Hplarrm

Do you have the quote or a link to Gailey calling Evans out? I ask this not because I disbelieve this or do not think that Evans need to elevate his performance to justify his huge contract or the thoughts about what he should produce. I am interested in seeing the quote to try to determine what Gailey was doing. I hope to be able to tell from the quote whether he thinks Evans has not shown the ability to be a #1 and he needs to work harder to overcome his lack of talent, or Evans has the skillset needed but needs to work harder to produce using what he has. This makes a big difference in whether you decide to end the Evans era by emphasizing Stevie Johnson as your #1 or work to acquire someone else because you do not have a #1 talent. My belief is the situation is the former. Evans has actually shown some real productivity in his career as a Bill. In essence he is the third most productive WR we have ever had (behind Reed and Dubenion) and this is demonstrated objectively by his catch #s, yards, and TDs. For someone to merely ignore these tangible numbers and claim some subjective case that they he is a poor route runner or they do not like how he carries himself ends up saying more about the commentator than about Evans in terms of who has a problem. Again, all this being said, this does not mean that Evans does not have shortcomings or that he does not have to work hard to improve his game. He does! However, one needs to acknowledge if you want to be taken seriously that: 1. He clearly has not produced at a level that one could honestly call him one of the best in the NFL, matches the huge contract he has (and deserved due to timing and potential but is yet unearned in terms of production)or consistent Pro Bowl recognition, However, 2. He clearly has shown he is dangerous receiver with great speed capable of racking up 3 TD and even 200 yard games if the opponent does not respect him with top flight coverage. 2. While no one mistakes him for Andre Reed (who simply owned the middle of the field while also having ample speed to run fly patterns), Evans numbers demonstrate he catches the ball both on fly patterns which utilize his speed and also in traffic in the center of the field. Again he is not the best we have ever seen in making circus catches where he simply outduals DBs for the ball (Eric Moulds was a great athletic performer who demonstrated great physical ability to go get the ball on many plays, but too bad he was a bit of a head case who would simply disappear in games from time to time if the opponent got in his head). I think Evans has demonstrated time and again he has the basic tools but despite a couple of brief runs with JP he and a QB have never developed a simpatico relationship which was demonstrated by Reed/Kelly( Comparing them to the best asks too much but there needs to be some hint of he and Fitzy (or whomever) being always on the same page. 3. Stevie Johnson demonstrated objectively he is a receiving force not to be discounted by the opponent. That being said, he still is frighteningly inconsistent as seen by him essentially failing to win a game for us last year by dropping an endzone pass he was wide open to catch (in this case in part due to tremendous route running and him being on the same page as Fitzy). Johnson virtually has certainly profited from Evans demanding likely double coverage as he can catch the ball both over the top due to his speed or underneath on crossing patterns which he has not mastered but does not seem to fear. Evans demands the best CB if an opponent is willing to risk single coverage but most teams do not have a Revis so they double Evans over and under. This gives Stevie Johnson more room to roam. Overall, in addition to Evans needing to work harder to run routes in a precise manner not merely to get him more open, he also needs to run decoy routes better to take attention even further away from Johnson. We will know Evans is running routes better by objective standards such as him getting more TDs and yards if it happens, but also by subjective measures such Stevie Johnson continuing to increase his production. When the announcers start talking about Evans and Johnson as a duo which works together well, it means the Bills are seeing enough complimentary route running by Evans that the Bills braintrust is confident talking it up. Even better if the opposing DBs and DC are talking about this as a challenge it will be a sign of better improved route running by Evans. The key here though is that if someone actually understands football they can reconcile the fact that just because Evans needs to and can improve his route running it does not necessarily mean he is a bad route runner.

If the owners were stupid enough to shut down the league, the reason the players would not pool their money to buy each team for a billion a piece is that they would not have to pay the owners a cent to set up their own league. Why pay the owners a billion a piece for a non-operating entity. It would merely be another example of the current NFL owners being a cost while adding little or nothing to the product. Right now arguably as the players are not being paid they are already FAs. No one disputes their rights to pursue other employment if they can get it right now, but employment options are few right now for pro football players. However as the lockout drags on players will be more willing to risk injuring their bodies, the only asset they have to get a little cash during the short period of time they are young (in fact the owners are counting on this calculus). However, as time goes on the owners will have less legal and practical ability to stop the players from pursuing alternatives. Any attempt to stop the players from organizing an alternative (that I call the NewFL) would be gone if the NFL officially closed its doors. The players do not have as a goal likely the total elimination of the NFL, but if the NFL took the stupid action of elimination itself it would actually make the task of setting up an alternative much simpler. As with most things the key is capital (in our society its the Golden Rule and he who has the gold rules. If the owners killed themselves by closing down it would not take long for one of the following to step up to collect the billions the NFL owners would be walking away from. 1. The TV networks are the actual cash cow which pays the bills neither the current owners or players. With the NFL product gone an interesting race could quickly come together with an ad hoc coalition of networks might come together to form a true partnership with the players for them to divy up the billions they have already contracted to pay the NFL for a product which is not being delivered. It would be a hard thing to organize but the current owners have left them with billions of reasons to get their act together and even better there is not the cost drag of profits for the owners, 2. Other rich individuals are a possibility. The question is whether Pegula, Golisano, the Jacobs and their ilk can be found to front the money in exchange for 40% or so of $9 billion that the players would dictate as the new owner share of total receipts. If there are three options in a berg like Buffalo I am confident that replacement caputal for the current owners can be found, 3. Municipalities in the form of setting up public authorities using either the current working Green Bay Packers model or something new where the actual government to buy a league. A tough thing to organize but my bet is that if you took a vote in WNY folks would actually gladly raise local taxes to buy the Bills. Again it would be great if the current owners unilaterally took themselves out of the picture by closing up shop as a few hundred mill would be sufficient to set new franchise with no need to pay anything to the existing owners. 4. The players themselves could fund this thing as salaries the past decade gave gone way up. 5, Something I have not even thought of capitalize this process. The current owners have are really really redundant.

