Delete This Account

i'm not trying to be difficult here, though it might seem that way. but i hadn't realized the deep rut of futility in which the bills have sunk over the 11 years and counting can so quickly be overcome by ... a uniform change. i mean, i can see people buying into the hope of the Bills signing T.O. or drafting C.J. Spiller, or cutting Trent Edwards or firing Dick Jauron. that's actual change, though even in those cases it didn't change much in the end. what escapes me is how a team going from a dark blue to a lighter blue, or adding a stripe or patch is actually considered a valuable plus. if they wore pink and won the Super Bowl, would that be acceptable? just wondering. ... jw

really, Sabres? everyone hated the flying slug logo, and yet everyone in town was wearing the jerseys, t-shirts, hats, socks whatever because the team was actually -- how do you call it? -- winning, by getting to the Eastern Conference finals twice. i thought winning generated enthusiasm. jw

see, i always figured it was the players in the uniform, not the uniforms themselves. call me ol' fashioned. jw

sorry, to ask. to those who have expressed excitement about this development, why is this exciting? jw

consider how disappointing the opposite would be. here you are, all ready to watch bubble-butt porn, and suddenly a cartoon shows up. whatta mood-killer. jw

and you blew your 5000th post on this. for shame. if that's the case, you should stop now. jw

Old Dutch sour cream and bacon and/or bacon rippled. their dill pickle chips are also well spiced. i get a bag of one of these every time i'm up Canada way. jw

why hello. you are correct. yes, but there are also other guys. we all need a little love. lost you there. the earth is not flat, so we shall never get there. i'm a little distracted here. try sounding it out ... is it "murdering" or "maddening" or "mundane" or maybe "meandering" ... pardon me, because i now realize i'm interupting the point you were trying to make here, so let's move on. me, the moron, of course. if by approval, you mean concession, you'd be pretty spot on. jw

that's the past, though. can he help in the future? jw

looking back, i think Bills fans would've preferred Rodgers over Losman. who's matthew, by the way? the guy from the Bible? jw

your comments above appear to be the last gasps of the logically addled and clinically blind. you hold so dear to whatever obtuse point you were attempting to make that it's now become evident that many of us here have come to the conclusion that the only point you've made is that of your own hard-headedness and unbending ability toward reason or what's plainly obvious. you are like those who persistently argued the world is flat, that the sun revolves around the earth and that this automobile thing will never catch on. but to your laughable retorts: -- so you're saying that someone like, say, Trent Edwards as the Packers quarterback, would've won that game yesterday? -- you've talked ad naseaum how the best defenses win. then why couldn't the steelers defense overcome Roethlisberger's struggles? -- some of us did watch the bills game against the steelers, and likely had a different memory than yours. how the steelers defense "won" that game is arguable, considering the steelers themselves talked afterward of how they were already walking off the field when seeing Stevie Johnson alone in the end zone with the ball coming toward him. the defense didn't cause that drop. Stevie Johnson dropped it all on his own. -- and you then completely contradict the initial point that you've been attempting to make with your last line. after initially positing that D wins period, you have now come around to many others way of thinking by acknowledging that "it's a great thing to have a franchise QB." that you elected to add a "BUT" is further proof that you don't get it. and perhaps, i don't either because this response may well be proof that i'm a bigger fool for continuing what's clearly become an exercise in pure, utter, 100-proof futility. jw

the lawsuit filed recently against the owners over alleged cohesion in free agency last summer is likely just the start. and your point on the owners pushing through the new deal will open up its own can of worms, both legally and on capitol hill, never mind also creating uncertainty among its sponsors and fans who could very well be slow to sign up for "replacement games." jw

beat me to it tgreg99. two points to make: -- the steelers top-ranked defense couldn't win this game alone, as it needed far better quarterback play. -- as good as the packers defense has been for much of this season, green bay wouldn't have reached the super bowl, never mind won it, without aaron rodgers. jw

