Rivermont Mike

I'll take 4-2! How'd you do that!? ; )

When I was a kid in the late Sixties, I would watch or listen to the Bills every week. It was my team, it was my city, and that's what we did win or lose. (There was more "lose" than "win" in those years.) Fast forward to 2012: I was sitting in utter disbelief in mid-fourth quarter and my son, who is the same age now as I was then, looked as disappointed as I did. Ever get the feeling that you've come full circle? Yeah, that.

I wonder if he has aggravated his injury. Not making excuses--if he's on the field, he has to perform.

T-r-a-i-n w-r-e-c-k.

I am, generally, able to ignore most of the preseason prognosticating on TBD because I buy into the notion that the team is making adjustments, not showing their hand, pretty vanilla, etc. However, considering the comments coming from Levitre, Wood, and Gailey just prior to the game of the preseason for the starting unit, I've got to confess to being a bit worried. Your thoughts? http://www.buffalonews.com/sports/bills-nfl/article1019741.ece?two-bills-drive To be more specific, it was this quote from Levitre that caused the concern: "I don't know when it's going to click," Levitre said. "We only have a week, and it's not like you can just flip a switch."

Two of my uncles had season tickets during those early Rockpile years, and I remember seeing the programs at their homes. Sorry for your loss.

There have been a number of threads on TSW in which posters have said that a better Bills record depends on Fitz playing better this season. There are people who consider him to be "average." In your opinion, does Fitz "doing better this season" mean A) more touchdowns, fewer INTs; B) same number of touchdowns, fewer INTs; or C) more touchdowns, more INTs. Asked a different way: would you accept am average Fitz who is a leader, has intangibles that can lead the Bills to 10-11 Ws, and puts up average passing numbers? Discuss.

Whoops. Original post corrected.

Earlier this evening... Me (thinking): Hey, maybe I'll post something positive on TBD that fans can feel good about. ::fail::

Two of our boys (7 and 5) attended the Red Cross Blood Drive today at The Ralph. Not only did Bryan Scott let them sit at the autograph table and take pictures with him, he made them feel like they were the most important Bills fans ever. That's an NFL player with a lot of class. The Bills organization did locker room tours, let them wear helmets, and let them run around on the field. Great photos, temporary tattoos, photos with Jills, and something they'll remember for a long time. The front office gets a lot of crap on this board (sometimes justified), but they did this right today.

My original point: as soon as Lee was hired and his opinions hit the media, this board lit up with people picking apart Fitz's mechanics and explaining why he wouldn't be able to open up his hip, no time for muscle memory, etc. etc. etc. All I'm saying is that, with respect to other posters, I am going to stick with the opinions of a professional coach who is actually on the field working with our QB. Lee and Fitz might fail completely, but then again, Lee might change one little glitch in Fitz's throwing that could result in a few more completions in a game. The only thing that is minimally acceptable at this point is a wildcard spot. GO BILLS!

I can see it now...90 yard TD from Young to Ochocinco. OMG...it's Dream Team II!

Other than E. Manning, T. Romo, and Brady (with his late coach from Michigan), can you name the "lots of quarterbacks?"

Let's see...38 years coaching experience, has worked with Romo and E. Manning, and from Wawrow's article: "To Lee, Fitzpatrick has all the tools - confidence, toughness, mobility and plenty of arm strength [emphasis mine]- to succeed at this level. It's just a matter of smoothing out the rough edges." With all due respect to the insightful posters on this board who have questioned Fitz's skills and have called him a "backup at best," I'm going to go with the expert on this one. I am not slamming your opinions, just suggesting that there's a chance that this guy can "smooth out the rough edges" and get Fitz to the next level. Maybe I've had too much of the Kool-Aid.

Good categories. #1 here

He had 14 TDs and 7 INT in the first half of the season (including Washington game). Not Pro Bowl numbers, but I wouldn't say that his throwing "sucked." There are, and have been, plenty of winning quarterbacks with less-than-ideal mechanics. And just because fans are aware of QB mechanics coaches doesn't mean that every NFL QB uses one. When Fitz gets some help with the nuances, the knuckleballs and near-INTs will drop in frequency. This is an NFL QB performing at a very high level, not some dub off the street. There are a lot of people on this board wondering about muscle memory and Fitz's ability to change old habits. That's all cr#p. He's a professional quarterback who is paid to throw TDs. If he improves his mechanics, he wins games and his bosses are happy. If he doesn't, he gets benched.

Yeah, minus the fabulous hair, super-model wife, and 'lil Wes Welker to dink and dunk to 700 times a game, there is no way he can throw like a Brady.

You're taking into consideration the broken rib in the second half of last season, right? The work on his mechanics should help--making a throw to the left with more accuracy = fewer DBs jumping the route and taking it to the house. Right there with you on wanting him to be the guy. He's got that workmanlike quality that fits the Bills and Buffalo. Save me some room on the FitzWagon--I'm climbing back on with my #12 jersey.

