Ronin

Yes

"Whaley says one culprit is the 2012 draft, which produced three immediate-impact starters at quarterback: Andrew Luck, Robert Griffin III and Russell Wilson. "Those guys have success their first year, then everybody's like, 'Why can't this guy do it?' And then you're considered a failure if you don't," Whaley said. "But maybe you're not a failure. You just weren't ready yet." And in Whaley's wisdom he had to take Graham over Wilson who was still available in the 3rd.

Very few losses for any team can be attributed exclusively to a single player. Atlanta was 4-12 last season and averaged 22 ppg, we allowed them to put up 34. If we were as half as good as some think then we should have walked all over them at home. Pittsburgh wasn't that good either. How many games did we lose because of Manuel's horrible passing? Or our inability to halt other teams' passing games despite racking up sacks? Looking at Atlanta here as one.

I wouldn't care if they showed up for game 1 without pants on and peace-sign tattoos on their asses if they could just win. Unfortunately this isn't the team to do it. The about mid-October the end of the season can't come fast enough, the firing of [insert name] can't come fast enough, usually the Draft can't come fast enough but we'll have no day-1 pick next year so no one will care, and then next season can't come fast enough. This organization is like looking into one of those pictures that has a picture of that picture, that has a picture of that picture, etc. A team full of pro-bowlers? Say what? Dareus and both Williams are it from last year and Dareus' days are numbered. He's overrated. So is Mario.

He's overated. He had one great season two seasons ago. Other than that one season he hasn't been much better than McGahee. He was outplayed by Fred Jackson, who's time he stole because they drafted him in the 1st round, one of Jauron's legacies.

His running style is abusive, kinda like Earl Campbell's, but with a fraction of the results. Campbell's career effectively ended following the season in which he was 28, which would be this season for Lynch, but Lynch started playing when he was two years younger. If these players have millions there are easier ways to continue to make money when you have it.

If we shock anyone this season it will probably be for levels of futility which were unthinkable heading into the season. These guys need to learn to shut up and put up their money on the field, not in the media.

They didn't have nearly as much trouble selling out as they do today. Also, you didn't have benefactors buying tickets to save four games from being blacked out every season. They may have struggled from time to time, but not like they're doing now. We count only one non-sellout last season, but four were "rescued" and would have been blackouts if someone hadnt' stepped in to buy the remaining tix. I don't understand what this had to do with my point. I was talking about how PSLs won't sell and how luxury suites have already struggled. Having a new stadium isn't going to change that. Fans don't go to see a stadium, they go to see their team. No matter how you slice it Buffalo is hardly a great market by modern NFL standards. I agree that those standards suck, but they are what they are and it's a fact that the NFL revolves around money.

Oh please! Boo-f'ing-hoo for the uber wealthy guy. Ralph bought this team for $25K. Think about that for a second. If the team sells for $1B, then $25K is less than 1/100th of a percent. In essence it's entirely profit. If taxes took 90% he'd still have $100,000,000 leftover for his family to pay their bills, rent, and buy food with. I realize that's a tight budget these days for the hoity toity's of the world, but with a little financial management I'm sure they could have managed. Ralph lied to us plain and simple. Ralph was and has always been concerned about Ralph and the rest of his Wilsons. Good for him, but let's not pretend that he was our best friend. This was obvious years ago.

LMAO The flack that I've taken for suggesting that this could easily happen.

Analytics/metrics are only as good as those doing the analyzing. They can be employed during the draft process too but we rarely use them properly there. Until this staff proves that it has a clue in that department who cares. Gailey and his crew talked about metrics too, look how that ended up. Good weed. A+ comment I'll pitch in my unsolicited two cents. Short answer: No People are either analytical by nature or they are not. One cannot learn how to analyze at a level that's going to gain them a competitive advantage in a situation like this. They can pay to have data manufactured or extracted, but what one does with it is up to that person or team. Gailey and his crew talked about metrics too, but look at the results there. Schwartz is no longer the coach in Detroit for a reason. Same for the QB coach that he dragged with him that everyone's pinned their hopes on. He was essentially fired for having Stafford regress. Manuel is no Stafford. Belicheat is an analytical coach and he has his silent side kick Ernie Adams who's an analytical genius. I don't think that our staff is blessed as such.