that's a dicey proposition you're making, frought with numerous landmines. the NFL would risk opening itself up to further lawsuits and congressional insight, the latter of which would open a big can of worms. some NFL owners are already unhappy with Chuck Schumer pushing the ball on revenue sharing in regards to the Bills, and i think Schumer will be pushing that ball further as a new CBA is reached. also keep in mind, Smith has a friend at the White House, as he previously worked with AG Eric Holder. the idea of replacement players also isn't attractive. though a curiosity the last time it happened, it didn't last long and eventually led to the NFL caving on free agency: a big win for the union. replacement players was such a bad idea that major league baseball eventually caved to its union, which led immediately to Kevin Brown signing a $122 million contract (and the right to fly family and friends on the Dodgers private jet). a loss for MLB, especially considering the revenue it lost from losing a third of its season and the World Series. the NHL lockout proved that the league can win by standing firmly together, and it led to the eventual dissolution of the NHLPA, which may finally be regaining a sense of relevance under its third -- or is it fourth, i've lost track -- leader on Donald Fehr. and your scenario has been written about and may gain traction in the coming weeks, which is why there are more questions about there being a "Go" and "No-Go" date. but you seem to place all the risk on the players, and believe they will be the ones who break. though possible, NFL owners have no track history of holding together either, and there is a fear that the smaller market teams could get trampled in the outcome. there's plenty of pressure on Goodell to keep his side in check as well. it's not as cut-and-dried as you present it. my money's still on an nfl-imposed lockout. jw and really, why in every post do you make it so freaking personal, in that you come off to be so godam high and mighty that leads me to wonder why you don't have a job in this business. or are all of us stupid reporters simply beneath you. jeezus, you're an arrogant, pompous know it all, who makes it difficult to allow me to reply respectfully or without holding my nose.

i strongly disagree with the term "shyster." and i won't get dragged into yet another discussion in regards to Mr. Wilson. i've made my comments in regards to Mr. Wilson on far too many numerous occasions, so please look them up for reference. the economic model has changed because numerous owners have opted (not forced) to build extravagant palaces, which have proven costly. and some have attempted to squeeze the public for more money by forcing upon them high-priced licensing fees. when the new cba was struck, the owners were put in a desperate position of agreeing to a bad deal or risking a labor dispute, apparently without realizing that by building such new palaces they were, by themselves, driving up the salary cap, thus forcing them to spend more money on player salaries. and yet, they compounded their problem by providing players a higher share of revenues than in the previous deal. couple that with the economic downturn that apparently no one saw coming (bubble bursting, how can that be?), and the NFL has put itself in a risky position in which there have been fewer sellouts and fewer people attending games. suddenly, and curiously, more teams adopted the Bills cash-to-the-cap model. suddenly, and curiously, there weren't many high-priced free agents signed during an uncapped year. suddenly, the NFL was put into a position where it was forced to slash payroll at HQ. suddenly, NFL teams cut pensions for their coaches. this is not to say that the NFL is in economic jeopardy, but it is suddenly facing problems similar to that of other major league sports. and i think you miss my point on the NFL-NHL comparison. the NHL didn't reach a new deal until it stood its ground against the union and went ahead with a lockout. Jeffrey Pasch, the lawyer who worked with the NHL and is now working with the NFL, is regarded as a leading labor negotiator, who is credited with guiding the NHL through the lockout and earning the league what's regarded as a one-sided victory. the NFL has reached a crossroads as well here, seeking a transformative deal and risking a lockout in order to get it. and the two negotiations in fact are comparable. the NHL wanted a salary cap and got one. the NFL no longer has a salary cap but wants cost certainty (ie: a new cap formula). as in 2004, NHL owners were well prepared and more than willing to risk losing an entire season to get their way. the NFL owners, i strongly believe, are prepared to take the same position. yes, compromise would work, but there is too much at stake -- the NFLPA needs a win to hold its ground, the NFL needs a win because the past deal was flawed -- to go that route. right and reasonable are not part of this equation. pension funds, tv rights, new stadiums, free agency, a rookie salary cap, an 18-game schedule: there's a lot of money at stake here, and it'll depend -- as it did with the NHL lockout -- on which side blinking first. i believe the stage is set for a repeat of that lockout unless De Smith can somehow come away with a face-saving win on one of the key fronts, which will more than likely come down to the 18-game schedule and reducing the number of required games it takes for an NFL player to be vested, and receive health insurance. i don't know how far the NFL is willing to go on that. or when that issue will be settled. jw

not for long: lockout pending. they're tired of getting peanuts. jw

actually, Tags apparently took the lead role on talks, with influence from leading owners such as Kraft, Jones and I would imagine Rooney. if i recall correctly, they were the trio or foursome who lobbied the rest of the owners to accept this deal. as i was told of what happened, the small-market owners were holding out for a better deal before their side collapsed after both Al Davis and Weaver, the Jags' owner, bolted to the other side and spoke in favor of approving the deal. that left the Bills and Bengals on the outside. there's a big belief that Davis was rewarded for his move by getting several prime time games in the upcoming season. not sure what Weaver got out of it. again, Goodell was involved, i'm sure. to what degree, i don't know. there is a perception out there that this was Tagliabue's baby, and a deal he dearly wanted in order to keep his slate clean. there's a belief that's backfired on him for how the deal was handled, and the labor uncertainty that's followed. and it's a key reason Tags will have difficulty getting into the Pro Football Hall of Fame as it stands now. Goodell has been left to pick up the pieces and used his time wisely in preparing the owners while also putting a solid team together -- including the lawyer you represented the NHL in the last lockout -- in going forward. i have been very impressed in my dealings with Goodell so far. jw

