Hplarrm

No guarantee as there are lots of entities in this society with lots of $ where an extra $400 million is doable. However, the important thing for deterring a deal is not simply making the cost prohibitive, but making buying the Bills a worse option than other opportunities. There appear to be other potential options for the Bon Jovis and other capital groups as they could guess Mr. Wilson would not live forever, but there was not enough certainty the Bills would be on the market to mean that there are not other choices. Any group, is likely going to have to put together several minority partners who will "throw-in" their 10s of millions and uncertainty is an enemy of putting together that deal. Even if that new deal feels pretty sure they can beat Erie County in court, that they could convince the NFL to withstand years of bad marketing with pictures of WNY mourning the loss of the team, dueling with other bidders (the Jim Kelley group would likely have the NFLPA and other players weighing in for it), and other legal uncertainties, $400 million should be enough to make us a secondary (tertiary) target for buyers.

On the contrary, this would be great for the Bills. My Bills fantasy draft is: 1. Houston shocks everyone and gets bulldozed into the excitement and high risk when they decide to take Johnny football but fail at the last minute to pull off a deal to trade down so they take him #1. 2. This mistake gets amplified when a team hoping for a QB later in the top 10 sees Manziel go so warly and trades up into the top 4 and stupidly takes Bortles or Bridgewater. 3. 2 QBs having gone in the top 4, gives the Bills the ability to take an OT who should have been off the board, the suddenly dropping Mack, or heck even Watkins. If hallucinogenic substances are involved and 3 or 4 QBs get taken before our pick then we could even trade down, get Lewan, and a first year starter level talent with the second pick we acquires, Us picking a QB with our #9 is likely a nightmare for us and a run on QBs by others would be the fantasy that makes our prospects great.

Some may like Trump. However, judging from the fairly widespread jokes and laughter at his expense in the modern media a lot think he is a joke as a personality as well. Its like a jury, the defense only needs one juror to block a verdict. The question would be whether Trump can avoid 25% of NFL owners looking to one of the other several it sounds like pools of $ to find an owner. A lot of folks bring their positives and also some big negative. Its hard for me to see how Trump does not bring: A. Serious opposition from owners with big egos saying no to sharing their bucks with another bigger ego who has shown a penchant for going to court. B. He has long associations with the gambling community dating back to days where he owned a casino (though his proponents seem to point out he long ago mismanaged his casino holdings so badly he lost them> Having a history of having gamblers feel like you owe them because you lost your and investors shirts does not speak well either. 3. One of his recent public outings was throwing fuel on the birther hypocrisy leading to Obama to go out of his way to publicly lampoon the Donald at a press dinner while his team was killing bin Laden. I have few doubts that minority players will delight in having the NFLPA throw a monkey wrench into any Trump plans the way they blocked Rush Limbaugh as a potential owner a few years ago. Like most of the rest of the world who knows who is gonna be the next owner, but I think it is a pretty great bet it ain't gonna be the Donald.

