obie_wan
-
Posts
2,809 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Gallery
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by obie_wan
-
-
The trading of McGahee in turn forced them to select a RB in the first round. Talk about predictable, it doesn't take Nostradamus to realize Buffalo telegraphs their top picks year after year.
More than likely draft picks do not help a team win in their rookie season. Think about what the Bills might have done with that first round pick had they kept McGahee. Two thirds and a 7th are nice on paper, but what they generally offer on the field isn't as much. That's why unused draft picks are worth more than a player. It's why first rounders aren't part of too many trades for veteran players.
This is not an argument about whether or not McGahee or Lynch are nice guys or not. It's not even whether one's better than the other. It's about allocating resources. Buffalo's spent 2 first rounders on RB's in five years. This in turn prevents them from addressing other areas, like OL and DL.
The Bills would have been up the creek if GB had traded ahead of them and taken Lynch
However, GB did what good teams do.
They found a RB in Ryan Grant and plugged him to great success. They also drafted a RB in the 2nd round who will challenge for time.
-
The trading of McGahee in turn forced them to select a RB in the first round. Talk about predictable, it doesn't take Nostradamus to realize Buffalo telegraphs their top picks year after year.
More than likely draft picks do not help a team win in their rookie season. Think about what the Bills might have done with that first round pick had they kept McGahee. Two thirds and a 7th are nice on paper, but what they generally offer on the field isn't as much. That's why unused draft picks are worth more than a player. It's why first rounders aren't part of too many trades for veteran players.
This is not an argument about whether or not McGahee or Lynch are nice guys or not. It's not even whether one's better than the other. It's about allocating resources. Buffalo's spent 2 first rounders on RB's in five years. This in turn prevents them from addressing other areas, like OL and DL.
and that's on top of Travis Henry
-
I am with you re: Tommy Harris. In hindsight, probably Ngata too...
I don't think there was a better way to address RB last year than Lynch though. Lynch seems pretty close to a can't miss as long as he keeps his nose clean.
Also, I think McCargo showed a ton of promise last year and was under-utilized for how well he was progressing once healthy. His style of play is perfect for this scheme.
The problem is they should not have been in the position to be forced to take a RB in teh first round just to field the posiiton.
The Bills voluntarily created the hole by moving Willis in a contract year for too little and too early.
-
In and of itself, the fact that some clear difference between our actions positonally at the top of the draft versus the best teams in the game might simply be discounted as consequential, but that evidence is just the beginning.
I see premium quality DTs being passed in the draft by the Bills to take other positions. Haloti Ngata passed by in favor of a Safety? I have to say I find that fundamentally an error in the overall strategy of Buffalo.
That's a little difficult to ignore.
Do you think we'd be a different team today if instead of taking Lee Evans in 2004, we had selected Tommie Harris? We ended up STARTING Justin Bannon. We had the need- Harris was rated one of the best players in that draft- and we ended up with Lee Evans. It's hard to imagine we couldn't have waited another turn to pick up an undersized WR.
But our team has NOT seen the need for DT like the good contemporary teams have. How you can sit in a division getting whipped by a team twice a year, a team who has used 3 first round picks for DTs in the past 8 drafts, and not notice that we're undermanned inside?
I for one will no longer ignore it. The piss-poor gamble that Stroud represents may get the casual observer giddy, but it shouldn't get students of the contemporary NFL game feeling great about our '08 prospects. The way to beat the better teams today is with great defensive interiors, and entering the 2008 campaign, calling our great should be accompanied with a good burst of howling hysteria.
Vince Wilfork was the better pick because the can play NT and gives the defense the flexibility to play multiple fronts.
Either pick would have been better than a WR and QB that we got in the 1st round.
-
Sorry, but that pass had very little zip to it. It was heaved into the air and looked more like a punt than a pass. If we were playing anyone but the Dolphins it would have been defended. Edwards simply doesn't have very good arm strength when it comes to the deep passes. He excels at the short to medium range passing game and does have an excellent quick release, but you can't start telling us he has very good arm strength because of that deep lollipop pass against the fins. Arm strength is there when the ball is thrown deep with some zip to it.
sort of like that pass JP threw against the Jets
-
Sounds like it worked out in our favor. We got a 3rd rounder for that turd of a TE.
hard to believe we picked Hunter in 1983 ahead of Jim Kelly
-
Yet, Jauron is considered an excellent coach.
I was critical of Webster the day he was signed. I saw him play in SF and Atlanta and didn't see how the change in the uniform colors was going to turn him into an NFL CB. (If anybody gets anything out of him, it will no doubt be Billy B. though. <sigh>)
John Guy was the astute talent evaluator bringing Webster to the team
another tremendous signing
-
Have the Buffalo Bills adapted to their new West Coast offense?
