HalftimeAdjustment

My uninformed speculation is that JW feels it is not appropriate to "report further" on a published article via an Internet forum. If I was the AP, I would not encourage reporters to post stories officially, then add more to the story via unofficial channels. I do not pretend to understand the distinction but there must be some line between his usual participation and this question, which he is unwilling to cross. I think we (as a board) should leave it alone even though we are curious.

I am curious where you think JW reported that Jim Overdorf was behind the trade. The article did not state this nor did JW state this in any post that I read. The original article states: "Nix didn't handle trade talks, leaving that job with Jim Overdorf, the team's salary cap specialist and senior vice president of football administration." Since then many board posters have concluded that this sentence means that Jim Overdorf made the decision to trade Lee Evans. Jerry Sullivan also made this interpretation. Perhaps you should be directing your disdain and misspelling of a writer's name at Jerry Sullivan, or the board posters who read the above sentence to say something that it does not? Usually when someone writes that Nix "left that job" with someone, it means that Nix made the decision and delegated the execution. It makes me feel that you are attempting to provoke JW, not necessarily to leave the board, but to issue a clarification to the article that he already declined to clarify. I know you started by saying you are not trying to provoke, but if that is not your intent, you are not accomplishing your intent.

Are you telling us that Ralph Wilson has been turned into an immortal vampire and therefore the team will never need to be sold?!? We've all been waiting for that day (except for Pegula fans).

Let's see how much of these deals increase in salary in 2013, since there is a cash spend floor in 2013. So it makes a lot of sense for the team to spend money on relatively young players to lock them up in the future (of course they will need to give the players something in 2011-12). I think all teams, not just the Bills, will see this logic. This is a bit different than the old approach of giving a large bonus and amortizing it over the entire deal for salary cap savings (which the Bills did not need to do anyhow).

I think there is another factor at work here. The Bills' financial oriented moves have become more transparent now, because of the recent CBA rules. Last year, this year, and 2012 have no salary floor. Prior to 2010, there was some kind of salary floor (If I recall correctly), and so there was a minimum salary level below which money savings were negligible. During the last several years we saw a few relatively high-dollar contracts to rookies (Maybin, Spiller), FAs (Dockery) and team members (Kelsay). Not a lot, and the Bills still underspent, but they were near the middle of the pack on spending. Cutting a veteran to save money was not as effective if they could be required to pay someone else. Contrast that with the current situation. The rookies have been locked into a wage scale. The salary floor does not start until 2013. Every dollar cut from salary goes to the bottom line. Then we see the Evans trade. I believe 4th round was "fair value" for Lee Evans based on other trades in the NFL. However, it cannot reasonably be said to be likely to improve the team's play and is (in my opinion) more likely to harm it. Some might argue it is neutral, but the financial benefit is obvious. So, I think the difference in criticism is a combination of the contrast with Pegula and the newfound transparency of the team's financial moves. Consider this - the finance guys have to stockpile money now, because they will be subject to a salary floor in 2013. Underspending in 2011-2012 is the only way for them to pad the bank account on the cost side. Starting in 2013, most of the team's money efforts will need to be on revenue increases. I'm guessing most people are expecting a new owner by then.

My opinion: I agree that it was not written casually. That's why we should be careful in interpreting this. The first sentence states clearly that Nix told him something. The second sentence states that Nix did not handle trade talks, Overdorf did. It does not say that JW got that second sentence from Nix. This could also mean that JW obtained the information about Overdorf from another, known-to-be-accurate source. If that is the case and that source does not want to be identified, it would be a logical course of action for the reporter to decline to comment further on the story. That way he can leave it ambiguous as to whether this additional information came from Nix. Only Nix, JW, and the other source (if one exists) know for sure. If Overdorf asks Nix about this article, Nix can deny he said anything and blame it on another source - for example someone in the Ravens office. That does not mean Nix is not the source of this info about Overdorf. It simply means the article has left it for the reader to interpret. I believe that this is intentional. I am not saying Nix was not the source of the "didn't handle trade talks" info, but I consider that a possibility. I do not expect JW to comment on this idle speculation as it is against his interests to do so.

As a contract voluntarily entered into by the parties, and voted to approve by 31 out of 32 of the participating franchises, I would say it is definitely the capitalist way. Without other teams to play football, each team's profit will be minimized. The teams do not compete like traditional businesses, since a game cannot be played without at least 2 teams and a small league (of say 8-16 teams) would likely have fewer fans - even in the big markets. Therefore the teams are seeking a mutually beneficial arrangement to maximize their profits. Whether the loss of 10% of the local revenue is offset by these factors is a judgement for the team to make, and since they voted for it, I assume that the positives outweigh the negatives in some way.