Looks like it empties directly onto an interstate. You don't think that's relevant? And please, don't compare Robert Moses with an interstate.

Dennard was busted for DUI last summer too. But hey, again, minor. Nothing wrong with loadin' up and going driving. Just ask Schopp.

LOL Yeah, but we're talking about major things like street racing, which used to be all the rage when I grew up and was done routinely in Rochester on Lake Ave. in particular, not the petty stuff that Hernandez did.

How do you figure? What, you think that they're going to have to double or triple either Woods or Williams? ouches that ball, rarely even scores. Right now Watkins isn't anymore than Spiller until proven otherwise. Also until proven otherwise, I don't think that D coordinators have us anywhere near the top of their lists in terms of having nightmares, particularly with Manuel throwing the ball. If Manuel can throw for 3,000 yards and 20 TDs this season it'll be a huge step forward despite being below average for the NFL. Even if he does simply that, it won't be cause for nightmares for any of our opponents. Maybe next season, but not this one upcoming. People are way overrating the contribution that a rookie WR is going to make, and heading the top of that list is Whaley. Williams is a low-end starter at best. Woods, hopefully, will become an above average starting WR this season, but even that is generous unless Manuel really really improves. Manuel was terrible with screens last year.

LOL As if she needs WNY. Besides, the incumbancy reelection rate is 98%.

Come on now, we don't take WRs that are 6'4" like Green or Julio Jones, both of whom we could have had instead. We take 6'1" WRs that played in gimmick systems in a weak conference. You should know better. Why take an odds-on pick when you can be "gutsy."

No, I haven't. But I'll tell you what Einstein, go find the excerpt in the lease that says a buyout is impossible and I'll concede the point. Because from everything I've read, there's presently a $400M buyout on the table. Then find me something that says that this lease absolutely under any circumstances cannot be altered. It happens all the time in business dealings there genius. All the time. Since you've clearly never heard of renegotiating a lease, let's just let this rest. So you're saying that revenue is profit then? Talk about putting in a bit of effort. Hence my point. Case in point, who makes more money? Business owner A with revenues of $1B and net profits of $10M; OR Business owner B with revenues of $700M and net profits of $50M. Sorry, but not one of your charts included profits. Again, hence my question. What, don't you think that profits are relevant in this scenario? Particularly since the Bills typically hover around in that $10-15M range, and that lately half, or thereabouts, of that has come from a deal with Toronto that no longer exists? Here's a clue, "operating income" is not profit. Sorry to bother you. Just trying to engage in some intelligent discussion. It's becoming increasingly clear that I'll have to look elsewhere. PS Some of the reasons as to why so many here believe what they believe you just made quite clear.

You kinda lost me there, are you saying that the team can break the lease to move to Toronto, or still cannot? I know that you were simply floating that, but Rochester has no chance of getting a stadium. The best, or worst depending upon perspective, I can see is that Batavia/Darian Lakes option. As to Toronto, the question there, one way or another, is would the corporate community support a team. I think that given the size of the corporate base there, that even if the interest was at 10% of what it is in Buffalo overall, that given the much greater corporate resources it definitely would. I also think that Canadians, while being immersed in hockey, would embrace the NFL over a short period of time if they had their own team. I mean we can't fault Brandon for exploring that option, and taking the Canadian's money in that deal, and it was a "nice try," but imagine if we didn't have a team and Toronto did the same to us, I mean who would become a fan of that team when a it's not even yours and you have another team to root for in an equally if not more prominent sport here. If Buffalo didn't have hockey, how many Buffalonians would become fans of the Leafs to the extent that they support the team the way that they support the Sabers now? I don't think it would be significant at all. What merits? There are no "merits" if it doesn't translate somehow. Let's just end this. Why not include NYC in your analysis too, it would make as much sense, perhaps more.

Again, not true, look at the Jets. They've had one meaningful season in terms of playoffs in the last 15 years. They've made the playoffs a half dozen times, but often backing in and only twice over the last 7 seasons, yet they're one of the most profitable franchises in the league. Dallas, Washington, and Houston are even worse and they all made significantly more operating revenue than the Jets.

