vegas55

Okay that's a joke right? Slot corners are asked to blitz more ONLY because they are lined up closer to the QB. Period. You mean the great athlete that Leodis is, with a clear path to QB, can't make that sack. And of course this post does not explain why all the premiere corner backs in the NFL play on the outside, and the scrubs play the slot. Like the typical fan who only watches the ball on TV, and NEVER watches actually watches game film, somehow has better insight into the game than Jim Schwartz or every other NFL executive who values an outside corner far more than the idiots who post on this board.

Joe B and his top 20 rankings of Bills officially became a joke when he listed Robey at 14 well ahead of McKelvin. Is he serious? The position McKelvin played last year is far more difficult than a nickel/slot corner, and as an outside corner McKelvin was often tasked with covering the other teams #1 receiver. And in Pettine's defense, McKelvin was put on an island and did very well. Regardless an outside corner is far more valuable, and far better paid than a slot guy. An NFL team NEVER drafts a cb in round one with the intent of putting him in the slot. The more demanding position by far is outside, ie Revis, Sherman etc. we did not draft Gilmore to play the slot. So Joe B. defended his ranking on WGR yesterday by stating in part that Robey made more plays, including sacks. Hey Joe, the slot guy should have more sacks - he is asked to blitz more often because he is always lined up so much closer to the QB. Comparing the position of slot corner to outside is comparing apples to oranges - one position is so much more demanding - that's why all the great NFL CB s play outside. Joe B was "shocked" when Robey was originally placed on second string during recent OTAs. Well Joe, this was done after a real NFL expert, Jim Schwartz, spent the winter reviewing film. And probably saw how weak Robey was in run support, a critical function for a slot guy. I like Robey as a player, and it looks like he has played himself back on to starting unit. But there's a reason McKelvin was a #1 pick, who was just resigned to a multi year, multi million dollar contract. The undrafted Robey, as much as I like him, is in no way shape or form superior to McKelvin. That laughing you are hearing from one bills drive is NFL coaches reading that WGR s "expert" would rank Robey higher than McKelvin.

Marrone has a chance to be a great coach, and I have my fingers crossed and hope for the best. There are many reasons to be optimistic about him. The negatives about him are very clear - strategically managing the game as it's being played and his failure to embrace statistics based strategy decisions - and obviously these are related. " He really pays lip service to statistics based strategy, and in reality is a coach (like many) who relies on his "experience" and his "gut". As has been demonstrated so clearly in baseball, and elsewhere, that's a terrible and unproductive way to manage a game. Thus so many bad decisions last year, in particular punting from the area of the 40 yard line so many times. Many other examples as well. But this area is a significant, but not an overwhelming substantial part of what a HC does. Marrone does a lot of the other things well. I hope he will grow as a HC, and eventually adopt statistics based strategies.

Aaron Schobel played at about 245 lbs. - Bruce Smith, in his best years around 260

You are kidding right? Putting yourself ahead of the team is the definition of being a poor teammate. Showing up your QB (who is also your teammate) is a classic example of being a poor teammate. "Getting rid of Stevie to help EJs leadership position" is just another way of saying Stevie undermined his QB (teammate) and had to go; another example of being a poor teammate. "Just ask anyone who played with him" - I mean, come on. You think a fan (or a reporter) can just ask a player what kind of teammate a fellow player is and that player is going give a forthright answer and rip his teammate. Does not happen, and for a lot of good reasons.

Really? was it my imagination or did Stevie get benched for putting himself ahead of his team (and teammates) by drawing yet another penalty for his tired and childish end zone celebration. And it Was Marrone who last year had to call Stevie in for a private meeting because of his attitude. And it was Marrone who asked a few of the veteran players to talk to Stevie and try to get through to him. And it was Stevie himself last year who visibly showed up his young QBs when they made a poor throw. Yea - he was a great teammate. That's why the Bills took the big cap hit, and shipped him out for a low draft pick - because he was such a great teammate.

I gotta ask, if as you say, 3 losses are directly attributable to him (and it's actually more), and he was a lousy teammate and consistent trouble guy (benched etc) - what is it that makes you "like" Stevie.

And of course, what makes it worse is how Stevie, as the season progressed, would show up his QBs every time they made a mistake.

