Dan Gross

First off, Losman is, dare I say it, a victim of last year's coaching staff. He was named the starter without earning the job, which is something that even he was uncomfortable with it. As a result, I'm sure his teammates, who have all had to fight to earn their starting spot, did not fully buy in to a QB who was inserted into the mix. That certainly didn't help Losman last year as he tried to keep his starting role. It would also account for any rumoured "team doesn't like him" messages... As to where things are now, it's kind of silly to think that the Bills would be ready to shuffle him off without even seeing him make one throw live, just based on tape. They just started the offseason conditioning program last week, so it seems far too early for the coaching staff to have assessed his current capabilities. Does that mean that Marv and company are not "testing the trade waters?" Absolutely not. You have a 3 way competition at QB (as Marv and Dick pretty much had said all along...Dick saying no one will be handed the starting job at any position, that it has to be earned, and Marv saying they'd be picking up a 2nd tier Free agent QB to give us 3 (non-NFL Europe) QB's), which means that there are 2 out of 3 outcomes that result in Losman not getting the starting job. Now this doesn't mean that Losman only has a 33% chance of getting the job, but if he can't beat out two other candidates in a practice scenario, then he's not going to cut it as a #1 QB for this offense during the season. If one of those two situations happen (Nall or Holcomb get the starting nod), you need to be ready for plan B. Plan B cannot (or at least shouldn't) include keeping Losman as a number 2 so you have to determine what your other options are. A trade is the best overall option because you get something for him. So where people are complaining that Levy won't get anything for Moulds because it's already clear the Bills will release Moulds, he's taking the opposite tack of looking for trade partners first in case he needs to dump Losman. This rumored "trade scenario" is not about Losman losing the team's confidence before he even steps out on the practice field, it's not about dumping a "TD guy," it's talking hypothetically with other teams to guage interest in anticipation of a possible outcome. This scenario would be completely consistent with everything we've heard from the coaching staff and front office, and I haven't seen them do anything that's inconsistent with what they've said they were going to do.

First off, Losman is, dare I say it, a victim of last year's coaching staff. He was named the starter without earning the job, which is something that even he was uncomfortable with it. As a result, I'm sure his teammates, who have all had to fight to earn their starting spot, did not fully buy in to a QB who was inserted into the mix. That certainly didn't help Losman last year as he tried to keep his starting role. It would also account for any rumoured "team doesn't like him" messages... As to where things are now, it's kind of silly to think that the Bills would be ready to shuffle him off without even seeing him make one throw live, just based on tape. They just started the offseason conditioning program last week, so it seems far too early for the coaching staff to have assessed his current capabilities. Does that mean that Marv and company are not "testing the trade waters?" Absolutely not. You have a 3 way competition at QB (as Marv and Dick pretty much had said all along...Dick saying no one will be handed the starting job at any position, that it has to be earned, and Marv saying they'd be picking up a 2nd tier Free agent QB to give us 3 (non-NFL Europe) QB's), which means that there are 2 out of 3 outcomes that result in Losman not getting the starting job. Now this doesn't mean that Losman only has a 33% chance of getting the job, but if he can't beat out two other candidates in a practice scenario, then he's not going to cut it as a #1 QB for this offense during the season. If one of those two situations happen (Nall or Holcomb get the starting nod), you need to be ready for plan B. Plan B cannot (or at least shouldn't) include keeping Losman as a number 2 so you have to determine what your other options are. A trade is the best overall option because you get something for him. So where people are complaining that Levy won't get anything for Moulds because it's already clear the Bills will release Moulds, he's taking the opposite tack of looking for trade partners first in case he needs to dump Losman. This rumored "trade scenario" is not about Losman losing the team's confidence before he even steps out on the practice field, it's not about dumping a "TD guy," it's talking hypothetically with other teams to guage interest in anticipation of a possible outcome. This scenario would be completely consistent with everything we've heard from the coaching staff and front office, and I haven't seen them do anything that's inconsistent with what they've said they were going to do.

