DC Grid

Anyone concerned with the nutso math here? In this draft it's almost in unfathomable that the number 9 and 41 and SJ would not make more of an impact than Watkins alone. SJ had a down year but he could easily be a top 40 WR...add that to a bookend OT like Mathews or franchise TE potential like Ebron and whoever you can get in the second and I don't see how this trade helps the Bills. SJ also happens to be the only guy who can consistently get open vs the Pats new CB Revis.

Heck yeah. Romo is Favre (his idol) 2.0. He is THE reason you'll lose until he is THE reason you win it all. People forget that before Favre was a future hall of fame lock he was a gunslinger that had as many big game blunders as Romo. With age and a better supporting cast Favre became unstoppable. I truly believe Romo could have the same kind of career, and at the least he's a guy that could get the Bills in the playoffs for 3-4 of the next 6 years, and at the worst is still a top 15 starter. The Cowboys would never let him go, but if two 1s were all it took I'd make that deal in a heartbeat.

Nonsense. You don't reach for a guy who projects to be a solid OT or OG while passing on an elite TE.

I think the talk of a big trade up to the top 3 is BS, but I assume the Bills have looked into trading up a few picks to grab a guy they want. I could see the Bills trading with the Falcons if the Bills want to grab one of the two top WRs, ahead of the Bucs, and I can see ATL being willing to drop down 3 slots if multiple OL from the top 3 are still on the board. The price would likely be the Bills 2nd rounder.

Giving a guy a second chance is one thing...this would be ingocnito's 4th or 5th chance. He's an old guard that would barely be an upgrade over buffalo's worst one. Even if he wasn't was scum (not even counting the Miami meltdown) he'd play his way out of the league in a couple years. Bills are young and solid...may be nearing a positive tipping point....two many off field problem guys could tip things the wrong way. I'd prefer taking risks on young and talented players like Williams, Spikes or Britt than old and even more troubled.

I don't think Whaley et al get anything out of playing it safe. They need a winner to have any hope of staying on with new ownership. To the extent a bold move gets them into the playoffs this year I think they wouldn't hesitate to pull the trigger. That said, I don't think drafting a stud WR to be the Bills true number one WR is a risky move at all. The only move I can't see them making this year is taking a shot at a falling QB like Bridgewater....because he won't pay dividends year one. Other than that I think all options are in play. Sadly I don't think Evans will be around at 9, so the top talents left on he board will be OTs Mathews / Lewyan (spelling?), QB Teddy B, and TE Ebron. Of these I'd bet they grab the remaining OT, not because it's safe but because the OL is a bit of a mess and dependable blocking could let the Bills ground game dominate and take pressure off EJ and the D. I'm not saying they'll be run first necessarily, but being able to guarantee positive yards would be huge for this team.

I would pitch it as duration - tied to money. I figured $100 mil per decade....though the tax payers would have to pay it all up front. Assuming the cost of a new stadium (including land) is $800 mil. 8 decades seemed fair. But if they were building a cheaper stadium a 3 decade duration has merit. $800 mil for 30 years seems like a tough pill to swallow.

Is it yours?

Not trying to make a political statement at all...can't afford the warning points. I just couldn't let his being classified as "sharp" go by...just like the way I'd speak up if someone said Tim Graham was biased in favor of the Bills.

I don't think he'll do a ton of good there, but he can't hurt them. If I were a Jets fan I'd love this move. Even in his diminished state he has to be a big upgrade over the guys they have.

I'm calm as can be...I just happen to know the box of rocks you were talking about. Personally, I wouldn't mind seeing my tax dollars go to my favorite team, but that's easy to say as I love the Bills but don't live in NY. I wouldn't want 1 cent of my DC tax money spent on the Redskins, but I'd gladly ok a major spend on a new soccer stadium to further develop the DC waterfront / SW. Judging by the lack of teams pulling the trigger on moves these days, it would seem like most voters might not be willing to pay for their teams with tax dollars. I asked the question in another thread about whether people of Buffalo would be willing to pony up to keep the team, and I'll be interested to see the results.

Not being from NY, is there a mechanism for voting on single funding options, like in California and other states? I ask this because it would seem like this could be the surest way of guaranteeing the Bills would stay in Buffalo. Put a referendum on the ballot next election to fund the cost of a new stadium. It could be as simple as a pledge that Buffalo (Erie County) tax payers would fund the site location and construction of a new downtown stadium conditioned upon the new owner agreeing not to move the Bills for 80 years. I'm not saying this is a fair or great option; hardworking tax payers donating hundreds of millions of dollars to a billionaire is disgusting...but it might be necessary. Would the people of Buffalo go for this? An owner of the Bills faces the headwinds of a populous that can't afford high priced tickets, a local economy that is generally without big businesses to fill obscenely priced luxury boxes, and smaller local advertising options than they'd have in cities like LA, but the city could provide the land and build a stadium. It comes at a huge price, and I realize Buffalo isn't swimming in cash...but how much are people willing to give up to keep the Bills? For the locals in Buffalo, if it took a 1% city tax added to your paychecks or a 1% increase in the local sales tax would you vote for it?