My favorite recent artificial turf story was that about a year of so ago, thanks to a lawsuit by the CA Attorney General, the Astro Turf Co. agreed to pay for replacement of every astroturf field installed in CA schools. Though the conventional wisdom is that lead poisoning is a problem of the past, lead is still widely used for industrial and manufacturing purposes. Lead is a neat metal to use for manufacture due to its low melting point but hardiness once it cools to make things durable. However, it has long been known that exposure to lead simply short circuits the brain. It takes a high dosage to make an adult act stupid (Ben Franklin and even Socrates wrote about this as smelters got exposed to large amounts of lead dust making shields and bullets and stuff). At any rate, one thing lead is used for his to make colors brighter and this durable coating breaks down overtime but it lasts for a few years. It turns out our friends at Astro-Turf were using lead in their turf to make the green greener and breakdown more slowly with folks running all over it. The huge problem here is that lead can make an adult act stupid in high doses but even more horribly it interferes with the developing neural pathways of a fast growing kid at incredibly lowdosages. As the lead breaksdown and slowly mixes with air, you have all these student athletes breathing deeply inhaling the particles and sliding and opening their blood stream to astroturf abrasions and burns. It is well studied (actually by a Prof at the Univ. of Rochester, NY) that increased of blood lead levels tracks directly with greater need and demand for special education (which is more expensive than regular ed and thus drives up your tax bills). I hope that the folks who make A-Turf are not doing something so stupid as there are lots of kids who play their championship games at the Ralph. It amazes me how we do stuff that hurts kids to make an extra nickel.

It looks to me though that the 8th circuit problem is that while it generally supportive of business and free enterprise as one would expect from a Bush appointed judge, a decision which comes down on the side of the NFL owners is actually one which is anti-free market. This contradiction is a difficult circle to square and its going to be very hard to accomplish this in a court ruling. The NFLPA threat to decertify was so devastating to the NFL team owners because it really would have taken away the figleaf of union agreement from a restraint of individual trade and an undercutting of the free market which is basically what the NFL draft is. If the NFLPA decertifies itself and thus abandons any claim to negotiate for the players as a group, it then forces the owners to negotiate with individual players though a series of individual personal services contracts. It will be the Golden Rule meaning he has the most gold rules as any owner could buy any player for whatever timelength and terms could be negotiated. The great irony in all of this is that it is pretty obvious that such a system would fail as there would be no competitive balance in the league. A system based on a social compact (read socialism) is actually far more likely to produce a stable product and thus gain huge bucks from the TV networks than a free market system. Any 8th Circuit decision which finds for the owners but also demands that the NFL continue operating with a social compact which forces an individual player to negotiate with one and only one team (and even worse bars adults from even having a contract until their age group reaches 21 is on its face anti-free market and anti-capitalist. My guess is the NFLPA sticks to its guns and forces the owners to choose between a socialist system where the NFLPA gets a majority of the total take or instead have an actual free market.

Your ex sounds like she had crappy legal advice. It would seem that it would not have been a heavy legal lift to force you into making alimony payments so that she could both pay someone to mow her lawn well and also not have to put up with you.

You are right that the TO appearance was a circus, but I think the primary blame for this is with our lazy sports media and a cadre of noisy whining fans who could not make the football-intelligent understanding that: 1. TO was almost certainly going to be a good citizen his first year here. Hello Bueller. Didn't folks realize that in order to divide the team within itself or the fanbase that by definition he had to gain the adulation and trust of half the folks. It was fairly hilarious how downright stupid folks were right off the back with early articles claiming he already was becoming a cancer right after he signed when he did not show up for a voluntary workout. It turned out he skipped the workout because he had long ago made a commitment to be in Philly that weekend to receive an award from a group for his charitable actions, It was a circus because too many folks were happy to believe anything negative rather than look for the facts. 2. The Bills FO knew at least 3 things which led them to sign TO- 1. All they would agree to was a 1 year deal thus setting up having him on his best behavior and 2, Evans needed a partner in order for him to be most dangerous. 4. The Bills were unlikely to produce much last year so there was little to no risk that TO antics would cost us the SB, TO did a good job for us the year he was here however, part of the fanbase was not mature enough to deal with it.