Actually, many thanks for the summary. I often use the Stadium Wall to think out loud through different issues which may become part of the usual dinner table conversational brawl s I have with my 2 brothers in law and other Bills fans we hang with. In addition to the key point you highlight. the part of this issue which intrigues me overall which I think overthinking about the Bills leads one to is the societal point that at its basics, the NFL is one of the best examples of socialist thinking going in American society. It certainly had a basis in business minded individuals like a George Halas who helped build the collective of individuals who pursued a mostly capitalist model of being sportsmen who also made money from their sport. However, under the guidance of brilliant minds like Pete Rozelle who led and prodded the NFL into more of a socialist or social contract approach (for example the NFL does not reward successful play with higher draft picks as a good capitalist would to encourage better individual performance, the NFL awards mediocre teams with higher draft picks in an effort to improve the entire NFL product. When the NFLPA forced the team owners into the CBA in the 90s by threatening to decertify, the players arguably became a partner with the team owners. Led by Gene Upshaw, when the CBA came up for renewal and he dictated to the owners that all revenues must be part of the salary cap and that the player cut needed to start with a 6 (the deal ended up being a 60.5% cut of the gross NFL revenues) the players arguably were the majority partners. My guesstimate thinking all this through and why it is relevant to my and yes your thinking as Bills fans is that looking at this in terms of simple raw economics I think the Bills will remain here in Buffalo. This is because I think those who calculate that there are better bigger markets for the individual owner in other places like LA, Toronto, Portland or whatever may be right about the individual owner, but they need to understand that a veto sits not with the individual owner but with the entire NFL as a social contract. The NFL is not simply selling to the Buffalo market or even a collection of local markets. The NFL market is the entire world. The real bigger $ for the NFL decision-makers who have a veto on who the Wilson estate sells to, their market is eyeballs in Mexico City, in Tokyo and in Stugartt. Sure if the Bills are sold to someone who moves them to LA, the individual owner gets 1/31st of the franchise fee and increased total revenue of LA over Buffalo. However, if the Bills stay in Buffalo, the NFL gets to sell a new franchise to new eyeballs in foreign countries for this municipality to join an entity with an original AFL/MFL team like Buffalo. In fact, if the Bills leave and we build up 7 years of stock footage of Bills fans and WNYers being in mourning because we lost our beloved team this is not the best sales story to present to new franchises in new countries. I do not know how the timezone and other issues will be dealt with and we will see. However. I am more certain from seeing how the Ralph death has gone down and the economic and moral stupidity of various owners and public figures that I am growing more certain the Bills will not move because their is greater certainty and bigger bucks for the NFL if the Bills stay where they are. In fact, by setting up various irrevocable trusts which own the Bills, having these trusts operate for the care and maintenance of Mrs. Wilson and her taking a seat with the NFL as the team owner, it would not shock me if the Bills are not even sold. Between the trusts and Mrs. Wilson taking over ownership (which she will administer through Brandon, Littman, et al.) there is no tax bit on the Bills and the Wilson family unless they sell the Bills. My current heretical GUESS is that the Bills will mot even be sold for the near future. It makes little economic sense for the Wilson family or the NFL to do so.

It struck me as an interesting thing whose motivation was not clear to me when the NFL owners agreed that a 75% vote of support would be needed to approve any deal. The Donald Sterling stupid and morally reprehensible comments now make the motivation a lot more clear (There likely are some differences in what motivates different BA owners in that some are likely morally offended by his Neanderthal views, while I would not be surprised if some feel he has a right to think what he wants, but this distinction matters little as both those mostly motivated by morality and those mostly motivated by generated profits want Sterling gone. He has apparently (he is innocent until proven guilty if this ever comes to court but right now the court of public opinion is virtually certain about this) made the desires of his fellow owners whether motivated by heart, profit, or both need him to be gone as quickly as possible. It is clear to me that between the issues of raw profits to his fellow owners and/or the moral/racial equity desires of the players (who like it or not the owners have agreed contractually to allow the players to take in a majority share of the total profits the NFL owners really retain an absolute veto over who ends up owning the Bills. Anyone who makes the claim that the Bills will and must be sold by Mr. Ralph's estate to the highest bidder are simply WRONG! My guess is that Sterling is going to be forced by his NBA partners (this move will not be as easy to do in the NBA as it is in other leagues like the NFL or MLB, but it will almost certainly be done) out of the league. The Clippers franchise (which ironically I believe used to be the Buffalo Braves) is valued by outside media to be around $900 million and I suspect this will be the sale price. Lets say he makes this deal and now sitting on near a billion he uses his other $ or gets other investors and makes the highest bid for a Bills team placed on the market by Mr. Ralph's estate. Is there anyone out there who seriously thinks that the other NFL owners would be forced merely because he is the highest bidder for Mr. Ralph's family's estate that he would get the team? No. The NFL owners would easily veto this because whether your interests are moral or fiscal it would be wrong to have this highest bidder as a partner. If you are such a speech advocate that you defend Sterling his right to be an idiot or do not think it applies to other sports leagues then remember Marge Schott and her collection of beloved Nazi paraphernalia. Dhe was gone. If you think the NFL is different then remember just a few years back when Rush Limbaugh was publicly a minority (talk about irony) partner in a group making a credible bid for an NFL team. Not only was Limbaugh vetoed by the NFLPA due to his comments about A-A QBs but he was vetoed not by the owner partners but by the player pseudo partners. My conclusion from this is that folks need to take more seriously the NFL veto on who the next owner is. My GUESS is that this means individuals like Donald Trump are very (and I mean VERY unlikely to be even part owner of the Bills. There are several reasons why he would be vetoed: 1. As an alleged candidate for Pres. Trump openly flirted with anti-Obama birtherism (never changing his tune without regard to outside objective contemporaneous announcements of his birth in Hawaii in the early 60s or the release of official certificate of live birth. My GUESS is NFLPA players which is majority A-A will likely object and succeed in getting a Limbaugh like result in blocking Trump involvement in an ownership group. 2. In addition to the NFLPA making it economically dumb to have Trump as a partner. his ownership and connections to gambling as part of his Atlantic City relationships may likely make his ownership involvement in the NFL a bad fiscal decision. From the universal weekly publication of betting lines to the billions spent on Super Bowl pools, having a professional gambler as a team owner raises conflict of interest problems I doubt a Trump bid survives. 3. The NFL owners are rich and have big egos. Trump has a big ego and a track record of going to court when egos clash. My GUESS the NFL owners veto any bid that includes Trump. i

