Hplarrm

My guesses are: 1. It is clear Moorman is a diminishing commodity but he is a known commodity. He is simply not gonna kick it a mile with any consistency, but he will kick it where you tell him he supposed to kick it in terms of directional kicking. Given the ST troubles we had last year and the significant number of new ST players Crossman is evaluating, not worrying about the punter issue and having some consistency for comparing players gives Moorman an upside a potentially better young punter brings to the game. 2. This is a young team and Moorman MAY have built and secured a role as a transition point between the players and the coaches which has proved valuable to the coaches. 3. Moorman is clearly a bright guy (I loved watching him think through and then argue with the NFL powers that be at a Pro Bowl athletic skills competition way back when. The competition had various tests of speed (a simple sprint section), agility (players had to high step through ropes on the field, raw strength (push a blocking sled a certain distance), etc. Moorman figured out that the penalty for not completing a particular skill was less than the time he would spend pushing the sled. He simply gave a cursory push to the sled and ran across the line taking a 5 second penalty for not pushing the sled over the line (but saved himself10 seconds+ by not wrestling the sled. He then successfully argued the powers that be that he had complied with the letter of the rules and was awarded the win. Not impressive athleticism at all but clearly a smart boy. I would not be surprised if in essence Moorman is like having an assistant coach on the field and actually not having serious competition for him both increased his authority with the young players and allows him to focus on the mental and teaching side of the game rather than worrying a ton about whether he will make the roster. 4. A big part of Moorman's accomplishments last year was not simply the diminishing punting distance but being the holder for the record setting PK performance. If someone spent the time analyzing the kicks, it would not shock me if Moorman is given credit to catching several errant snaps, getting the ball down with the laces spun properly and if kicker Carpenter gives Moorman a ton of credit for his record setting year and the Bills coaches know the quickest way to mess up the PK game would be to force Carpenter to break in a new holder. This all (or simply a portion of this since it is a guess) adds up to Moorman sticking around.

In what way was he overrated? IMHO he has been judged to be a player who was truly special at special teams and who was a valuable back-up at WR but never was judged to be of such quality as a WR that he allowed or even forced the team to make him a starting WR. Do you rate him in some other way (and I think I and many others would want to see some specifics if you rate him to be a better or worse player than the judgment I express above or that other folks falsely rate him as being better than the description of him I state above. While some fans may have wanted him to start at WR, this was never a view expressed by the actual Bills and their coaching brain trust who never seriously seemed to bbe headed in the direction of sitting down Moulds, Lofton or even #3 WR Don Beebe in favor of Tasker. Claiming that he was overrated by a few fans (or even his buddy Jim Kelly does not mean that he was generally rated a starter because the facts are he was not by the folks really in charge. In terms of him being a special special teams player there is also objective evidence of this. He was that rare player who not specialized n one aspect of ST play, but was a recognized leader with demonstrable skills as a gunner on kick coverage, as a sure-handed return guy and even as a hands guy capable of returning kicks. As a gunner he forced teams to gameplan for him and even better he forced the NFL to establish rules for him because he was so effective as a gunner. He honestly has been a finalist for the HOF because he was a special special teamer but if he was generally overrated he would be in the HOF so the fact he is not in means he never rated as being one of the best overall there ever was. The general rating he has received as a special teams player is justified by objective evidence and the facts he was never made a starter at WR in his career and that he has never made the HOF are evidence that the broader league never incoorectly labeled him as starter WR quality or as one of the best football players ever.

The thing which in interested me most in relation to Whitner was a listing of the top 10 safties in the NFL which not only listed Williams as #6 but did not include Whitner on this list at all. Perhaps it actually distinguished between free and strong safties and this somehow led to Witner being left off the list, but it did have Pollard listed at @2 and my memory is that when the Bills chose Witner in the first, Pollard was on the list of safeties remaining. The choice of Witner at #9 that year was lampooned by many who claimed you never took a safety with a top 10 pick, but this old saw struck me as a mistake to apply because after all, Whitner was not even the first safety taken in that draft. I think 3 (if not 4 safeties went in the first round that year and the Bills had clearly left a hole at S they needed to fill one way or the other in that draft. Though I think Whiner was not a bad choice at the time, it is ironic to say the least that Williams and Pollard turned out to be arguably better players.

Your point is well taken in that I agree with you that AW deserves the right to prove himself as a top performer and player you never worried about as a starter even when facing top talents. That's what I thought Talley was and I believe AW is. However, the reluctance you correctly hear in my embrace of AW is actually my hope he will exceed Talley's accomplishments and become a player who is not only a solid Bill I have no fear of starting but actually becomes a player the other team fears and decides they must gameplan for. AW is not at that level yet but that is a pretty high level of achievement (and a tough one for any safety to reach (Ronnie Lott was a huge hitter who achieved that level of fear, Troy Polamalu also showed a sideline to sideline ability to be this type of feared player, Jarius Byrd is headed that way because he has proved himself to be a player not only with great hands but a good football brain to keep putting himself in position to be opportunistic. AW is very good but has something to still to prove to us.