My sense is that these are the "rule" which govern a Toronto frsnchise question 1. No. 1 is that it is all about the money. What makes the most money for the decision-makers. 2. No. 2 is that it is all about the money. What makes the most money for the decision-makers. 3. See rule 2 and if you have any doubts see rule #1. 4. Who is the decision-maker. A. The team owners as a whole. The rule is that 75% of the teams need to vote for a new franchise to be approved, and this means that ONLY a general consensus choice which aligns with the general previously chosen NFL expansion strategy will be approved. The decision-making is not going to be driven by the needs, desires and profits on any one owner it will be driven by what is profitable for the league as a whole based om the social compact the team owners have developed over the years which basically realizes the vision of Pete Rozelle. B. However, the current labor dispute is one which is described by such baf blood and argument between the NFL and the NFLPA that it simply defies the logic that given the many billions in gross receipts that the NFL has signed, sealed, and delivered from the TV networks if they merely deliver a product why are they fighting. The answer is they are basically fighting over who owns the league. The actual answer is that neither the NFL nor the NFLPA is the "owner" of the league. They are fighting over who controls the league and who directly divides the profits. The actual answer of who owns the league is who pays the money. This is abstractly the fans you and me who buy tickets, watch TV games, watch commercials, etc who ultimately are the reason the game exists. However, in reality it is the TV networks who actually write the checks that own the game. You see it every game which has an hour on the clock, used to maybe approach 2 hours, but now routinely lasts over 3 hours, the flow the game broken up with TV timeouts and then comes to a screeching end with sudden death TO because we have to switch to the next game or prime time. However, the owners exercised virtually complete control of the game into the 70s and 80s stemming from the Halas days. In the mid-80d the NFL owners overplayed their hand. The courts had been moving virtually across the board in major sports ruling in favor of individual freedom and against the owners on issues such as the reserve clause in the MLB. MLB had a much clearer exemption from anti-trust laws than leagues like the NFL, but they lost in court in rulings like the Curt Flood case which denied owners the ability to force an individual to negotiate with one and only one team (the reserve clause effectively held down salaries and forced good players such as Richie Hebner of the Pirates to take a job digging ditches in the offseason to make ends meet despite being an all-star level player. The end of the reserve clause in baseball leaked over to sports like the NFL where players like Mike Ditka was once quoted as saying George Halas threw around nickels like they were manhole covers The NFLPA tried to use outmoded AFL-CIO tactics under Ed Garvey and the owners used a lockout and replacement player gambit to so effectively kick the NFLPA butt that it actually allowed a talented tenth of players led by Gene Upshaw to sell the demoralized players on a tactic suggested by some rich NYC lawyers of decertifying the union as a bargaining agent, Yhe courts had taken a classic American stand for individual rights in freeing the players to sell their services in a freer market but they were cognizant also of precedent and did allow the NFL to pursue the anti-free market approach inherent in their social compact approach by only allowing the restraints of the draft IF the players had a union which could negotiate the terms of a comprehensive bargaining agreement with the owner. Effectively at that point the NFLPA surged beyond the old AFL ways to actually become "partners" with the NFL in restraining trade through the draft. This is why the decert is such a potent threat. Without a certfied bargaining agent to partner with the team owners to restrain free trade, the team owners run the risk of being declared by the courts of illegally and unconstitutionally restraining individual rights to free trade by forcing individuals to be assigned to one and only one employer. The constitutional alternative for the owners without the draft and other constraints like the banning of adults from even signing contracts until they are 21 is to enter into personal services with whatever individual players they can arrange. The owners ran kicking and screaming to agree to a CBA which recognized the players as partners in collusion that the courts allowed. When the next CBA negotiation rolled around Gene Upshaw publicly announced that the new deal would assign at least 60% of the total receipts to the NFLPA through the salary cap. The final deal awarded an officially calculated 60.5% if the total take to the players. Even though the actual figures turned out to be a little less, the players now comfortably get a majority of the total receipts and the NFLPA is not only a partner but measured by their receipt of a majority of the take they are the majority partners. The two sides are arguing so bitterly because the stakes are a determination of who really is the majority partner in this enterprise. What I think this means for a franchise in Toronto (or whether the Bills remain in Buffalo) is ironically not much. It makes a significant difference who wins this fight as to who will be in control of the NFL. However, it makes little difference to the average fan whether the boss is the owners or the players. Football will remain the same without regard to who is in control. Wiyhout regard as to who controls the league the fiscal dynamics are the same. The league is committed to a path of internationalization and this means a Toronto franchise is the obvious thing. The new owner will pay a big chunk to Mr. Ralph to encroach on his territory but the Bills will remain in Buffalo in the same conference as the new Toro nto team creating a natural rivalry. Everybody profits.

What you are saying does not strike me as correct because I think there is one rule which overrides all the rest: The NFL will do things to make more money! I think many folks are missing the boat on their predictions because their thinking seems to be driven by a conclusion that the customer is determined by ticket buyers. Ticket sales are an important source of income, but the real money the NFL team owners get comes from the TV networks. The customer is always right if you want your business to be successful and in the case of the NFL the customer are the billions of eyeballs which the TV networks collect billions of dollars to offer to sell them soap, beer and cars. My sense is that the dollars say: 1. The NFL will put a franchise in Toronto in order to get better use of the millions of eyeballs in GTA. I think it is a mistake to conclude just because Toronto had trouble selling tickets which were set exorbitantly high charge, because the real deal in not simply the # from ticket sales, the real money is whether they can get enough eyeballs to sell to advertisers. 2. The ultimate value of the Bills is not found in ticket sales but in being able to rell and sale a good story which attracts millions of viewers to be sold things. The Bills ticket sales while not a non-factor and NFL owners are happy to take the money, as am original AFL franchise the team helps tell a story which the nets and the NFL want to sell to viewers in places like Mexico City, Tokyo and even in China. The best thing for keeping the team here is that Buffalo Bill is an iconic American name with history which can make new teams in market centers around the globe that when they join the league they are joining history. Also, if the Bills were to move the many depressing images of this heartbroken town does not make for good sales to new municipal markets. 3. Based on what is happening in the real world with hockey it is certainly the case that two major league teams can survive in both cities. In fact, the natural rivalry between the two cities guarantees two sell-outs and lots of buzz about the rivalry. Like McDonalds and Burger King where actually each franchise does better when they are in close proximity to each other, I do not think it is correct from a marketing standpoint to view this as only one team can survive. 4. The Bills are actually at great advantage vis a vis Toronto as we have asserted our rights to the market but this does not mean Toronto cannot happen it simply means the Bills will get paid handsomely for sharing the market. No one know for sure what will happen including me, but there is a fair case to be made that a Toronto franchise would mean big bucks for the Bills team owner.