It struck me as an interesting thing whose motivation was not clear to me when the NFL owners agreed that a 75% vote of support would be needed to approve any deal. The Donald Sterling stupid and morally reprehensible comments now make the motivation a lot more clear (There likely are some differences in what motivates different BA owners in that some are likely morally offended by his Neanderthal views, while I would not be surprised if some feel he has a right to think what he wants, but this distinction matters little as both those mostly motivated by morality and those mostly motivated by generated profits want Sterling gone. He has apparently (he is innocent until proven guilty if this ever comes to court but right now the court of public opinion is virtually certain about this) made the desires of his fellow owners whether motivated by heart, profit, or both need him to be gone as quickly as possible. It is clear to me that between the issues of raw profits to his fellow owners and/or the moral/racial equity desires of the players (who like it or not the owners have agreed contractually to allow the players to take in a majority share of the total profits the NFL owners really retain an absolute veto over who ends up owning the Bills. Anyone who makes the claim that the Bills will and must be sold by Mr. Ralph's estate to the highest bidder are simply WRONG! My guess is that Sterling is going to be forced by his NBA partners (this move will not be as easy to do in the NBA as it is in other leagues like the NFL or MLB, but it will almost certainly be done) out of the league. The Clippers franchise (which ironically I believe used to be the Buffalo Braves) is valued by outside media to be around $900 million and I suspect this will be the sale price. Lets say he makes this deal and now sitting on near a billion he uses his other $ or gets other investors and makes the highest bid for a Bills team placed on the market by Mr. Ralph's estate. Is there anyone out there who seriously thinks that the other NFL owners would be forced merely because he is the highest bidder for Mr. Ralph's family's estate that he would get the team? No. The NFL owners would easily veto this because whether your interests are moral or fiscal it would be wrong to have this highest bidder as a partner. If you are such a speech advocate that you defend Sterling his right to be an idiot or do not think it applies to other sports leagues then remember Marge Schott and her collection of beloved Nazi paraphernalia. Dhe was gone. If you think the NFL is different then remember just a few years back when Rush Limbaugh was publicly a minority (talk about irony) partner in a group making a credible bid for an NFL team. Not only was Limbaugh vetoed by the NFLPA due to his comments about A-A QBs but he was vetoed not by the owner partners but by the player pseudo partners. My conclusion from this is that folks need to take more seriously the NFL veto on who the next owner is. My GUESS is that this means individuals like Donald Trump are very (and I mean VERY unlikely to be even part owner of the Bills. There are several reasons why he would be vetoed: 1. As an alleged candidate for Pres. Trump openly flirted with anti-Obama birtherism (never changing his tune without regard to outside objective contemporaneous announcements of his birth in Hawaii in the early 60s or the release of official certificate of live birth. My GUESS is NFLPA players which is majority A-A will likely object and succeed in getting a Limbaugh like result in blocking Trump involvement in an ownership group. 2. In addition to the NFLPA making it economically dumb to have Trump as a partner. his ownership and connections to gambling as part of his Atlantic City relationships may likely make his ownership involvement in the NFL a bad fiscal decision. From the universal weekly publication of betting lines to the billions spent on Super Bowl pools, having a professional gambler as a team owner raises conflict of interest problems I doubt a Trump bid survives. 3. The NFL owners are rich and have big egos. Trump has a big ego and a track record of going to court when egos clash. My GUESS the NFL owners veto any bid that includes Trump. i

