The Dean

Completely agree. Kelly will likely have some role as an ambassador with Pegula (unless he burns those bridges in the process--but not likely).But not as a decision maker. I remember posters saying Jim should be OC or HC. The guy has never been a coach of a team outside of perhaps Pop Warner. If he was serious about being a coach, he would have taken a QC position somewhere. Congratulations. Once again, you have no conception of reality. Of course, I assume you were taking a shot because of Kelly's long help position he has a "group" to buy the Bills. But I question why you appear, in thread after thread, to basically make a comment which contributes nothing.

For Christ's sake. RELAX. Believe Wawrow if you believe anyone. JBJ may have had conversations with Jimbo. So what? This Bon Jovi hate is over the top. (BTW I can't stand the guy because he makes terrible music.) The mook's Toronto group is in shambles, he's just trying to come up with something. If reports are correct, Jim wants to control all football decisions. Look, I live Jim, but brains were never his strong suit. Nobody with any sense would even dream of giving him that kind of control. It's a bit sad, and odd, that Jim wouldn't just get behind the Pegula bid, but I suppose he is looking out for his family. Perhaps Pegula will throw him a bone once he acquires the team. But til then, he's Han Solo. That's Pegula's best approach at this juncture.

You are correct, there are risks associated with expansion. But you wouldn't need 4 teams. Divisions can have a different number of teams. It's been done before. For many years one division in each conference had four teams, the rest five. So if the NFL REALLY wants a team in LA and TO, they have that option. I don't like it any more than you do, but it's a way to get it done, on a timetable, without relocation.

In the context of the conversation it means a lot. Paying $1 Billion + for a team, then moving them to a market that has terrible track record of supporting football, becomes riskier if they don't bring any US fans with them. This isn't London. Toronto is close to the US border and not "offshore". My guess is, Rogers expected many Bill fans to follow the team. I think he would be shocked how few actually would. Fortunately we don't have to worry about that. Putting an expansion team there makes more sense (though I doubt it would be successful, either),. You aren't risking a currently profitable business, probably paying much less for the team, and are expected to grow the market from scratch.

Sounds about right, and reasonable. Which brings me back to my ridiculous hypothetical. About the only chance JBJ had would have been if he picked a better group to be involved with (with no apparent motive to move the team), as a minority owner . Maybe someone known to/trusted by the community. Then if things didn't work out long term, escape with the team. Years later buy out his partners if he gets rich enough. Far fetched to be sure. Which was kind of my point. BTW, keep bringing the great info. Between you and Bandit (and my friend Kelly the Dog) we've been in front of the curve the entire time.

Well that's good to know. What are they using as criteria for "commitment"?

Of course. But by not being aligned with the TO Vultures, who were quite obviously positioned to move the team, he wouldn't be under as much scrutiny as he is now. He could (and this is all very hypothetical) align himself with partners as rich, or richer than, Pegula. Honor the lease and then press to move the team. In fact, any of the bidders can do that--they aren't legally chained to Buffalo for life. My point being, it would have to be something completely different for him to have a chance at moving the Bills. Pretty soon it will be flashing!

He agrees to be a minority owner of a different group of investors. perhaps.

I agree with most of this post, except for the bolded part. I believe moving a team to Toronto would be a financial nightmare. Maybe the worst move one could make. There are probably markets that might deliver a better return, but I don't' believe TO is one of them. Moving a team from Buffalo (a safe, reliable and established NFL market) to another country, with a terrible record of supporting football (NFL or CFL) is a major risk.

I have no problem with Tuel's ranking. Thad might deserve to be called the #2 and be a few ranks higher, IMO---but so what. The real problem with this list, IMO, is ranking a guy like Mallett at #8. Based on what? His career 25% completion rating, based on a whopping 4 NFL passes? Or his generally terrible performance in preseason games? What has this guy done at the NFL level? I'll tell you what he's done: Nothing. Seriously I wouldn't rank him any higher than Tuel or Thad. Another is Derek Anderson at #27? A guy who, let's face it isn't the most accurate QB, has 43 NFL starts to his credit gets ranked this far down the list? I tell you what, If my QB goes down in the middle of a game, I'd rather have Derek Anderson, or any QB with experience, than Ryan freaking Mallett. The list should be broken into two, IMO. Experienced QBs and Inexperienced QBs. As your #2 QB are you looking for a veteran who can hold down the position? Or are you looking to develop a QB behind your established starter? Those are two very different uses for the backup. Some teams need to develop a QB. Others could use a veteran (I think the Bills are one of those teams). Given the authors stated goal. "The guiding principle is which quarterback we would choose as premium insurance for the 2014 season alone." I'd say he completely screwed the pooch on many of these rankings.