I "get" that the NFL is in legitimate legal jeopardy, and that it is in fact a monopoly. However, the legal theory that teams should be allowed to compete against each other for players' services because they are independent businesses is a major weakness and exposure which worsens the situation related to free agency. By no means would this eliminate the legal exposure. However, my statements are an indication of my opinion that treating sports leagues similar to Standard Oil is a fallacy. The public does not benefit by unlimited bidding between teams for players. The anticompetitive impact of the NFL should be measured against other leagues, not between teams. A team has no business without the other teams and therefore is unlike a gas station, where multiple gas stations can compete to sell a product to consumers. The public will likely pay higher prices in the absence of salary caps and a smaller portion of the public will have viable winning teams in the event of unlimited free agency. These factors should be considered if the government decides to impose a resolution. I would prefer to see a negotiated resolution that preserves the draft and limits free agency; but I would also prefer to stop hearing that teams are separate businesses illegally colluding. I would be more comfortable simply viewing it as "the NFL is a monopoly and as such it has too much power over its labor, therefore it has to be regulated". Whether it is allegedly 32 separate businesses or 1 does not change its monopoly nature, unless a viable alternative league exists; in which case it is no longer a monopoly.

I agree that this is the main stumbling block, but the franchisee would need to retain rights to certain assets rather than the NFL. Such as the team logo, any stadium contracts, etc which would have to remain Cowboys property. The higher value of the Cowboys is based on two main factors, both of which would remain in control of Jerry Jones or his wholly owned corporation: the location (Dallas) and the Cowboys name, logo, and associated history. There would have to be some associated cash flows which went directly to the teams to support their continued value. Probably it is not a risk they want to take, but they would have to consider this alternative when compared to complete player free agency, which would ultimately damage the value of most franchises. The top echelon of teams might benefit from such a system however which is a problem.

Cam Newton. If he is below average or better, it will be a major improvement for Carolina. At one point they had to start a guy who was completely out of the league last year. You think Newton will be worse than that?

I've never understood the whole "anti-trust" thing. The owners should get together and re-form the NFL as a corporation with 32 shareholders (owners), and 32 franchises. The reality is that the Buffalo Bills and the New York Jets (for example) do not compete like Target and Wal-Mart. No NFL team has a main revenue-generating product (football), unless there is at least 1 other NFL team involved. If the NFL wouldn't be allowed to set up drafts, player salary caps, or other "monopoly" behavior, why would it be allowed to dictate how many yards are on the field, how many points a touchdown is worth, or what the playoff system is like? It seems to me that these should all be contracted in individual joint ventures between pairs of teams, right? Otherwise there is collusion going on to some degree.

It is what it is.

While watching TV I saw an obscure clip of some Boston College QB throwing a great pass. His name was Floozie or Don F or something. Let's draft him! But only if he didn't cheat in college.

Tweeting causes receivers to drop the ball, I thought that was a well-established fact.

What cap?

That's a pretty major disparity, right there. I hope Fitz can break 60% next year. The great QBs are all over 65% in today's game ... if he can pass 60% Fitz can be good, if he can pass 62-63% he'd be great. However, until he passes 60% he will always be a flawed QB in my view.

And it won't come this year, unless we trade up. Which we won't/shouldn't.

The muscle memory of typing in all those tweets is causing his hands to become twitchy. Hello, dropsies!

That's why the money would have to be "entrusted" to the financial institution which would run the bond process, and presumably they would provide a suitably grey-haired face.

In games from week 3 onward, we have averaged 21ppg. That is improvement. It is reasonable to exclude the first 2 games with Trent at QB, although you are free to blame Gailey for starting him. That would be 20th overall, not great, but better. Also, we have outscored Carolina by 60 points.

Since NE, NYJ, and MIA play each other once each, they cannot all lose (although ties are a possibility). However if the Jets lose all their games, the Patriots lose all of their games except vs. the Jets, and Miami loses all of their games except vs. the Patriots and Jets, they would all finish at 7-9 leaving the door open for the Bills. I guess you could say we need a little bit of help.

He just pulled off 67% completions against Baltimore, with no garbage time/prevent defense... I always complained about his accuracy but he has seemed to be better over the last few games. Is it possible that the benefit of being the starter (more reps with the first team receivers to get in sync) pushes his accuracy into the "good" zone? He isn't a "great" QB but he may be approaching "good" QB status at this point. The long balls today looked very good overall.

Please explain what happened to Littman and Overdorf's influence on the Kelsay extension? It doesn't seem like they got him on the cheap.

I thought it would be interesting to speculate on what the market value (in picks) is for the rest of the team, considering all of the interest in rebuilding. Remember, this is not what you would accept for the player, but what you think someone in the league might give up for them. I looked over the roster and here's my list (players not listed have no apparent trade value due to age or performance): CJ Spiller - 2nd + conditional 5th-6th J. Byrd - 3rd L. Evans - 4th L. McKelvin - 5th K. Williams - 5th F. Jackson - 6th T. McGee - 6th T. Troup - 6th D. Whitner - 6th E. Wood - 6th A. Levitre - 7th R. Lindell - 7th B. Moorman - 7th P. Poslusnzy - 7th R. Parrish - 7th Not going to build much of a team with that. The value of picks is too skewed vs. veteran players.

Edwards and a 2012 7th for a 2011 7th round pick.