BarleyNY

Trading or cutting Romo between the 2014 and 2015 seasons would mean $37.4M in dead money for the Cowboys, which would be almost $10M more than his cap hit if he is on the team. Parting ways with him is not feasible for the Cowboys. I doubt Dalton comes available unless he flames out this season. Bradford is a maybe, but I'd bet 2016 is more likely. The Rams will want a better option on the roster first. I don't see the Steelers letting Roethlisburger go, although I'm not sure how they are keeping him happy with his current deal. He is very underpaid for what he brings to that team. Cutler won't be available. He got his contract and is staying in Chicago. Hoyer will likely only be available if he fails/is injured and gives way to Manziel who, in turn, plays well. Not another name on that list interests me. Smith would be the best of the remaining names. I don't agree on the "window" comment. This team can be stable for years. RB and MLB will need addressed for next season, but I don't see a lot of important contracts ending that I don't think can't be extended. Who is aging out in the next two years?

If EJ sucks and/or gets injured I guess I'd start by getting depressed early for the 2015 Bills season. Let's face it, that's the big risk here. If we are halfway through the season and EJ looks bad, then we know it will take a "rabbit out of the hat" move by the FO to effectively address the QB spot for 2015. Even if the Bills still had their 1st round pick it is a tall order to find a quality QB. And if EJ is very bad it is likely that the 1st round pick will be high in the draft. That's (obviously) the natural spot to get a good QB prospect. So the FO has taken away the team's best hedge for EJ failing. That should even make EJ's biggest supporters nervous. If EJ shows he can be a quality QB in this league, then there's no problem. We can all hope for that, but I'm one to plan for all contingencies. That hasn't been done here. Not addressing the QB spot with even a developmental player was a big mistake IMO. Why not bring in a mid to late round prospect who has upside? He wouldn't have been an immediate threat to EJ's job as starter, but doing so would have at least given the team an "out" in 2015 or beyond if EJ failed. I really think the FO failed the team in this regard. If it doesn't work out then they'll pay the price.

I only know PPP as "piss poor planning" so I'm not even sure what you meant. I just don't do the school girl crush thing on players is all I'm saying.

It doesn't make him any less right. Yes, people can have their fun. Yes, I see this from nearly every team nearly every year so I'm not pointing my finger at just Bills fans. Yes, it's a slow time of year. But I think the idea of giving a rookie NFL player a new nickname is pointless and kinda wrong in an entitlement way. If the player already has a nickname, fine. Go with that. If not, let him EARN one that has something to do with what makes him successful. It will be a better nickname that way anyhow.

Here is the issue we had in Cleveland. There were two years left when they moved. Negotiations had been going on for some time prior to that. There were no out clauses, but Modell wanted to move the team. His threat was that if he was forced to stay he would trade away draft picks and players for future picks and put a product devoid of any talent on the field for those two years. Then he'd move the team. No way did the NFL want to see that. He got released from the last two years after agreeing to leave the colors, name and history in Cleveland. Those tactics and others like them are available to the next Bills owner, too. Cleveland thought they had a lot more time than they actually did. I don't want the Bills fans to be too complacent and rely primarily on the lease. It would be a mistake. The sale of the team will take time. Stadium deals take time. Financing, design and construction take time. Things could be a lot tighter time-wise than most realize.

The lease is the best thing about the current situation IMO, but any contract can be broken for the right price. The Browns only had two years left on their lease (with no buyout) and got nothing but the team name and colors for Model breaking it. The Bills have 5 seasons before a buyout is contractually permissible, but the sale could take this season (or longer) to complete. Time can tick away quickly.

So Mary Wilson wouldn't taint her deceased husband's name for something in the neighborhood of an extra quarter of a billion dollars? Heck, she could sell under a tacit public agreement that the new owner would keep the team here (nothing legally binding, of course). Then the new owner moves citing a lack of commitment by Buffalo (read: didn't get the deal he wanted here, but found it somewhere else). She can then say she was as blindsided as the rest of the city. While that might still tarnish her reputation somewhat, I doubt it impacts her husband's.

