JDG

The above is not accurate. Ralph's total revenue for 2004 was $173 million. I also have not heard that the definition of fully-shared DGR is changing - but if it is true, I would be interested to see more eveidence of that. JDG

The Jets have had such a person for a long time, and it reflects the emphasis that Herm Edwards places on managing the clock. I stand by my statement. If you want to bring out examples, I'll address them. JDG

Actually, Herman Edwards is perhaps one of the most astute clock-managers in the League. Its only morons who believe in things like calling a timeout before kicking a field goal with 15 seconds left instead of 5 seconds left, in case there's a bad snap, who think that Herman Edwards has bad clock management. JDG

Wasn't that obvious when they ran Herman Edwards out of town?

I'm becoming to get a bit worried that Ralph Wilson was right that this was a bad labor deal for Buffalo. According to Forbes, total 2004 revenues for the NFL were $6.029 billion. Applying a 59.5% of revenues salar cap, that works out $112 million cap per NFL team. In 2004 the Bills earned $173 million. That means this salary cap would already be 65% of the Bills's revenues. Toss in coaching salaries, signing bonuses paid over the cap, scouting staffs, and Buffalo is probably getting close to 70% of revenues in labor costs. That's probably good enough to survive. Indeed, under the new revenue-sharing plan, published reports indicate that low-revenue teams can expect about $10 million in shared revenues per year under the shared plan. But here's the thing - what if the disparity between high-revenue and low-revenue franchises continues to grow? Buffalo is probably about tapped-out in terms of luxury boxes, and whatnot, whereas big-money markets like Boston and Washington probably have ample room for expansion. Moreover, both New York teams are going to be getting a new Stadium soon, which aught to vault both of them up into the top of the revenue standings. So, if the New York franchises vault themselves into New England territory in revenue, and if the Top 10 revenue franchises exhibit a higher rate of growth than the small-market franchises, that $10 million in revenue sharing might start looking increasingly paltry, and the share of Buffalo's revenues consumer by labor will continue to go up, until it reaches the point of Buffalo simply no longer spending at the salary cap, no longer offering free agent signing bonus that put spending over the cap, and continuing only to hire below-market coaches. The reality is surely more complicated than this back-of-the-envelope analysis, but it does have me more concerned than ever about the long-term future. JDG

That sounds like an effective way to compete in the NFL. There was also no unrestricted free agency. The Bills were able to draft good players *and* keep them. Big difference. JDG

Sure the perception was bad, but the more that comes out about this deal I think that Buffalo and Cincinnati were right. I think this is a terrible deal for the small-market teams, and they might have needed to gamble on the unknown in order to win a better deal..... JDG

That was the old NFL where the salary cap was defined as a percentage of shared revenues. This basically ensured that any NFL team could field a salary cap level team if they wanted to. This was also before some of the high-revenue franchises realized that coaching salaries were uncapped, and so that with everyone having essentially balanced rosters, that coaching staff could provide a huge margin of difference. We'll have to see if Buffalo's bargain-basement coaching staffs will be able to compete with the all-star coaching staffs of teams like the Redskins in the future. The Steelers are fortunate to have gambled and won on an unkown Schottenheimer assistant named Bill Cowher who has clearly been happy to stay in Pittsburgh as one of the very best coaches in the NFL. JDG

I'm sure that moment is going through the minds of the sportswriters who actually vote for the HOF every single year..... Uh huh.....

Well, I disagree with the whole concept that there is any such thing as a "#1 WR" - but Braylon Edwards was Clevelands *best* WR when he played. Indeed, the play of Braylon Edwards is a major reason why Cleveland is letting Antonio Bryant walk in free agency. JDG

I believe the name you are looking for is Anquan Boldin..... ;-)

That's not really true. The NFLPA's final proposal is that the salary cap be set at 59.5% of League-wide revenues. Because of the disparity betwen the high-revenue and low-revenue teams, this raises the distinct possibility that at some point the salary cap could be *more* than the annual revenues for some of the low-revenue teams. That's why the NFL Owners can't approve the NFLPA's offer without some kind of improved revenue sharing. Without improved revenue sharing, the high-revenue teams are against the deal because it gives the players a full slice of the non-shared revenue they are currently earning, meanwhile, the low-revenue teams are against the deal because it raises the specter of the salary cap no longer maintaining competitive balance. JDG

I think that R. Rich was yanking your chain.....

