klos63

The NFL seems to be doing quite well with their TV contracts, I'm guessing the networks are quite pleased with the 'flawed slate of games' . So you won't watch games that don't involve the AFC or the Bills? How many fans out there want to spend their Thanksgiving or stay up late Monday night watching the Bills? Be serious, the Bills high TV ratings are for local viewership - Buffalo fans watch the Bills games. The rest of the nation probably isn't too hot on them right now. I doubt the networks want a MNF game with Tim Tuel at the helm.

Exactly, this is such a useless discussion. We are now analyzing the percentages of AFC / NFC matchups on primetime. Seriously. I wish my life so free of obilgations that I can worry about things like this. I'm looking forward to the season, I really won't give the schedule a second thought except- who do we play next week? It's not really very interesting. Better matchups, more high profile teams for better ratings. It's just like Yankees / Red Sox always on ESPN - it's what the majority of viewers want to watch - viewers = $$$$. It's really quite simple.

you are assuming the weather won't suck in Buffalo when San Diego and Miami vist. That's a big assumption.

I don't believe I have contradicted myself, but my personal preference is OT. I think it's a higher priority than any other offensive position.

I would hope the new owner has a better understanding of the draft and the importance of the offensive line than you do. I doubt GM's get fired for making 'safe' picks, if that means building a great offensive line. They get fired for making bad picks. Picking a strong OT is never a bad thing to do. You can get all the great WR you can find but if you have a crappy offensive line, kiss the season goodbye. It's that simple.

I was being sarcastic when I said that you are right in one aspect. It doesn't always come through in the written word. Drafting one of two franchise type WR in the draft would not be considered an unsafe pick. You're really stretching your argument with the reasoning being a round 5 pick from a second rate college will start at tackle - that boarders on ridiculous. You are trying to create a scenario that is so unlikely to occur it needn't be discussed. Basically you are saying, they probably won't do something obviously stupid, else they may make a bad impression on a prospective owner and lose their jobs. Yeah, you are on to something there. (that was sarcasm!). Do you think Seattle won because of their Wide Receivers? I would think taking a WR who some are projecting at #2 would be an incredibly safe pick at #9(Watkins). Just because we may not be able to name the starting RT of Seattle, it doesn't decrease his value. I think the term 'safe' is inappropriate here. Is it a good pick or a bad pick, and that will be determined after the player actually plays some games.

Really makes no sense at all. What does playing it safe mean? Not making a ridiculous pick? I can't imagine they are thinking of new ownership when deciding which player to pick. If they want to improve their resume, you make good picks and then coach them well. I guess you are right in one aspect, if they picked a player not a value at #9 in a position they don't need - say Center..., yeah then they should worry about their jobs.

saying there would be teams lining up to move here may be the most ridiculous statement ever posted here. Really.

Do you really think the Bills are bringing in a punter just for kicks(sorry). Moorman is no longer an elite punter, far from it. I was surprised they signed him in the offseason to come back. The Bills will bring in people with the hopes of improving the team, whether a long shot or a solid prospect, they will try to improve. I don't believe this is a situation where we just bring in someone for reps. If we go into the season thinking we are in great shape at punter, that's a bad move.Also, if you were expecting stiffer competition - who would you bring in instead and why?

Agreed, we also need a fall back should Moorman get hurt at any point during the season and then we have a player we have familiarity with. Sometimes I really don't feel that people think before they write.

Players are so easy to assess now. Just look at some numbers. No need to watch players or have them come to camp.

Just curious, how good is our franchise? what will people around the league find out about our team? Have you been to other stadiums and training facilities? I think the national perception of the Bills is probably spot on. Over 50 years, the majority of the time a pretty lousy team playing in an outdated facility.

I'm assuming everyone realizes this, but trading down(or up)requires another team to want to trade with you. I see people all the time suggesting these trades as if it's a simple choice to move up or down. The other team needs a reason to do it too.

I think the off the field risks are overblown, however troublesome. It hasn't affected his play on the field and if Tampa wasn't in a position to draft a top WR, they may have kept him. I think they tired of him, but he is still plenty useful. The Bills may tire of him after a couple years too, but this guy gets about 7-8 TD's a year. That's huge.

Exactly, with a dominant line, you can dictate the game.

If we need a tackle, why not draft a great one. It's an important position and we won't have to worry about the huge contract for 4-5 years. Doesn't make sense to wait a few rounds if a stud is there at #9.

you have a very bright mother!

are we talking a $300 - $400 million dollar policy? What insurance company would insure and 85 year old for that amount?

One point that I have not heard mentioned. Perhaps the buyout was put in to avoid a court hassle and benefit the county. Use the example of Bon Jovi purchasing the team in say 2016 and wanting to move to Toronto. If he waits til the buyout the county gets $28MM. If the county lets him break the lease early, the county gets $400MM. If Bon Jovi buys the team, they are leaving at some point. Is it worth making them play in Buffalo a couple more seasons knowing the inevitable, or getting maximum money out of it?

how would that drum up interest?

There is probably a good chance another team will commit to LA before the Bills are available. Even though the NFL is rumored to want two teams in LA, I can't imagine the second team would happen for some time after the first. I really think Toronto is the biggest concern. They seem to have an ownership structure in place now, plenty of funding and Bon Jovi is already on good terms with the most influential owners like Jones and Kraft.

That just means a large amount of local residents watch the Bills games. It does not mean we have a large market. We are a small market. The NFL would not be what it is if all the cities with teams were the market size of Buffalo.

Not sure too many people would notice or care if NYS doesn't have a team. As far as the league is concerned, regarding exposure, ratings...., the Giants and the Jets accomplish what they need even though the stadium is in NJ. They are huge market teams. Buffalo, regardless of being in NYS is small potatoes when it comes to marketing. Harrumph

How can Wilson settle the ownership situation? It is settled now, he is the owner.

I'm sure there are good reasons why they don't. If that's truly the case. Obviously, they just signed Aaron Williams to an extension. You need two to tango and some players like Levitre, Byrd... might want to test free agency to see if they can get more money. Also, many of these players probably wouldn't mind playing somewhere other than Buffalo. I think a lot of fans think that this is a way to save money by signing them early but I can't imagine agents would still not try to maximize the players value. Look what Williams got, hardly a bargain for the Bills. he had already returned from his injury and finished the season healthy. So not really a risk on San Diego's part.