birdog1960

top 10 grossing concert acts of the decade (from pollstar): 1.Dave Matthews ($530 million!!!) 2.celine dion 3.Kenny Chesney 4.Springsteen 5.rolling stones 6.U2 7.madonna 8.eagles 9.elton john 10.jimmy buffet excluding acts that have already played the sb my pick from this list would be Dave Matthews, hands down-certainly appears to have broad appeal.

Dixie Chicks are from Texas..maybe a little wide left for ole jerry and the NFL though.

Yeah, it's been watered down a little lately with manufactured acts but there are still many great artists in the genre. Go see a grand ole opry show at the ryman theater some day and see what you think. Go when there's some bluegrass acts as well (like Del McCroury) and then tell me the players aren't talented and the vocalists don't have range. There are multiple entire disciplines of stringed instrument techniques discovered and mastered by country musicians (see Merle Travis) and borrowed and adapted by many other genres. Broaden your horizon a little...and it's as American as apple pie and the NFL. And, millbank, BB King with Eric Clapton would be awesome.

Only if she used an autotune...got to be the least talented grammy winning singer in recent history...would be much worse than the Who

Emmit and jerry doing a tango exhibiton...but seriously if it were country, maybe Brad Paisley. How bout blues with BB King or maybe U2 or Dave Matthews-would have pretty broad appeal

way too many self loathing and emasculation themes....how is that supposed to sell the average red blooded american male football fan anything? Maybe they think the women have the money now (maybe they do). Did like the little Audi though...just not the ad for it.

reagan was demented

um..the pats are in our division, coaches are chosen (many times over by the bills) and the application of statistics over a decade would minimize the effects of luck. The article mentions poor free agent choices. Nit pick away, the general, overriding thrust of the article, that the bills have drafted consistently horribly is indisputable...and once again what is the one constant presence in all of these drafts? the gm? coach? scouts?...Oh yeah, the owner.

the clip of gogalak on nfl network last night had him stating he was refused a raise, period. Was he actually offered 35%? 35% might not be cheap but no raise to keep a great kicker probably is.

I do understand the situation. The draft and just about everything was a war between afl and nfl but, while rw worked as a partner to his fellow owners he often didn't work as a partner with the fans to produce winners. Then, as now, I contend, the bottom line was more important than winning to him. I'd hoped that would change as his life expectancy dwindled but I guess not.

great story!...not sure how well he did selling trees in that neighborhood though. I can remember having a liquor bottle thrown at the window of the bus we were riding from Sears to the rockpile (used to park at sears). Showered me with glass and scared the hell out of me (I was a little kid). Was very glad when they moved.

Anybody recall if the Bills poached any big names from the NFL at that time? I can't think of any. Anybody else they let walk?

yup, that was the gist of it in the episode. With this move the nfl fired a pistol shot and Al Davis returned fire with a machine gun raiding the Rams and other teams for free agents. Mike Ditka was even poached from the bears.

last nights "hx of the AFL" episode reminded me that not paying to keep good players has been rw's m.o. since the beginning. Gogolak, arguably the top kicker at the time, asked for a raise, the Bills said no and he left for the Giants. The more things change, the more they stay the same. great show though!

larry, darryl (starters) and his other brother darryl(back up)

As a percentage of tax revenues, rw's $1billion insurance agency has probably received more subsidy than bmw in Spartansburg. I think that makes the analogy apt.

yes, I think every publicly subsidized company is indebted to the taxpayers. Unless its in a contract, then no, not legally, but ethically, yes. When S Carolina lures a BMW plant with tax incentives, they expect a good faith effort on the part of BMW to add financially to the community over a reasonable period of time.. If BMW up and leaves after 2 years because someone offers them a better incentive, I find that unethical. Some might see it as shrewd but I would disagree. Your condo analogy is ridiculous as the benefit to the community is presumed to be something other than subsidized housing from the outset. I think its reasonable to expect that a business subsidized for 50 years by local govt at least consider the interests of the citizens of that gov't when making future plans that might include moving.

and the really smart folks are happy for you to believe that myth while the get the better of a deal. Underestimate at your own peril.

greatness isn't measured with a balance sheet. rw should never be considered a great man...decent? I'm not sure.He'd look a lot more decent to many if he laid out a succession plan with Buffalo's interests considered.

this

yes and completely at odds with rw's glorious history

You stated in an earlier post that a less expensive coach hire would indicate that Littman was still in control. Is that no longer true? Your posts are starting to read like a Le Carre novel. Anonymous informants sometimes have ulterior motives in his books. btw, if you knew about schott wanting the job before Nix was named GM, why not let us in on that? Would you have divulged that info if Graham had not?

Will you laugh at yourself if he doesn't?

i must...protect...my...delusions ..at ..any...cost...Seriously, what is the cost to you if you're wrong? you might have to change your sign in name. The cost to Tim Graham for putting this out without good evidence might be his job and certainly risks his reputation and access to the Bills. I know who I believe.

and you base this best case scenario on what exactly. How'd you do betting the playoff games last weekend? Please post this weeks picks so I can bet the opposite.