Hplarrm

I think you are wrong if your conclusion is that it is all up to Snyder. If I had to place a bet on who is in charge if the choice is between 1 billionaire Snyder) versus multiple billionaires (the other owners) then the smart money is on the multiple billionaires. The key to figuring out who wins any dispute over the Deadskins name is actually one about what the broad range of owners judge makes them the most $. Ultimately our experience shows us that it is actually what the TV nets which provide the individual team owners with billions that dictates what happens. A simple case which showed this was the recent NBA kerfluffle in involving Donald Sterling. An individual owner was forced to sell his team. If you want toclaim that this is the NBA and not the NFL, merely look at the current CBA where NFLPA head Gene Upshaw publicly dictated that players must receive over 60% of the gross receipts. So it was. If the players or some other force gets serious about pushing the owners around then the owners will simply be pushed around.

Its already happened which it is why my GUESS is that the name is done for. In the end, the NFL is all about the money. The money is found in eyeballs watching the game so that the TV nets are happy to ship billions of $ to the NFL. The NFL is going to make a choice about whether it makes more $ selling a story which has the distractrion of whether the name is racist or not or alternately telling a story more focused on football. Just as the NFL owners were willing to cave into Gene Upshaw's dictate that the players must get 60% of the gross receipts from the new CBA, NFL team owners will happily cave and make Snyder change the name because it matters less who is right in this dispute than the fact it is a distraction to selling football. Its over as best as I can tell without regard to who is right.

This whole thread proves the point. If you're primary interest is football, then you want the name changed so we can spend our time debating the play of the team. On the other hand, if your primary interest is debating ideological points, or upholding the rights of an individual billionaire over multiple billionaires, then by all means keep the name of the team the ssame. We're gonna beat this dead horse for a while regardless of whether the name is changed or not, but my vote is change the name and getthis distraction from thinking about football out of the way as quickly as possible.

Many people fall for the fallacy that the guvmint immediately comes in and confiscates hard earned money from the makers in society. Folks who fall for this line do not seem to understand that one would have to be a fool to pay the full legal rate for any tax levied on income or assets. The feds did attempt a few years ago to put in place an alternative minimum tax because so many Fortune 500 firms and their owners were actually arranging their books so that their tax liability was zero. If Pegula is paying 50% on the $ he "made" from selling this land he and his lawyers would be fools. The folks with the real bucks are pleased to have real people believe their millions and billions are taken from them so they can simply enjoy their billions and millions. Others are pleased to sell the guvmint is evil line because it supports their ideology. They actually got folks to believe in concepts like their is a mandatory "death tax" when actually estate taxes can be virtually totally escaped (unless the transferred assets are in the multiple millions they are simply exempt) and even if large, they are simply transferred to whomever the dead person designates as part of an irrevocable trust. These trust are tax free as long as it is administered by an outside party and under this form a standard but pretty large regular payment can be made and even extraordinary large payments for the health and well-being of the recipient. It really is folks who buy the line that the guvmint (you and me by Thomas Jefferson's definition) is robbing all of us blind. It is part of the guvmint but the part robbinh u and m is in the control of Wall Street and other monied forces.

This view makes a mistake of judging who is the decision maker here and what is the market this business is working to attract to make a profit. As was recently demonstrated in the NBA, the true decision-maker is not the one billionaire but the multiple billionaires which comprise the other league owners. The market that these multiple billionaires are trying to attract are the millions (potentially billions of eyeballs) that get the TV networks to ship billions of $ to the other owners. The reality of this is (and should be) not what the local Redskins fans want, but instead what is most entertaining to the fans. This is not some ultimately petty argument about what Snyder (or a Sterling) thinks in their own little world), the real answer is what is best for presenting the product. The product is football and not the distraction of whether the name is an honor or insulting to a specific group. Defending Snyder's right to call his team what he wants is simply a distraction from football. This commercial and the Senate vote are real world indicators that this distraction must go. The Deadskins are gone as a name, because it s creating too much of a distraction for selling the product.

What do you mean believe? If you mean believe he can be competitive, then yes I believe he can lead a team which competes for the playoffs. However, I do not believe he can lead this team to an SB win. However, in this regard it was correct not to believe in Peyton Manning last year.

