Rocky Landing

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.

This thread has become utterly unhinged.

I'm amazed at the notion that we should get rid of our best WR because he isn't best enough. And in favor of another teams baggage, to boot.

Best offensive player available, IMO. If we're going with our current QB roster, we MUST improve EJ's options.

Rest in peace, Mr. Wilson.

Nope. From all we have heard from OBD, we are just going to sit on the crappy QB roster we ended the season with.