yungmack

All this talk about the money aspects of the Clippers deal misses the point entirely. Ballmer isn't making an investment with a CPA's focus on the bottom line, he's buying a toy. If he's worth $20 billion, then if he did nothing else but collect the dividends, he'd re-coup the Clippers cost in about 3 years without a single penny from TV, tickets or any other Clippers-related income. It's not much different than the vast sums of money Larry Ellison spends on his sailboats and America's Cup pursuits. Having been aced out on at least two other NBA purchases, Ballmer apparently was so intent on not having that happen again that he just raised the bid to astronomical levels. It is being reported that Mrs. Sterling, the trust fund and the NBA didn't even bother contacting the other bidders to see if they raise it. From my perspective, this is not good news for Buffalo. What Ballmer has done, and what the huge coverage he's getting for having done it, is doing is waking up a lot of very wealthy people who can't seem to help getting themselves into dick-measuring contests, particularly among the high-tech crowd. There are so few franchises available in the NFL (currently, only the Bills), and the level of perceived prestige that comes with owning one, particularly among certain segments of the nouveau riche, is in my opinion guaranteed to bring several super-rich guys out of the woods and into Mrs. Wilson's office. The price won't matter; it all will come down to bragging rights and being one-up on their buddies. What's cooler than an NBA franchise? One in the NFL. I now can imagine the price for the Bills shooting right through that $2 billion Clipper price. And every other owner in the league is hoping that happens, because that would immensely boost the value of their franchises. Hang on to your testicles, 'cause I think it's going to get real crazy real fast.

I do remember that, as well as the stadium was to be roofed and in Lancaster. The dome in NOLA is the one that was to be built in Buffalo or so I was told. BTW, the anecdote about the Buffalo Evening News is a perfect metaphor for the parochialism that once (still?) contributed mightily to the decline of the city. Lots and lots of short-sighted decisions made to preserve the status/interests of this group or that, something we are now starting to see on a national scale.

It is one of the signs of a rigid mind that criticism, even legitimate & fair criticism, is dismissed with ridiculous non-sequiter like "liberal." Must make your life easy as all hell when you can blow off any criticism by your boss or your spouse as nothing mre than their misguided political beliefs.

If he's done as a player, maybe the Bills should consider him for a coaching position.

No. Or at least not for the priviliged few. Like these oppressed and downtrodden folks: http://www.salon.com/2014/05/30/10_disgustingly_rich_companies_that_will_do_anything_to_avoid_paying_taxes_partner/?source=newsletter

That subsidy business can't be right because I keep hearing from Republicans that we have a socialist government that over burdens the Job Creating entrepreneurs with onerous taxes.

I don't know why. Golisano is a Florida guy now, a businessman with a fraction of the wealth of Larry Page, one who would be highly tempted to cash out should he run into financial trouble. In addition to being much wealthier and a giant in a far more creative realm than Golisano, Page is also much younger, something that bothers me about Golisano, Pegula, Trump and Jacobs. But don't fret about Page; no way he's interested in the Bills.

This is all any reasonable person needs to know about Trump but if you want more, there are a couple of films that could open your eyes to what a joke this guy is: "Small Potatoes," about how he wrecked the USFL, and "You've Just Been Trumped," about his business dealings in all their sleaze. Anyone who thinks this guy is anyone you'd want to be involved with the Bills must be basing their opinions strictly on Trump's self-serving books, and the fawning over him by the whack jobs on Fox and their ilk. They're certainly not basing it on his real-world track record, which is toxic.

From Cornell, Pete Gogolak, who revolutionized the kicking game. And Jerry Butler nicely fills the Clemson spot (for now).

Very good article. I agree with his key points about density and adjacency. As the Bills are seemingly remaking themselves in the image of the Steelers, why not remake Buffalo in the image of Pittsburgh? It's somewhat overlooked, but Pittsburgh has done a tremendous turn-around in the last few decades, from an old and rotting industrial capital falling into irrelevancy, into a quite thriving center of learning and advanced businesses. It has required a commitment of, for want of a better term, the local Establishment, in combination with banks, politicians and, crucially, universities. All of those factors are present in Buffalo, though largely semi-dormant. And as that Establishment did in Pittsburgh, Buffalo too should focus on making the city itself the core of the revival. If Fisher is correct, that the Bills will be staying and a new stadium will be built in any case, then use that inevitability to assist in the revitalization. And use the current enthusiasm about keeping the Bills as a starting point in re-imagining Buffalo itself.