Interesting. I recently though of Williams after reading a post asking which current Bill was this team's Darryl Talley. I think that Talley was a notable Bill in that he clearly was a vocal spark plug for the team and not only set an example with some good plays but vocally exhorted and demanded his teammates to perform. I do not think that Williams has been a vocal leader yet, because quite frankly he is an emerging rather than proven star. Talley showed notable talent in that he was a good enough player to command respect, but also was still a cut below the Big Three (Reed, Smith, Thomas) and some of the other HoF level players (Kelly, Tasker). I think Williams has reached a point with his level of play that he is good but not great, but his should give him the proven chops to also be more vocal in inspiring and demanding more from his teammates. Articles such as this one where outside parties are willing to acknowledge Williams as well into the upper third of players at his position can set the table for Williams like Talley to be of more value to the team than his very good but not great talents. No one mistakes him for a Pro Bowl quality player (yet) but he can bring a lot to the table for the Bills.

Another way to look at this which strikes me as legit is not whether the Wilson estate trust at the behest of other NFL teams would give a discount to packages pointing toward remaining in Buffalo but instead will they build in the penalty which some outside of town packages bring with them. This only makes sense in that if I was the NFL I want a showing from any potential future partners of mine that the Wilson state sells to that they are gonna have the scratch to pay over a billion to the Wilson's but after undergoing this heavy financial load that they are also gonna be able to produce the 10s of millions of dollars needed to pay the league for moving the team. Further, if I am the NFL, I either simply veto or demand some additional money be put up or made available for some of the potential owners. For example, if the highest bidder is some one with the money to make an offer but it potentially hurts my business to have this new "partner" forced upon me I veto this deal. Thus, some middleeastern oil guy from Qatar may have enough money to be the highest bidder but I do not want someone with connections to middle eastern terrorists to be my partner. Also, same as when the NFLPA simply vetoed Rush Limbaugh as part of an owner package bidding for the Rams because of his race based comments on Donovan McNabb. Also veto. There are some other yahoos I might consider, but I want them to make a bid for the Bills so high as to justify the Wilson estate making them my new partner. Donald Trump for example, has demonstrated with his willingness to sue his partners in the USFL to be a potentially contentious partner. If I am the NFL I have to under contractual agreement give 75% approval for any sale. If it is the Donald I wanna get assurances from him he is not gonna be litigious against his partners or I demand he put up enough cash straight out to us current owners that it is worthwhile to take on as a partner. In addition his past connections to organized gambling and my deep desire not to have any rep connecting the NFL with gambling makes me leery and at least want extra cash commit. Likewise with the Jacobs if they want in they need to pay extra bucks for me to allow it. Anyone who moves the team will have to make a showing of having the extra cash needed to convince me to let them in. Any new owner that wants to move like will have to put up more cash and also deal with 5-7 ears of bad publicity as the Bills team decides to move and WNY whines and laments. So the question is not whether the in Buffalo team gets a break but how much more must a team that is going to leave is willing to pay.

Your point makes sense to me that the highest bid should be accepted, but this still leaves open the judgment of higher over what timeline. Let's say that a bid comes in which is clearly demonstrably higher than the other bids. Let's say it totals up as a certified offer which the bidder has clear ownership of the resources to pay the Wilson estate $1.35 billion while the other bids from Pegula, the John Bon Jovi team or whomever really max out at paying the Wilson estate $1.25 billion. It us clear who the high bidder is. OK Lets say though that the high bidder has this cash/resources on hand and will clearly have them in the future because he is some sultan or Imam from Qatar or Saudi Arabia. Lets say this guy is a demonstrable relative of Osana bin Laden, has clear fiscal connections to having supported some terrorist group, madrassa schools which advocate Sharia law and/or despite the fact this rich guy was educated at the London School of Economics it is his ongoing need to demonstrate he was not contaminated by Western thinking that despite his personal affection for Saville Row suits he is publicly on record for supporting extremists. Sorry, it does not matter that his bid clearly delivers the maximum bid for Ralph's estate so Mary Wilson can leave the NFL behind her while she does something else. The highest bid for Mary right now is not the deciding factor in whether this highest bid is accepted. It is clear that the true source of assets, the TV nets that pay billions to the NFL will not look forward to trying to get eyeballs to watch the new NFL partially sponsored by Al Jazerra. Other things matter besides what produces the highest real bid for the Wilson estate right now!

