HalftimeAdjustment

What about Chris Kelsay?

I'm not saying they shouldn't give Fred more money, but they probably will not. On the subject of extensions: Rian Lindell is a free agent after this year. He should be extended.

Besides - as much as I like Fred Jackson, who is basically my favorite Bill, realistically the team is not likely to give him an extension. He is signed through 2012. At the end of that contract - he will be about to turn 32. What kind of extension do you think they would sign him to? Just one extra year (through 2013)? Through 2014, but without a guarantee after 2012? What good would that do either side, really? His best hope is that the team trades him before 2012 starts, and his new team gives him a 3-year deal. I hate this situation but I don't see them paying him more for "fairness".

I don't see the Bills' mgmt making receiver a P1; I just see them looking to add competition beyond what we have now. I think it is a little too early in the season to predict our top priority.

I don't think you should keep all 3 WR positions at 9. I would raise one of them to 4 or at worst 6... going into next year we are looking at Johnson, Nelson, Jones, Roosevelt, Aiken. Easley may not return, Parrish probably won't. I would drop QB to 3, and I would not lower both safety spots to 6... probably keep SS at 4. Agree with your other moves.

I had no choice but to comment on this. I suspect any "adjustments" made at halftime, in most cases, are just decisions to pick or not pick certain plays from the previously established game plan. For example, the coaches might decide to use more of package X instead of Y, but both packages were already in the plan - after all, it is not likely that you'd try something you didn't practice ahead of time. That doesn't mean it is not an adjustment, but for the most part the differences between first and second halves are usually more about attitude than anything else. After all, did they "adjust" to stop dropping so many passes?

"Bills Fans Hope Fitzpatrick's Leverage Will Only Increase".

So, it sounds like we might need to draft a DB early next year?

From a football standpoint - wide right... the MCM was close to that, and so was Flutie at Miami. The Dallas MNF game was definitely something that made me realize the team would find a way to lose (and boy did they ever). From a non-football perspective - watching Kevin Everett taken off the field, paralyzed. I felt vaguely ill all day after that.

I counted 6 losses in your game-by-game predictions.

Or, the jets sign him again after Week 1 so they can pay him only on the weeks they want him on the roster.

Honestly this seems like semantics. Once information is given to a reporter, for the purposes it basically ceases to be inside info. Besides, I don't read and judge articles in the press based on whether they disclose inside information. I read them based upon whether they tell me something about the Bills that I did not know before I read the article. For example, there was an article in the Buffalo News today describing the Bills' contract values and cash payout amounts. I did not know that information before I read the article. It features on the record quotes by Russ Brandon presenting the team's position on its cash management and pay practices. This is not inside info, because it is on the record attributed information. That does not mean it is not useful or interesting information. Similarly, the articles from John Wawrow have featured a phone interview with Ralph Wilson. This is an example of how you define inside information. Since Mr. Wilson was aware that he was speaking to the AP reporter and that his statements would be on the record, it was not "inside" information because it was intended for distribution. Also, you could state accurately that JW was only reporting what Mr. Wilson wanted to tell him, and if the owner chose not to tell him something, he would not know it. On the other hand it was an exclusive interview, and the average fan has no access to speak to Ralph Wilson. As such, it does not matter whether this is considered inside information - it is useful information (in my opinion) that the average fan would otherwise have no access to. So - if by "inside" you mean "internal discussions not intended for distribution outside Bills' top brass" or "information prior to its official release date" then it would be accurate to say that this information only comes to the press if it is leaked by someone, and this does not happen often with the Bills. On the other hand an article which reports on the Bills, and contains information not widely presented in other media outlets, where that information is not obvious and not accessible to the average fan, is useful information for those following the team. This is why people perceive reporters such as JW to have inside information - they are reporting information which otherwise we would never know so it might as well be "inside" information, whether intentionally disclosed to them by the team or not. I believe that neither side in this situation is going to want to concede anything and I hope that both NGU and JW continue to participate in the board through other discussions, even if they decide to mutually dislike each other. Like many other posters I would prefer to have contributions from both here on TBD.

I think there is a well-established past history of the owner making bad decisions. However, can you comment on how often the owner is intervening in decisions under the current regime, as opposed to prior GMs - at least based on what you have heard?

Thanks, that is a better answer than none at all.

Can I ask a related question: Does Ralph Wilson provide financial incentives to his executive staff for winning, or only for improved profitability? I understand why this information might be closely held between RW and the specific executives. However, if (for example) Littman receives a larger bonus for every $1M of profit, but any football-related bonuses are inconsequential, it is logical for him to be 100% focuses on the bottom line. Similarly for any other person in the organization. Sentimental desires to win are nice but in the end this is a business. Ralph Wilson's net worth increases whenever the value of the Bills as a team increases. JW has stated many times that he does not believe Ralph is "only" interested in money, and I believe that. However if he provides financial incentives that drive financial-oriented behavior, then his leadership style is to blame whether intentional or not. Similarly, if he has placed in a decision-making role someone who is primarily incentivized by financial results then that is what he is likely to get. Any light that can be shed on this question?

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?