First off, Losman is, dare I say it, a victim of last year's coaching staff. He was named the starter without earning the job, which is something that even he was uncomfortable with it. As a result, I'm sure his teammates, who have all had to fight to earn their starting spot, did not fully buy in to a QB who was inserted into the mix. That certainly didn't help Losman last year as he tried to keep his starting role. It would also account for any rumoured "team doesn't like him" messages... As to where things are now, it's kind of silly to think that the Bills would be ready to shuffle him off without even seeing him make one throw live, just based on tape. They just started the offseason conditioning program last week, so it seems far too early for the coaching staff to have assessed his current capabilities. Does that mean that Marv and company are not "testing the trade waters?" Absolutely not. You have a 3 way competition at QB (as Marv and Dick pretty much had said all along...Dick saying no one will be handed the starting job at any position, that it has to be earned, and Marv saying they'd be picking up a 2nd tier Free agent QB to give us 3 (non-NFL Europe) QB's), which means that there are 2 out of 3 outcomes that result in Losman not getting the starting job. Now this doesn't mean that Losman only has a 33% chance of getting the job, but if he can't beat out two other candidates in a practice scenario, then he's not going to cut it as a #1 QB for this offense during the season. If one of those two situations happen (Nall or Holcomb get the starting nod), you need to be ready for plan B. Plan B cannot (or at least shouldn't) include keeping Losman as a number 2 so you have to determine what your other options are. A trade is the best overall option because you get something for him. So where people are complaining that Levy won't get anything for Moulds because it's already clear the Bills will release Moulds, he's taking the opposite tack of looking for trade partners first in case he needs to dump Losman. This rumored "trade scenario" is not about Losman losing the team's confidence before he even steps out on the practice field, it's not about dumping a "TD guy," it's talking hypothetically with other teams to guage interest in anticipation of a possible outcome. This scenario would be completely consistent with everything we've heard from the coaching staff and front office, and I haven't seen them do anything that's inconsistent with what they've said they were going to do.

First off, Losman is, dare I say it, a victim of last year's coaching staff. He was named the starter without earning the job, which is something that even he was uncomfortable with it. As a result, I'm sure his teammates, who have all had to fight to earn their starting spot, did not fully buy in to a QB who was inserted into the mix. That certainly didn't help Losman last year as he tried to keep his starting role. It would also account for any rumoured "team doesn't like him" messages... As to where things are now, it's kind of silly to think that the Bills would be ready to shuffle him off without even seeing him make one throw live, just based on tape. They just started the offseason conditioning program last week, so it seems far too early for the coaching staff to have assessed his current capabilities. Does that mean that Marv and company are not "testing the trade waters?" Absolutely not. You have a 3 way competition at QB (as Marv and Dick pretty much had said all along...Dick saying no one will be handed the starting job at any position, that it has to be earned, and Marv saying they'd be picking up a 2nd tier Free agent QB to give us 3 (non-NFL Europe) QB's), which means that there are 2 out of 3 outcomes that result in Losman not getting the starting job. Now this doesn't mean that Losman only has a 33% chance of getting the job, but if he can't beat out two other candidates in a practice scenario, then he's not going to cut it as a #1 QB for this offense during the season. If one of those two situations happen (Nall or Holcomb get the starting nod), you need to be ready for plan B. Plan B cannot (or at least shouldn't) include keeping Losman as a number 2 so you have to determine what your other options are. A trade is the best overall option because you get something for him. So where people are complaining that Levy won't get anything for Moulds because it's already clear the Bills will release Moulds, he's taking the opposite tack of looking for trade partners first in case he needs to dump Losman. This rumored "trade scenario," if true at all, is not about Losman losing the team's confidence before he even steps out on the practice field, it's not about dumping a "TD guy," it's talking hypothetically with other teams to guage interest in anticipation of a possible outcome. This scenario would be completely consistent with everything we've heard from the coaching staff and front office, and I haven't seen them do anything that's inconsistent with what they've said they were going to do.

Damn you Campbell's and your "Click to can a thread" Campaign!!! I only remember the Stooges version.

They've all been beaten beyond recognition....good point...

Jim Stafford has already written the theme song...