My thinking is based on the assumption/conclusion from past behavior that the primary motivator for the NFL owners is what gives them the maximum profit. There are lots of motivators for any individual and clearly many past NFL owners have been strongly motivated by items such as their love for the game, wanting to be the baddest man in town, or whatever. However, I make the general assumption about people doing business (and we have seen this time and again in several examples of NL owner behavior) that the deciding motivator for them is SHOW ME THE MONEY. Do you or anyone disagree? Past examples of NFL owner behavior is that originally this was a fairly typical competitive business model with the individual teams clearly cooperating with each to form a league and develop schedules which did not disadvantage any one team. However, each owner was clearly an individual. This began to publicly change with Pete Rozelle taking over leading the league and it departed from traditional capitalist models (the winner gets the fruits and competition makes everyone better as they try to win), but Rozelle was able to lead the owners to realize that they could present a more entertaining product and thus make more money if they did stuff like hold a draft and actually reward the worst teams with the higher draft picks. The NFL embarked on a system which more and more was based on their own social compact of co-operation rather than traditional capitalist competition. The last great hallmark of the capitalist approach was the mid80s labor dispute with the players (led by AFL-CIO type Ed Garvey who led the players into a threat of a strike unless the owners agreed to give the players 53% of the gross receipts of the NFL in player salaries. It was clear they were going to strike after the regular season when the players had received their salaries which were paid on a per game basis. The NFL received much of its cash from the TV nets for playoff games and thus a post regular season during the playoff strike maximized NFLPA power. The team owners were successful businessman and outflanked the NFLPA by locking the players out early in the regular season and hiring replacement players (scabs in NFLPA terms) of college level and off the street athletic talent to play the games. Fans tolerated this and were actually entertained and quite curious for a few games. During these three games the players who did not have the money in hand they planned to have on their strike schedule simply buckled. However, in the face of this and the demise of the Garvey forces, a few of the talented tenth of NFL players like Gene Upshaw were in league with smart NYC attorneys and talked the players into threatening to simply get rid of the NFLPA unless the owners agreed to an agreement which came to be known at the CBA (Comprehensive Bargaining Agreement). The CBA established a salary cap that actually exceeded the Garvey demands in terms of contractually dedicating a majority of the total receipts to player salaries. The alternative which the NFLPA threatened the owners with was once the NFLPA disbanded the owners would be forced to actually operate economically in a free market. Things like the NFL draft were actually flat our restraints of trade and violated the rights of individual athletes. The courts would have upheld the right of the individual to sell their services to the highest bidder, but as labor law has developed the American system does allow the rights of the individual to be over ridden ONLY IF this happens as part of a certified trade union agreement. The NFLPA threatened to decertify itself unless the owners essentially recognized and paid the players as partners. The owners, terrified of actually having to compete against each other in a free market (individual players would need to be signed to personal services contracts and which ever man could attract the best players through high bids would have the best team) instead decided to agree to take the socialist way out and sign the CBA. The reward for doing this though was relative labor peace which gained the first billions of dollars in money from the TV networks. The owners did negotiate that CBA to have the salary cap set based on an agreed upon with the NFLPA salary cap from designated gross receipts. The owners then took advantage of this agreement to make moves like the one Ralph did of getting rid of thousands of the seats he had sold out for year because the receipts from them were part of the designated gross. Instead, he built luxury boxes he did not need under the CBA to share with players. Upshaw and others said fine to this move, but when the CBA came up for renegotiation in 7 years or so he dictated even before negotiations that the salary cap would now be dictated by total gross receipts and that the player share needed to be a percentage that started with a 6). Paul Tagliabue and the other spiritual sons of Pete Rozelle negotiated a deal which arguably not only made the players partners but the majority partners receiving 60.5% of the total gross receipts. Ralph and the Packers objected to the deal where these mere players claimed to equal to the owners. George Halas may have rolled over in his grave but the NFL team owners simply agreed to do without being majority partners, their manhood or whatever, because in the end the TV nets were gonna pay the owners more $ than most dreamed their NFL teams would ever produce. The final deal did tip its hat to Ralph (agreeing to a owner opportunity to force early renegotiation which they did and got some marginal improvements for owners) but also it reinforced the fact that the desires of the individual owner are secondary to the desires of the members of the social and business compact which was the NFL. Thus, in the end, though factors like what will profit Ralph's estate the most are important considerations, ultimately the veto is held by the partnership. Let's say that a highest bid was offered to and accepted by the Wilson estate which included as part of the new partnership one or more of the following wealthy individuals Prince Bandar of Saudi Arabia, Vladamir Putin, or Rush Limbaugh. Ralph agreed contractually that the NFL could simply veto Ralph's estate taking the highest bid unless 75% of the current NFL owners wanted to be partners with Bandar, Putin, or Limbaugh (or whoever). The way the deal works is that the vast majority of the NFL must agree to take a prospective bidder chosen by Ralph's estate as a partner or it ain't happening. The transfer fee language comes from my description of the way NFL owners make money from a deal by Ralph's estate. They care less about the ultimate payment Mr. Wilson's heirs get, but about what pays them. The only direct payment comes if he team moves and the transfer fee for moving the team is spit by the 31 (32 if Ralph's estate gets a share). This amount of money divided 30+ ways is a chunk of change to you and me. However, it is small potatoes compared to the amount of $ the NFL teams will get from adding new franchises in Mexico City, Toronto, Stugart, Buenos Aires, Tokyo and even Beijing. My sense is that the NFL does not want to distract itself or even diminish its product by dealing with 6 or 7 years of whining and death march because they decided to leave Buffalo. My guess is that they do not want to deal with fighting off Chuck Schumer when he tries to rescind the NFL partial anti-trust exemption. My guess is that even if the proposal is to move the team to Toronto that given the choice between exploiting the larger market of Toronto or the smaller (but already obtained) market in Buffalo, the NFL choice would be to exploit both. If the Sabres and Maple Leafs can both exist then why not the Bills and a new Toronto franchise (arguably the population of the Greater Toronto area has more in common with NYC in terms of corporate HQs, population size, and rich individuals and could support two teams on its own. The real value of the Bills to the NFL is as an original AFL team and offering two make the eyeballs in new foreign franchises part of 40 Years of NFL tradition. I think the Bills remain here for the forseeable future because it pays the NFL team owners more $ to keep it here than their cut of the fee for transferring the team. They would veto any attempt by the bills to sell to Osana Bin Laden's nephew if he was the high bidder and my guess is that they would veto any real attempt to mess up making the real bucks from the TV nets by Ralph's estate selling to a high bidder who decides to create the bad press and risks of moving the team.