If the NFL is primarily in the business of providing an entertainment product then I would switch the name. If on the other hand it judges it of greater import to uphold the right of a team owner to call his team anything he wants to without regard to the debate over that name distracting from presentation of that entertainment product then keep the name. Personally, I am far more interested in the game rather than the debate about an owner's ability to call the team something that a significant number of folks find reminds them of one of the cruelest episodes in the history and actions of this great land. I think anyone more interested in the game than in any owner's right to call the team a name that lots of folks find insulting. Though I think folks may disagree about whether the name is an insult to be an insult or not we all should be willing to acknowledge this name provides an insult to a significant chunk of some people. This is not what I think the NFL is designed to do. Like it or not this is simply the fact looking at the game.

The question here is does Sully want to reward Dareus for his stupid acdts. This is the likely impact of Sully's call for s cut of Dareus would be. Does anyone really have any doubts that coming of a Pro Bowl berth (deserved or not) that this youngster would not only walk away with the millions of $ the Bills guaranteed him, but he would enter an FA market where he would almost certainly command a huge signing bonus, and at worse would add onto the Bills money in his pocket with a huge contingency contract with his new team. If Sully ran the Bills, he would create a massive incentive for any other young miscreants on the Bills (Jerry Hughes for example) to publicly act out and try to get cut to enter the FA market after they posted notable negotiating bennies like Dareus' Pro Bowl or Hughes surprisingly high sack total it would simply be stupid. Add to that the Bills cutting off their nose to spite their face by accelerating his cap hit into one year. Sully is simply advocating that in the face of juvenile idiotic action Dareus should be rewarded by being allowed to cash as he likely would financially. Sully should acknowledge his suggestion was idiocy and if not simply ignored in all future rants.

Perhaps TSW should do a poll on whether Bills fans should cut Jerry Sullivan. No one with even half a brain does not judge Dareus actions as problematic and at best pathetic. However, the idea that the Bills should simply cut him is an indication of this advocate having a quarter of a brain and even less of a heart. Sully and a few posters are entitled to hold stupid opinions if they want, but really would be well advised to think this suggestion through as cutting him appears to many to be bad football, bad winning team building, and quite frankly would quite likely benefit Dareus for his stupid behavior as this Pro Bowl qualifier would likely score a significant signing bonus as an FA and at worst a contingency based huge contract. Cutting him would be a bad idea which penalizes Bills fans for loss of his current statistical output (Poro bowl competitive even from a jerk), penalizes team building as his teammates have publicly pledged support, and would benefit Dareus financially if he got to be an DA for being immature. Bad idea Sully.

It seems fairly obvious that Schumer is taking the public lead on this issue in terms of both Senate and Congressional work on this issue and quite likely that the failure of any member of Congress to comment publicly on this issue is likely a sign they will be in line with and available for real action when the time comes and Schumer calls for it. In the absence of some tangible real world signs that Gillebrand disagrees with Schumer on this issue, its a pretty safe assumption she agrees with Schumer in supporting the BUFFALO Bills. In addition the comments referring to Gillebrand who clearly was smart enough to earn various degrees, get appointed to and then win re-election to the Senate, and has been a vocal and so far more successful than other Sen.s at promoting gender equity issues for military service shows that those who might call her ditzy really are the ditzy ones.

I think a lot of folks are really misreading this situation. Only one thing is pretty certain. The NFL will go where the biggest dollars are. The misread is that the biggest dollars for the NFL as a whole or for an individual owner is NOT from whatever billionaire or billionaire based consortium buys the team, the real money is with the TV networks which pays the NFL billions of $ so that the Nets get more eyeballs for them to sell commercials for beer, cars and other stuff. Many folks seem to feel that the key to this is to understand whether a small market like Buffalo can find a way to compete with a larger market like LA, Toronto, or whatever. It can't. Fortunately for Buffalo that doesn't matter. The big bucks for the NFL is seeking to find new eyeballs in Mexico City, Tokyo, Stuggart, Beijing and yes Toronto. However, even given a choice between having a new franchise in TOR or the existing money of the current franchise in Buffalo, the NFL answer is almost certainly BOTH. Buffalo's primary value to the voting members of the NFL is that it helps them sale and tell a story to new franchises and viewers of an original AFL/NFL team. The NFL would be seriously messing with the story it is telling and selling if it was constantly awash for 6 years with film of wailing and teeth gnashing of how just to get more $ it is abandoning and maybe killing Buffalo. Add to that the potential risk to the limited anti-trust exemption which Shumer/Gilllebrand would mount (this fear apparently was a key to Cleveland beating the NFL and keeping the Browns Modell pulled an Irsay. My sense is that Polancarz through out the possible new outside WNY owner unless we have a new stadium to increase local and NYS leverage for a new stadium.