Where's the profit chart? For years we've heard about how we cannot compete for coaches because the team doesn't make enough money to pay the better coaches. Same implicitly goes for GMs and subsequently players too. Hence their decision to part ways with Stevie. The implication here is that if the team stays it will be more of the same regarding its competitiveness. That sounds like the best case here. I may be in an extreme minority on this one, but if the team stays and all we're going to get is the same garbage that's made the Bills the most futile team historically outside of the Polian era, then I don't really care either way. I don't buy garbage products from other companies, I don't see why anyone would buy a garbage product simply because they live in a geographical area or are from that area. If a business wants my dollar its going to have to provide something I want. I don't want to be a fan that's a laughing stock for the rest of the world. I don't to get all excited hoping that my team can muster a half a dozen competitive games every Sunday hoping to make the playoffs or perhaps merely log a winning record by a fluke. It doesn't have to be every season, but at some point, unless the team starts winning, it really doesn't matter whether or not it moves. I'm also not going to "pre-pay" (via PSLs or anything else) for the hopes that somewhere down the road the team will eventually be good when there's no evidence that it's even headed in that direction. Again, I'm sure I'm in a minority there. At least this fool and his money aren't soon parted. One of the more intelligent posts I've read. lmao

I'll answer with a question, and a couple of related questions. Have you ever heard of a buyout of a lease? Have you ever heard of politicians being corrupt after the fact and having taken money or bribes of some sort for some action taken? Do you really believe that those involved in the sale of the team have you and the rest of us fans anywhere near their top priority in determining what happens to this team and who it is sold to? We can start with Mary Wilson and those on the trust. Do you really think that their first priority is not money? If you can't connect those dots, I simply don't know what to say. Leases are bought out all the time. I've laid out this scenario several times, but you and others talk as if any would-be new owner would have no leverage at all, and I'm talking behind closed doors. They would have leverage. You can ignore that, which I've expressed numerous times already, and apparently you do ignore it. But that's to your own detriment then. I've said this too, just like they said shortly after Wilson kicked that the team wouldn't be sold for years, and everyone here and other Bills forums believed that, I believe that I was the only one saying "nonsense," and that the team would be sold sooner than that. I'm sure you disagreed then too, but it happened. Now they're saying presumably by October. Not saying that will definitely happen, but I did say that it wouldn't take the years that they said. Same thing with this notion on the lease. There are a hundred ways to break a lease. Even 2020 requires a buyout. Let me throw this out, suppose an owner, possibly supported by other league owners, says we'll double (or whatever) the 2020 buyout, and quietly lines the pockets of the politicians making the decision, if you let us out now (or sooner) you don't think that this would be a factor? If you don't then you'd have to be naive in a world whereby money trumps integrity and ethics on a daily basis now at that level. Where did you hear/read that? Have you got a link? If that's the case, I'd put odds on that the team is going to Toronto.

Everyone's too emotional in their positions on this. No one, besides us and local and regional politicians with other interests, cares about our "market." Every market is what it is, nothing more, nothing less. The Bills had the third least operating income in 2012, the last year of reported data. That means that there's greater potential elsewhere.

I think that applies more to the way that the NFL was 20+ years ago and not so much today. The spending for stadiums, with the accompanied corruption at all levels, has gotten well out of hand. Today it's all about the billionaires and the NFL's owners, these guys look longer term. What do you mean? You're the only other person besides myself that seems to think that this notion that the team is guaranteed to be here 'til 2020 is hardly certain if I read that correctly.

You guys need to start thinking outside the box here as it were. This article mentions L.A. in passing, and everyone ignores the primary points of the piece or report. Not to mention the financial and economic circumstances of the region. This team ain't goin' to L.A. There are other options. It's also not going to sell for $2B, but it may very well sell for $1.2B, and it's almost certainly going to sell for more than the reported $800M that it's worth, and if it does, the more it sells for the more likely the team leaves. I'm sure we'll learn more in a few weeks given the rate at which this is moving now that enough time has passed since Wilson kicked, and when we do, I think that we'll find that all of those that insist that the team is staying will be enlightened to modern day economics and politics. Once again, if Buffalo had no team today, the odds of putting it here would be zero given the other options. That means that it makes more financial sense to put it elsewhere. At this point let's just hope, even if it's against hope, Whaley didn't whiff on Manuel as it would appear is the case, and that Watkins really isn't a gimmick Spiller-type of draft pick. If the team is going to leave it would be nice if it weren't run into the ground by morons that think that they know more than the collective wisdom of the league since its founding before it does.