This system, installed by new offensive coordinator Turk Schonert, should be beneficial for QB Trent Edwards, who needs to get his completion percentage above the 60 percent mark. Yes, he finished at 56.1 percent last year, but was also guilty of having games in the 30 percent range. Edwards lacks big-time arm strength, but he is a cerebral quarterback who makes good and quick decisions. This is a system that really benefits the Bills' personnel, from Edwards to WR Lee Evans, who can make plays with the ball in his hands, to rookie WR James Hardy, who is a big target and can work the middle of the field, to RB Marshawn Lynch, who will see more seven-man fronts from three-receiver sets. Along with a maturing defense, the ability for Edwards to run this new system will go a long way toward determining the Bills' playoff hopes.
I guess this pretty much holds all of our sentiments. Maybe Trent will turn into a reincarnated version of Joe Montana in the West Coast offense. They said the same thing about his arm strength, but he was probably the smartest QB to ever step on the field. Those old enough around here saw Montana and the 49ers own the NFL in the 80's. Now if Trent could just have the "ice water" flowing through his veins like Montana did in critical game situations.
can someone cite something that actually supports that the Bills will be converting to a WCO.
I think this is a fallacy.
Bills wil run what they ran last year - which had a focus on quick releases.
not necesarily a WCO.
-
with a week to go to training camp-
what is the status of gettiing the rookies under contract?
-
Well without the death tax you would have more super rich families who control everything and own everything. Many of these kids who inherit this mass wealth have no clue how to use it responsibly. Could you imagine being 18 years old and being given a billion dollars tax free...
In that way it is designed to keep wealth from overly accumulating in just certain families.
I don't mind the death tax, what I do mind is the fact that are government can't get its own head out of its own ass and do the right thing with tax money and invest it into the country and make the country a much better place for everyone.
something like families like the Kennedies who structured their assets, then designed a law that would exempt them but apply to new business creation?
-
My understanding of the Robbie case (which is based on seeing but not perusing in any depth several articles so I can easily be educated by someone supplying links to more authoritative articles) is that Robbie for whatever reason had not done much estate planning and family fell victim to that. It easily can happen as some folks simply refuse to confront the reality of making out a will or aggressively seeking estate advice because this means admitting one's mortality.
A person may also simply be stupid (something I can easily believe about a Fish owner) as well. Given the myriad ways our complicated tax code allows a smart person to escape some (not all but some) of the alleged death tax take, yes some do involve several years of small consistent action. However, some such as setting up an irrevocable trust for a charitable purpose and then aligning and handing out trustee control over that charity in a manner than benefits the heirs is something that does not necessarily require tons of time to make work.
In fact, though thanks to the distrust between the NFL and NFLPA that opens the books of these private businesses in ways generally not subject to public scrutiny we actually know a lot about the bottomline of the Bills take. However, we outsiders no nothing really about how Ralph may have actually been sharing his wealth he will leave with selected heirs so he actually has been doing the slow distribution you talk about. If he was smart he actually could have been distributing shares of the Bills to heirs for years, done that distribution by gifting type B stocks which have full market value but no voting control over the team while maintaining prefered stocks with voting control so the assets escape an estate tax.
I doubt this because his family heirs have shown no interest in running the team, but this does not mean he has not done this or something else. In fact, when Ralph's will is made public it is virtually guaranteed that he and his lawyers will have set it up to do something which will surprise us all.
All in all though it is sad when a family loses an asset like a farm which has gained cash value so that a sale must occur to pay the taxes, it actually in reality is hard to feel totally bad for the poor heirs. In Ralph's case even if a sale is forced of the $800+ million asset he paid chump change for, then his poor heirs will lose 45% of this money to the tax man and they will be forced to settle for merely half a billion $ in inheritance after taxes.
Sure they may lose roughly half a billion to Uncle Sam but they will get almost half a billion they did no work to get if Ralph leaves the asset to his kids.
I simply do not feel that bad for them getting "ripped off" in this way. Wouldn't you love to get ripped off and settle for half a billion.
1. you can't put an NFL franchise into a charitable trust.
2. you totally miss the point regarding a family business. The family (kids = heirs) are running the business. They generally are not deadbeats looking for a windfall. However, the estate tax forces the estate the sell the business and force the working family members out of the business.
-
After 3 years as the #8 selection, the Pro Bowl should be a given.
-
When you site the Bill and Melinda Gates example, this is just the type of hijinks that the law would allow one to do which might allow an enterprising individual such as Ralph to keep control of the team within his designated heirs but still serve the community if he chooses.