Agreed. However, while I do not disagree with the general lambasting of Modrak, the complaints about him get reduced to mere whines if they are not accompanied by a recognition that the real issue here is the big boss. If he wants to leave this world renowned as a sportsman rather than simply as a mere businessman he needs to change his act. I am grateful to him for investing in the Bill back in the day and keeping them here when there was easy money to be made elsewhere. However, this honest gratitude I feel does not make me blind to realizing that a change must start at the top. I just hope that it is a change in attitude which allows us to win an SB soon rather than a change in ownership which brings uncertainty with it.

The main similarity between Regier and Modrak is that Regeir was following first Rigas' and then Golisano and Quinn's orders to primarily emphasize not losing money and if he could win while doing this great but not the top priority was not to risk losing $. Likewise with Modrak, his key was to do what Mr Ralph wanted which was not to lose money and if one could also win while doing this great. I think the jury is still out on Regeir as we now will see what he can do with Pegula setting the tone and saying winning is the priority and spend what you have to in order to win. Modrak is gone and that's a good thing, but I doubt it will make much difference unless Mr. Ralph goes through the same personality transplant he went through beginning with drafting of Bruce and signing of Kelly.

Mr. Ralph certainly does not do his own scouting. However, he does do his own decision-making and there is simply no way one can reasonably give him a pass as having THE primary responsibility for the pathetic record of the team this past decade plus. The buck stops with the owner. Even beyond this Mr. Ralph was clearly intrinsically involved in some of the most demonstrably poor decisions made during the past decade plus. These include: 1. ONLY Mr. Ralph could make a handshake deal with Jimbo to reward him in his next FA contract when Jimbo demanded he be extended in the year before his contract expired. I am an outsider with no where near the level of knowledge the team and its owner had, but even I could see Jimbo was done a season before he retired. Mr. Ralph did do his own scouting when he promised to pay Jimbo in his next contract and Mr. Ralph proved to be WRONG WRONG WRONG in this football assessment because there was no next contract, 2. Mr. Ralph does reasonably escape direct blame for a plethora of QB miscues (maybe Butler first identified and was high on Billy Joe Hobert), however, in the end it is Mr. Ralph who makes the hiring and firing decisions and if anyone has major complaints about Modrak, Guy, Marv or whomever, its a major complaint about Mr. Ralph. In addition, like it or not its tough to blame Jauron for a majority of the decade+ playoff less streak, it is unreasonable to blame Marv for the vast majority of this failure etc. This was all on Mr. Ralph's watch. In addition to the buck stopping with him even if he did not make the decision because he hired the decision-maker, there is also the fact that if he was handsoff on stupid decisions like giving RJ a guarantee in the form of the bonus he should have been and it was malfeasance if he was completely hands off on a lot of these financial decisions. 3. Mr. Ralph clearly had a toxic relationship with his GM Bill Polian whom by all reports he personally fired (for what are alleged to be non-football reasons) and he and only he gets direct blame/credit for employee management of any if his GMs. 4. John Butler screwed us with how he left and played Mr. Ralph to string him along (who knows if he chose Eric Flowers to tank the draft so this is not my accusation, but clearly Mr. Ralph gets at least his half of the blame for this toxic relationship. 5. The war with Wade Phillips where Wade kicked his butt completely as Mr. Ralph attempted to welch on his contractual obligation is all on Mr. Ralph personally. 6. He had the right to fire TD if he screwed the pooch but the fact he fired him after he hired him in an under duress effort to deal with the fall out of his toxic relationship with Butler again points to Mr. Ralph. Add to that having a toxic relationship with one GM (Polian) is an incident. However, then having another toxic relationship with a GM )Butler) may simply be a coincident. However, he then followed this up by having a toxic relationship with his next GM (he fired TD). Third time is a trend and the fact the Bills had to operate the next season with no GM really says it all. I agree that Mr. Ralph deserves tons of credits for keeping the Bills here. No one should ignore nor can they take away the winning glory of the team Mr. Ralph hired Polian to build. He deserves props for this, it was real. However the last decade plus was real too. The man who deserve the blame for ALL of this? Mr. Ralph.

I am glad they did not even if they had wanted to as I see no examples of the Gailey system having worked with a rookie QB (even if there was one with even a reasonable expectation of him being a franchise QB- which there is not in this draft once Luck took a pass). I have consistently asked and have not had an answer of anyone pointing to a Gailey QB who did not have at least some vet experience. Gailey;s actual record of past productivity is actually quite impressive in that he runs a system which has allowed QBs with past disappointing or even failed records like Fiedler, Kordell. Bulger and even Fitzy to an extent as he showed some stuff in his previous PT but what he showed was not enough to get his previous teams to spend to keep him. I can see why they might have been interested in Newton, as he among his 2011 QB peers had an unparalleled record of production. However, even he appears to be a multi-year project at QB (though actually he could well be immediately productive as the pseudo-QB in Wildcat change-up formations. Gabbert also showed potential, but the simple fact is he is a relative latecome to QB stardom only having had two years of starting at QB. His results were impressive, but in addition to being a relatively short period of time it clearly was against second tier opponents. He ran the college spread offense well but it is gonna be a very different ballgame for him as a pro. Figure on at least two years of sitting on the bench and then mostly seeing PT in practice before he could be reasonably expected to contribute to the Bills. The problem is that with our 9 for a decade plus record it is really doubtful that the FO and the new QB could withstand the whining which would be the staple of folks at WGR, writers like Sully and a small but vocal set of fans who will label any first rounder who does not take starting role in his first year a bust. It strikes me as the Bills have a far better chance of winning if they build in the trenches first with folks like Dareus rather than invest in a QB who if the Bills follow the same route they did with failures of folks like RJ, JP, Edwards and even going back to TC who was rushed into a starting role before they were ready, drafting any QB before round 4 would likely have resulted in a wasted pick from all I see. How long do you think it would have taken for Gabbert to become productive? I doubt a Bills 1st round chosen rookie even gets a full season of learning before he is thrown to the wolves. Gabbert simply has not been on top long enough that anyone can reasonably expect him to be productive in his first two years. The cries would already be labeling him as another QB bust unless he lucked into productivity his first year.

