Mickey

If you want a guy who can throw the ball, there is no one better at that in this draft. I wouldn't be shocked if, when all is said and done, Mallett ends up being the only franchise guy in this draft. I have fewer reservations about him than I do Cam Newton.

The only way to be sure we don't take him is if someone else does so I hope Carolina takes him. That would slide everyone else down a pick and maybe even bring Dareus within our reach.

Guaranteed that when draft day has come and gone and the Bills haven't traded down, people will convert "rumors gaining steam" to rock solid proof positive that the Bills could have traded down but were simply too stupid to make the move. Oh joy.

If that's true then its a league full of hippy losers. I doubt it though, alcohol is the substance of choice for major abuse in the NFL. If it were weed, we would be treated with headlines like "Fitz caught eating 2 boxes of Cheez-its at Stop-n-go" rather than "Lynch arrested for hit and run".

So are the owners. I have to believe that this is simply strategy working on both sides so as to improve their position in negotiations. A lockout means that the players don't cash their much needed paychecks and I don't care how much $ the union has put aside to help players make ends meet until a deal is done. That puts a limit on just how long the players can mess around with litigation. I believe that no lockout means that football and the players paychecks will go on as before while either litigation or a negotiated settlement brings the impasse to an end. I am not sure of the mechanics of what happens if the league is enjoined from imposing a lockout but that is my understanding. As a lifelong litigator, that is my guess based on what little we know. One thing is for certain, every single public statement made by either side is not for the purpose of keeping the fans informed with up to date, accurate information. Every public word they utter is for the purpose of advancing their position at the bargaining table and for no other. Time is an element of litigation strategy. The reason so many disputes settle is that when you let a case go the jury or, in a bench trial, to the judge, you are rolling the dice. Uncertainty = fear, fear = settlement.

No matter who our QB is, we have to have a solid offensive line if we want to get any where. Everyone of the "first round" QB's has something wrong with them. The No. 1 thing a QB has to do is throw the ball accurrately all over the field (not just 8 yd hooks to the TE). Mallett probably does that better than any other QB in this draft. I'd look long and hard at Mallett before passing him up.

...nor sadder ones *sigh*

And yet, Modrak still has a job. Can his hands really be that clean of all these draft disasters? When you think of all the money they put in to scouting and evaluating talent, how galling must it be to know they could have done better just paying $10 a month to get ESPN Insider and picking whatever guy Kiper thought they should pick.

I think it is too early to declare Tebow a bust or a future hall of famer. To listen to his supporters, you would think he was unstoppable last year and cheated out of a pro bowl spot. His detractors won't given him any credit for playing pretty well for a rookie. Personally, I don't think he has the arm to win in the NFL but neither did Joe Kapp (Capp? an old school QB for the Vikings who threw ducks but could run and improvise). He might find a way to use what he does have to succeed despite where his talent is a bit short. I can't imagine trading for him. I don't see how we would ever be on the same page with the Broncos in order to reach a deal.

The injunction is more likley to force the league to the table as well. The player's goal here isn't to win free agency or have the NFL declared to be in violation of the anti-trust laws. The suit is a tactic to get the league to show their cards which the players can then use to evaluate the offers the leauge is making. At a simple level, without trying to predict the long term effect the injunction would have on future strategies, the league is locking out the players. That means no football, that is why they call it a lockout. If the injunction is granted, then there is no lockout, football goes on, regardless of the outcome of negotiations or the suit. No lockout = football games on TV on Sunday Lockout = no football games on Sunday I don't really care who wins this struggle over $$. I just don't want it to result in there being no games. An injunction stopping the owner form locking out the player means football goes on. Thats good for me and I don't really care whose strategic position is improved. No injunction means no football setting up a game of revenue chicken to see which side can go the longest without $ before having to cave in and get a deal done. Players get paid per game so they don't start losing dollar one until late August, assuming they are willing to miss a few paychecks, that means no football in September.