I think you "get it" with this point. I think most people don't get it and operate under the illusion that the primary decision maker in all of this the individual team owner. Maybe this was true back in the hay day of George Halas, but it ain't your grandma's NFL anymore. The individual team owner long ago ceded control to the partnership of 32 teams which make up the NFL. They did this because they make more money as individuals by co-operating with each other than they would if they solely competed against each other in a traditional free market. Ralph himself contractually agreed to sell the team only to a buyer who can get the support of roughly 75% of their fellow owners. The fellow owners are also driven by what will make them the most $. They will get their 1/31st of whatever transfer payments come from the sale. This is a chunk of cash, but pales next to the true cash cow delivering $ to the Bills the TV networks. THIS WHY I DOUBT THE BILLS WILL EVER MOVE. What the NFL is really making the big $ from is selling a story. If the Bills move it certainly does give each team their 1/31st of the transfer fees, but if the team stays put, they get to sale a far better story of 40 years of NFL history which the Bills as an original AFL team are a big part of. Even worse, if the Bills leave the NFL story features 5+ years of the city and region dieing. Will the NFL take less $ for the team to stay put? Yes, because they make a lot more money by the team staying in Buffalo than messing up the story they are selling to the TV nets for a mere 1/31st of an increased transfer fee.

It all goes back to that ol bugaboo ROI- Return on Investment. Often folks talking about this fail to take into account the reality is who pays the investment and who gets the return. In the case of WNY I look at this from my perspective which is one of a WNY taxpayer. My own investment is actually relatively small as taxpayer investment is really spread pretty widely. Unfortunately the return does not come to me at all unless the Peace Bridge Authority sells bonds which I buy on the open market. The trolls at the Peace Bridge collect tolls to make money and pay the bondholders who they have borrowed money from. There are other more indirect costs (and potentially benefits to the area) from the activity at the Peace Bridge, but from the studies I have seen this almost all costs for the WNY area and very little benefit (unless you sell truck fuel, Slim Jims or porn near the bridge. The big negative which the powers that be often seem to try to ignore are the air pollution and health impacts for people living near the bridge. A UB Prof. Jamie Mukasa has done a lot of work looking at the health impacts on the breathing ofWNYers. His research pretty clearly shows heightened levels of lung cancer and also respiratory problems for folks living in concentric circles around the bridge. The closer you live to the bridge, the higher your rate of respiratory problems with a pretty straightline correlation between health problems an distance from the bridge (while I would not expect to win in court against a lawyer the PBA can easily afford because legally there is a difference between causation and correlation, it can be quite reasonable to make judgements based on "mere" correlation even if I would not make a court decision based on it). Of great interest to me was the experiment which that a hole bin Laden pulled on us on 9/11. We knew a lot about truck traffic on the bridge because there were tolls and money involved. We also knew a lot about respiratory health issues (in the aggregate due to HIPPA laws which block individual info. At any rate, we knew a lot about levels of truck traffic on 9/10 and we knew a lot about insurance payments for respiratory problems. On 9/11 horrible things happen. On 9/12 we close the bridge. Incredibly quickly (even more quickly than I would have guessed and I pay attention to this stuff) we saw truck traffic drop to near zero and we also saw reports of respiratory problems drop to near zero with that same concentric circle pattern of complaints vis a vis your home and the bridge. As bridge traffic crept up over time, we saw the respiratory reports also creep up in conjunction with the level of truck traffic. There are real and substantial costs associated with living near the Peace Bridge. The ROI calculation is completed by looking at the return generated by the bridge. The direct return does not really go to WNY, it goes to whomever the PBA is paying the tolls it collects to (primarily directly to bond holders and also to the general guvmints. The big rip-off here is the stupid tale elected officials (who collect tons of campaign dollars from the bondholders) try to sell that increased truck traffic benefits the local economy. Nope. When you are shipping something there are 2 things you care about. A. The place it is manufactured and B. the place it is sold. You want to manufacture at as low a cost as you can and you want to sell at a high a price as you can. All points in between you want them to be speed bumps as well really not slowing you down from where you manufacture them to the point you sell them. WNY is a necessary choke point in this journey because you have to cross the river somewhere. Howevver, the trucks have no desire to stop here and leave money here. They make their living driving from point A to point Z. The Peace Bridge ironically is changing as a root for transporting goods anyway. A peak was probably hit in the early part of the millineum but from what I see the manufacture and shipping models are really changing and the Peace Bridge model though it will always be a chokepoint is becoming outmoded as an economic generation tool. Even those bystanders like the Buffalo News that whined a lot about building a new bridge that was a "signature of the area are starting to realize that Frederick Law Olmstead argued for placing Front Park where it is because of its signature view of the natural area. Smart economic development strategies are not those which build more stuff to block human views of this signature location, the deal should be to attract more people to want to live or visit the waterfront and then build an economy around selling stuff to these people. Instead an expanded Peace Bridge merely leaves nothing but air pollution for WNYers while bondholders wwho live out of WNYer collect nickels from trucks driving through the area.