One thing which seems clear to me in all of this is that there is no potential owner/candidate who has no substantial negatives in terms of their prospects to become the next owner. Anyone who presents this as a no-brainer for one candidate or another is simply demonstrating they have no brain. Trump does bring some positives to the table, this true. The thing which seems silly to me is a claim that there are no pretty clear negatives also. Anyone who wants to make a compelling case for a Trump bid to succeed would need to acknowledge those negatives and then state credible reasons why these negatives can be overcome or ignored. I certainly have not seen this case effectively made yet. Among he questions which strike me as unanswered yet are: 1. In order for a bid to be judged acceptable 75% of the owners must agree. The claim that Ralph,s estate MUST sell to the highest bidder is simply wrong. Ralph agreed contractually to the 75% stipulation. Yes NFL team owners will almost certainly follow the money, but the mistake many seem to make is assuming the biggest money for an individual team owner comes from the Bills being sold to the highest bidder. No. The high bid brings the most money to Ralph's estate, but the NFL team owners get their biggest profit from the TV networks. If the high bid for the Bills comes from any party that messes up the TV networks ability to tell stories then that high bid gets rejected. The key question here is whether Trump would suck up to enough owners to get 75%. Trump has a clear history of doing his own thing as he judges without regard to what others think or do,(his litigious nature with his business partners as seen in his USFL days I have yet to seea compelling case made why he is worth the risk to be a partner. 2. There are 32 team owners who have to vote 75& to approve a partner. However. the jousting between the team owners and the NFLPA which has seen the team owners forced to give 60% of the gross receipts to the players is a tangible sign that not only are the players partners but majority partners in this deal. The players already have shown their power over who is judged to be a legit owner or not when they vetoed Rush Limbaugh as part of the Rams bid package. Since Trump has played the role of being a GOP mover and shaker and has done so with an embrace of whole I have seen no proof that Obama is an US citizen, my sense would any bid he makes could be easily opposed if it became serious. I do not think Trump's rep among many A-As ever recovered from Obama publicly mocking him while he was having bin Laden killed. Trump is a joke for many A-As and progressives and I would guess that is the case for many NFLPA members as well. 3. Gambling is a huge part of the NFL success story as evidenced by wide dissemination and near official adoption of the Vegas NFL betting line and the widespread interest in fantasy football! This being noted an intricate dance is part of the wallpaper of our lives. To keep the money flowing and the game honest there is a intricate wall of interaction between NFL and gambling. The NFL wants to be close (develop and deliver stats that support the betting and money exchange of fantasy leagues, promote individual players as that helps both the league and gambling) but not too close. The NFL clearly bars folks from both owning teams and profiting from gambling on them, but it also disciplines and also sanctions player for even hanging out with gamblers. Trump may have already sold (or lost his gambling holdings to bankruptcy because he was a bad businessman. However, even without current fiscal holdings, likely when push comes to decisions the taint of his former well known gambling connections would become a stench if there is even the implication that the efforts of a team owned by him might be open to any influence from Trumps past high roller associations. Even Belicheat might look honest in comparison. becoming a team owner is a longshot for anyone, and Trump clearly brings some extra bags to a bid. if even his boosters do not at least acknowledge these and other issues they are not credible with their guesses.

My understanding from some of the Native Americans I talk with is: A. In general they view themselves as a people oppressed by the majority (what we would call) thewestern culture. Some feel oppressed by western culture, but others view the idiocies of western culture as unfortunate but part of the natural order for a conquerer. B. Some of these people tend to refer to themselves as THE PEOPLE OR the 1st nations or indigenous people rather than the phrase Native Americans since the word American is derived from European mapmaker Amerigo Vespucci. C. The leadership of these first nation's is complex and not generally not well understood by Westerners. For many tribes it actually is a matriarchal society with truly important things under the control of older women. Essential but ultimately less important stuff like war making or hunting is left to the men D. There is often a division in tribes between those who choose to operate in the Western world (often operating casinos, selling tabbaco or cigarettes) who are sometimes called the progressives and those who want the tribe to live in the old ways sometimes called the traditionalists. Ultimately, this NFL/DC team dispute is a non-issue for them as they could not care less what the weatern culture calls them.

My morality is based on reality. You may choose to ignore reality, I do not.

