Casey D

Honestly, what tools do you have to evaluate line play? I mean, do you just depend on what the media says, because without tape, and without understanding the assignments on a particular play, how do you do it?

Of course they are. And basically they have little idea what they are talking about. All people know is that they want a name--like Bledsoe or Milloy--because they've heard of them so they must be good. That's why people loved TD for so long, he gave the fans what they wanted--names without much ability any more. Now the new regime might be looking for good, younger players at reasonable prices--like NE has done for years. You can assume how it will turn out--we will suck--as most people here do. I'd rather be optimistic and believe that maybe the new team knows what it is doing. If I'm wrong, so be it--better than living in constant misery.

The level of discourse here is really quite amuzing. "We're doomed," said hen #1, "because Marv is old and Jauron is a loser, you can just see it in these signings." "God I wish we had that cute Nick Saban as our coach--he's got Super Bowl written all over him." But I've just got to have (blank), he's the only guy for the Bills, I just know it looking at game film from the Houston/Oakland game that I have poured over," says hen #2. "Well Marv is a fool" said hen #3, "that guy is no good says ESPN scoutline, and the media always knows the most about what a player will do." In the meantime, Joe Gibbs is upset to lose Royal because he was a key part of their OL(where the Bills need no help at of course), and Triplett signed quickly because he loved Marv and Jauron in the interview. But hey, "everything sucks" say the hens in chorus, because, well, just because.

Oh no, we embarassed ourselves. I'm so embarassed, whatever shall I do? It's his team, it's his money, he has the right to do whatever he likes. When did you get a say in what he should or should NOT do? Do you know how many people he had at the meetings with him, providing advice and counsel as best they could? God bless him and the great gift he has given to WNY all these years in the Bills. When they are gone, you'll really appreciate what we had...CD

I an confident that when Jerry Jones told everyone during those 45 minutes that he would pony up some cash, and Ralph would not have to pay anything, he understood that in broad strokes. But everyone knew there would be some additional revenue sharing, and the devil was in the details. If you would take the word of Jerry Jones as gospel after 45 minutes, I've got some beautiful land near Niagara Falls in the Love Canal area to sell you. Great views, good commute, you'll love it. But you must act within 10 minutes , or the deal goes away. You get the picture. And, by saying no one can "rationalize an investment of that magnitude to pay dividends in Erie County" is your rather pretentious way of saying no one likely will keep the team in WNY like Ralph when he dies, we agree.

Pass the baton to whom? First he tried that when he turned everything over to TD. He said it was time for him to sit back and watch. You saw what happened. Second, be careful what you wish for. When RW dies, depending on the estate tax laws then in effect, chances are high that his heirs will have to sell the team to outsiders just to pay the estate tax given the appreciation on this team since 1959. It will be difficult to find someone with $750M who will keep the team in a city like Buffalo. Heck, the Sabres were worth almost nothing, and they could not come up with a buyer. And, since the league has no antitrust exemption, it can do little to stop such a move. So when Ralph passes the ultimate baton, and you get your wish that someone new own the team, good chance we'll be rooting for the LA Bills, or something like that... CD

This deal was crammed down very quickly. A guy doesn't typically get rich by having someone else explain a deal to him, without having time to study it carefully himslef. The league put itself in a jam timewise by its own action/inaction--Ralph just did not like the cram down at the end which was self-inflicted. Even as of now, no one seems to know how this works. If it turns out that the new revenue sharing is not enough to keep the Bills in Buffalo because the fans do not have enough money to pay real NFL prices, like they do in DC and Philly, then was Ralph wrong to vote no? I'm not saying that this deal may not be fine for Buffalo, but there is nothing wrong with having the time to carefully consider something--something that could have been decided long ago, i.e., revenue sharing, but was left to the absolute final minute because the big revenue clubs wanted it that way. His position was neither silly or foolish, and his candor was refreshing.

Nice post. And to those who want "better representation," go get a job, work hard and save, and buy your own team and you can represent it however you like. It's great to see people making $50K in a good year and have done nothing for the community trash Ralph and explain how they would do things so spectacularly for Buffalo. Can you imagine the sophistication these people would bring in a negotiation with Jerry Jones or Dan Snyder, while munching on their gourmet fries from Mickey Ds? God bless America.

That's absurd. The defensive player actually initiated the contact. If you are going to call a push-off--which it was not, it was like a hand check in BB--then you have to call illegal contact or PI on the defender.

Plus he's 60. I think he is done with coaching at this point...

Fairchild, Kollar, now Fewell-- all Rams coaches under Martz. Well at least they had some pretty good teams. Wonder who else we get from St. Louis?

No way. That cheap SOB who owns the Texans got a cheap coach when they signed Kubiak, for FIVE years, at just under $2m a year. They gonna pay Sherman as an OC more than the HC?

Thanks Dinger...lol

If so, who is it? The press says the Bills' DC job is the last one open, and I wanted to know if it is true? thanks...

Again, you are buying into media conveyed talking points--RW is not cheap generally, but his won't pay for coaches. That may or may not be true, but think how unlikely that is. This is a multi- multi- million dollar team in both revenues, expenditures and expenses. Ralph gives millions of dollars away each year to charity. But you expect me to believe that when it comes down to two coaches, coach A who RW thinks is great but costs $3M a year, and Coach B who he thinks is inferior but only wants $2m per, RW says let's go with B because he's just a coach and I'm cheap. That to me is so unlikely upon analysis as to be absurd. The chances of the President expressing a clear and articulate thought are much higher, in my opinion.