As far as Bass Pro and stupid proposals like the Peace Bridge Expansion (a great idea if you are an out of town Peace Bridge Bond holder but a bad idea for the WNY community) the fiasco would have been if these projects were done with huge subsidies being paid by WNY taxpayers for limited economic development payoff and large logistical negatives. A new downtown Bills stadium from a WNY taxpayer perspective should be built if: 1. A stadium is built as part of a realistic plan not to simply create ongoing activity for 8 home games and 2 pre-season games but as part of a larger complex with virtually daily activity. A tough nut but possible. 2. The costs need to be substantially borne not simply by WNY tapayers but with a subsidy NYS such that though there is probably not sufficient ROI to justify investment by WNY taxpayers, the actual investment is made by the much larger population of NYC and the profit center of Wall St. the actual investment by WNY taxpayers is diluted but the the returns mostly come to WNYers. 3. A larger plan is launched by WNY community leaders and elected officials which highlights the fact that though the economic fates of WNYers in the city, the suburbs and rural areas are totally interlinked, there is far too little we share in common besides the Bills. Community leaders need to use the fact of the Bills being here to emphasize an economic development strategy which promotes sharing of natural resources we own together (Niagara Falls, Zoar Valley, waterfront access, Niagara Rr. wind as relatively cheaper energy producer along with the already built hydro power) to push a new approach to economic development.

I start from an understanding that based on the info I see a stadium investment by government would quite likely not provide an ROI which would justify fiscally the investment. All that being said there are advantage not measurable in ROI that might make this something which our local elected officials might wan to advocate. These may be: 1. The WNY community is ultimately going to rise and fall together. Though folks do not like to admit it it, ultimately how folks are doing in Buffalo proper, in the first ring suburbs, in the second ring go-go suburbs and in the still surprisingly rural third ring suburbs are really linked together that if the inner city is allowed to become a wasteland it is likely to become in our and our children's lifespans an anchor on the economic development of even well-to-do areas. We quite often salve ourselves by focusing more upon the separations which allow folks who may live within a 20 minute car ride of each other to pretend they are totally separate from each other. Be it, A: increased welfare payments from increasing taxes of the wealthy and middle class to pay for services for the poor who can only afford to live in the central city, B: be it increased costs for central government police and courts in higher crime areas, C: be it the bad rep unemployment or inner city crime gives to a broader metro area which weighs down investment by outsiders in more well-to-do or middle class suburbs, D:, be it the kids of more well to do or middle class suburbs being significant economic users of buying items like drugs in higher crime areas, E. be it kids in our area choosing to leave WNY for careers, jobs and futures in the perceived go-go sunbelt cities to the extent Buffalo seems outmoded and old hat, the future of Buffalo, Cheektowaga, Lackawanna, Amherst, Clarence, Newstead, Eden, etc are really intrinsically linked One of the non-ROI measurable links which I think it is critical to the well-being and presence of the Buffalo Bills is that I think that folks quite often live in the fantasy that they in their first, second, or third ring suburban homes are somehow separate from the inner city core. I see one of the primary values that the Buffalo provides to the residents of WNY is that in a real way it links together people across WNY without regard to their economic status, without regard to whether they are city folk, suburban folk, or rural folk that they share something in common. Sometime though I personally would hate to lose the Bills to some other town, I think it would create a situation where if we have good community leaders we would have the somewhat adult conversation about "if we across WNY do not share the Bills in common then what do we share in common. The answer is actually that we do share our economic fates in common. Unless we all learn to work together we will simply fall apart. However, I am selfish and do not want to lose my Bills. However, beyond my own mercenary personal interest I think their is a positive difficult to measure in ROI benefit that they link WNTers (and growingly Southern Ontarians). One of the failures I think I see among our community leaders is that they have not utilized the cross segments allegiance to the Bills to foster greater co-operation in the battle WNY is waging like or not for more economic development here versus in other parts of the country. 2. A second benefit to WNY is that to the extent we get Albany to invest NYS funds in WNY we locals will actually disproportionately benefit getting tax dollars from NYC. Though folks here often hate to admit it, most of the money in NYS comes from most of the people. Most of the people in NYS live in NYC and its suburbs rather than in Buffalo (like 20 million to 1 million). To the extent we can get Albany to pick up the tab WNY gets far more benefit than it pays. Due to the oddities that the Jets and Giants home stadium is in Jersey making the Bills the only NYS team and also the oddity of urban NYC and its suburbs balancing each other politically leaving our little second largest city in the state as the largest collection of voters, WNY can sometime get Albany to spend in WNY disproportionate to our population. While we need to be cognizant that we can only go to the Albany well a few times and major Albany spending on a Sports Authority for a new Ralph Wilson stadium might be better to get Albany to invest in other WNY stuff (UB, Improving the Niagara rivers might be other doable candidates) but I think there may be a fiscally responsible such for WNY to get Albany to pay for economic development which does not give a good ROI from the perspective of taxpayers as a whole, but if most of the development benefit comes to WNY while the bulk of the costs are primarily on NYC taxpayers it benefits us here into WNY taxpayer ROI. 3. Advertising- I think that our community leaders are really not exploiting an opportunity the NFL provides us to advertise the "new WNY". Each game broadcast shows wonderful pictures of Niagara Falls as a backdrop on broadcast commercials. I think our community leaders should work hard to diversify these backdrops and promote WNY as a great place to visit. For example, I would have the networks consider running camera shots of the windmills springing up along the lakefront coast. These windmills are pretty unique among NE cities and can be a real promotion to folks that this is a different WNY. Likewise, there also can be some interesting shots the nets can be directed to or given such as Zoar Valley, the Eden Corn Festival, Niagara-on-the-Lake Shaw Festival tourism, etc that would be great advertising to shown in visiting cities and around the country in occaisional prime time games. A new stadium should be a centerpiece in presenting the "new" WNY to the country. 4. Building momentum- While the ROI can be measured for hiring construction workers to build a new stadium, or for the additional chicken wings sold at local restaurants near the new stadium, there is a real but more difficult to measure investment momentum that a new stadium could bring to an underutilized area like downtown Buffalo. The increase in activity from the near zero activity of downtown Buffalo to a new vibrancy (even if it is short-term it might make a difference in terms of timing for bringing new development momentum to our underutilized lower investment inner city Buffalo. I agree that the best ROI measurements do not show a good ROI for building a stadium but I think this says as much about the inability of these studies to measure the real world benefits of linking together tangibly a region that really is linked together economically whether they want to admit it or not. I think also the ROI studies I have seen do not do proper measuring of an odd case such as Buffalo where the investment can come from NYC while the benefit mostly goes to WNY. Further, if the new stadium urges/force our community leaders to generate a better marketing strategy for the are this would not be measured in ROI but could produce real benefits for the area.