For a Bills fan, the 60s and the late 80s to the late 90s. For the NFL in general it is the 70s hands down.

Simms showed a deep and detailed knowledge about the Bills, a rarity among the national analysts. Go to the Bills website and you can listen to the segment.

This is all Wall Street-style derivatives nonsense. The only value of any pick is in the results: if the Bills become one of the top teams in the league, then Watkins and all the other picks were a bargain; if they continue to struggle to reach 500, then the picks were all over-valued. Had the Bills stayed at 9 and had Watkins still been there and they picked him and he was a bust, then what was the "value?" I'd take about a decade of picking "lower value" players from 28 to 32 in the draft over wringing my hands about moving up or down near the top of the draft. The value of each pick is what each team decides it is worth to them. Period.

As anyone with even a modicum of sense knows -- and that includes quite a few people around here -- no draft can be properly assessed immediately after it's taken place. The "three year" rule-of-thumb seems about right. That said, on paper (I know, I know, they don't play on paper) it looks to me as though the Bills pulled off an A + draft, not because they picked the way an imbecile like Kiper wants them to, but because they took care of the needs of the team. In Watkins they grabbed the best offensive weapon in the draft, someone who should be among the elite for years to come. They also added 3 huge, talented O linemen, a couple of promising LBs and an intriguing CB. And while the FA signings and trades aren't part of the draft -- Spikes, Williams, Rivers, et al -- you have to consider them to judge how well the Bills filled out their needs through the draft, and with the overall picture in mind, I think Whaley and Co. did a tremendous job. Pollack's readers must include a large number of numbnuts.

If the Bills were one WR away from a competitive team then the answer is "Yes." But the Bills weren't one WR away after last season: they also needed to improve the Oline, stop the run and correct some flaws in EJ. While we don't know if EJ is improved (and can stay healthy), the other two areas were most definitely addressed. So if EJ takes a big step forward as we all hope and pray, then adding Sammy Watkins could quickly put the Bills in the upper third of the league.

If the Rams leave St. Louis, that's when you can start really worrying about the Bills leaving.

You of course are 100% correct. In the ordinary course of a career, EJ should be improved over last year just through more experience and further training, so if he isn't better this year then, boy, the Bills are in trouble. However, I think he will be significantly better than last year. Here's hoping.

Exactly. I especially love it when members of The Junior GM Club state as fact that Brandon and Whaley did this or that to save their jobs, or that it's a fact that Marrone didn't like SJ's antics. Could be they're right but really they're just taking a wild guess. And that's a fact.

First of all, I don't think EJ will flop so this is really a moot question to me. But let's say he does flop, or gets seriously injured or is caught in flagrante delicto with a dead sheep, what would prohibit the Bills from packaging a couple of picks to move into the first, or to trade for a QB or to sign one who's on the free agent market? Yes, a high number of starting QBs are first rounders but not all of them are franchise QBs. And there are far more first round QB picks who've flopped than are stars at the position. Having a first round pick is no guarantee you'll select a franchise QB.

I agree that the question mark is EJ (and for that matter, all QBs) but could you explain why exactly won't they be in a position to land a franchise QB should EJ flop? Your position seems a tad all or nothing about the vaunted "First round pick."

Then why bring it up?

Somebody named Williams.

This was a dirt cheap deal all in the Bills favor. They got one of the top offensive talents of the decade for next year's #1 and a 4th. For those of you who think they gave "too much," remember they wouldn't have gotten Watkins at all without giving up something. How much is enough? Let me ask, how much would you have given for Andrew Luck? Me, I would have been okay with the number one pick for five straight years to get him.

According to Chris Brown's blog, he did indeed visit OBD.

May the ghost of Cookie Gilchrist run over you from now to the end of time.