Being negative or positive on a subject should have a basis in fact, in my opinion. If you know enough to think that Kollar or Fairchild will be a bad coach, that's fine. To be negative and assume they must be bad because they must have come cheap because RW is cheap, seems irrational to me. Bob Matthews says in today's Rochester paper that, in substance, the Bills hired Fairchild instead of Martz because although Martz is obviously better, Fairchild was cheaper. There is so much that is logically and factually wrong with that opinion, that it is essentially worthless--although he is entitled to his opinion. I mean, given his personality and history, would we want Martz at any price; what would be the difference in price in any event; maybe Fairchild and an approach to coaching that fits with ML/DJ but Martz does not;Martz might be unhappy as a coordinator again, etc, etc. You get the point. The notion that we would have hired Martz except for the money is simply playing to a soft bigotry--RW is cheap--and is the kind of lazy journalism(and thinking) that offends me.

As long as you understand have an opinion based purely on speculation, that's cool. It is just not persuasive to me. On a conciliatory note, the salary cap is not a revenue sharing device, and based on a quick look nothing in the article you linked suggests differently. Revenue sharing is done by a formula among the teams that throws all sorts of revenue from various sources, e.g., TV rights, radio rights, and portions of ticket sales to name the major ones, into a common pot that is then divided equally among all the teams. That is revenue sharing. A major issue facing the league right now is non-shared revenue, that is increasingly creating financially have and have-not teams. These revenues include, most significantly, PLCs and stadium advertising, that is kept by each team and not shared. From these non-shared sources, teams like Washington and Dallas earn far more than teams like Green Bay, Pittsburgh and Buffalo. This gives them more cash to pay coaches and signing bonuses. The prime obstacle to a new CBA, as the current one expires in 2006, is a new revenue sharing formula. The big market teams like the current disparity--guys like Snyder and Jones--because it gives them a competitive advantage. The small market teams want more of the current non-shared revenue to be put in the shared pot, so competitive balance is maintained. Until the owners get this settled amongst themselves, it is nearly impossible to negotiate a new CBA with the players, because the amount of money available to each team is unclear. The salary cap, however, is a mechanism to minimize each team's disparate revenues from creating an unfair advantage in fielding a team, like it does in baseball. The cap limits how much money a team can spend on players, no matter how much money they have. So while Danny Snyder can spend millions on coaches--because there is no cap on coaches--he can't do the same thing on players and become the New York Yankees of baseball. The cap(and revenue sharing) are the main reasons why a team from Pittsburgh can win the SB, but not the World Series. Small market teams have a chance in football, but not really in baseball, because baseball has neither a cap nor revenue sharing. So while revenue sharing and a salary cap both are designed to make small market teams competitive, they are different things. But you are also implicitly correct that Buffalo is at a financial disadvantage in the amount of money it has on hand to spend on coaches. But that is not a product of cheapness, it is the reality that the Bills are a relatively "poor" team financially compared to almost every other team as a result of low ticket prices and relatively small non-shared revenue... regards, CD.

Your analysis is remininiscent of Colin Powell at the UN in February 2003--remember those mobile chemical weapons facilities. You simply repeat rumors that have no factual basis, but because someone else said it and you are simply repeating it, you present it as a fact. RW said money was no object in hiring coaches. You say he is a liar. Your proof is what? You do not know that DJ is making $1.5-1.7 M--show me how you know that. Show me proof that RW mad MM quit to save money. How do you know that Haslett and Sherman were passed over because of money. Show me a single fact--not surmiee and speculation--to support that. At bottom, you have a thesis that RW is cheap, and you believe that as an article of faith, fact be damned. Do you work for the Administration? As to your discussion about the bottom line-- I am not sure what you are talking about. The salary cap has nothing directly to do with revenue sharing in the NFL. The NFLPA negotiated for it to ensure certain % of revenues were paid in salary, and the owners want it to keep a lid on player costs and to keep the competitive playing field more or less equal(as to this last point, revenue sharing does this too, but in a different way) Money paid to a player, a coach or a peanut vendor comes off the "bottom line." If what you are saying is that hits against the salary cap when a player is cut after having gotten a bonus--from accelerated player bonus amortization--is not real money against the bottom line is correct, it is merely an accounting rule in the NFL. But what does that have to do with whether we paid OL a lot of money, which was the issue on the board. Because when the Bills paid those big signing bonuses, I can assure you that was real money.

Thanks Marv!

I like that.

The discussion here is as fact based as the Administration's claim that Iraq had WMD. Think about the logic. Someone says Ralph is cheap, ergo every decision made is based on money. We hire bad coaches because they are cheap. Bob Matthews writes that why not hire Martz instead of Fairchild..because Ralph is cheap of course. First, I have seen no data on what anyone is being paid. So like WMD, no one has any facts. For all I know DJ is getting $3M a year. So all the talk about dollars is simply speculation. Second, did anyone ever think that a guy like Martz might not fit into what Levy is trying to build here-- a high character team with coaches who are good teachers and an organization who treats its employees like family in a tough world, not just as a piece of meat. Look at the hires we have as coaches so far, good people, good teachers. Maybe, just maybe, that's why they are being hired--good coaches, good people, good team players. Third, the hires are not scrubs. Koller turned down NO to come here, by accounts Fairchild turned down the Jets. Fairchild was tutored under Martz who, like him or not, is a recognized excellent offensive mind. People have to get over their obsession with money. It's not yours to begin with--if you want to spend millions on coaches then go get a job, earn a lot of money and buy a football team and overpay for names. But it does not mean that the Bills--Levy in particular-- don't have plan. And Levy, like Churchill, is going to stick to that plan, whiny critics who really know nothing about football be damned.

Interesting stuff!

If we could be 9th in total offense, I would be absolutely thrilled. Run, pass, swimming, it's all good...

real Slim Shady... got it... thanks...CD

I never could figure out how the Fake Fat Sunny tied to Mularkey--I understood all the earlier ones so I feel dumb on this. Do you know?