Under the old CBA where the salary cap was determined from items designated as part of the gross receipts, luxury boxes were not designated so a team owner kept 100% of receipts (as opposed to an item like regular ticket sales where the players got a sliding % of the designated gross depending upon a complex formula. This led folks like the Bills to actually lower capacity at the Ralph in order to build luxury seats whose take they did not share. Rather than fight this point, the NFLPA took solace in that under the new CBA they were actually more like partners with the owners given the salary cap. However, they did remember and when the CBA came up for its regular renegotiation back just after the turn of the millineum, NFLPA ED Gene Upshaw dictated that the new CBA would get rid of designation being based on the total gross receipts. He also pronounced prior to any negotiation the player cut of the salary cap needed to start with a 6. Many owners objected to being dictated to by "mere" players, bot Paul Tagliabue and other sons of Pete Rozelle's egalitarian thinking that an individual owner stood to make far more $ from the TV nets once labor peace was settled. With only Ralph and the Packers voting no the rest of the league decided to bend over and take it given the bucks they were given. A new deal with NYS for a stadium could still include a designated agreement between the Bills and the state on luxury box proceeds but there is no CBA demand of this to my limited knowledge.

Yes, Esmonde does have an agenda, but why is this a surprise because in fact most people do have an agenda (reason, cause, or whatever) for their work. I is either expected by most readers and tolerated as they make their own conclusion by considering multiple views and making a judgment of what balance to choose. The question is not whether Esmonde has an agenda (he does have one and his agenda is to write columns which spur debate so by taking him on you are likely helping the Esmonde agenda) but what do you think it is and do you agree/disagree with it.

I can see several reasons he might resist slogging through the courts: 1. His 31 fellow partners in the NFL. I can see why you might want to bet on Snyder cause he is a gazillionaire. However, we see from real life experience that 31 gazillionaires can beat 1 pretty easy. When the rubber hits the road this issue will be decided not by anyone's judgment of who is right and who is wrong. It will be decided as many things are in this world by how does it impact the bottom line of the money that drives the process. The money that drives the NFL is the big buck from selling the football product. For the 32 gazillionaires or groups that own NFL teams, whether 1 owner is upholding a tradition or insulting a race is a mere distraction. If (and it appears to be when given the recent decisions and kerfluffle on this issue) and it continues to distract from the true NFL message of selling the game. It becomes my goal as a Native American leader interested in this issue not to target Snyder who appears to be a racist idiot whose mind I cannot change, but instead to be an irritant to his 31 partners to get then to lean on Snyder the way other NBA owners forced Donald Sterling out the league. I doubt I can convince Snyder who is likely driven into a froth because someone else is telling him what to do. However, his fellow partners in the NFL don't give a rat's derriere about Redskin tradition. If every team the Deadskins visit is plagued with a week of protest and bad press prior to the Redskin visit, I can pressure Snyder's peers to pressure him to shut up. 2. The real $ that control the NFL actually is not the 32 partners but actually the TV networks who gladly pay billions to the NFL to attract eyeballs so they can sell commercials. The nets have not divided up the games yet, but I look at the timing of when this is gonna happen and announce that a national protest is going to be launched first time the Redskins are in a primetime game. I also announce or insinuate that the first network which ends up with a Redskins primetime game is going to be a target for action of mine. I am going to demand stuff from that network like agreeing to give me a few minutes of air time in conjunction with this game to provide a Native American perspective on the name. I also threaten to potentially launch a boycott of that network if they do not treat me nice or potentially a boycott of products advertised during the first Deadskin primetime game. In general I want to force a network to give me some valuable air time and threaten their money. If I time this correctly before the NFL announces the schedule I create a circumstance where none of the nets want to be the loser getting the short straw to show the Deadskins in primetime. 3. One of the best examples of the end of the individual team owner as king and the league as a whole ruling the day was the CBA dispute with the NFLPA where union head Gene Upshaw dictated that the players were going to get 60%+ of the total receipts rather than a portion of the designated gross. The owners not only acknowledged the players were their partners, but in fact they demanded and got a vast majority of the total take. Folks like Ralph objected to this, but Jerry Jones/Snyder/ and even Tagliabue forced Ralph to take the money and run. As a tribal leader I would go to the NFLPA and ask them for their assistance in getting the NFL to acknowledge people of color rights. My guess is that that the predominantly people of color NFLPA will at least give me a sympathetic hearing. Again, in the real world we have already seen the NFLPA rise up to discipline the owners over their proposal to have the racist commenting Rush Limbaugh as a prospective owner. If the NFLPA agrees to tell the nfl to jump on a racial issue my guess is they would simply ask how high 4. Snyder might lose an appeal. Yep, he does have a bunch of money so he can hang in there if he wants. Yes, you might think he is totally right on the merits, However, the simple statistical fact is that most appeals fail. Without regard to anyone's sense of the quality of the argument, Snyder faces an uphill battle he may win but he may not (in fact the appeal will be settled not on the quality of the moral argument but instead on whether there is some legal issue that prompts reversal. By losing before the determiner of fact (the lengthy patent process) Snyder now must base his arguments on a legal process violation. Without regard to what you feel is right the chances of appeal make this far from a slam dunk I think the tribes are in a far superior political position on this fight.

