Stiffler

I like the idea of front-loading Nate and Willis' contracts. The key is that, while we won't be contenders in 2006, we should not be wasting money this year. Use the money in 07 and 08 when the Bills can contend.

Pope, is that you??!

I figured I needed to add a comment here. I went to UVa with Pope (the name he goes by). I lived in the freshman suite with Jermese Jones OT, and Tyree Foreman, RB, and our suite became the hangout for a lot of the freshmen on the football team. Pope came over many times. He's a nice guy... although you can hardly understand him! He's from the backwoods of Carolina (I think), and his southern babble is virtually incoherent. We would always laugh when he would spout off some diatribe and no one could hardly understand him (kind of like the grammar in this post.). Not the brightest bulb... Anyway, I really have no point... just thought I'd throw out some extra information that you won't find in a scouting report. Oh, and I used to whoop his ass so bad in PlayStation GameDay 98 that it would almost get awkward.

Apologies for being a wet blanket (realist), but the Bills are not going to make the playoffs this year (below average OL, DL, QB, TE; average LB, DB, RB). If I were running this team, I wouldn't be spending all of my cap space on a 2006 team that wasn't going to win either. I would wait for 2007, when the cap increase is much less than it was this year. Teams already having spent everything they can to win this year won't have as much ability to spend and compete for FAs. The Bills will be in great cap shape for runs at FAs in 2007 or 2008. If we can get a longterm deal on a FA this year at a good price, great. If not (and apparently we cannot), wait until next year. Sad, but true. And savvy.

The Bills should hang on to the #8 and see how the first picks play out. If Mario, Brick, and Hawk are all gone, then I absolutely would trade down. Anything else would be a reach. The key to drafts is getting steals (Brick or Hawk would be steals for us), and not reaching (Huff, Davis, etc.).

Marv was quoted as saying Tripplett should be paired with a run-stuffer DT. This smells to me like the Bills are already thinking of drafting NGATA.

"New money?" To be clear, you are using this same phrase that was used in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, correct? The one used by Rose's mom in Titanic? The opposite of "old money?" Wow. I didn't realize that term had made a comeback into current vernacular. Nor did I realize that Ralph would give a flying waste product.

I have only heard generalizations so far appraising Sherman's qualities as a coach: he has a good record, and he coached Brett Favre being the two primary reasons. The Bills should not be looking just for the 'least crappy' available coach. If they are, God help us. We need someone that will help us win a Super Bowl. "Not totally crappy" coaches don't do that. From the games I've seen Sherman coach, he was pitiful. Granted, this only displays game management skills, or lack thereof, but that is a large component of a HC's makeup. I would like to know more about his game management, personality, discipline, playcalling, halftime adjustments, etc.. This type of info can be gotten from Packers fans or media. Has anyone acquired this yet? Is this information out there already?

I started this, please let me be the one to finish it: 1) The legal issue here is dead. Please stop posting about it. It is this: Being a leased property, the Bills brass has private-owner rights. In essence, Ralph Wilson Stadium is their house, with their rules. Just like in my mom's house, I can't say whatever I want. I was wrong, and am now happily informed of this. 2) The real issue, however, is whether ownership should be taking away these signs. My stance and many others are saying it is petty and small to do so, revealing a deeper insecurity. Signs, shouting, booing, etc. is part of the game. Oh, and a quick aside for the "If you don't like it, don't come" and "Well, they can do whatever they want, stop whining" posters: When you love something, like a country or a team, and you perceive a problem with it, the solution is not to leave the nation (or never attend a game again); nor is it to accept the problem and be quiet. You stay loyal, and try to fix it.

This isn't perfectly accurate because it only is based on games played. But I just checked the teams above and below Buffalo, and while Buffalo has a .500 schedule left (11-3 Bengs, 3-11 Jets), everyone else has harder schedules. So we should be fine for that. It'll all come down to the last week vs. the Jets.

Good post. Although, I think there are more fans upset by the ownership's petty censorship than there would have been fans influenced by negative signs at the games. There's enough negativity in the papers and on TV already that it shouldn't be an issue. On the other hand, nobody likes censorship.