My best guess would be that if possession did change that the other team would get possession at the spot of the fumble. If the guy picked up the ball and ran it in for a TD you can't possibly give him that if everyone stopped because the whistle blew. And if you did then everyone would just start ignoring the whistle....unless maybe they have a "I really mean it, the play is dead" whistle too.

Actually, officially, only the 94th. But now that you've let the cat out of the bag that we will be giving an award to the 100th, everyone will glom on....

Perhaps he'll just be happy taking a year off on Ralphie's dime...?

AFAIK, and to over-simplify, the CBA specifies what percentage of "league revenue" goes to the players (what amounts to the cap). I know what consitutes "league revenue" was a sticking point in the CBA talks, and further, the smaller market teams felt they needed "revenue sharing" concessions in order to be able to still be reasonably profitable under the new cap. There were also concerns over the larger market, larger revenue teams having a larger pool of cash for "cash over cap" (capability to make large outlays of bonus money...). It's all very related, as the CBA works to define not only how much money the players get (salary cap), but where it's coming from (revenue share/"cash over cap pool")....

It's what's left over after they make hot dogs... Comes in a grey brick. Oooh, it's in the Wikipedia! I know scrapple is on the menu at Maryland IHOP, and I saw it in the Giant stores down there...

I watched it on YouTube. I found it amusing and clever (especially the blatant "mash-up" of Chef's voice), but not laugh-out-loud funny. I don't normally watch the show anyway...

Just don't try to charge us the mileage.

Yeah, you're missing the following: a.) The Bills have no hard and fast date to cut him so a team that would like Eric to actually practice with them before the season begins better do it sooner rather than later, unless they hope that the Bills need the cap money for something else. b.) Somebody else might be crazy/desperate enough to trade for him. c.) Somebody else might be crazy/desperate enough to offer more, especially if you only have the $4M in cap space needed to make that deal. d.) If you're not a "playoff team," on the "open market" he might take a little less to go to a "playoff team." Remember, it's not just you, there are 31 other teams in the league and any gamble you take on waiting basically assumes the other 31 teams are going to wait as well. He could very well take less to go elsewhere, even in a trade scenario, that's frequently the nature of the beast when given an "insulting" renegotiation offer from your current team...you end up with even less in the long run, but pride doesn't let you "go back." Like I said, Bills are likely looking for minimum compensation just to have the ability to decide where he goes...

Clayton did, just before he said that the only reason that the Bills allowed Moulds to seek a trade is because the Bills wanted to keep Moulds...

Some updates on base salaries are now up on NFLPA.org: Josh Reed: 2006 600000.00 2007 1650000.00 2008 1825000.00 2009 2025000.00 (a four-year deal all right) Matt Bowen: 2006 800000.00 2007 900000.00 Mario Haggan: 2006 500000.00 2007 675000.00 Mike Schneck: 2006 710000.00 2007 720000.00 2008 730000.00 2009 840000.00 Craig Nall (that was quick!): 2006 600000.00 2007 1100000.00 2008 1250000.00 Still no info on Fowler, not surprisingly...

But will the Bills match our offer?

He can potentially earn more. He earns more this year ($10M vs. $8M), and the total contract value is $25M vs. $20 million he would have received from the Eagles... http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=2374225

...or what you do with it...

I sobbed uncontrollably through the first chord of the St. Burchardi church performance of As Slow As Possible. Seriously, yeah I'm a wimp...I have, can't think of a lot of songs off-hand, but I have....

Hey, you work for us now...you're coming and that's that.

Updating a previous story, John Clayton reports that one of the following will absolutely positively happen with the Moulds scenario: a.) Moulds will stay with the Bills with his current contract, b.) Moulds will stay with the Bills with a different contract, c.) Moulds will find a trade partner and be traded, d.) Moulds will be cut by the Bills, e.) Moulds will sit out, f.) Moulds will retire Regardless, John Clayton feels that there's a 67.244% certainly that Mould's advisor's head will explode before this is done.

I'd prefer what was previously on 107.7, but I guess we don't have a choice...!@#$ing Rigas family...

The heck with that! I want a Scrapple plate! Yummmmmm!