Through the beauty of NFL rewind, I recently had the chance to watch Bills opener v Pats last year. In a fairly tough situation for a rookie QB, first game, Patriots, Brady etc - EJ produced quite an impressive performance, much better than I had remembered. He played extremely well. Actually, he appeared to be the most composed player on the offense, and it was disappointing how the veteran players let him (and Bills fans) down. First possession of game, Spiller produces a ridiculous fumble, not from a hit but from shifting ball from right to left hand. Dumb penalties hurt. Chandler has a big drop. And of course, not to be outdone by anybody, good old Stevie Johnson has a huge drop on a very easy pass, 3rd and two on a big drive in the fourth quarter. Thank the heavens that we don't have to watch that loser come up small in big situations anymore. It was especially rough to watch Pats receivers, making less than half the money Stevie was making, come up with difficult catches in that last quarter. So it's a huge positive as far as EJ is concerned, and a classic case of addition by subtraction as the team ridded itself of the choking cancer that Stevie Johnson was.

No doubt Robey played well last year - in pass coverage. And while that's the #1 priority, most NFL defensive schemes require the slot guy to be an important factor in supporting the defense against the run - something Robey struggled with, in part because of his size. But he is a quality DB, no doubt.

Well the documentation that I see is the article posted in this thread, where Ralph claims that Pataki talked him into it. But what is crystal clear from that article is that the Bills negotiated hard to gain the naming rights, which cost the county a lot of money to give up. So if the Bills negotiated for this, and the principled Ralph was against selling the naming rights to a corporate sponsor, what exactly was the Bills plan in terms of naming the stadium? I mean they badly wanted the naming rights, so what was the plan? Why did they want the naming rights so badly if they were not going to sell them? I know the version that the Wilson camp is selling, and which you are buying, is that it never occurred to Ralph to name it after himself, that he was "talked into it". Well maybe, and maybe Ralph was going to name the stadium after a war hero; but Pataki talked him out of that, and convinced him instead to name it after himself. Must have been a tough sale.

What you seem to be implying is that naming the stadium after Ralph Wilson was an idea that never occurred to Ralph, that it was kinda forced unto him. Forgive me if I am completely skeptical about that scenario. And nothing you have stated prevented Ralph from naming the stadium after someone else, perhaps the Buffalo Bill player who died in Vietnam. Again this was a stadium that he did not pay for, and I don't believe he was forced to name the stadium after himself. He had lots of choices, but shockingly, he chose himself.

So Ralph demonstrated that he was a man of principle by naming the stadium after - HIMSELF? You are kidding right - because a man who felt strongly that selling the naming rights for money was wrong could have had the stadium named after a war hero, one of the Bills who died in Vietnam etc etc. Naming a stadium that the taxpayers/fans, not Ralph, paid for in full was not a principled act; it was an ego trip.

So it's the faulty paragraph structure that prevents you from formulating an intelligent/football based response. Quite a barrier for anyone to overcome.

I guess my posts are a bit long so as to encourage intelligent and insightful responses - like yours.

Well I believe Cleveland franchise sold for 1 billion, so 700 million is way less than "a bit below" the Cleveland deal. Since Ralph threw this out to highest bidder, if a new owner committed to keeping the Bills in WNY is not willing to pay that price, we are out of luck. That was my point. And I am always surprised that people continually speculate that Ralph may have expressed "private thoughts" to people that he had a preference Bills be kept in Buffalo - that's wishful thinking. The actual fact is he had plenty of time to fashion a very simple, non binding preference that Bills be kept in Buffalo - he chose not to.

Don Esmonde column in Buffalo News illustrates just how clueless folks can be about the economics of the NFL as it pertains to keeping the Bills in Buffalo. There's no excuse though, for a columnist who has the time and has the obligation to at least research the subject matter he writes about to be so off base. He writes that we need an owner who won't chase the dollar, who will be happy with the 35 million dollar profit the team produces. Well Don, you are right about Buffalo needing an owner who won't be obsessed with maximizing profit. But the "35 million" profit? Well Mr Osmonde, because this team has been thrown out there to highest bidder, a new owner will pay close to one billion dollars for the Bills. And even if he puts up half of that amount in cash, the financing cost will reach at least 40 million annually, a cost that the Bills don't currently have, but a cost that will demolish the 35 million dollar "profit". And that's all thanks to good old Ralph Wilson, who despite the ridiculous hero worship he has received by many on this board (and elsewhere) made no provisions at all in his will, or even expressed a preference in his will, that the team be kept in Buffalo. But why should he have? . The fans/taxpayers of WNY only built and paid for the stadium that bears his name, and the franchise that he so "generously" kept in WNY only produced a billion dollar windfall for him and his heirs. So why should Ralph have even lifted a finger, or expressed even a simple non binding wish, that Bills be sold to an owner committed to keeping the team in WNY.