Because of the policy that the Bills themselves put forth: "... signs are generally permitted, but any such item deemed by management to be dangerous, inappropriate, or which obstructs the view for other guests will be removed." If the sign isn't any of these things, why take it away? Folks, I am now in full-understanding about the limits of freedoms in private places. I get it. I am not debating the powers of a private owner to do that which he pleases. I am arguing that many of the signs confiscated last night should not have been. According to their own specific policy, inoffensive signs are allowed. Also, use common sense here. It's a football game! Varying acts of expression (half-naked men, facepainting, costumes, and yes, signs) are part of going to the game. Take that away, and you end up as a louder golf audience.

I understand that. But "they can do whatever they want" doesn't equate to the should do whatever they want. If a sign isn't disparaging, inappropriate, etc., then you should be able to keep it. Simple as that.

Wow. Interesting response... to the detractors... 1) Correct me if I'm wrong, but the "owner" of Ralph Wilson Stadium is the County of Erie. Shouldn't that make it a public place subject to the full gambit of the first ammendment? Ralph and the Bills lease it. 2) STOP using the old "the stadium is a place of business". Yes, literally it is. But, it is unlike every other place of business that you have or will ever know. There are no logical comparisons that should be made between a Xerox office and the Ralph. Sports is sports. So just stop. And so, don't give me this b.s. about walking into a restaurant and wearing a "This food sucks" shirt because I can. One, the restaurant is a private place, as stated. Secondly, and more importantly, bringing signs into a restaurant is not customary; yelling at the top of your lungs is not normal while dining; and chucking peanuts on the floor is very rare. Those are, however, well-established commonplace, accepted actions happening nationwide in sports stadiums all the time. 3) The post made about the Bills' policy: "Banners and signs are generally permitted, but any such item deemed by management to be dangerous, inappropriate, or which obstructs..." The only way that a "Mularkey is mularkey" sign should be confiscated is if it is inappropriate. And how, in the world, is that sign inappropriate? If anything, that would be the appropriate way to vent your frustration at a coach: with humor, not vulgarity. 4) And you, "parade in front of your work" guy. Please. First, that's silly. Second, I WILL let anyone parade in front of my work. Shoot, I'll let 70,000 parade if they want to (provided, of course, that they all pay $40). I'll take some funny pictures, make a nice $2.8 million, and fix the lawn after. Not bad for one Sunday afternoon. 5) "Patdown" guy. I love my civil liberties. Obviously. I also love not getting blown-up. So (and I can't believe I actually have to explain this), I am cool with the patdowns cuz bulky jackets can contain lots of stuff. I am not cool with the confiscation of harmless signs that are not inappropriate, obstructive, mean, disparaging, racist, or anything else. The fact that ownership is doing this at all just shows me how insecure they are. You can't take a little ribbing on a small cardboard cut-out? Wow. And where's the support here? I figured more of yall would be feeling the same way...

What gives security the right to take away signs if they are not profane, racist, etc.? Why can the fans not express their right to say that Tom Donahoe sucks, or "Mularkey is mularkey"? This isn't Beijing for crying out loud. I was so pissed last night... I can't hold up a sign that says, "Fire Donahoe?" Is that sign hurting anyone? Honestly, only one man's feelings might be hurt. Legally, do they have the right to do that anyway? What's the word on this?

http://cbs.sportsline.com/nfl/draft/update This makes it easier to swallow the terrible losses knowing that our position improves all the while. And, I also like knowing that we are incredibly helped out by the horrendous records of our AFC East rivals and our game against the Texans-- as a Strength of Schedule that is poor actually improves draft position. With a home game against Denver (we're already 8 point 'dogs), and road games against Cincy (think +15 underdogs) and the NY Jets, we could easily find ourselves with the 3rd or 4th pick. And TD was right about one thing before the season: his respective assessment of the 2005 chances of the Titans and Jags. So our 2006 3rd round pick will be quite nice.

