Rocky Landing

You're kind of making my point for me regarding operating margin. There are several franchises worth much more than the Bills with lower margins (again, expressed as a ratio). Neither operating margins nor operating income are tied to valuation, and indeed, these figures can vary dramatically from year to year, depending on variable costs, business plans, etc, as well as market trends. I'm not sure what you mean by, "operating income is as close to margin as they get." Regarding Los Angeles, you may be right that "the business plan of building a stadium as a landlord only is doomed." But, that's not really what we're talking about, is it? We're talking about the future owners of the Bills. And, quite possibly, the timing of the lease, and the amount of time it would take for an LA stadium to be built (and, no, the AEG/Farmers Field plan is not dead) could work out perfectly for an investment group to buy the Bills with the intention of moving them to LA. This seems obvious to me. (And, despite his current platitudes regarding keeping the Bills in WNY, I believe Goodell, and the NFL would be on board.) The fact that the Bills- the third lowest valued team- has a decent operating margin, makes them more attractive to such a scheme, not less.

First of all, you didn't say "operating income." You said "operating margin." A very different beast. Operating margin is expressed as a ratio. I could literally operate a lemon aid stand with a higher operating margin than the Cowboys (currently, the highest valued team in the league). Be that as it may, I don't follow teams like the 49ers closely enough to know why their operating income this year would be as low as it is. But, I will bet that if you look at the numbers for the operating income of a team like the Cowboys, it would vary greatly from year to year, especially in relation to their operating margin. Operating income is not an indicator of valuation. As for the plans for an LA stadium, neither the Grand Crossing plan, nor the AEG plan are "belly up." The evidence for this is easy to find, but I offer up the following link: http://nfl.si.com/20...es-nfl-stadium/ Here's another one that's downright amusing: http://www.losangele...m/location.html Truly, that an NFL team will find its way to Los Angeles is a near certainty. And, any Buffalo fan that doesn't think that the Bills are in jeopardy of being moved to LA is in denial.

I've read those statements as well, but I'm not sure that I trust what comes out of his mouth. They read to me more like vague platitudes designed to keep everyone calm. I don't believe he really cares if the Bills stay in Buffalo. I do know that he wants a team in LA. I would assume that any concrete plans to move the Bills would not be made public until the last, possible moment. It's fine to air speculation. But, imagine how badly ticket prices would fall if everyone knew that the Bills would be gone in seven years.

The desire to get a football team back in Los Angeles is very real-- not just on the part of the numerous, deep-pocketed investors in Los Angeles, but by the NFL, and Roger Goodell, as well. And, in fact, the timing of the lease agreement may fit into the entire scenario all too well. I should note that I live in Los Angeles (born and raised in Rochester), and that an NFL team will eventually be in Los Angeles is almost a certainty. And, while much hay has been made of Buffalo's "viability" as a market, it should be pointed out that in 2012 (according to Forbes) the only two teams less profitable than the Bills were the Jags, and the Raiders. But, make no mistake-- Los Angeles is going to get an NFL team. The links below do not represent mere pipe dreams. http://www.losangelesfootballstadium.com/location.html http://nfl.si.com/2014/02/05/los-angeles-nfl-stadium/

Well, not even close-- unless you choose to remove the games he didn't play due to injury from the data curve, which is completely contrary to my point. And, really, that's only one reason that a normalization curve is deceptive in this comparison. One of EJ's biggest criticisms has been that he is inconsistent. A normalized production metric will mask inconsistency.

I was going by a Forbes article on the subject of team profitability. Here's the link: http://www.forbes.com/nfl-valuations/ Saying that "LA hasn't been able to get their stadium situation settled for over 20 years," is little more than snark. I live in Los Angeles (and for the record, would be depressed by the Bils moving here), and I can say that building a new stadium is only a matter of time. There have been several plans floated, and the money and resources are definitely there. A team moving to Los Angeles is almost a certainty. Let's hope it's not the Bills.

I have to wonder if Roger Goodell isn't quietly working behind the scenes to try to get the Bills to Los Angeles. Over the last few years, he has been quite vocal about his desire to get a team in LA, and now he has been a little too quiet on the issue. And, the $400mil lease restriction could time out perfectly as it could certainly take that long for LA to get their stadium situation settled/built. On the other hand, I suspect that Goodell, and the NFL would be quite satisfied with the Bills moving to Toronto, as it has been the plan/dream to make the NFL "international," and that would be a logical next step in that direction. In 2012, only the Jags, and the Raiders were less profitable than the Bills. It will be tragic if they move, but it sure isn't unlikely.