Actually its a combo of mistakes. I was inarticulate in saying what I was talking about was not whether a team drafted a player but whether they wasted a first rounder on him. Brady is actually an outrider example that though no one should expect to get the best player in football in the 6th round, clearly one need not be a slave to drafting a QB in the 1st or second round to get a good QB. The other is a misread by you. The note asks folks to look prior to the drafting of RoboQB and Manning and thats where you find a long lapse in picking a QB in the first who takes the team which drafted him to the SB and that was Dallas choosing Aikman in 89 but no other 1st rounder scores an SB win until Manning finally broke the drought deep in the 2000s. If one MUST draft a QB in the 1st or second to get a franchise QB then any drought would be surprising.

Good pick by Jax of Gabbert. He is gonna need two years of sitting on the bench as a rookie and then being broken in as slowly as one can looking over the back of the center. It always struck me as nuts that some Bills fans were talking about him.

Expect the unexpected

Take the best LB available and by all means avoid the temptation to take a QB!

I think that there is a conventional wisdom about the draft which gets reflected in several ideas such as the absolute key to getting a franchise QB is to draft him. Recent experience simply demonstrates that is not the case. Yes Peyton Manning and RoboQB are two recent examples of QBs who led the team which drafted them to SB victories. However, a look at the record simply shows that the last QB to lead the team which drafted him to SB victory was the Dallas selection of Aikman way back at the end of the 80s. I am not making this up, them is simply the actual occurrences. You are right that Manning should not be used as a comparison, but this is because the draft is clearly not the only way to acquire a franchise QB but in fact it is often not the way to acquire them. Rodgers was a first round choice who led the Packers to the promise land so it is the case that drafting the right guy in the first can do it for you. I am not saying it cannot be done. However, one need only go back to the year before that to find that franchise QB Drew Brees was an FA acquisition. In the end, the key remains pick the right guy. For this year's draft it does not boil down to whether one should pursue a draft a QB, draft am OL, or draft a defensive star approach. What it comes down to is pick the right guy. As far as QB goes the question is whether there is a QB likely to go in the 1st or 2nd who is the right guy? As I am not a professional and even for the professionals the answer is ultimately who knows for sure, I am comfortable in saying that even though Newton or Gabbert may one day turn out to be a franchise guy, pretty much all signs indicate this is pretty doubtful. It is doubtful as no credible info source is mistaking either Gabbert or Newton for a Peyton Manning or Dan Marino who can play credibly right off the back. In fact, though I think it is possible for one of these two QBs to eventually be franchise guys, both show all the signs of being two year projects before anyone should reasonably expect them to contribute to the team which drafts them. Gabbert looks like a very talented athlete but is simply not a reasonable risk the #3 pick. He only has two years of starting experience and this is not enough to base a #3 pick on. Further, the #s he racked up are impressive but it was against inferior competition with his league opponents. It does not mean he could not produce against NFL quality players it just means he has not done so yet and will need to watch the game and practice a bit simply to get used to NFL speed and power. In addition, even against lower talented players there are real questions about his completion rate particularly since a lot of the gains came from dump-offs in the spread offense he ran well. He will likely need a couple of years before he is ready to contribute to the Bills (or do you want to claim he is better than Tom Brady who needed a full year before he was thrust into the starting role by an unusual injury to Bledsoe. Think hard before you want to set an expectation of Gabbert that he is going to outpace Brady in development time. Add on to that the Brady risk was a 6th rounder and you are proposing we take a #3 risk. Do you really think that WGR, Sully, and a small but vocal group are not going to stand on some alleged wisdom that a 1st round choice cannot be declared a bust until 3 years, but claim the reasonable expectation for a #3 pick is he should at least contribute and really should start his first year. I think this is the conventional wisdom. However, with some more intensive analysis of a couple of draft classes the actual # is only a hair above 50% of first round choices are 1st on the team depth chart after one season. My sense is that ironically, I think Newton will actually contribute to his team significantly faster than Gabbert. However, this is because I think he can become a prototye contributor as the snap catcher in the Wildcat offense right away, However, I have enough doubts about whether Newton, given the fast and loose manner which he and his parents have handled his stardom to date will be able to apply himself with the discipline needed to achieve franchise success in sport. Again ironically it may actually be early success he experiences in a Wildcat which will make him difficult to teach to subordinate and change his game to become an effective leader rather than an effective free-lancer. Overall, one can figure at least two years for him to become an effective pro QB. Unfortunately with a streak over a decade in not making the playoffs, I doubt the time can be taken to develop a rookie QB into a franchise guy. The good news for the Bills is that there are multiple other ways teams have found of winning the SB or even finding a franchise guy other than drafting him, There us a rich history of HOF QBs like Steve Young, soon to be HOF like Brett Favre, FA from Wal-Mart Kurt Warner, FA from SD Drew Brees, FA from whereever Trent Dilfer and even two-time cuttee Brad Johnson but not a franchise guy who led a team to an SB win that simply are facts that one need not draft a player to find a franchise guy. You do recognize there are other ways to do this. Particularly given that as best as I can tell all the success Gailey has produced has not been with rookies but with vets (even vets viewed as failures elsewhere) like Fiedler, Bulger, Kordell and even Fitzy. If there is a franchise guy out there I can see taking him but there does not appear to be a franchise guy who likely will be taken in the 1st two rounds.