No, supporting traditional marriage does not make one a homophobe at all. However, opposing marriage equality does probably make that person a homophobe. As a heterosexual, I insist on exercising my right to marry the woman I love (and fortunately for some reason she has agreed to be my wife for the last 23 years. Yet, though I have no interest in being married to a guy, I am also happy if a woman friend of mine finds love even if it with another woman or guy buddies of mine find love with another guy. In no way does someone's choice of someone from the other sex as their life partner for religious or whatever reason make them a homophobe. it's one consenting adult's desire to intrude in the love-based (and increasingly recognized as legal by our courts)life partnership decisions of others that makes them homophobes.

National Association for the Advancement of Colored People is an offensive name to various folks such as racists, members of the KKK or other idiots. Society in general or in this particular case large public institutions have decided to care what normal folk think and ignore the desires of racist idiots. The Redskins are not there yet, but society as demonstrated by a letter from 50 Senators, and this recent judgment by the patent office are moving toward throwing the Skins name on the discard pile. Just like the NAACP issue not really being decided by ALL folks not agreeing (there will always be a hardcore of racists pissed off by the name) there will always be a group of people who legitimately feel the name was chosen to honor Native Americans and is fine. However, my GUESS is that a critical mass of the 31 business partners of Snyder will judge that they would rather spend their time and effort talking about and presenting football rather than spend time arguing over semantics.

Yet, refer to him as a person of color and it is doubtful this would be problematic. Well, what does this tell you? Simply that while a first truth (or a principle or an ideology is at last presented as immutable, words clearly are not. It simply means one thing to refer to a guy being gay in the year 2000 than it meant in 1934 (Fred Astaire made a movie with that title which was racy for the time as this divorcee was lighthearted but had nothing to do with depictions of homosexuality). The false comparison here is that some folks seem to be operating as though words are not immutable. Given the dark history of treatment of Native Americans at the hands of the dominant USA culture, a business should not be surprised if easily within the lifetime of a person, a word that they chose even as an immutable tribute to a group in society has changed so that now it has a significant view as derogatory. Insisting on the continued use of that came ACTUALLY BE a proud tradition AND an insult at the same time. Asan owner if you view the major rationale and mission for your business is to promote a tradition then by all means keep the name. If on the other hand the rationale and mission is to make big bucks by presenting an entertainment product then changing the name can easily be a good move to make.

This thread reminds me of one my favorite NFL fan experiences when I was a kid, which was there was a set of contractual disputes between the TV nets and the growing number of big star announcers as folks like Cosell, and Dandy Don Meredith were demanding that the nets pay them big bucks. The nets wanting to keep hold of every last dollar broadcast a game without any announcers whatsoever. The feed was merely the camera work and the actual ambient sound of the game. It was fairly primitive and actually compared to being at the game was quite bad. The network critics simply savaged the effort in their columns. We then embarked into the modern world where folks like John Madden used telestrators and a hyperventilated style to add value to the game. BUT I for one miss the announcerless games. On only has to listen to Dan Dierdorf drone on with his biased analysis of the game to as quick as you can turn down the sound on the TV down and watch the TV feed while listening to Van Miller do his radio feed (also biased but at least in the Bills direction). With today's modern technology (having the score/time continuously posted in the corner of the screen, rotating displays of the down and distance for each play, the yellow line automagically showing you the point that must be reached for a 1st down, intermittent crawls of scores across the league in other games, and outstanding individual performances that day) I would not miss doing without Dan Dierdorf at all. It will likely never happen because the TV announcers as stars are simply part of the game now. There is so much money involved, the nets do not mind cutting in these announcer/stars for part of the take, the TV pundits will always lambast transfers of info to the viewer using "mere" technology because they are paid big bucks to point out the latest Phil Simms commentary idiocy. However, I would love it if they broadcast an announcerless game with the person doing the hardwork being the TV show director who chooses the camera angles and uses the ample graphics available to let the viewer have game info and know what is happening around the league. A TV announcer might interrupt your viewing once or twice a quarter to explain an on field game situation (involving something like a challenge) that explains what is happening because it cannot be signaled or easily explained by the ref post play. If I had this readily available stuff I could happily do without the blather of the announcer. Announcers do add to the game from time to time (Alex Karras voicing over a photo of a sweating steaming Otis Sistrunk by deadpanning that Sistrunk played his college ball at the University of Mars is one of the funniest things I ever heard)but in general, I feel I can do without the TV announcers, but I love the TV's ability to do replays or focus on details like the battle in the trenches between the OL/DL. The good news is that us fans really do not have to choose between the game experience at the Stadium and watching games on TV. The best answer is to do both and between portable TVs (and soon ubiquitous Google glasses) one can get both. One only has to experience virtually every eye turning to the big board in the stadium when a useful replay is shown to understand that both TV and being in the stadium have their value.