When I read Sully's columns (After his oddly self-referential exploration into golf and middle-age I check him out occasionally merely to check whether he continues to be a legend in his own mind) I am usually reminded of the scene from an Adam Sandler film. The idiot in charge of this scene states a wonderfully truthful comment in saying after one diatribe that we are all stupider from having listened to one rant. I find Sully to be such a failed commentator because so often his perspectives seem to add so little to the debate. In fact, his views often strike me as being so motivated by his own often pathetic and usally transparent attempts to leave him room to Cover his own butt that basically all readers are left stupider by considering his perspectives. Sully's comments almost always seemed directed by me by his own feeble attempts to leave him an out to justify any stances he takes if reality proves him wrong. Particularly since the Bills have produced consistent non-playoff results, by consistently saying he was so bright he had predicted a losing record he comes off as always having been negative. Sully is simply a consistent bad and negative read if he in fact has always been correct in his predictions.

I think the funny thing here will be that if the Donald were actually a serious prospect to become an owner (which I do not think he is merely because he said "someone" begged him to consider it- my guess this is almost certainly another attempt by him to get cheap press- anyone who seriously is negotiating to buy the team almost certainly is not talking about interest- this would be bad negotiating which mostly raises the price demanded from them). The funny thing is that if DT wanted in: 1. He would need the approval of 75% of the owners (even if he was the high bidder to the Wilson estate. the estate is contractually agreed to a veto by fellow owners). Do folks feel he is willing to suck up and beg as he likely would be required. Even if he did beg do folks really think he would be believed? 2. In addition to having to be contractually accepted by the vast majority of his partner owners, it became clear after the players extorted the CBA from the owners in the 90s by threatening to decertify that the players at that point became partners. In fact, with the early 2000s CBA when Gene Upshaw summarily announced an end to designated gross in the salary cap and that the NFLPA share of the gross receipts needed to start with a , the NFLOAQ became majority partners. Just as in the case where the NFLPA successfully vetoed Rush Limbaugh as an owner, I think the Donald would be vetoed due to his Obama passport idiocy. The racial tone of Trump's idiocy would likely cost IMHO.

In regard to reality one flaw in this notion is that Manuel is not in this year's senior class. Any year's draft is an interactive competition wholly based on the realities of who is available and who is picked where that year. Trying to compare players draft positions across years is simply an incorrect fantasy which lives in the illusion that any GMs rankings have an absolute correspondence with reality. As smart as Casserly might be about football, I think he actually had his hands on the trigger of the Skins or Texans when he passed 5-6 times picking Tom Brady. He has the wonderful QB judgment to his credit of picking bust Heath Shuler as his franchise guy. Casserly dies deserve credit for picking some greats a couple of decades ago but in the past 10 years or so teams should probably feel even better when he disagrees with them.