My sense from paying too much attention to the NFL over the years (at least according what my wife says) is that the Bills did not make a critical error in spending a 1st round pick on either Bledsoe or RJ. They paid the market rate of a 1st round pick for both a vet who had shown potential in RJ leading Jax to some wins and Bledsoe in being a QB who had led a team to the SB in his younger days and as recently as the previous season had thrown the winning TD in a must win game for the Pats. I had no problem with them giving up a first since as we have seen time and again with picks like Mike Williams or Marshawn Lynch (or AT giving us a 1st rounder for nothing in their trade for Peerless, 1st round picks are not a certainty at all to be that valuable that it is foolish to trade them. Instead, I think the Bills made other decisions once they had these two failed QBs which were the critical errors. Specifically: 1. A 1st round pick was the market value for RJ, but the mistake was giving him a guaranteed salary through a huge bonus which he had in his pocket without regard to how well he played or whether he was injury prone as he turned out to be. RJ had demonstrated two things in his Jax stint: A. He could play NFL ball. B. he had suffered an injury which knocked him out of his starting QB role after he led the team to victory. The simple fact was that there was no QB available in the draft who had demonstrated for sure he could play NFL football. A 1st round pick for a QB who had demonstrated he could do that was a reasonable price to pay. The mistake was guaranteeing the deal without a demonstration that RJ was not injury prone. He turned out to be injury prone which I define as losing playing time 3 times in 2 seasons to different types of injuries. Jim Kelly for example likely lost a similar amount of PT at various points in his career. However, it was almost always the bursa sack. RJ on the other hand was anytime he got hit, one day it was a concussion, the next time it was a collarbone, once it was his chest as he fell on the pointy end of the football. Even worse, the Bills had signed Doug Flutie to a small investment make good contract. When RJ turned out to be injury prone and DF played like we hoped he would, by rule all of his obtained bonueses rolled into his base contract. Even tougher for the cap all of his obtained bonuses paid rolled into the next cap calculation. The Bills had no choice but to extend the DF contract to spread his base pay and obtained bonuses cap hit over a longer contract. RJ and his agent correctly threatened the Bills that unless they signed him long term before the season they would not negotiate during the season. Smart move on their part. However, if the Bills had simply made him play and then when he proved himself to not be injury prone, at worse they may had to pay RJ a premium to get him to sign. It was stupid not to trade the going market rate of a 1st round pick for a demonstrated NFL QB. What was stupid was guaranteeing the deal without evidence he could be relatively injury free. 2. Likewise with Bledsoe. A first round pick was actually a small price to pay for a proven SB reaching QB. In fact, the results of this deal was in fact a wash for the Bills as he played extraordinarily well his first year (he deserved his Pro Bowl nod and if you disagree then simply name the QBs who you insist were good that year). However, Belicheat was willing to depart company with Bledsoe because he saw what he had in Brady and also concluded correctly he could beat Bledsoe twice the next year and when he showed how to do it Bledsoe would be toast. This happened. The mistake the Bills made was not in paying what was easily the market rate for a QB withe Bledsoe's proven weaknesses and proven strengths. The problem was extending his deal when he was clearly on the downhill side of production for the Bills. In general I think the conventional wisdom over-values the draft. Wishful thinking dubs every QB a Peyton manning and the Ryan Leaf. Akili Smith. Joey harringtons, JaMarcus Russells are quickly forgotten. My sense is that while good players tend to get drafted and good players have to come from somewhere, that in general trading draft picks for demonstrated value of vets is not a bad deal. The stupid moves at least in these two cases came afterwards in lousy contract management and decision-making by the Bills FO.

It added to my thinking in that the comparison of MLB commissioner with the NFL commissioner (an odd and offpoint comparison) got me to think about comparing this NFL commissioner with the last NFL commissioner Tagliaboo-boo, This is a more relevant comparison because the final actions of the old commissioner compare to the new commissioner to show why Goodell was hired by the owners. In essence the old commissioner joined with the players in making a last ditch case to the owners that they needed to accept the CBA which did away with the designated gross concept (and idea which for example saw Mr. Ralph eliminate several thousand general admission seats that he has to split the take with the players and instead add a few hundred "heated premium seats" because he did not have to split the take with the players. Not only did NFLPA head Gene Upshaw declare that the final deal was going to get rid of the designation but declared the players cap total would need to start with a 6. On paper the final deal actually awarded the salary cap 60.5% of the total receipts, The reality was it awarded the players well over 50% (arguably making not only partners with the owners as the late 80s CBA did as the owners were forced by the decert threat to run kicking and screaming from actually competing in a free market). In the development of the last CBA the irony is that the commissioner actually ended up playing a role which helped the NFLPA. When it got to crunch time it was the Commissioner's office which argued that the owners should accept the deal because it was clear on the face of it that the individual teams would make a lot more money with the deal than without it. There were holdouts (like Mr. Ralph who was one of two votes against the deal) but in the end the Commissioner's office sided with the players. I think this pissed Mr. Ralph off. In the light of what has happened, it now appears clear to me that part of the rationale for hiring Goodell was that he committed to fight for the owners' interest and not be swayed by the NFLPA's interests. To some extent this is too bad as the owners have taken a stance which mandates there is no NFL football for you and me unless the players cave. The players generally are testosterone and steroid induced competitors. They are not gonna cave. Goodell was hired to fight for the owner's positions. He was not hired to compromise and solve the problem. This is a lot clearer to me after reading this article so for me it added to my knowledge.