Hahahahahahaha. You clearly haven't met the guy. I'll help the Bills stay in Buffalo as much as he'll help the Bucks. Seriously though the only thing Pols can really do to help teams is deliver new stadiums or sweetheart deals that voters don't generally want.

I can't really see either Watkins or Evans being available after 7. There are 5 teams in the top 7 that could take them, and I'd bet big that at the very least those two are close to the top of Oak's, TB's, StL's and Cle's Boards.

Looks like the Bills realized the top 2 WRs would be gone before 9 and did something about it. Williams is a risk but for a 6th rounder he's like buying a ticket in the awesome WR lottery.

Thad has zero potential as a starter, but he's gotta be one of the better backups in the NFL.

Ha, sadly this was my gut reaction, as foolish as it is.

All the smart people on this board and no one realizes this is just an elaborate play to get Fitz back? I'm shocked. In all seriousness though, I could see the Bills in talks with the Texans but not for their top pick, but for the pick they may wind up with. Atlanta has been rumored to be after Clowney for a while and they've shown the willingness to make bold trades on draft day. If Hou winds up in the 6th spot and the QBs keep falling, they may be interested in trading back a few spots to 9 and the Bills may realize they HAVE to trade up a few if they want Evans, as right now it looks like there's less and less chance that either Evans or Watkins are available after 7.

...

As this article makes fairly clear, but the WSJ has covered in depth, stock in athletes, the way these are set up is like buying stock in the Packers. It's your chance to get some NFL paraphernalia at an inflated cost. As for the comparison above to slavery? I don't think slaves routinely gave up nothing in exchange for thousands / million of dollars. This is more akin to a personal hedge. Using this vehicle a player can functionally backstop the possibility of disappointing career earnings. Again this is total BS, but likely sails by / avoids the SEC qualifications because there are A LOT worse investment vehicles out there in both the public and private equity markets.

95 years old, helped launch pro football as we know it today, made a fortune, and brought happiness, even in bad times to a rust belt city that wasn't his own. That's a pretty awesome legacy.

Small sample size yes, but not so small it's insignificant. The losing teams are below and you can see in the close games the QBs were mostly young. The old guys (like manning this year) got blown out twice, sort of underscoring the point of not being able to win with an old QB. It wasn't a fluke play that determined the outcome, like the Tyree catch. So even expanding it to all QBs for the past 11 SBs the trend generally holds true and may even underscore how it is a money issue. Only 3 QBs are over 30 who's teams even had a shot to win those games. One was Brady who gave money back in negotiations to help his team remain competitive was 33, one was Warner, a guy playing on a discounted contract late in his career, and one was Hassleback who wasn't exactly a big money QB. SB Losers from last 11 years: 2014 - Manning - 37 2013 - Kapernick - 25 2012 - Brady - 33 2011 - Roth - 29 2010 - Manning - 32 2009 - Warner - 37 2008 - Brady - 28 2007 - Grossman - 27 2006 - Hasselback - 31 2005 - McNabb - 28 2004 - Delhomme - 29

100% agree, Brown's motives are clear...but his observation still seemed worth noting. Dalton is also a guy I would NEVER give a big contract to. All he does is just enough to lose first round. I think we've seen his upside and it's not enough. With the team he has around him I'm not sure Weeden or some other like bum might not have eeked out similar results.

Mike Brown (Bengals Owner) recently talked about a trend that is worth highlighting...especially for fans of teams like the Bills. For all this talk of trying to find the next Brady / Brees / Manning etc, the old guard / well-established QBs just aren't winning SBs. Brown suggests that a lot of this has to do with cap numbers and a QB like Brady, Manning, Brees draws so much money it drains the team and compromises their ability to fund other positions. But whether this is the reason, or some other cause is the real culprit, it is still valuable to realize that the NFL is skewing younger than it ever has at QB, and perhaps teams need to focus on not just finding good young ones, but even letting the good old one go. I know that seems counterintuitive, but a little over a decade of data is hard to ignore. Looking at the last 11 SBs, if I were a GM I would be focused on finding a young QB to build with or insert (duh) but then dumping them shortly after 30 (obviously the more controversial idea). Is this crazy or might Mike Brown be onto something? If nothing else looking at this data has me completely uninterested in looking for a veteran starter...which is a view that OBD clearly seems to share. 2014 SB - 2004 SB (11 SBs): -Only 3 SB winners were over 30, the oldest was 31 -8 of the 11 winners were 28 or younger -7 of the 11 were 27 or younger -Average age of the winning QBs - 28 -The list: 2014 - Wilson - 25 2013 - Flacco - 28 2012 - E.Mann - 31 2011 - Rodgers- 27 2010 - Brees - 31 2009 - Roth - 27 2008 - E.Mann - 27 2007 - P.Mann - 30 2006 - Roth - 24 2005 - Brady - 27 2004 - Brady - 26

People also tend to forget the result was a bad contract for Ricky. It's an error in judgement on Evans' part to sign with them but it could make him easier to deal with in some ways....to the extent it matters at all the way the new rookie deals work. Man did the players screw up in the last CBA battle.