What you seem to assume seems actually to be a bit counterintuitive to the very little we know for sure 1. I think you actually should be pretty unconcerned about the failure of some local to step out before the public and declare interest in buying. The public is not the seller so no case needs to be made to it. In fact, the only person I can say for pretty sure is not in the running is any party post Ralph's death is negotiating against themselves and raising the price they would ultimately pay by expressing interest, "The Donald". Talking about this publicly at this early point would likely simply be bad business. In addition making appeals to someone other than the actual seller is likely a counterproductive waste. 2. Who has the next critical decision in any sell? Likely the NFL. Ralph is dead (one of the few things we know pretty much fer sure). The future of the Bills is bound by his will (there is a reasonable assumption he was rich enuf to hire good lawyers to allow this will to be found legal) and by his contractual agreements with his NFL partners. These agreements DO NOT require or even allow the Wilson estate to sell the team to the highest bidder. Ralph has agreed and his estate clearly seems to be bound by the Wilson's only being able to the highest approved bid (someone who can get 75% owner approval). This means even if the high bidder was some Imam from Qatar, Adolf Hitler's lovechild grandson or even worse Rush Limbaugh, this high bidder would likely be barred from the sell. 3. What will likely drive the sell is what makes the most money for the individual owner. This by my back if the envelope figuring is NOT the individual owner's 1/31st of the local franchise take. There is much more $ to be made in LA than in Buffalo. However an individual owner getting their 1/31st of this heightened is chump change compared to the added cash value of having a tie to using joining an original AFL team in the league. The larger revenue of attracting eyeballs in Mexico city, Tokyo, Stuggart and elsewhere. The higher cash value for the NFL comes not from selling the team to the highest bidder fur an owner's 1/31st if even a heightened take but instead from having the iconic name if an original AFL team and the very American animal the Buffalo be available to attract new owners and eyeballs in new markets overseas.

Most Bills fans only saw Geno in the second game against us and he simply sucked. He started out OK for a rookie but clearly digressed by our second look. What is the rationale fir concluding the digression we saw in his individual play in our two snapshots of seeing him is any different than the Jets team meltdown over the year last year? Manuel from a Bills fan perspective did not demonstrate reasonable achievements to justify any conclusion he is the man. However, the main Bill fan concern is over whether EJ proves to be injury prone and not fundamental talent concerns that Geno unfortunately displayed against us. I mostly know what I saw so given the fact of Geno being laughable against us and his team melting down on its playoff run last tear why does Geno have much upside to anyone?

The way I see the 2014 draft is that first who knows, buy its an interesting to be wrong about. The real deal is that a draft strategy works until it doesn't and as soon as one difficult to predict thing happens (usually in the first 5 picks but at some point in Rd1) as someone trades up/down, an obvious talent like a Randy Moss starts to slide, or a surprise pick such as whatshisname, the RB with multiple knee injuries the Bills took in the 1st makes all the pre-draft theorizing and gameplanning meaningless. This being noted, its simply good fun to be wrong about the NFL draft so my guess is: 1. The QB position in this draft is weal compared to the Andrew Luck day. However, the effect of this means that it may well be easiest to see a run created as soon as someone overspends from a football perspective but right on target from a business perspective and takes Manziel, Bridgewater or Bortles with a top 5 pick. This selection then forces the 4+ teams which need to get their franchise pick from this draft to either pull the trigger on the remaining QB they like or trade up into the top 5-10 before the QB they want is gone. If a mere two (and actually one being picked in the top 5 likely starts a run on the other 2)are picked, then my guess is that of the 8 picks prior to us, three are QBs and by force when a Clowney or Mack gets picked then we likely have a choice between ay least 2 if not all three of the best OTs with #9 (Matthews, Robinson, Lewan. 2. If all three are there (and perhaps if only two) then by all means trade down. Its impossible to predict what trades can and must be done in the timed crucible of draft day. However, our need for more talent means if we can get an extra second rounder by trading down AND still get a top 3 OT talent then get er done. 3. If a run on the limited QB talent occurs then theoretically a Watkins or Mack might slip to us. My guess is that will ne a nice problem to have if a top 5 talent slips to #9. If Mack drops to 9, I probably take him because he is good and also versatile, LB is such a need, and its good business fir a business providing an entertainment product. If Watkins AND Evans both fall, maybe I take Watkins but I think I might make a trade if I can for great value. However, my top wish is that I can trade down and still get a top 3 OT and the BPA second rounder who I hope is a 1st year starter talent as recent past 2nd rounders have been.

Rather than chucking, my guess is that Moorman is thanking Whaley for bringing in a guy that saves him from the duty to do every punt in our 5 pre-season games. Mileage is the likely big issue for Moorman this year.