One difference for me between the NFL use of Vikings vs. use of deadskins is that any outrages committed by the Vikings was done by and in the names of these Nordic cultures, while the mistreatment, genocide, etc was done by US society in the name of US culture and to further US govt policy interests. If the NFL was resident in some Nordic country then I think it would be reasonable for the NFL to be called out if they were profiting from the marketing of the Viking name. In addition, if this Nordic based NFL was profiting from use of the name of a victim of the Vikings transgressions (and somehow claiming that the use of these victims name was actually a tribute to them, it would simply strike me as a bit weird at best. If you are looking for an analogy to better equate to the use of the Deadskins name, then simply imagine that if the Bills were moved to the NE and the new owner decided he was going to market to the new Asian immigrants by calling the team the Nips (or more formally the Japanese) and that the team was going to choose various traditional Japanese warrior and Samurai totems to show the fierceness of the teamand pay tribute to their culture. Even better, this new team would raise $ from fans and commit some of their profits to tell the story of WWII internment of the Japanese by the US govt. just as the Deadskins are doing with the new foundation Snyder is setting up. Do you really want to claim NFL use of the name Vikings is right on point for justifying or even explaining use of the DC team name?

Many thanks to you for adding a link to a reference which I think answers your simple question (what's the most valid estimate of the offense taken by some generally not known to most % of the possible offended community). Krauthammer shares a perspective which also provides what seems to me to the best answer for the broader question of whether the Deadskins should change their name. Its the Deadskins choice and in our system they are entitled to insist on using a name even if as Krauthammer has pointed out the use and meaning of the phrase have become quite negative for some folks. They have the right to insist upon their tradition, but I hope they have the maturity and personal strength and security to move beyond using a designation some find offensive. I doubt they do (given the seeming rich guy childishness Snyder has shown) but we will see.

As a football fan and member of our society, I mostly view the decisions made by the NFL as a test. In my view is totally up to the NFL to decide, but for us outside observers it is simply a test which will show whether the NFL (and to some degree our society as matured. Unlike any other ethnic group Americans have simply treated the Native American community horribly and brutality. On no other subject is the greatest similarity between how our culture has treated a discrete ethnic group do we have more in common with the genocide which the country of Rwanda visited on Rwandans who were members of the Tutsi tribe. It isn't most important whether a majority of Native Americans are offended or not. A significant chunk of them are (despite the seemingly willful ignorance or just plain ignorance shown by some such as the poster on TSW who has not seen the official protests of folks like the Oneida nation numerous individual native Americans. It seems pretty clear that no one can force the Deadskins ir the NFL to give up the name. However, I would see it as a sign of maturity and growth if the NFL got rid of it. The NFL and Dan Snyder simply look small and immature not to be able to dispense with the name given US history of distributing small pox laden blankets, flat out massacres and ignoring of treaties our society visited on the tribes

This sounds like confirmation that he is mentally addled. If his testimony were consistent this would be a demonstration he is mentally fine! It seems reasonable that a court of fact would determine whether the employer has taken actions for which there should be compensation.

With memories of Eric Moulds I will let you know in 3 years.

take it from this line posted directly from vegas post (which I seem to have read) > Well Mr Osmonde, because this team has been thrown out there to highest bidder, < he buys into the false statement that the team UST be sold to the highest bidder. WRONG WRNG WRONG It will be sold only to a bidder who has the approval of 75% of the current owners. Thus, folks who misinterpret the actual history of NFL team ownership make the demonstrably false assumption that individual team owners make their biggest profit from operating in a traditional capitalist system. The actual fiscal history of the NFL is filled with examples of the league running kicking and screaming from traditional capitalist model and instead embracing operations based on using a social compact as their basis for operation rather than a trqaditional free market approach. For example, 1. In the late 80s, after the NFL simply beat the crap out of the NFLPA which under the leadership of AFL-CIO type Ed Garvey, the NFLPA now under the leadership of the talented tenth of actual players like Gene Upshaw merely threatened to decertify itself. This would have forced the individual team owners to operate in a traditional more pure capitalist system where each owner would simply sign personal services contracts with individual players. If the highest bidder simply choose to pay more and succeeded in buying Tom Brady, AND, Troy Polamalu, AND Ray Lewis, AND Adrian Peterson, AND whomever else because in traditional freemarket restraint of trade like the NFL draft or barring adults from signing with teams until they are over 21 would not be allowed under a pure free market. Instead, individual team owners have long realized that they make more money and produce a better product by instead pursuing an economic model based on the social compact called the CBA. 2. The NFL in fact has a clear history under very smart men like Pete Rozelle of convincing individual team owners that they make a higher profit by rewarding bad play than they would using the traditional free market incentive of letting the highest bidder do what they can or doing something like giving giving higher draft choices to better teams. Rozelle demonstrated to individual owners that they made bigger profits by adopting policies such as equal sharing of TV money or reaching agreement with the NFLPA to reward poorly performing teams with higher draft picks. 3. When the mid 80s CBA with its designated gross salary cap being the basis for the CBA, NFLPA head Gene Upshaw (with the support of talented tenth former Bills like Troy Vincent and Takeo Spikes who spent their off-seasons taking Harvard MBA courses)publicly announced prior to negotiations between team owners and the NFLPA that the new salary cap MUST be based on total gross receipts (rather than designated profit streams) and the players share MUST be higher than 60%. The final agreement btw the NFL and NFLPA met this standard with Paul Tagliabue and the NFL staff arguing down Ralph Wilson and others who argued against the social compact. 4. Rush Limbaugh became part of a proposed leadership team but was rejected by the NFL despite his deep pockets due to the objections of NOT a fellow owner, but due to the public objections of players (who under the social compact of the CBA are actually partners (and arguably the majority partners since under the CBA since they get a majority of the gross receipts. The mistake which Esmonde and others seem to make is that they seem to believe that the key determining factor here is who makes the highest bid. Actually the determining factor is which owner/partner lets the NFL best tap its largest financial source the TV nets and not whether the new owner can exploit a larger market. A Buffalo team allows the NFL to sell a much more profitable story than many a larger market. Etc