This coaching staff could not wait to get rid of this guy

It's easy to say it's all about $$$ and I could accept that as a legitimate reason, but the actual question is how would a brand new stadium generate substantially more revenue? It's the reason why the Bills last year said they didn't need one - because it would not. They can't sell all the luxury boxes they have now, and just building new ones doesn't mean they will sell more, for the reasons stated in my original post. Same goes for regular seats; just building a new stadium does not mean you can double ticket prices and still expect to sell out games.

Goodell interviewed by Chris Berman last night repeated what he has said previously; Bills need a new stadium. The question no one ever asks him is - why? Or why it's such a huge priority for HIM. Just last year the Bills themselves were adamant in stating that they don't need a new stadium. For most franchises the advantage of a new stadium lies in the lucrative revenue stream that luxury boxes create. That doesn't apply to Bills, who can't sell all the luxury boxes they currently have and don't have huge corporations presence to pay top dollar for luxury boxes. Having brand new luxury boxes will not create the demand for luxury boxes nor will it lead to substantial price increases/ revenue. If over the next ten years the Bills experience even modest success on the field, and the games sell out, and the fans are generally happy with the stadium experience, why should Goodell be insisting on a new stadium; a stadium by the way he will for the most part expect the fans/taxpayers to pay for. There is no technical feature (lighting, internet connectivity etc) that cannot be addressed with retro fitting. Games here will sell out not because fans have a new stadium to sit in; they will sell out if the team is a consistent winner. It's the height of arrogance to be insisting on a new stadium just because the threat of moving a franchise allows you to.

Listening to WGR at 3 with snoop and his bulldog is like rubber necking an accident on the thruway - a terrible sight but can't help but look. Todays show is a perfect example; host spends a great deal of time hoping and figuring on some way the Bills could get Evans at ninth pick. Host loves Evans. Caller gets through, and states that although he has never seen Evans play, he can tell by looking at both players that Kelvin Benjamin is quicker and more athletic. Although this caller had and took the time to call in and wait on hold; the genius never thought to look up on the Internet that Combine times on Evans were much faster than Benjamin, and that the Evans outperformed on all the other athletic tests at Combine. But the WGR hosts manages to surpass his callers stupidity; despite the fact that the host has been advocating hard for Bills to get Evans, he has no answer to this caller as to why Evans is superior to Benjamin. He eventually mutters a response that a lot of mocks have Evans rated higher. Apparently host knows very little about the player he has just been raving about; and does not have access to the Internet either. My belief is that the bosses at WGR ordered these two hosts to stop talking about the NHL draft and start actually talking about the NFL. Perhaps because we are one of the few and lucky cities to have an NFL franchise, the NFL, after all, only being far and away the most popular league in the US

The NFL, and the Bills, have had a lot to say about enhancing the experience of the fans who buy tickets and attend the games. Russ Brandon has had a lot to say about this subject. And I applaud the Bills and Brandon for spearheading the stadium improvements that will enhance the fan experience. But I would have to point out that it's pretty easy to take those steps (stadium improvements) when somebody else (taxpayers/fans) are the ones primarily paying for it. So hey Russ, if you are really committed to this, how about some enhancements that come out of the Bills pockets. For example, I don't believe it's written in stone anywhere that your concession stands have to sell the lowest quality product for the highest possible prices. That's also part of the fan experience; no one appreciates, after going through the expense and hassle of attending a game, feeling like they get ripped off paying those kind of prices for such a low quality product. I understand if you have to ban fans from bringing in a bottle of water for security purposes, but then to charge an arm and a leg for a bottle of water on a hot day? If you want to charge outrageous prices for beer to discourage terrible behavior - fine - I am good with that. But if you are truly concerned with the fan experience, increase the quality and/or decrease the prices of the other concessions. And please don't blame the vendor, you are receiving such a favorable deal from them only because of the high price/ low quality ratio. This is, after all, an organization that can afford to forego millions in revenue by choosing to name the stadium after it's deceased owner, rather than farming it out to a corporate sponsor. So I am guessing, if you are REALLY concerned with the fan experience, you could could accept a little less revenue to deliver a quality food/drink product to your fans. It has, after all, been quite a while since this organization has delivered a high quality product on the field.

So your point is, on a sorts discussion board, one should never disagree with who the Hall of Fame panel puts in the hall of fame, and who they don't. Funny, every sports discussion show on tv or radio presents discussions where people agree and disagree about who belongs in the hall of fame. But it can't be argued here. Just post "let's go Bills" and skip any and all discussion/disagreement.

But the merger of the AFL and NFL was done to save owners money - they were sick of bidding against each other for players coming out of college. It caused a huge increase in player salary during that time period. And lending money as a basis for getting into the hall of fame?