Admitting that you might be wrong is a symptom of an active, and open mind. Plus, it helps engage those that you are debating by giving them a sense that there may, indeed, be a reason to debate you. I was being a bit snarky in referencing the "IMO" tag. But, my point is that to state a prediction as something that is incontrovertible fact (as was the poster I was replying to, and many others on these boards), hurts one's argument far more than "IMO" by making them seem close-minded, and immune to counterpoint. "I don't believe that EJ will ever be above average," sounds a lot more intelligent than, "EJ will never be above average." IMO. (Personally, I fear, and suspect that EJ will not develop into an above average QB. But, I would be an idiot to simply say "he never will" and, to quote the poster I was criticizing, "that's all there is to it.")

At least stick an "IMO" at the end of a post like that.

It's a fine line between optimism, and denial.

Good point.

I appreciate the optimism, and all, but Flacco made it to the conference championship his rookie year, starting every game. If your prediction is going to come true, EJ has some catching up to do.

My position is that if the Bills are truly sold on EJ as their starter this year, and are putting all their eggs in that one, questionable basket, they should be drafting the best available offensive player (other than a QB, of course) in at least the first three rounds. But, to be honest, if one of the top QBs falls to the ninth pick, Bortles, Bridgewater, Manziel, and we take him, I'll breath a sigh of relief.

What if they ask him to play more than half a season?

I think I'm actually less than 50/50. Take the injury prone possibility away, and I would be 50/50.

The one detail that makes me feel good about this deal is that Marrone knows him. Well. In fact, I believe that I read somewhere that Marrone said he had kept in touch with him while he was a Buc. I don't believe there is anything here that Marrone doesn't know he is getting into. If Marrone's comfortable with it, I'm comfortable with it.

Fair enough.

As Beerball very aptly put it, "He's had his moments, good and bad." In fact, along with his "2 crucial drops," SJ has had some amazing catches. He also remains our most productive wide receiver. That's pretty hard to deny. Why wouldn't you accept that? If you were arguing rationally, you would admit that statistically demonstrable fact. And then, maybe you would come up with some plausible reason why we should get rid of our best wide receiver, or why three consecutive 1,000+ yard seasons were somehow made up of "meaningless yards." I won't hold my breath.

I'm really, really, really, wishing we could keep politics out of sports discussions.

I do stand corrected: Scott Chandler had more receiving yards than SJ last season. To answer your question, I would define "clutch" as the ability to perform well under pressure, as when the team you are playing for is trailing. Like, in November, 2010, when Stevie had a 137-yard, three touchdown game in which the Bills came from behind to beat the Bengals 49-31-- the very week before Stevie's now-famous overtime drop against the Steelers, in which, I have to assume (judging by your demeanor), you lost money.

Any WR who leads their team in receiving yards will have dropped balls. That two of them came at crucial times is not proof of a player not being clutch. Honestly, the idea that a WR with multiple 1,000 yards seasons (under poor QB play to boot) can't play under pressure is a pretty hard sell. And, while SJ only posted 597 receiving yards last season ("meaningless" yards, I assume), guess who posted more? A: Nobody. I'll say it again: the idea that we should cut our best WR because he isn't best enough is bizarre.

I am of the opinion that the biggest problem with our team last season BY FAR was our QB situation. I can't believe we are just going to sit on the roster we ended the season with. This just seems like a huge risk to our entire season. I certainly don't think that Freeman is the best insurance policy. I was quietly hoping that we would pursue a trade with Miami for Matt Moore, even thought the price would have been high. Be that a it may, if we experience the same sort of QB issues this coming season that we did in '13, we will be very badly at square one in '15. That is my opinion. I believe that we an experienced veteran, if for no other reason than to keep the rest of the team moving forward should we experience another QB bust.

Fascinating thread. The problem with applying this system to draft position, though (if I am interpreting it correctly) is that you are assuming that a skill player, like a WR, will have the same value as an OL with the same rating. Would a WR who reached a 45 not be worth more than an OL who reached 56?

You are correct: it is hard for me to understand your logic. What I believe I do understand is that your theory of meaningless yards is silly. You are trying to match statistics to fit your theory, but it doesn't work. In '10, '11, and '12 (the three seasons that SJ posted over 1,000 yards) the Bills lost a total of 17 games (out of 48) by 10 or more points. Assuming that every single one of those teams played prevent defense for the entire second half (another silly notion), that still only represents about 18% of playing time for those three seasons. And, if you're going to suggest that the majority of his yards were posted in such games during garbage time, you would be very wrong. In fact, his yardage from game to game in those seasons was remarkably consistent, and in only one of his 100+ yard games did we lose by a margin of over 10 points. In my mind (limited in its understanding, though it may be) that would suggest that his productivity was meaningful, indeed. I won't even ask how the Bills playing hurry-up offense would render his yards "meaningless." Thanks a lot. Now you've got me engaged in this irrational discussion.

As long as they aren't "1,000 meaningless yards," as referenced by another poster. I still haven't figured out how 1,000 yards in a season could ever be meaningless.