol Buddy fooled 'em. He knew all along that he was goin' back to the South and the Southeast for the rest of the rounds. My middle brother Darryl says it's kinda like sacrificin' a pawn to take a queen, but he's always been uppity just cause he knows how to play chess.

I'm getting weary of explaining this, but I have never suggested taking scouting resources away from any of the colleges in the north. If you read my original post I think you can satisfy yourself that I'm not fibbin' about that. I can understand your confusion, though, because a lot of people have mischaracterized my suggestion to make it easier to criticize. And we haven't even talked about what an advantage we would have if we've identified the next Peyton Manning coming out of high school, and the courts modify the NFL signing rules so that you can draft a player right out of high school with the talent to develop into a league MVP. Some NBA GM with no more smarts than Buddy Nix drafted Kobe Bryant right out of high school. Look at Kobe now. I actually underestimated his value in an earlier post - - I think I said he has 3 championship rings but I actually think it's more like 5 (not absolutely sure). But to answer your question directly, the point is that Buddy Nix says that everybody in the NFL draft is tryin' to rob the same train, and we'll be better train robbers if we identify the best talent earlier than everybody else and evaluate it longer and more thoroughly.

You ever see a video of Vanilla Ice tryin' to be a rapper? That was a quickie - - still my turn.

Can you name two cities? If you try to sneak thru by picking a city that isn't really in the west, people will snicker.

When I was growin' up I spent some time in Mortons Corners in a presently unspecified part of the country, and my Granny used to say, "Don't wrestle with the pig - - you both get dirty and the pig likes it."

I've given your list and logic some more thought. Does it sound like a good plan, you asked? Well here's my answer - - Does a 1-legged duck swim in a circle? In case you've never been south of Cattaraugus Creek, that means "yes." Here's why. Most people have heard the saying - - "Garbage in, garbage out." It means that if you start with bad data, you will ultimately reach erroneous conclusions, even if your logic is as waterproof as a frog's butt. But in your example, you started out with a solid gold list of All-Pro players, but you still wound up with "garbage out" because your logic was faulty. Let me explain. Tom Brady was drafted in the 6th round. I'm not 100% positive, but I think there were already 32 teams in the league at the time (sadly, it seems like Brady's been killin' us forever). The way it works is that every team that hasn't traded its pick away gets a choice in each round. So all 32 teams passed on Brady in round 1. Then you repeat the process in round 2 the same way. The same 32 teams passed on drafting Brady again. Are you startin' to see the pattern? By the time you get to round 6, 32 teams passed on Brady five separate times (not accounting for any picks that had been traded to other teams - - but even then SOMEBODY used those picks and didn't take Brady). Let's say the Patriots passed in the first five rounds 'cause they think they're smarter than everybody else and could still get Brady in Round 6. That leaves 31 teams that passed on Brady in each of 5 rounds. You said - - "Anyone who wouldn't draft any of those players has no business running an NFL team." That's an exact quote. But Brady was passed at least 155 times in that draft by teams other than the Patriots, and the number would be higher if he was picked somewhere later than the very first pick of round 6. So by your logic, 31 out of 32 teams had war rooms being run by people who had no business being there? And that's just Brady. Care to review what round Drew Brees was drafted, and how many of the people who had no business running an NFL team passed on him? That's just the first 2 guys on your list. So to put it in football terms, it was All Pros in, training camp fodder out.