One can avoid a lot of the bit of inheritance taxes by "giving" the wealth to a charitable institution as part of an irrevocable trust. This trust can be controlled to some degree and hire within the bounds of the marketplace family members or other heirs to in run the team.
This would in fact be giving away the asset rather than allowing one's heirs to simply sit on their butts and collect the millions and NFL team produces as though it were a printing press. It does not allow one to escape the so-called death tax and simply pocket the bucks as though your Dad was the king.
However, one can set things up in a manner where the designated heirs essentially maintain control of management of the asset, gets paid some huge but not exhorbitant amount money, but essentially never have to pay for a meal again if you choose as this "manager" would be royalty as far as this town is concerned.
I think the problem is here that folks seem to want 100% and somehow act like they are getting robbed when simply having 75% of the largess involved is a king's ransom.
There are a ton of creative ways where a good trusts and estates lawyer can figure out a way to configure passing on this asset which would still allow a designated Ralph heir to control the team and pocket tons of bucks (though not the megatons inherent in ownership in our pseudo free market society.
Most of these schemes you reference allow a gradual transfer of value over many years. Ralph's problem is that the team erxploded in value recently and he does not have many years and many heirs over which he can pass value.
Your plan is great if all of the estate is liquid sitting in a bank account.
However, when the bulk of teh estate is made up of stock in a business and the underlying real estate, the consequences from the esate tax are much more punitive.
When a family works for several generations to create a family business which is now worth a significant sum and the govt forces teh heirs to sell it to pay taxes - then there is a problem in the system.
Joe Robbie is a case in point. His family was forced to sell the team / stadium to raise the cash to pay the estate tax
-
Having no interest in assaulting little boys I have not worked for the Catholic Church.
My sense is though that after being fortunate in my life financially and having accumulated some stuff, the simple fact is that the best things in life are not things.
I certainly am not Warren Buffett or Bill Gates but it is quite easy for me to see why two of them after successful careers accumulating assets are devoting much of their current time and effort to giving tons of assets away to charitable institutions of their choice.
What they did before in life is not a bad thing at all IMHO, but it is very good to see that they are making the hard work "payoff" by being in a position to give most of their accumulated wealth away.
I hope Ralph is secure enough to do the same.
well - if you have a billion dollars and give away half, Buffwt still has half a billion dollars. (you forget that the GAtes and Buffet money did not go to reral charities - it went to a foundation controlled by Bill and his wife which only has to pay out 5% of the annual earnings (not value) to real functioning chariteis. The good news is that they got a current charitiable deduction to reduce their current income. Just moving the cash from left hand to right hand.
not quite the same as being forced to sell the farm and family business just to pay the tax.
big difference between liquid assets and the ownership of a farm or football team
-
We all want the Bills to succeed, and no man who hates Bill Belichek with such intensity can be all bad, so I will not drag this argument out any further. I do understand the point you are making, AKC, but if 2004 and 2006 are your only examples here, they show how much your argument is a matter of perspective. In 2006, one could just as easily argue that the Bills managed to get not only a very promising DT in McCargo but also a promising safety and strong leader in Donte Whitner. Two important defensive pieces in one round is not a bad thing, and McCargo was indeed a first-round pick, if one is hung up on defining players by when they were drafted.
In 2004, it is worth remembering that the Bills were coming off a season in which their offense had become stodgy and putrescent, and drafting a WR was widely applauded as a smart call. (We can debate the drafting of JP Losman, of course... but that is another thread!). Tim Anderson was a bust, yes, but he was also a first day pick on the DL, who came from a top program and had good ratings. Not exactly proof of ignoring the DL, or if you insist on it, it is a question of degree.
My point with all this is not to say that the Bills have made nothing but brilliant moves. They have made plenty of mistakes. Most of those mistakes, however, are the product less of bad draft strategy, since their selections are not that different from other teams (since 2000, the Bills have drafted a D-lineman in the first round twice, in the second round twice...) than of the natural risk involved with the draft. Some players rise to expectations, some players fail to live up to them. That's why they play the games, right?
Go Bills!
The Bills have missed the boat big time with ragards to their OL.
They have spent 3 picks in the top 4 rounds over the last 10 years (44 picks).
The dynamic duo have spent zero picks, even though they don't have a bona fide backup at either OT on the roster and their C who has been overwhelmed at times becomes a free agent after this year and also needs a competent backup or replacement.
but they did draft 3 DBs and 2 WRs in 2008.
-
Donahoe was ridiculed for selecting too many skill players while ignoring the OL and DL. And even with his dismissal, the same trend is taking place once again the past 2+ years. In this instance, it's not WR's and RB's, but DB's.
It doesn't matter which skill positions are continually drafted, the result is always the same: offenses that can't protect the QB and defenses which are not good enough to put pressure on the QB and stop the run. That's the problem this team has had for years now.