vegas- You (and Esmonde and others seem to make a major economic misinterpretation about owning a team as well. Yes, it is about the money, but a key is to realize that by far the big bucks made by a team owner comes from the money provided by the TV networks and the big $ do not come primarily from the local team market. Follow the money and the money says that the networks are paying for the epic almost mythic story that the NFL is selling to the networks so that TV can attract eyeballs to sell commercials to. The Bills will almost certainly remain in Buffalo as they have a higher value to the NFL and individual team owners than this owner's 1/31st of a relocation fee. Add into this the negative 7-10 years of story telling while the WNY region laments and whines about losing the Bills and the NFL goes to war against Cuomo and a NYS Congressional delegation threatening the NFL's limited protection against anti-trust (the lever which allowed municipal leaders in Cleveland to beat a franchise out of the NFL when their political leaders are just as stupid as WNY leaders. You and many others really misread the economics of the NFL.

I saw the TO signing as more of an act of intelligent marketing by a member of an entertainment business rather than an act of desperation by an athletic sports team. Desperation implies that the actor assumed or hoped there was some or any chance whatsoever that TO was going to make THE or even a big difference in this team becoming a winner or being capable of making the playoffs. I do not think anyone with any real sense of football saw TO as doing anything for improving the Bills in over half their game (Defense and ST are over half the game and outside of some impact on time of possession and field position which even if significant the impacts are clearly marginal. TO on the other hand was a very good marketing move for the Bills as one he generates press (do you deny this I think much of his press is undeserved but it is press which this entertainment business wants). Also, signing TO was an incredibly low risk move for the Bills. Was TO a legit problem for his previous teams? Yep! However, his MO was that he FIRST produced for his team and built up adulation. He THEN became a cancer for his team demanding adulation from all including his proud teammates who also demanded being # 1, There was little or zero risk for the Bills for the one year deal he signed because the situation demanded he perform like a star and pretty much perform at a playoff level and ONLY then could he have a chance to be a cancer. Quite frankly if the Bills ended up with a choice between a risk of cancer but you make the playoffs (as impossible as that would have been for any one player, O, D, ST, or even QB) then the risk of TO becoming a cancer is no risk at all. I think your overarching premise lacks refinement. Can Watkins make a change for the Bills? For sure. (even a failed 1st rounder if he gets hurt changes us in terms of missed opportunity, but if he develops a good chemistry with EJ, and also helps the running game by demanding a dt then he has a significant positive change). Can he be the one piece which delivers the playoffs? No way. This team is way more than 1 player away (one would be stupid to think they are)