While the interpretation which the lead thread makes (the NFLPA wants no draft) is an overblown interpretation of the articles linked (which themselves are overblown interpretations of what the writer claims the NFLPA wants) they actually begin to point to the real issues being disputed here. 1. The players view themselves as not only partners with the team owners but in fact the majority partners and they want to be treated that way by their partners. 2. As far as it goes, the players have an advantage and in court with our constitutional democracy because the players arguments are for a freer market while the team owners endorse a more socialized system. When push comes to shove in the court system the players are gonna be pushing toward a freer market and likely will do well in American courts. 3. Though the players tend more towards a free market than the owners (who ran toward setting up the CBA when the players first threatened to decertify) they in the end prefer to make more money and a more socialistic system where the NFL undercuts the rights of individuals in favor of the whole makes tons more $ from the TV networks by delivering a stable product. The NFLPA has actually reached agreement with the NFLPA to bar adults from even signing NFL contracts until people born the same year they were are 21. The NFLPA is happy to push for a salary cap which sets a minimum salary for its members even when one of the costs of doing this is actual adults being barred from selling their services to the NFL. You accuse me of moving farther and farther from reality when in actuality as this dispute goes on you are hearing more and more discussion of the reality I am describing, Where does this go in the end? Who knows. However, what seems obvious to me is> 1. The players are primarily motivated by what makes them the most money, 2. Salaries for player tend to go up when there is more competition between football leagues. In a true trickle down salaries for high profile players like Joe Namath and Jim Kelly skyrocket but in what is ultimately a team game we begin to see salaries for OL players to protect the QB. defenders to deliver the ball to the offense in scoring position and also to cover for miscues by the stars who always have to press to the edge to pull off miracles. Even ST players who have a direct role in winning the position battle on the field all profit right along with these high profile players. 3. The goals and strategies of NFL players should take seems clear to me: 1. Foster creation of a new league to increase competition for contracting with players. 2. Hurt but do not kill the NFL owners because though they have gotten too big for their britches following the socialist regime of Pete Rozelle, the players like their money. Keep the current CBA going but also foster more competition. 4. The main thing the owners provided was capital and management back in the old days. However, as the Packers demonstrated last year the team owners are not essential for providing management. Further, the real source of capital is now the TV networks. The NFL will always need the best players who are folks like Brady et al. right now (and they will be replaced over time with a new generation. However, the owners are really unnecessary right now. They are little more than a middleman that actually raises costs for fans and demands a chunk from the players who really are the game. Don't you agree we need replacement owners or do you have some deep woody for them for some reason?

From what I see spending a draft pick on a QB prior to the 4th round is likely a wasted pick for the Bills. Newtn and Gabbert appear to be the best of the QBs available and both of them are likely two year projects as best as I can see before they are ready to contribute consistently at QB. Newton appears to have the most upside of the two as he has won and produced dramatically at each step, but the negatives shown in his temperament and his Dad make him a risky pick. Gabbert I think has more likelihood than Newton to eventually become a franchise QB, but he only has two years as a college starter at QB and unlike athletes such as Luck who has long demonstrated he is going to be a force to be reckoned with, Gabbert has been productive but has produced doing good dumpoffs in a collegiate spread offense. Logic simply says expect a year of bench sitting from him before he learns the pro game and a year of practice and looking over the centers back before he gets it. Its possible for a rookie QB to be productive in the NFL, but no one is mistaking Gabbert or Newton for a Dan Marino or a Peyton Manning whi can start immediately (or even be productive in his first year) nor is anyone mistaking the Bills D for the unit for the Ray Lewis led Ravens D which allowed Flacco to produce as a rookie QB.

The dueling motions go back and forth. My guess is that Nelson has timed her finding such that it comes at the same time the NFL is going into its usual press overdrive mode with the draft. My sense is that the effect of this will be that normal folk (I do not consider us Bills addicts normal) will begin paying more attention to pro football than they normally do. These folks will be reintroduced to the labor dispute in the context right now the regular season appears to be on track because the players just won some court decision, but the owners are filing appeals to stop the season. Many or most folks will not really pay attention to the details offered by either side. However, one prob for the owners is that they will be reintroduced to the NFL with the message that the owners are losing in court and are taking action for whatever reason to delay the season. Not good for the owners to the extent their is a media battle to claim who is right and who is wrong. Doty seemed to play the same timing game when he released his opinion as the deadline for declaration of declaring an impasse approached, The team owners are certainly trying to sell the story that these negative decisions were expected by the owners and their strategy was designed taking into account the likelihood of these pro-NFLPA rulings. "Keep moving, keep moving nothing to see here" However, this comes off as simply whistling as one goes by the graveyard. The owners are losing on this one thanks to some nice forum shopping by the NFLPA.