Costs have gone up for sure, but so to has revenue. The players would be foolish to agree to a new deal based on the owner's claim that the current CBA isn't sustainable without making the owners prove that claim. Going to court is the only way to force that issue because in a law suit you have a little thing called "discovery". In discovery, each side gets to depose witnesses and demand documents. The players know that wide open free agency would create bidding wars which would bankrupt teams leading to a pared down league of superteams which half the country would not care about. They have been willing to sacrifice their economic freedom to keep the machine humming, they just want to be compensated for the sacrifice. The owners are perfectly aware of the same realities and are willing to sacrifice a measure of their monetary sovreignty to keep the golden goose crapping golden eggs. Each side gives up something for the good of all. The players and the owners still accept the basic terms that have fostered labor peace and prosperity, they are fighting over just how their mutual sacrifices should be valued. The players are not on a free agency jihad and the owners are not out to turn the clock and player salaries back to 1964. Basically, they are haggling. The numbers are mind boggling to us mere mortals so it doesn't seem that way but in the end, that is what they are doing, haggling. The lawsuit is simply a tactical tool as is the lockout threat. All that has to happen for a rival league to compete with the NFL to arise is for top tier talent to sign with a new league. It has happened twice before. Each time it was because the rival league was able to trigger bidding wars for the best players out of college forcing the NFL to eventually agree to a merger. I cheer for players, not guys in suits counting money. If there was a team in Buffalo that played well, that had good players and played against good teams, I'd root for them whether Ralph Wilson owned them or whether they played in the NFL or the GodKnowsWhatFL. I like football and if the NFL wants to give me a lockout instead of football, I'll gladly watch someone else.

The NBA and the NHL both have unions that are certified to serve as agents for its members in collective bargaining. No such union or collective bargaining agent exists with regard to professional football hence the comparison with those leagues is without merit. Baseball has an implied anti-trust exemption, the NFL does not so that comparison is also without merit. You are correct that the current model of professional football would be unsustainable if the draft were done away with. That is not the same as saying that there will be no professional football. Players and the league have all recognized that they each have a compelling interest in perpetuating the status quo and that has been where the minds have met in the past resulting in the CBA that has governed the sport for years now and underwhich the game and the league have thrived and prospered. The owners want to change that status quo and the players are not willing to do so without either proof that change is necessary or a sweetening of the pot for them, or both. Hence the stand off. The best way for the "NFL as we have known it" to continue is for the players to be successful enough in court that it forces the owners to work out a deal the players can live with. If the players don't get the injunction then the lockout is in effect, meaning no football. Losing the argument for an injunction has little relevance to the outcome of the suit as a whole. The current argument on the injunction, from the standpoint of a fan, has the following possible outcomes: 1. Players win: no lockout, football continues as before while the litigation and negotiations proceed, the disupte will end when they finally agree or when somebody wins the case. 2. Owners win: lockout in force, no football until the parties reach a negotiated settlement or the litigation concludes. Being a fan, I want the players to win this round because it means I get to keep my football while they argue over who gets the most quatloos.

I think your assumption is off the mark. The players are not on some sort of jihad to win total free agency or bust. Nor are the owner ready to go the mattresses to freeze out the players and teach them a lesson. They are just fighting over money, neither is looking to dramatically change the basic business model that has worked well for both. Litigation in this context is simply a strategy. The players don't have a lot of cards to play besides decertification and litigation. Last fall I remember seeing all these threads about how the players had zero leverage. I brought up decertification and litigation then which was covered in a number of articles I had read. This is their leverage. I am sure the league saw this coming. What they may not have seen was the recent ruling by the Judge on their lockout insurance.