I had the same thought. Or maybe she's not a fan of impressionists and is trading those in on some Jackson Pollocks.

Very similar to the arguments in Cleveland circa 1995. If there is more money to be made, then there is a way out for the owner. And who says they'll move the Bills the instant they buy them? They could time it as they saw fit. If there is a move to Toronto there is a temporary stadium in places to use while a dedicated one is built. They actually have an advantage over other cities with that. I'm sure they could get a temporary exemption for attendance for a year or two. None of the arguments against a move is something that can't be worked around. I saw it up close last time and would rather not go through it again here, but the situations look too similar for my comfort.

I hope so. I'm a Cleveland native and the current situation here looks very similar to the one there. The change of ownership is different as is the lack of incentive that the NFL had to want the move. At the time of the Cleveland move many NFL teams were finding it difficult to get quality deals from their cities for new stadiums. The Browns move spurred that in a big way as cities were worried about losing their teams. The reality in Buffalo is simple, disturbing and familiar to me. A new owner will want to maximize revenue and the key to that is a quality new stadium at favorable terms. If Buffalo (Erie county) wants to keep their team they will need to pony up and they are going to want to do it before there is an all out bidding war. If they drag their feet before agreeing to a new stadium, like Cleveland did, they may find that there is already an undisclosed deal in place somewhere else and that it is too late. Then Buffalo will be handing out the deal they should have offered the Bills - or better - to a team like the Jags to get them to move here.

That seems a lot more reasonable. Makes sense now.

Agreed.

This. You don't put up with this crap from replaceable players, but Dareus is a guy to whom you give more help and more chances than your typical JAG. That is just reality. Stevie Johnson is a good example. His play fell off, so due to his negatives it was no longer worth keeping him around. Top players get that extra long leash as long as they're top players. The minute they're not, they're gone. Dareus needs to get his s?!% together before he makes too big of a mistake or his play falls off. Ditto Josh Gordon in Cleveland.

It always concerns me when a negative is showcased as a positive. Watkins will be a much better WR if/when he has the whole route tree down pat. His other abilities allowing for success early and the offense being tailored to what he can already do is a very good thing, but I'm not excited about the offense being limited. I'll breathe easier when he develops into a complete WR. One other thought: maybe this is the reason that the Bills wanted Watkins so badly. He's been doing exactly what the offense requires already.

True. But some of us understand how difficult it is to find quality QB play and are much more concerned with the lack of effort in that department than even the lack of results. The Bills FO signed UDFA Kenny Guiton. That was the extent they improved the position. They also traded away their first round pick next season so that won't be used for a QB if EJ doesn't work out. And if he doesn't work out, it'll almost certainly be a high pick. That's a lot of risk. So who is comfortable putting so much on EJ? I'm not. I haven't given up on him by any stretch, but I'm not betting the farm on him either. Even if he plays well and gets injured, then what? Anyone confident in Tuel? I'm not at all. Not even as a second string QB.

I've seen nothing but speculation regarding the Bills being interested in Vick. Certainly nothing concrete. Rumors are often floated by agents to generate interest in their clients. I never bought it and I have seen nothing to change my mind. There are "name" players (those with recognizable names) and quality players. There is a lot of overlap, but some players only fit one category. In Freeman's case we have a player who was a high draft choice and who had a promising start to his career, but has been terrible of late. He's a name only. Bringing in such a player would result in undesired controversy without much chance of upside. How you can claim that that name player wouldn't be coming here as a back up is beyond me. Vince Young and Tyler Thigpen fit the same category although Young has a bigger name. Getting a name QB would have been easy. Getting a quality one, less so. Vick would have made more sense in that he might have something left in the tank. One reason I don't think he was interested in Buffalo wast hat he was not going to be in an open competition for the starting job. Buffalo was going to have to overpay for Vick or any other quality QB if they wanted one to come here without an opportunity to win a starting spot. Or they needed to draft someone who could become one. They didn't do either so we know what their plan is - whether or not we should like it.