Nope. Think about the real world. It took a couple of years for Moulds to be developed and for him to develop himself before he became the consistent Pro Bowl level player he was. All I am arguing is that you do not panic and declare EJ a bust when while he clearly has not proven himself to be a franchise player he has: 1. Demonstrated in college he can be a winner and a quality leader with some positive aspects (mobility, strong arm, good college level game manager) but clearly he needs work and coaching. Like Mayock said MManual is not about immediate production (even though he actually turned out to be more productive than most other rookie QB like Geno Smith). 2. As a pro he demonstrated that though not consistent yet, he is capable of leading a team to a win at times (no small feat for a rookie QB leading a not very good team. Is he a definite player? Not yet. However, is this rookie a keeper or someone who you should panic and spend more resources in the next futile effort to find a QB who can start and win immediately with this team (btw who doyou think this fantasy player is)? 3. I think there is a plan B which is: A. Know that Plan A (Go with Manual as the choice with the highest upside of the 2013 QBs did not prove realistically unachievable results with this very incomplete team, but he showed enough though he clearly is not there yet, it would simply be bad football to panic and not build the team up whether it is gonna be around him or someone else. B. Plan B cannot be to find another starter level player to be our back-up (like lets get one starter level player first) but we are looking for a player to fill the Frank Reich role for the Bills. Can Thad Lewis start and win probably a max of three games for you if needed? I think he might be able to do this. Plan C.- Take a flyer on a disaster QB who almost certainly will not work (Tuel) but most important have some cap room so if Manual does not fulfill or gets hurt, you can buy an FA QB for your reinforced team (Watkins, et al this year) to try to make the playoffs next year after Manual fails to do so this year. Even with this scenario, I am reluctant to declare Manual a bust unless he is reall6y bad in his second year. Was Manual not good enough in his first year? Yep, he is not the playoff level performer we need. Was Manual so bad in his first year we should panic and go casting about for someone else to meet some impossible goal? Nope. What do you propose we do? Nope. Think about the real world. It took a couple of years for Moulds to be developed and for him to develop himself before he became the consistent Pro Bowl level player he was. All I am arguing is that you do not panic and declare EJ a bust when while he clearly has not proven himself to be a franchise player he has: 1. Demonstrated in college he can be a winner and a quality leader with some positive aspects (mobility, strong arm, good college level game manager) but clearly he needs work and coaching. Like Mayock said MManual is not about immediate production (even though he actually turned out to be more productive than most other rookie QB like Geno Smith). 2. As a pro he demonstrated that though not consistent yet, he is capable of leading a team to a win at times (no small feat for a rookie QB leading a not very good team. Is he a definite player? Not yet. However, is this rookie a keeper or someone who you should panic and spend more resources in the next futile effort to find a QB who can start and win immediately with this team (btw who doyou think this fantasy player is)? 3. I think there is a plan B which is: A. Know that Plan A (Go with Manual as the choice with the highest upside of the 2013 QBs did not prove realistically unachievable results with this very incomplete team, but he showed enough though he clearly is not there yet, it would simply be bad football to panic and not build the team up whether it is gonna be around him or someone else. B. Plan B cannot be to find another starter level player to be our back-up (like lets get one starter level player first) but we are looking for a player to fill the Frank Reich role for the Bills. Can Thad Lewis start and win probably a max of three games for you if needed? I think he might be able to do this. Plan C.- Take a flyer on a disaster QB who almost certainly will not work (Tuel) but most important have some cap room so if Manual does not fulfill or gets hurt, you can buy an FA QB for your reinforced team (Watkins, et al this year) to try to make the playoffs next year after Manual fails to do so this year. Even with this scenario, I am reluctant to declare Manual a bust unless he is reall6y bad in his second year. Was Manual not good enough in his first year? Yep, he is not the playoff level performer we need. Was Manual so bad in his first year we should panic and go casting about for someone else to meet some impossible goal? Nope. What do you propose we do?

Exactly! One of the few pieces of conventional wisdom that I actually find to be correct is that one should wait to see how three full seasons of play turn out in terms of actual results before a player is declared a bust or a god. Mike Williams was an immediate starter and looked like a solid prospect after 1 year (only to become a clear bust) and Eric Moulds had two poor production years and then became a legit Pro Bowl and the acknowledged best athlete on the Bills for years. We will almost certainly need to see two more years of his play before drawing a legit conclusion on EJ

The answer is follow the money. The Bills have higher value to the NFL as giving them a better product to sell and entertaining story to tell for expanding the NFL to Mexico City, Toronto, Stuggart, Tokyo, and Beijing as new franchises and new eyeballs to sell to advertisers if you are selling these new franchises a connection to original NFL and AFL teams. Even worse, if the Bills move and that creates a 7-10 year long death march story it makes telling a good mythic story harder to do. There is a real numeric value difference between small markets like Buffalo and big markets like LA. However, there is also a big difference between the huge dollars from the TV nets (divided equally between teams)and the 1/31st of the proceeds from a larger marker. This is mostly about the entertainment stories the NFL is selling. Its a far better mythic story to sell with the Bills in Buffalo.