how absurd. i'm not sure if you're questioning the word "lockout" or questioning whether the nfl hasn't made plans in the event there will be no deal by March 3. either way, that's well, absurd. the players won't strike. they don't need to. they like the existing deal. ergo, the nfl is the one that would have to lock out the players in order to get a new deal. secondly, the lockout is pending because there is no deal. if the players don't have the solidarity, why is it they have all but unanimously agreed to decertify if necessary? and i do know many Bills players were preparing for a lockout when i spoke to them in the weeks leading up to the end of the season. though true, the players don't get paid until the season begins, you're wrong in saying a lockout won't have any affect. free-agents won't have the opportunity to negotiate contracts or collect the substantial bonuses that would come with them. roster bonus clauses negotiated into numerous contracts will not be paid out at the start of the new year, March 4. health insurance (and this covers the players' families as well) will be stopped. i know of one player who's daughter requires several operations, some of which will have to take place past March 4, and that will not be covered. (the player wasn't looking for sympathy, and i approached him about writing the story, but he declined because he didn't want to have his daughter thrust in the middle of this). jw (proud member of the blind sheep media)

the opt-out clause is standard in most CBA's that go beyond three years. both the nfl and nflpa have traditionally had opt-outs in the past. the nhl also had one in its last deal, and both sides agreed to extend it. i'm not familiar with baseball, but i would like to say the nba has had similar opt-out clauses. from what i recall, this was not a deal of "convenience." it was put forward to the owners that his is the best deal we can get at this moment, so let's go with it. there seemed to be a rush to judgement here, and i think the deal actually tarnished Tagliabue's reputation, because he was in such a rush to retire and ensure that his legacy wasn't tarnished by a work stoppage. the owners, those in the midst of building new palaces and the heavy loans that came with them, seemed all in favor of reaching the deal -- any deal -- so there would not be a work stoppage. the dynamics have clearly changed this time around. jw

my guess is a deal's done by july. there's no pressing interest to get one done at this point. owners are lined up for the long haul (much like the NHL owners were in 2004-05), and the union seems intent on playing its -- as some have pointed out here -- relatively weak hand. i wrote this a while back here, so sorry for repeating myself, De Smith started in a bad position and hasn't managed much to improve it, though he does have the players publicly on board and behind him. the big problem the NFLPA faces is it's coming off what's regarded as one of the biggest wins it enjoyed with the last contract -- a contract so bad it took only a few years for the NFL owners to realize how much they gave up. the challenge for Smith -- or anyone in his position today -- is coming out with any type of "win" in these talks, and deciding where that "win" will come from. way i see it, the NFLPA's is laying its cards on the 18-game schedule, and using that as leverage. "the owners want more regular season games to raise more money, well, what do we get out of that?" it's not a bad approach. the trouble is, the owners have the leg up on this one. unlike last time, when they were ready to sign anything at the last minute, this time they've had the advantage of three years to prepare for this one. and it certainly appears Goodell has his people in line. jw

it wasn't in the story. it was just the sense i got coming out of the meeting of how the thrust of Rogers Communications' charge toward an NFL franchise was left blunted -- and the vaccuum left unfilled -- following Ted Rogers' death two years later. they still seem to be on page 1, if not page minus-1. jw

i do believe Tom would step in to buy the team if there was a concern that the franchise would move. it's one of the reasons i said on 'GR a few months back that i'm more confident of the team staying than going. ... and after my interview with Phil Lind in November, i'm more confident that the team stays in western new york. during the 'GR interview i think i said 65-35 the team stays in the region (including Toronto). i'd say that it's about 65-35 maybe even 70-30 that the team doesn't leave WNY. jw

just poured the last bit of beach sand out of my shoes as i unpacked. oooh, man, is my back every sore from being burnt from snorkeling off the beach in curacao. it was almost too hot. almost. jw

nothing? i provided attempts at humor in this thread, which some of the posters seemed to appreciate. what is this objective observation crap ... my observation remains that you are wrong based on the subhead of this thread that you started. brokeback mountain? ... more like broken record on your part. and if you suggest that i've argued like a 7 year old, well, it turns out i should argue like a 5 year old, cause my point -- and that of others here -- stlll hasn't gotten through to you. jw

let this then be my last post (until i get back from vacation). jw