I don't know if the cocaine rumors are true or not, but players not under "reasonable cause" don't get tested all that often and most have a good idea of when those tests will occur. Add in ways to beat the tests and cocaine's rapid processing by the body and it's certainly plausible. (Marijuana is fat soluble and can lead to low level positive tests even after someone stops using it. Cocaine is not and clears the body completely in about 3 days.) I didn't really want to bring up the other big rumor about him - that he is gay - but that can be a factor with some teams, even if it shouldn't be. There has to be a reason for his substantial drop off in play and so many teams giving up on him so quickly. Be it due to drugs or whatever he looks like a formerly promising QB, not a currently promising QB. Substance abuse issues would make him a player you don't want in the locker room either. Lastly, if this FO wanted a QB to push EJ they'd have drafted one. They pretty clearly are all-in on Manuel - to a reckless extent IMO. They don't want a controversy or even an inkling of doubt about who the QB is so they sure aren't bringing in a "name" QB. Particularly one that would create a controversy without a likely big upside. That would be a bad bet. They stacked the team as best they could for EJ and now they are going to reap the rewards or penalties for that.

I've heard rumors that his career has been derailed by some significant drug issues (cocaine). If true, it would explain a lot.

https://www.profootballfocus.com/blog/2013/01/21/signature-stats-drop-rate-wide-receivers/ Stevie Johnson had a drop rate of 12.22% in 2012. Obviously it isn't one bad year.

As do I. People are overblowing everything about Manziel - both positive and negative. Him spending Memorial Day weekend in Vegas with half of the rest of the NFL means nothing except that he still doesn't care what people think. I can't believe so many do. Regardless, there's probably no better mentality than that for a QB in Cleveland. That doesn't mean he will be successful, but it's a good place to start.

It would be nice to know how EJ's stats compare to other QBs. It's tough to glean anything from them on their own.

Doesn't accept failure as an option? You might want to check out some of his business ventures. Start with his casinos, which were abysmal failures. He's a guy who is wealthy because his dad was a self-made multi-billionaire. Despite his claims of being an incredibly successful businessman himself, he's had both successes and failures despite only ever taking responsibility for the successes. His improvement of his own estimate of his self worth come largely from his incredibly high valuation of the "Trump" brand. I've never seen him "tell it like it is". He just sells, sells, sells. Accuracy never seems to be a theme. He tells the world how great he is and whatever they want to hear, but that usually doesn't match reality. So despite his claims to keep the Bills in WNY, I don't believe he'd do that without milking the area for every penny he could. And if he could get a better deal somewhere else he'd move them without a thought to whatever place it was that gave him the best deal. He's a snake oil salesman with a huge inheritance.

A quick Google search would give several examples. Check Wikapedia on "scalping" and "redskin". Here's a link to one article about one proclamation from King George. There were several targeting different tribes: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2013/11/14/208627/tribes-want-congress-to-ban-redskins.html

I think whether or not offense is taken by the name "Redskins" largely depends upon the meaning people associate with it. If it thought of to be just an observation about the skin color (red man, white man, etc.) then I don't think many find offense. But its other usage is another story entirely. That relates to the bounty the British government put on the scalps of Native Americans in an attempt to eradicate them from North America. Bounties were paid for "redskins" and traders paid for them along with deerskins, etc. Different amounts were paid for men, women and children. If that's the context, then change the name. Today. If it's the former then that's another story, but if even a decent minority of Native Americans associate it with attempted genocide and the government sponsored murder of men, women and children then it should be changed. I'm generally one to think people should be less sensitive about most things and I don't have issues with tribal names being used (Seminoles, Blackhawks, etc.), but this one is different to me.

Well, that's his job. The owners didn't vote him head of the league for his wit and charm. He's there to make the teams as much money as possible and if he wasn't good at doing that he'd be long gone already. He has to balance that with other things - long term league viability, image, etc. - but it is his main job.