Its kind of interesting that the players would be drafted by the NFL who will not let them work once drafted. The draft is in an internal policy created by the NFL which all the teams have agreed to abide by. The players don't have to participate or officially enter it to be drafted. When a player is drafted, it merely establishes a certain set of priority rights to that player's services by the team that drafted him as against the other NFL teams. That is significant only because the other teams have agreed to honor the rules establishing those "rights". Union or no union, they can have their little draft. Players can ignore it but that won't matter unless the teams do as well. The purpose of the draft was to bring some sanity to what had been nothing more than a player by player bidding war which the league could not financially survive. This is all pretty unchartered territory which makes it interesting to watch. As a lawyer, I find the litigation fascinating. The attorneys on both sides, I have to figure, have a plan whereby litigation is just a tool. Anyone whose plan is simply to win at trial is a gambling fool. The outcome of litigation is always uncertain. Always. There are aspects of it however which are certain. That is why I think that the litigation is just part of a strategy to get the best deal they can. Usually, when negotiation settlements, the last best, bottom line number doesn't come out until it has to which is when the trial starts or perhaps just after jury selection or in bench trials, somewhere during trial but before a decision is made. We aren't on the courtroom steps yet. The uncertain and potentially devastating outcome of a suit isn't close enough in time to make anyone nervous...yet. Litigation in NY and in most states permits the use of broadly applied and interpreted discovery rules. You can poke your nose into just about anything. Both sides can use those rules to peek behind the curtains and get a feel for where the best deal should be. At that point, it should just be a a mathematical exercise to find the common ground though I am sure both sides with strut and posture every step of the way hoping to get a deal that is just a little sweeter. If either side risks a court decision that could end in anything from player by player bidding wars to the league being able to get rid of free agency period, they are mad.

Yeah, what a bunch of jerks. How dare the locked out and now unpaid players not provide you with free entertainment and the league with free revenue. You are entitled.

One of the basics of negotiations is that whatever they are offering in the 6th hour is less than they will offer in the 7th. The last best offer won't come out until the 11th hour and we aren't there yet, not even close. I think they would be crazy to sign a deal based on numbers that are unverified. Would you buy stock in a company that refused to show you their balance sheets? Lawsuit ='s Discovery. In the context of a suit, the law provides the means by which both sides can force the other so produce documents. At this point, the Union would be in a better negotiating position well before the suit ever gets to trial. They will use the suit to crack open the books and then the real negotiating will begin. Then it becomes a matter of playing chicken with both sides trying to get the better of the deal, pretty much a marathon session of haggling. There is no hard, magic number out there where either side will draw a line in the sand. There is no point where X amount of $ is acceptable but X minus $1 is not. Ever been on a date with a girl and tried to go as far as with her as she will let you but you had no idea where that would be, a kiss at the door or breakfast in bed? You woulldn't cancel the date because she only let you go to half way between second and third. Okay, its a tortured metaphor but you get the idea.

I think you are missing his point when it comes to why he is treating the players as partners. In prior labor disputes, the players have asked for a percentage of revenue based on the argument that their talent, hard work and risk (injury, short careers, etc) is responsible for generating the lion's share of those revenues. The NFL has conceded that point previously which is why they agreed to cut players in for a cut of revenues, 56.9% is what was agreed upon. The owners then roped off a part of their revenue on the notion that they needed money set aside to use to grow revenues which benefits the players through an increased salary cap. 56.9% of that money is revenue generated by the players based on the principals and agreements the parties have long ago accepted. That is what the author means by the players investing money in to the league. The owner's want to increase the revenue contributed to the players by 100%, by doubling it from $1 Billion to 2 Billion though I am sure their "real" number is not what they lead off with, its probably closer to half that or maybe a third of that. I understand your point about revenue vs profit but this argument has already been made and pretty much decided by the parties in prior agreements. The players incur costs as well that are uncompensated. In addition to accepting limits on their off field lives, the risks of permanent injuries and the reality of short careers, consider the all the work out time and effort spent by players already under contract that is not required of them and such as the "voluntary" practices held all off season or QB's and WR's getting together to work on timing on their own. Consider also the years and years of uncompensated training in little league, high school and college and that every practice they have had since little league was an opportunity for a life altering injury. Even those who are able to start careers after the league are entering the job market many years behind their peers. Whether or not you or I agree that these costs are legitimate ones to consider is not really relevant, the owners and the players already have. The payback for the players on that contribution, ie, they get absolutely no share of $1 Billion in revenues that they play a critical role in creating, is that the game grows so that the salary cap is increased which leads to higher salaries for players. Their point would be, that if the league is going to double the amount of their contribution, the league has to share the increased value that investment leads to with the players. The league's response is that the increase is necessary to cover increasing costs which the players have been shielded from having to contribute towrds. The way to figure out who is right and who is wrong is to look at the actual numbers. Certainly team costs have gone up but so has off-the-books revenue, ie, revenue that is reported under the CBA to determine the salary cap each year. All they have to do is look at total revenue fron all sources when the CBA was agreed vs. all costs, including player salaries and compare then with last year's numbers. That would quickly determine whether the owners are gouging players or whether the player are unrealistically in their assessment of team costs. And that is where the negotiations have stalled. The NFL simply will not disclose those numbers, insisting that the deal they are offering is so wonderful that the players are being greedy little jerks for not just accepting it on faith. They have an inherent advantage over the players in negotiations. Player salaries and salary caps are well known, team profits and costs are not. The league isn't going to agree to give that away. It keeps the union in the dark and makes it much easier to lambaste the players as being greedy and themselves as simple businessmen trying to balance their books. I have no doubt that players are greedy. But I also have no doubt that owners are every bit as greedy. I think all any fan wants is a fair and quick resolution of the disupte so that football resumes and that the chance of future labor disputes are lessened. I don't think those goals are at all possible with one side having to show all their cards while the other doesn't. Thus, the lawsuit. There is a thing in the law called "Discovery" which essentially, within certain limits, allows each side to see where the other has buried the bodies. The point of the suit isn't to win some new free agency rights or to destroy the league by having it termed a monopoly. The point of the suit is to force the league to show its hand. Then the parties can negotiate without one side feeling they are flying blind. Once the math is available, a fair resolution should be as easy as adding up number on both sides of the ledger. My assumption is that those numbers will not support the leagues arguments because if they did, the league would already have used them as the ultimate hammer in negotiations.