I do not know him so I really do not know. However, four things which I would guess are inherently Brady which might impact his decisions: 1. He is a leader who loves to lead. Perhaps leading his fellow players to an even greater position of control has some appeal to him, 2. He is proud and competitive man and the NFL owners have directly challenged all the players and responding in a manner that takes them on pretty directly would seem to be consistent with the character he has shown. 3. Having the respect of his teammates and leading them into battle is what he has done successfully and well throughout his career. Perhaps he has just learned to fake sincerity well and he does not care about his fellow players. Yet, I doubt that and again this would speak to him playing a lead role in a master strategy to take on the owners. 4. I have no idea whether he feels he has enough money (or even if it is possible to have enough). However, my sense is he likely has made a chunk that taking on the league may be a Dom Quixote like exercise he may lose but actually it is likely a relatively low risk move for him to make with a potential of large fiscal benefits. Perhaps you have a read on him and the et al. that they will simply cave in the face of a pretty direct attack from the owners. Perhaps bending over and saying thank you sir can I have another is what you would do so you assume it is the logical thing for anyone to do. However, I am influenced strongly by the fact that the NFLPA has been on a roll since the late 80s. They made an unorthodox move of threatening to decertify after the team owners simply kick the butt of the old AFL-CIO union tactics led by Ed Garvey. This maneuver grasped victory from the jaws of defeat and produced the CBA which essentially forced recognition of the NFLPA as a partner. Led by Gene Upshaw and a talented tenth of his fellow players (most of whom are steroid and drug infused lemmings but this actually makes it easier for the talented tenth to lead them) led the NFLPA to negotiate the last CBA which he dictated the player portion of the total revenues needed to start with a 6. Indeed, though certainly part of the final calculation was fun with #s, but by most estimates the players do take in les than 60% but still comfortably a majority of the total take, If I am Brady, et al. the question to me is why should I try to buffalo the team owners again, but actually the question is why not and how am I gonna do it. In the end, it seems quite clear to me that the athletes make more money any time there is actually competition rather than collusion between the owners. If I am Brady et al. to reach my goal of making the most money possible I am interested in not killing the NFL but defanging the owners quite a bit and introducing a NewFL which through competition allows the players association to represent players in a new league and the NFL. My thinking is that the key thing here is to be a man and I am gonna make more bucks either way. So my question to you is why not take on the NFL rather than caving to them. If you agree this is their default reaction then how do you take on the owners?

I do not know him so I really do not know. However, four things which I would guess are inherently Brady which might impact his decisions: 1. He is a leader who loves to lead. Perhaps leading his fellow players to an even greater position of control has some appeal to him, 2. He is proud and competitive man and the NFL owners have directly challenged all the players and responding in a manner that takes them on pretty directly would seem to be consistent with the character he has shown. 3. Having the respect of his teammates and leading them into battle is what he has done successfully and well throughout his career. Perhaps he has just learned to fake sincerity well and he does not care about his fellow players. Yet, I doubt that and again this would speak to him playing a lead role in a master strategy to take on the owners. 4. I have no idea whether he feels he has enough money (or even if it is possible to have enough). However, my sense is he likely has made a chunk that taking on the league may be a Dom Quixote like exercise he may lose but actually it is likely a relatively low risk move for him to make with a potential of large fiscal benefits. Perhaps you have a read on him and the et al. that they will simply cave in the face of a pretty direct attack from the owners. Perhaps bending over and saying thank you sir can I have another is what you would do so you assume it is the logical thing for anyone to do. However, I am influenced strongly by the fact that the NFLPA has been on a roll since the late 80s. They made an unorthodox move of threatening to decertify after the team owners simply kick the butt of the old AFL-CIO union tactics led by Ed Garvey. This maneuver grasped victory from the jaws of defeat and produced the CBA which essentially forced recognition of the NFLPA as a partner. Led by Gene Upshaw and a talented tenth of his fellow players (most of whom are steroid and drug infused lemmings but this actually makes it easier for the talented tenth to lead them) led the NFLPA to negotiate the last CBA which he dictated the player portion of the total revenues needed to start with a 6. Indeed, though certainly part of the final calculation was fun with #s, but by most estimates the players do take in les than 60% but still comfortably a majority of the total take, If I am Brady, et al. the question to me is why should I try to buffalo the team owners again, but actually the question is why not and how am I gonna do it. In the end, it seems quite clear to me that the athletes make more money any time there is actually competition rather than collusion between the owners. If I am Brady et al. to reach my goal of making the most money possible I am interested in not killing the NFL but defanging the owners quite a bit and introducing a NewFL which through competition allows the players association to represent players in a new league and the NFL. My thinking is that the key thing here is to be a man and I am gonna make more bucks either way. So my question to you is why not take on the NFL rather than caving to them. If you agree this is their default reaction then how do you take on the owners?

I think one of the funniest things about this is that without regard whether the players win before Doty, Nelson, or whomever, there are folks who want to simply insist the owners have the upper hand here and that this win means nothing. They are wrong. These wins do not mean everything but it is simply non-sensical to claim they mean nothing. What they do is simply add to a higher hill that the owners must push out of the way if they ultimately are going to win. The default going into the draft where the broader public begins to pay attention to the NFL again is that the season is on but the next move in play is that the owners are trying to appeal to kill it. This further brings into light that the original dispute was triggered by the owners opting out of the deal early as they were contractually able to do. Any "win" by the owners now MIGHT still happen but to do so simply means that they and the power that orders it will be rocking the ship of state even more. In the face of this, the NFLPA is undoubtedly not sitting still, and my GUESS is that just like occurred with the mid-80s dispute the players will try to reach their goals (more money) with a tactic that minimizes the owners take of the pie. To me this would seem to be a goal of not killing the NFL but doing anything possible to increase competition bt fostering a new league. Whether the NewFL fails miserably as the USFL did or succeeds as the AFL did in both cases it jacked up player salaries due to that old American standby competition. My GUESS as to an end product: The NewFL led by players such as Brady, et al. I doubt such an effort succeeds but what would come from this increased competition is higher high profile salaries and increased NFLPA membership as it represents players in both the current NFL and the NewFL.