Actually, I think that Lee Evans is a very good redzone WR - and if you look at the length of many of his TD catches over two season, I think that the stats will bear me out on that. Yes, Evans is a fast guy, but he is also very good at making difficult catches in traffic, which is at the heart of being a red-zone WR target. JDG

I think that others have effectively put paid to this notion. You are again confusing talent with position. If this mystical position of "#1 WR" exists, as you suggest, shouldn't that mean that you can only have one of them? What Arizona has are two very-good WR's. Just like almost every other team in the NFL, they start two WR's - theirs just happen to be more-talented than most. JDG

Wrong, Dean - my point being that Indianapolis is the perfect case of a team that does *not* have a so-called "#1 WR." Of course, Marvin Harrison is a better WR than Reggie Wayne - no question. But its not like Marvin Harrison plays some mystical position called "#1 WR." The Colts get the ball to whomever is open, period. And that means lining up two WR's on almost every play, Marvin Harrison and Reggie Wayne, an all-time great and a very-good WR. JDG

Aha, now you are demonstrating the whole fishiness of the whole "#1 WR" concept. I'll concede that teams often have one WR who is more talented than the other. That doesn't mean that this WR has a unique position in the offense, ala Terrell Owens. You talk about being a "go to guy", well actually Todd Heap *is* the "go to guy" Baltimore. Yes, Derrick Mason is a very good player, and hence he has some pretty good numbers, but the Ravens often run their offense to get the ball to Todd Heap - not to Derrick Mason. JDG

Except for the fact that stadium naming rights don't even begin to account for the full difference in revenues between teams. JDG

In fairness, it is on just market size. The New York City market dwarfs all other markets, and yet the Giants and Jets are not at the top of NFL Revenues. A major reason for that is the lack of a modern NFL Stadium for these franchises, but more aggressive marketing by Snyder and Jones probably plays a role as well. JDG

I think you just made my point for me. Who is Arizona's "#1 WR"? Who is Baltimore's? Who is San Diego's? Heck, you could even argue about who is Indianapolis' or Cincinnati's? And moreover, do some teams have one WR who is better than their other WR's? Sure. But that doesn't necessarily imply that they use that WR differently. JDG

Fair enough, but I disagree. Well, I agree that in some rare cases a team does have what could be described as a "#1 WR" - if you have a Terrell Owens, Randy Moss, or Steve Smith, and you are thinking about getting the ball to that player on most every play. I think it is a mistake, however, to assume that every team, or that even most teams have a "#1 WR" position. In fact, I would say that most teams do not design their gameplan around having a #1 WR. Rather, the typical NFL team lines up on most plays with two or three WR's who are the starting WR's. JDG

2004 Revenues: #12 -Carolina, $169million #24 - Buffalo, $152million #29 - Indianapolis, $145million The Buffalo-Rochester combined media market is only about as large as the Charlotte or Indianapolis media market by themselves. And of course Charlotte has a huge banking industry. JDG

Toronto is 100 miles away. A similar radius for Washington would include some of the suburbs of Philadelphia! Anyhow, here's the numbers on TV housholds, which is a rough approximation: Washington: 2,252,550 Baltimore: 1,089,220 Buffalo-Rochester: 1,029,890 Even if you add in Southern Ontario, you only get to about 1.4million for Buffalo-Rochester-S. ON. Having lived in Syracuse, I can tell you that Syracuse is not really "Bills Country" - the Giants get as much coverage there as the Bills do. And at any rate, if you give Buffalo Syracuse you have to give Baltimore York, PA, and so on. The moral of the story is that even if you give Buffalo a huge geographical area, only then does it even compete with just the core area around Baltimore, in a much more tightly compact area. Moreover, the area still doesn't begin to match Washington. In terms of money, it of course isn't even close to matching Washington, and is probably behind Baltimore. JDG

But if there is no salary cap, and other teams can spend $50mil to $100mil more that the Bills each year in retaining and attracting free agents, for how long will the Bills be able to put a decent product out on the field? JDG

Or with a good OL and whatever NFL QB we find to replace JP.... ;-)