It's a free country. That is not what the NFLPA reports happened. I don't beleive either side.

I like sparkles and glitter and I don't care who knows it.

I don't think it is illogical at all. The NFL makes what the market will bear. The networks have decided that televising those games is worth it to them, otherwise they wouldn't do it. No one is holding a gun to their head. As the league makes more money, so do the people who make the league, the players. It stands to reason that the more successful a company is, the more it makes. This is a struggle over their respective shares of revenue. The owners have a lot of leverage, but so do the players. Periodic conflict is inevitable since people generally are interested in maximizing their income. NFL owners and players aren't unique in that way. As fans, our only interest is in watching those games on TV for free in most cases and going to the stadium to watch in others. We don't really care about best interests of the league, the network, the owners or the players, we just want our football. That is why this has your attention and why it is so frustrating. Everyother day there is a new post making a villain of one the entities involved. I share your frustration, believe me but as a fan, we are on the outside looking in whether we like it or not. If a marginally profitable league like the NHL can survive a significant work stoppage, so can the NFL. The easy remedy for a fan is to just scratch pro football off their list of things to care about.

Or maybe coaches channel black athletes away from the quarterback position. Ask Marlin Briscoe about that.

I agree but I guess I don't know what I am talking about because I don't think Mallett will be there in Round 3. Mobility is overrated. Quarterbacks run 3-4 times per game, they throw the ball 30+ times per game. Mallett has the strongest arm in the draft, all the accuracy he needs and experience in a pro style offense. He is tall enough to see all there is to see in the secondary. I would take him in the second, might even trade up to the bottom of the first to get him but with our high second, that might not be needed.

Ummm...didn't he start at Blinn? And won a championship there too? He has played 2 years, not one. You might not think much of the competition but form an experience standpoint, that year counts iin my book. Cam is no one year wonder. He started two years, for two different teams and won two championships. I am not crazy about us taking him with so many good defensive players on the board which we so badly need. But Cam Newton has major talent and he has produced wins. Lots of them. I wouldn't jump off a bridge if Chan decided Newton was too good to pass up.

Ouch, that left a mark

No. 3 above may be true, it may not be, we don't know and neither do the players because the league won't show them the numbers. They have made the claim that you cite as fact but haven't proven it to be so. If it were true, showing the numbers would end the argument and the fact that they won't makes the player rightly suspicious that the claim is BS.