Rocky Landing

Hmm... would the Hamburg Kikes be much better? I guess not. But perhaps, were the team in Maryland, it would be an issue for the Maryland State Legislature?

The argument has been made that, regardless of whether or not the name should be changed, the Senate has no business discussing it. Well, the more I think about it, the more I disagree. Really, having a team, in the nation's capital, with such an offensive name is a national embarrassment. It's along the same lines as if Berlin, the capital of Germany, had a soccer team called the Berlin Kikes. It really is.

Very rational.

I didn't expect everyone to understand my sarcasm. Your post suggested that words should be limited in their meaning, stripped of the ability to offend. Your statement that, "I don't give one whirlygig what a name says and no one else should, either." implies that there is no excuse for someone to place enough meaning in a title, that it could convey something offensive. Which, in turn, implies that words should not have the ability to offend. So, where do you draw the line? How much meaning should words have the ability to communicate? Does that mean that I don't have the right to express my opinions about the Bills because I am from Rochester?

As ExiledinIllinois pointed out, they are the Washington Redskins, as in Washington DC. If the team weren't in their own city, I would agree with you. But, as residents of the city, I think they have every right to express their opinion.

So, is your post supposed to mean something? Or, is it just a random pile of letters scattered on a page?

I think the Bills should move to Rochester, and become the Rochester Bills.

I know. But, it's certainly not worthy of its own thread. Of course, it could never happen, for a myriad of reasons.

Numerous Native American tribes, as well as the National Congress of American Indians have spoken out against the name, claiming that it is offensive, and tantamount to the "N-word." Would you characterize the Native American community as, "extremist, butt hurt liberals?" http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2013/11/27/native-american-leaders-speak-out-against-redskins-name/

Here's a great idea the would never happen: Merge the Giants and the Jets into one team, then create a new team in L.A. Would have to shift around the divisions somehow, but how are the Dallas Cowboys part of the NFC East anyway? Just a late-night, weird thought.

Going with Bortles. I can't see Henne going the entire season while their first rounder warms the bench. I just don't believe it.

On a lighter note, we are 80/1 to win the Super Bowl, a slight improvement over last year.

If I recall, that is exactly what it was last year.

I think both of these points are true. The Jauron years were dark days, indeed.

I think that one of the significant differences is that in '09, under Jauron's dreadful "no huddle/no offensive line" scheme, Edwards (who was already gun-shy and ruined by this system, and had earned the moniker, "Captain Check-down") had all of 2.2 seconds to get rid of the ball before getting flattened. So, what good was a deep threat like TO? I think that equally as important as Watkins, is our upgraded (hopefully) O-line. If EJ steps it up (and, granted, that's a big "IF"), he should have time in the pocket, unlike Edwards. Let's hope.

I've been living in L.A. for over 20 years, now (born and raised in Rochester), and have been following the LA/NFL situation fairly closely. I think the Chargers are pretty much safe in San Diego. That's a solid market. Apparently, the Jags are off the table for moving anywhere. I would say that the Rams, and the Raiders are the top two candidates, in that order, with the Bills third. But, I think it is a mistake to think there is a race to LA. If someone bought the Bills with the intention of moving them after seven years, they wold have to have a deal already worked out with Los Angeles AND the NFL. That would exclude another team from moving in before them. A Bills move to LA seems unlikely at this moment-- and the sooner a sale takes place, the less likely it is. But, it's not outside the realm of possibility.

Guiton should be awesome, as he can be a combination of Tuel and Kaufman, and morph into some crazy TE hybrid. BAM!!! Imaginary hole filled!

Ignorant, trolling statement.

Very excited about the team, and our additions this year. But, we're going to have to get a second locker room for all the baggage.

Do we really know this? I'm not asking to pick a fight. I really don't watch much college ball-- I've only seen his highlights. What I saw was certainly impressive, no doubt. But, watching the highlights, I had two thoughts: 1) I didn't see any amazing grabs. He seemed to always be open. Does he have the ability to get to the ball in tough coverage? The ability to get open is great-- but certainly won't be as easy in the NFL. How will he perform vs an NFL DB? 2) His speed is amazing. His acceleration is amazing. And he knocked over defenders like they were bowling pins. BUT, I couldn't help thinking that there isn't a single person on any NFL defense that would get knocked down like the college players shown in his reel. I know you're a huge Watkins fan, and I assume you watch college ball. Educate me.

I'm not sure why, but this list depresses me.

The OP has made some good points here. A few thoughts: 1) There is certainly a balance that has to be met between the profitability of the franchise vs. the profitability of the NFL. But, I'm not entirely sure that plays in Buffalo's favor. The league must look at the size of each fan base, as well as how the participation of the team affects the NFL brand. The OP makes the point that the participation of the Bills, an original AFL team, helps maintain the brand and lend weight to the leagues traditional roots. That certainly is true, and a good point, but the overall fan base is small. So, what would present a net benefit to the league? Keeping a small, original franchise, or turning that franchise into a much larger fan base, e.g. Los Angeles? 2) If the sale of the Bills drags on (which, hopefully won't happen), seven years may actually time out perfectly for the Bills to be moved. 3) I'm not convinced that hockey is an apt comparison. The NFL has a much larger market, and having two teams that close together in a far less dense market than NY, could present too much overlap. 4) If the NFL sees a move out of Buffalo as financially beneficial, I don't think it will be hard to get that 75% vote. 5) Nothing against Upstate NY (I was born and raised there!) but, It's cold up there! (...and, kinda boring...) It may not be too hard to convince the players to move! Good points, though from the OP.

That's really just hyperbole. You're equating risk assessment, and valuation with fear. There's a big difference between fear and rationality, just like there is a big difference between courage and recklessness. Your continued assertion that we can't make any judgement on the value of future drafts because we don't know who will be in that draft is silly. To say that we can't, or shouldn't make any predictions of future needs, even based on our current roster, is short-sighted. To say that anyone debating such subjects is operating out of fear is insulting. For the record, I am happy with the Watkins trade. But, I see no problem with evaluating its value based on how it fits with our current roster, and plausible future needs-- including EJ Manuel, and the quarterback position.

No it's not. Future values are always based on speculation. And, obviously, Whaley, et al, took such speculation into consideration when negotiating the trade. So, why can't we debate that speculation?

I did answer the question: It would be a zero risk trade with a high potential return. (As opposed to what we got: A high risk trade with a high potential return.) And, why are external sources not germane to football decisions?