Actually, one thing which detracts from the in stadium experience is that from time to time, the officials will call a TV timeout if the regular game flow has not given them enough down time to run all he commercials they have sold. I know refs call them in a manner designed to minimize momentum shifts and game flow, but this tends to happen more in tight low-scoring less penalized games and it is noticeably annoying or may come at a good or bad time in regard to players getting a rest or recovering from injury.

I think it will be a question of timing as much as raw talent. In general, in particular because we have three legit Pro Bowl competitive level players on the DL, the DL has more talent (its major weakness last year was at LB particularly as Kiko slowed by nicks, but the FA addition of run stuffer Spikes and a cast of possibilities to make up in the DBs for the loss of Byrd). The D is by far more talented. However, as time goes on: 1. The NFL is designed to advantage big O plays and our offense will gain over time from this advantage2. Training camp and early pre-season emphasize individual work ad unit or 7 on 7 drills. As the team begins more 11 on 11 work and pre-season games, the O begins to operate with its true complexity and will gain an advantage 3. D play stands out in one-on-one but as we move toward more real games then better chemistry also develops between Q and receivers and between runners and blockers. D talent is better on this team but in the end O rules the roost.

Actually, I am in am different camp. I think that the only thing which is pretty much a truth in the NFL is that almost any issue is not about the morality its about the money. This has been true of items like concussions, steroids, recreational, the CBA, etc. My guess of what Snyder is doing here is that he knows full well that this is the continuing beginning of the end for the De4adskins use of the name. Its simply a matter of time until the local owner despite being a billiomaire gets forced to give up the name by multiple billionaires who are his partners. The morality or the issue is important but way secondary to what are the fiscal impact. In the end the money comes from the TV nets and maintaining a name some find racist (a finding of not only some native Americans, but 50 Senators, and now the US patent office). What my GUESS is what Snyder is doing is knowing he likely is gonna be forced to give up the name he is raising the price the NFL will have to pay him to give up the name. Perhaps this price will be a Super Bowl in DC. Perhaps the price will be league concessions and support for profiting to be found in renaming the team. Perhaps it just a flat out cash payment for him. The name is a goner. It may take years, but at best its a distraction from articles being about the game of football to instead articles being about the soap opera with the name.

As best as I can tell from press reports the team sucked. Not good news for us as in a perfect world Merrone would have put his stamp on this team, and the talented players we have drafted and sign would have already be showing good chemistry and command of the new D and O schemes. However, last time I checked life was not perfect. The good news about the fact we sucked. However, while there is no guarantee of improvement, the fact the team was clearly lacking creates a number of positive event possibilities 1. There is a lot of room for improvement and the team has good potential to get the momentum started for positive improvement. 2, Clearly these players are immature, but this team has gotten a clear object lesson that they cannot even pretend to be adults. Merrone has been overly-permissive in my view so far, but actually, the players are rich boys who the latest brain research. Dareus actions are nuts, but he clearly escaped the car wreck with his life. This still may not to turn these boys into men, but a clear teachable moment has occurred. 3. Merrone has more than enough justification. He has tons of room to be draconian now. 4. Many players now have clear areas to focus on. Manual needs to crack the books and learn the offense Some will may a kneejerk assessment h cannot do it. However, this a football playbook and not learning to be a doctor and any collegian who led his college to victories should be able to do this. 5. Dareus problems have distracted the media to cover the soap opera of personalities, which keeps these leeches busy and off of messing around with the important stuff of football. It's sad that the media is not doing good coverage of news and instead is into the entertainment aspects of gotya journalism. I miss not having the real coverage of football, but given the media is a silly distraction I rather have them focus on personality rather than stoking position debates like they did with DF/RJ. An example of the current silliness was the recent Jerry Sullivan column arguing for cutting Dareus because Sully was sick of him. This suggestion makes zero football sense as we have no clear replacement. The accelerated cap hit would kill this team. Further, such a cut would actually reward Dareus financially as he would likely profit as an FA Pro Bowler benefitting him for being an idiot. The media has become so stupid with h loss of Felser and promotion of the antics of the Schoop/Bulldog idiots that I am happy to see them distracted by idiocy. The bad start may be a prelude to further meltdown but actually sts the table for stories about improvement.

Actually, I think Greggy and others are wrong because the issue here is not about a sole billionaire like Snyder but because the real chooser are the many billionaires and millionaires who are Snyders' partners. Just like billionaire Donald Sterling, his judgment can simply be overridden by the $ outcomes for his partners. Actually, the morality of this issue is NOT going to be determined by these arguments but by the actual source of the $ the TV nets. They have shown they can be manipulated by concerted action by the players whether they are being PC or just pissed off. Not only did we see this with the players together wearing their sweats backward after Sterling exercised his right to say stupid things, but already the NFL players vetoed Rush Limbaugh as potential part owner of the Rams. If the players choose to make a point of this the owners will cave without regard of your arguments. The irony is that by arguing this issue one actually builds the relevance of this issue by distracting from the subject as a controversy and heightens the possibility that the TV nets will force the owners to curtail the free speech of individual owners. Reality rather than ideological arguments will determine what is right.

So you are saying that if the new owner of the Bills should decide to rename the team the Buffalo African-Americans reaction s team decided to call itself the reaction should be exactly the same as the reaction to the name the Redskins? I think you proved the point. Most would find the new Bills name to be stupid at best and offensive to many. This is true of the Redskin name as well.