You, sir, are a genius, Now go tell the suits how to get this done!

That's what I was driving at in one of my earlier replies mentioning the considerable personal wealth of the surviving Rogerses. It is conceivable that the bulk of the 91% control of Rogers may be the three or four family members, with the other directors holding nominal amounts. Thanks for the reminder on the difference between large, publicly-traded corporations and closely-held private corporations--or even LLCs. The 18 I referenced are directors of Rogers--if I can find that PDF again, I'll post the biographies of the owners in a reply. Thanks for all of the links and pointers--appreciate your help. Update: this is even better than what I found earlier--here is the rundown on all of Rogers' directors, including the insiders. What this doesn't reflect is the value of the Rogers trust--and that is where the wealth lies. Anyway, for what it's worth: http://investing.businessweek.com/research/stocks/people/board.asp?ticker=RCI:US

Rogers paid approximately $75 million for the last deal and will pay a smaller amount for this deal. The article I cited indicated that the Bills' take on each game was twice what it would make in revenue at a home game in the Ralph--and Rogers lost its shirt for the large part of the Bills/Toronto Series. They're not dumb, and they are not going to pay double the revenue projection for a home game just because they're Rogers. That's why I asked the question in the first place. Your examples of UFC and Sesame Street don't hold up. Rogers is not paying $11M+ to host a UFC match or a Sesame Street live show.

Thanks for the reminder about the corporate ownership rule. I just checked Rogers' annual report (I googled something like "Rogers Communications structure). I wanted to see if it was private or public. It is public, but it is relatively closely held. The companies 18 owners hold over 91 percent of the company's stock. Three or four of them are survivors of Ted Rogers. It would seem that there could be enough personal wealth to see a primary owner emerge. The rule blows a hole in my theory about Rogers' diversification. However, it brings me back to my original question. What's in it for Rogers? If it awfully expensive dabbling minus some intent. Another question: do any of you remember if the Bills sought this out, or did Rogers approach Wilson/Brandon?

I've been reading the posts on TBD about the expected expansion of the Bills/Rogers deal. While there's been a lot of debate among TBD fans about what this extensions means for the Bills and the franchise's future in Buffalo, there's virtually no discussion about Rogers' motivation. Even this article from canoe.ca doesn't really delve into the Rogers side of things. The last paragraph of the article mentions that Rogers recently acquired co-controlling shares of two sport franchises: "As well, pending final approval, Rogers Communications bought a co-controlling share of the NHL's Toronto Maple Leafs and NBA's Toronto Raptors, along with Bell Canada." My question: is Rogers looking to diversify its entertainment portfolio and doing some live, regular-season-game market testing, i.e. the "Bills/Toronto series? The games enable it to assess demand for NFL product in Toronto/southern Ontario and gauge WNY- and US-based Bills fan reaction to the game day experience at its facility vs. the Ralph. (My hope is that they are getting a clue that there will not be tens of thousands of fans who will follow the franchise to Toronto. I won't.) Yeah, its a lot of money for market research, but if you have to justify dropping upwards of $1B US to your shareholders to acquire an NFL franchise, you'd better have your data ready. Two five-year series at $75M each--and this newest is going to be less than that, supposedly--is only about 10% of the eventual purchase price for this franchise. That's right in line with standard practice. If Rogers is in an acquisitive mode, it knows that an NFL franchise will make it far more than the Raptors or Maple Leafs will ever make. The value of the TV deal alone would add a healthy infusion of cash to its operations. And here's the kicker: if a stadium deal goes through, and the state and its taxpayers pay the bill for a nice renovation, the smart move would be to keep the franchise in Buffalo where there's a built-in fan base that draws from all over the region, including Toronto and So. Ontario. Rogers could provide luxury coaches to transport corporate box owners to the Ralph and still make a killing. Moving the team to Toronto, where the marketing team would have to a) fight to get the Toronto and Ont. fans to attend in profitable numbers, and b) overcome hoards of the CFL-for Canada ilk who will suddenly become fervent Hamilton Ti-Cats fans, would be a monumental blunder. It would be great to see Pegula get the team. But if he doesn't, don't assume that a Rogers purchase would mean a slam-dunk move north. They are clearly not engaged in the Bills/Toronto Series to make money hand over fist. If this is a portfolio move, it could be the best thing for the Buffalo Bills. Lots of foreign companies own assets in the States, and they don't change the name or location. Profit is profit, and we're all proving that the Bills are a viable, profitable NFL product--even with more than a decade of struggle. Do you really care if the team is owned by an old dude in Detroit or a monolithic media/entertainment company in Toronto? I don't. As long as this franchise stays in Buffalo, I'm good. I'd be interested in your perspective on what kind of skin Rogers has in this game. GO BILLS!!