Many thanks for supplying some real facts (at least likely real as far as I can tell- since like most "facts"- even if accepted as true by differing ideological parties, the same facts can lead to differing conclusions based on an assessment of their relevance in differing ideological opinions). The conclusion which I think can most reasonably be drawn from the facts you give are that: 1. If one wanted to accurately describe a section of the state as a sinkhole which gets far more in tax revenue than it provides, it actually is the Albany region rather than NYC as assumed in an earlier post. This actually simply makes a lot of sense as the allocation decisions are generally made by staff who live in the Albany region (though theoretically at the direction of legislators who are based in other regions). 2. Buffalo and WNY actually gets more than it gives on taxes and expenditures by NYS. My GUESS as to the reasons for this are myriad buy prominent among them is that this region faced a real economic downturn in the 60s-90s which simply demanded more subsidy and that the WNY are has disproportional electoral heft compared to its relative population size due to the GOP/Dems being a close stalemate between NYC and downstate suburbs. 3. It is ironic to say the least that some hold a conventional wisdom that some hold the view stated above as :But as usual we got to spend all that tax money on the money pit better known as "THE BIG APPLE" !! SAME AS IT EVER WAS !!! when many seemingly credible fact based statements show that virtually the opposite is true and WNY benefits substantially (but not as disproportionately as the Albany region) from WNY sucking more money than it contributes in taxes. the Big Apple as a take is in general not the way it always has been but there is a case to be made that it would be more equitable and fair if it were.

You are completely correct in your knowledge that NYC draws a huge amount of the state's attention and tax revenue compared to Buffalo. However, you also should acknowledge that such a result is no unreasonable for those of us who ascribe to ideas like democracy and do not feel bad when the largest population center in the state NYC with 8.3 million gets more $ than the second largest city of Buffalo which is below 300,000 and shrinking. In fact, when you figure that the raw level of incomes generated by the fat cats in Wall st. may well skew the NYC share of revenue produced even higher, and the political power advantage in NYS that our swing area of WNY provides in the balanced fight between NYC and its Long Island and upstate suburbs then you might understand on a relative level WNY is set-up in a manner that provides a lot of benefits to WNY which others do not have.

Another movie this harkens back to is Apollo 13 when a fellow played by Joe Spano lamented that if the effort to save Apollo 13 okayed out the bad way logic predict was likely we would see " These are going to be the darkest days in Bills history for awhile" However, Ed Harris played a character who disagreed and predicted it would be seen as our finest hour! We will have a lifetime to be bummed if it in fact turns out badly. Be Ed Harris!

With great affection for the many good things he did RIP Mr. Wilson.

My favorite Moorman showing was in one of those totally bogus NFL skills competitions a few years back at a Pro Bowl. The comp was in theory designed to demand players who manned a variety of NFL positions to not only speed, but also, strength, bulk, agility, jumping ability etc. Moorman added superior intellect by simply ignoring pushing a huge blocking sled (a feat which required OL/DL size and power) and simply ran across the finish line fir the sled task. The rules only called for a 5 second penalty for not pushing the sled over line (and thus explicitly allowing a competitor to do nothing but push the sled off its original mounting. He won the ensuing argument and thus the competition. You are correct that physically he is not where he used to be and IMHO virtually ALL players should be forced into a real competition in camp. However, Moorman has demonstrated he is the type of player who can lose a step in physical ability but gain half a step back in mental ability. Our ST players were bad enough last year it is clear ST Coach Crossman could use some help on the field and Moorman has been around the NFL long enough that though his speed is diminished having a coach on the field will help. The good news is that in FA we seemed to emphasize getting a few players who main contribution to this team is likely to be better ST play. Yes sign a vet whose main attraction to being on our pre-season squad is that though he is unlikely to beat out Moorman we plan to use him a lot so he will be seen by the rest of the league and also save Moorman's old legs for the regular season. My sense is that such a framework while not being attractive to the best FA punters who should be able to attract a more guaranteed jib, it actually should be quite attractive to the vet FA who wants to demonstrate his skills. He will be trying hard in the pre-season and who knows like Carpenter did as PK last year maybe he wins the job. On the other hand Moorman should also be comfortable (but not too comfortable) with this set-up. Even better we do not waste a draft pick or salary cap room trying to replace a punter.