As a research nerd (well, former research nerd, I guess) I'd love to see the methodology, the instrument, the sample and the data. While I don't doubt Buffalo isn't high on the list for most players, conclusions such as "doubling the salary" demand further analysis. That and reporters have no idea of how to analyze research, plus what typically passes for research these days is horrible.

Apparently some drivers think a knee-jerk reaction to this sad event might cause more problems than it solves. They claim there shouldn't be a rule against staying in your vehicle. I admit I don't know what's right here, but any rule should be discussed in detail before being enacted. But I have heard nobody defend walking around the track after an accident.

OK, before someone else points it out. Feb 30th. I got ya, I'm officially an idiot.

Thanks. Another reason to not like Stern. He keeps questionable company.

For those of us who aren't Stern fans, who might those bidders be? Absolutely, I forgot to mention that.

It's interesting you suggest only two options: He didn't race because he was pressured or because he was "suicidal".. Truth is I feel uncomfortable speculating as to anyone's motives after such a traumatic incident Add to that teammates and spokespersons and the entire thing becomes a speculative nightmare. Obviously (well to a thinking, feeling human) traumatic incidents like this can result in many different behaviors. The way people handle grief varies from individual to individual. I know I've used her as an example before, but turning into a Nancy Grace (Ie, despicable human) and attributing motives to people (especially after traumatic events, who you don't know and have no contact with) is pretty offensive. But continue to spread the hate. That seems to be what you are best at.

If that's true, I'd make a small wager that it gets cancelled. I'd give them as many preseason games as they want!

The problem with you connecting dots, is you choose the dots you feel like connecting. I can make a dipper out of any group of stars. You certainly were indignant when someone suggested Ward committed suicide (as was I). For some reason you feel comfortable making the worst assumptions about Stewart. You are a sad person.

You don't KNOW that isn't the only reason he didn't race. What you know is his people said he would race. You know there was fallout. And you know he changed his mind. You ASSUME the reason he changed his mind was exclusively because of the fallout. Perhaps the fact that he was involved in a death sunk in after a night's sleep. Sometimes things don't sink in right away. Perhaps it is harder by the day to know this young man died at his hand---whether or not he was at fault. You continue to assume the worst about Stewart, and when called on it back away and say you didn't. We don't know what he would have done without the fallout.

I will be very surprised, and most likely very happy, if we know anything that soon. I sure hope you are right, but I don't expect that. Brilliant!

My thoughts exactly I expect him to get sicker. Poor man.

Stop it you kids! I'll turn this car around. Don't make me come back there.

Is there anything new here, other than enforcement? I can't tell. Defensive holding and illegal contact have always been automatic 1st downs, right? And contact after 5 yards has always been illegal contact, right? (I'm pretty sure that it true.) One thing that always confused me was refs waiving off PI penalties because the throw was uncatchable. Well it might no longer be PI, but it remains illegal contact, right? I mean if you can call illegal contact on the opposite side of the field from where the ball is thrown why can't you call it when the pass is uncatchable? I'm not for having a bunch of penalties. The return game is one area that has gotten out of control. But I do support consistency in the calling of penalties. I assume there will be too many penalties during preseason. More than we would like in regular season and fewer still in post season. Eventually the DBs will adjust. But in the meantime, the Bills will get killed, either with ticky tac calls against out DBs, or blatant non calls favoring the opposing team (Pats* for example). Hey we're Bills fans. God hates us.

Well it isn't. But you go ahead and continue to think so,. It doesn't matter. Agreed that you shouldn't. But of course you can do it. And this is about what Jaws said/thought. Not what the correct way is to analyze the TO group situation. There is a very good chance that JBJ thought he could pull this off in Buffalo, too. It's folly for us to believe it, to be sure, but people aren't always rational when it comes to their dreams---or their friends. Jaws remarks were misguided and we was probably deluded. BJB may have been/may be as well. But I don't think that makes Jaws a willing co-conspirator in moving the Bills out of Buffalo. But as I said, believe whatever you want. Join the feeding frenzy/lynch mob. Ignore the subtleties of thought and action and be absolutely sure you can know what someone is thinking. Let emotion drive your interpretations. I get it. I think I've said all I have to say on the matter. So I'm moving on,

No doubt Dog.