There is zero chance of Simon signing a one-year contract. He is already a high-demand unrestricted free agent. Why would he risk injury this year during a one-year contract, just to become the same unrestricted free agent after the year? He got what he wanted: out of a one-year contract (franchise tag) so that he could sign a long-term deal with lots of up-front money. He has no reason to then turn around and sign a one-year contract. Whoever lands Simon will do so with a big, long-term contract. And if the Bills have the cash to spare, they should do it. Better Ralph's money is on the field than in his pocket. And regarding re-signing Nate Clements, I doubt it will happen. The Bills (and the rest of the league) have a track record of drafting successful, starting CBs. And because they are rookies/young players, they are on the cheap. If Clements has a good year, look for TD to franchise, sign, and trade him (and I doubt there are any more team like the Falcons willing to give up first-rounders, if anything-- see SAlexander, EJames, etc.). But I wouldn't count on him being in Bills' uniform next year.

Agree with you. In writing #4, I was just trying to clarify all previous posts with Pat v. Simon. Regarding Nate, I think TD is confident he can draft a starter if he can't come to a reasonable extension. The Bills have a great track record of drafting CB starters, and the CB draft bust ratio is not high.

Four main issues here: 1) Simon would greatly help the Bills. If there is no clear available upgrade at LT, why wouldn't we spend the extra cash we have to improve the team? 2) Simon will demand a contract bigger than Pat's. He's younger and better. The Bills should have a big negotiating chip, however, in that he is franchised and scheduled for only $5.1 million this year. 3) In speaking of what the Eagles front office would or would not do, one would be remiss not to include the TO and Brian Westbrook unhappiness/hold-out ramifications: Without a proven RB, the Eagles are a bit hamstrung here. They need to resign Westbrook. They may need some cap flexibility to do that. That would greatly help the Bills in Simon negotiations. The Eagles also might be trying to send a message: get in line (read: get to camp; honor your contract) or get out. Again, this would help the Bills in negotiation. In either case, I can't foresee the Bills having to approach the Ravens' offer of a second and a third. I would think it would be something like one second-rounder. 4) The question of Simon v. Pat is not as simple as comparing the two. Simon is clearly the better and younger DT. The question is, what would you rather have, a) Simon, with a long-term extension or b) Pat Williams, with a long-term extension, and a second-round pick (or whatever else the Bills give up).

There clearly is something to this. Whether there are distinct "injury prone" athletes or not is easier understood in baseball. Guys that consistently play far less than 162 games for various maladies are injury prone. (From the top of my head) Mike Sweeney, Jim Edmonds, J.D. Drew, Josh Beckett, Larry Walker, Moises Alou, Mark Prior, Gary Sheffield, Kevin Brown. Contrast these guys with those that always play around 160 games: Miguel Tejada, Hideki Matsui, A-Rod, Todd Helton, Mariano Rivera, Bartolo Colon, Mark Buehrle. There has to be more than random injury factor for this. Whether it be stronger core strength, more flexible joints and muscles, higher tolerance for playing hurt, or instincts to avoid bad situational plays. Whatever it is, some athletes got it, and some don't. One key to personel decisions is to avoid guys that don't. It's too early to tell for J.P..

I did see his chat last month when he amazed me with his brevity. Anyone catch the chat yesterday?

This is not the sandbox. Travis is going to realize that "brooding" is going to result in no team wanting him next year. Because, as you said, who wants a head case.

You're right. Every player that has every said he is holding out for money or trade has actually held out. Why is it that everyone is giving up on Travis playing this year so easily? Because he said he was? Henry has been saying that because he wanted to instigate a trade, and saying such things was, in his mind, the fastest ticket out of town. Turns out he was wrong. Now, like he always will, Travis (and of course his agent) will reassess and do what is best for him and his future.

"Tough" yes. Impossible? Hardly. It is the job of the GM to handle "tough" situations and make them workable and mutually beneficial.

Before signing anyone (especially an overrated veteran in Thomas) the Bills should be attempting to reconcile with Travis so that the 2005 year can be beneficial for both parties: 1. It clearly would be best for the Bills to have Travis Henry as a backup to Willis McGahee. Anyone insinuating that Anthony Thomas is his equal or better has not seen Thomas play. 2. Henry would best be served in the offseason by proving his salt this year. Heck, he's already proven his ability, so it would not take much in the minds of GMs to reassure them of his Pro Bowl status. Regardless of his starter/backup status, he will receive 25% or more of the game's carries; and McGahee (like any starting NFL RB) can be expected to miss at least a couple games with injury.