Ultimately, I guess it would depend upon a real assessment by me of my own level of talent and how my interaction with the agent as an individual went (if I would have to compete with other clients for my agents time and attention I would generally be less interested and if my agent was as into himself and his own issues as a character like a Jerry MacGuire I would be less interested). However, assuming that these unknowables are pretty equal, I would look at results and thus my interest in hiring Euguene Parker to represent my interests would be high. Judging from the results of high profile cases like Jarius Byrd and Jason Peters he has simply done the job of getting these clients contracts at a level which seems to me to be above their talent and also give them the flexibility to chose the team they wanted. To a great extent the rules of free agency provide a dynamic where if you put in some time and also produce, the market will compensate you and you will have choices the market allows. However, in these cases Parker has clearly held to his clients guns with a Bills FO that can sometimes throw nickels around like they are manhole covers to force the Bills to let their client maximize his power if choice. Since Littman and Overdorfer are givens for me in the world of Mr. Ralph I root in, it always gives me a moment of pause when I hear that an athlete is represented by Parker as it seems to be likely he is gonna do the job of representing his clients interests to the max and play the Bills and the situation to deliver for his clients interests (which unfortunately are different than my interests as a fan).

That darn Magna Carta! I knew it would ruin everything.

You are correct that track record does not lie. Parker's track record for Peters is that 1. He maximized his clients flexibility in that he negotiated the Bills into letting him go anywhere he chose to sign a contract 2. He got Peters a contract that far exceeded his abilities. It did not meet the desires of us Bills fans but you are the one being naïve about how the real world and contract negotiations work if you do not realize that Parker did what Peters paid him to do. The problem here is that the Bills braintrust mismanaged the interests of fans (which again you are being naïve if you do not realize Mr. Ralph perceives his interests as different from yours and mine) by not signing Peters to a longer term contract for a much smaller amount than his agent intelligently got for him later. Littman and the gang were smart enough to sign Peters to bigger bucks for a few more years when he proved on the field that he deserved starting lineman money when he made the jump from talented but miscreant TE to OL starter. The mistake was that when he proved good enough to not only be an OL starter but an LY starter, the braintrust was pennywise and pound foolish in not giving him another raise to Pro Bowl making LT levels. The Bills appear to have made a routine out of not showing players as much money as the rules allow in some cases and they lose but overpaying badly for others (Kelsay for example). Blaming agents for doing what their clients want is simply wrongsighted. In fact, this is representative of a general NFL issue. The owners chose a system where they get the NCAA (and your and my tax dollars for state schools) to pay for training their youngsters, but the eventual downside for them is that they do not get ownership of this talent until these athletes are 21 or older. This does not matter for most of these steroid infused athletes who are trained to say how high and what color as young athletes. However, there is a talented tenth of young athletes who were the Gene Upshaws, the Troy Vincents, etc who were mature enough to lead the NFLPA to win the rights of partnership in this business. Blaming Parker is as dumb as blaming Littman.

By rule draft picks must be where they are drafted and have no recourse. FAs also must stay where they are if tagged but can and do pitch a hissy fit if they want out. Youngsters and particularly rooks must suck it up unless they are Elway.

It seems clear from the summaries of the Wells report that: Incognito- The big loser here id'ed as the prime actor and initiator of a number of foul acts which are totally inconsistent with being a good teammate, good person, and the Band of Brothers which is an NFL OL. Definitely a toxic element to be avoided in all cases. Fins- Did not maintain an appropriate workplace and needs to take some specific actions to demonstrate appropriate control. Martin did not officially report problems which lets them off the hook somewhat. Probably will need to decide whether to deal with asst. OL coach Turner charitably or blame him for team miscues. Pouncey and other player idiots- no intent for permanent damage but idiots fell to sway if idiot Incignito who alsi had no permanent intent but still was prime idiot. Martin- sad pathetic case not at fault like Incignito but clearly will need a ton of care and feeding which I would not invest in if I were Bills. Talent and size might make him a reasonable risk for a splid OL but not young Bills.