Good teams draft well, and find quality lineman, whether they're early, mid, or even late round picks. Three teams in the league have not made the playoffs since the 20th century. Buffalo, Arizona, and Detroit. All of them have a tendency of using picks on players who line up away from the ball. Check the drafts of those teams.
Using FA repeatedly on lineman because you can't or won't find them in the draft hurts a team's cap hit. That's the price (along with missing the post-season) of selecting skill players. It's not much different than what Donahoe was doing 5 years ago.
no big surprise since the talent evaluators and brain trust (Modrack, Guy , etc) has been the constant over the last 7 years.
-
Then how come all you hear on the tv/radio/news is "when Favre will be reinstated"? If he isn't officially retired, what needs reinstating?
The Packers put him on their Long Term Injured Reserve/Retirement list.
He is not active and can not get paid his salary.
He needs to notify the Pack that he wants to be activated ("reinstated")
-
How can it be tampering if the dude is retired and has NOT filed for reinstatement yet? Can someone explain this to me?
He still hasn't offically filed his "retirement" papers with the league.
He still belongs to the Pack
-
The estate tax with it sizable exemptions and can be avoided if one chooses to donate the money to a reputable charitable cause (or even create a real irrevocable charity which runs the Bills for the benefit of the WNY community- one would need to fight the NFL which would prefer to stop future Green Bays but as Cleveland demonstrated the NFL can be beat) and really is a solvable problem despite the WSJ's politically motivated slant.
running a NFL franchise is not a charitable activity.
avoiding the estate tax by giving up the assets being taxed to a charity only solves the problem if your goal was give away all of your assets to 3rd parties.
probably not the original intention.
you must have worked for the Vatican in a prior lifetime.
-
I think they are better than that right now. Just have not fully shown it yet. But they will. Give it a few months.
They may be better but the stats may actually look worse if the DL actually stops teams from running at will and forces them to throw more.
-
I have a hard time believing the estate tax prevents someone from starting a new business. An unnamed 1994 study isn't too convincing neither are 'some past economic studies'. In 2000, federal estate tax receipts were $29b and state receipts were $8b. The 2004 IRS expense budget for the year was $10billion.
gotta love the liberals.
better to let the government redistribute the wealth as they see fit.
of course, we could always use the method employed by the Catholic church to prevent a build up of assets by families - just prohibit all males from being able to marry and legally pass on property.
a little sex with kids is a small price to pay for wealth re-distribution
-
No offense, but Winfield and Clements wanted WAY too much money. No way Clements was worth 10 years 80 mil. Sorry, but no thanks. That being said, I am getting tired of letting good young players get away, but I think that the FO is starting to change its ways. Take Butler and Williams. A couple of young solid up and coming guys that deserved bigger pay and extensions. The FO gave them both to keep them in Bills unis for the near future. Expect more of the same in the next few months. I think you will see Peters and Evans get resigned and if Lynch has a solid year this season, expect him to get an extension as well. I think this FO is serious about keeping this team together, unlike what I see from the Sabres organization. You want to talk about an organization that lets talent go, try looking downtown.
The concern is the the front office is again overpaying for average talent (Butler, Walker, Williams, Dockery) and playing tightwad with the star players, Evans and Peters. Return to the good old days of overpaying Jerry Ostrowski and friends.
We will see if they suck it up and pay for the talented players. It would also help if they didn't completely piss those players off before finally making an offer.
-
Adam, I enjoy the dialogue, but in this case you are flat out wrong. Ostroski could barely get out of his stance. He was strong, but it made no difference. Slow DTs were able to walk right by Ostroski. Seriously....this is what I look at when I watch games.
Fowler has all the moves/technique, etc., but he is weak. Still, with him there is a fighting chance. Ostroski was painfully horrid.
Good chance Fowler improves this year.
he had surgery to fix his shoulder. not being able to lift is a big reason he wasn't strong enough at the point of attack.
-
Adam, I enjoy the dialogue, but in this case you are flat out wrong. Ostroski could barely get out of his stance. He was strong, but it made no difference. Slow DTs were able to walk right by Ostroski. Seriously....this is what I look at when I watch games.
Fowler has all the moves/technique, etc., but he is weak. Still, with him there is a fighting chance. Ostroski was painfully horrid.
yeah- but he braintrust gave him big money at the time - so he must have been good.
those shotgun snaps were always an adventure
Scouts Inc. Fantasy O-Line rankings
in The Stadium Wall Archives
Posted
Hardy can't beat the jam of a top flight CB.
Fortuantely, Indiana only faced NFL caliber CBs against Ohio State.
He won't have that luxury in the NFL, especially light of the quick release, timing patterns Turk wants to run this year.