Rocky Landing

HATE THIS We trade up to get EJ a WR-- sacrificing next year's #1 pick-- and then drop out most productive WR for a #4??? This looks like a front office that has no long range plan-- just going day by day.

I'm going to go out on a limb here, and say that there will be MUCH discourse regarding EJ's preseason performance come August. And, should you ever make it to Los Angeles, I will gladly buy you a beer at Buzby's (home of the Bill's Backers Club), if you are capable of refraining from participating in the debate.

I really try to look at these things in terms of current value. Yes, Buffalo got the man they wanted, and it cost them a substantial net loss of draft picks. Worth it? That is the unknown-- high risk/high return. Cleveland, on the other hand, got the man they wanted, with a net gain in draft picks. Hard not to see that as anything other than a good deal-- low risk/high return.

Not that I don't think this is a lame thread, or anything, but, why do posters on these boards so often refer to a differing opinion as a "crusade?" That seems like merely dismissive rhetoric to me.

I have absolutely no desire to debate Manuel ant further until we see more out of him in the preseason. But, it's weird to tell me not to debate Manuel while qualifying Manziel as debatable, for the sake of this comparison. At any rate, I was really talking about how well the Browns traded draft spots. They got the players they wanted (that was your point about not debating Manuel-- the player the coaches want) and they have set themselves up for next years draft with a net gain of picks.

Certainly agree with this. The Browns made out like bandits.

I'll say this: I am not happy about this trade. BUT, I was feeling pretty bored with the prospect of Ebron (who we debated to death), or Martin, or Barr, or Lewan at #9. I don't know... it's hard to get excited about an OT, or an OLB. This is some pretty risky, and exciting stuff. Watkins will be FUN to follow. I hope.

We seem to be getting heavy with baggage lately. Considering his current legal troubles, is it unlikely that he will still be there in the second round?

DON'T trade up. Maybe trade down for a good price. Then, BOPA. Not convinced that would be Ebron at #9. Martin, perhaps?

Speaking for myself:1) Because if the Bills played any one of their up-coming regular season match-ups today, they would be considered underdogs in all but four of them.Underdogs win all the time Actually, underdogs win some of the time. It's not an enviable position. 2) EJ did not show me nearly enough to think he could be successful, if he stays healthy. For a rookie he showed enough Enough? What he showed was inconsistency- when he was on the field. 3) Our weakest position was at QB, and we have not improved that position. Wrong it was LG then RT. Our QB situation last season was horrific! How could anyone say differently? 4) One knee injury could, perhaps, be bad luck. It's hard to look at three knee injuries as bad luck. One year out of all the years he's played, I'd call it a fluke not a trend. One year out of... ONE YEAR. Fluke? 5) The best thing about our team last season was our defense. Then we lost our DC, and our pro-bowl safety. Wrong #2 rushing offense, both RBs are back. I will agree that our rushing offense was the best thing about our offense! 6) I haven't seen enough improvements in the offseason to warrant that large of a shift in our record. Plenty of talent added this offseason. Plenty? As another poster pointed out, the acceptance of mediocrity by Bills fans is disturbing. Some good talent, sure. Plenty? How much is plenty? Enough to bring us back to the playoffs and out from under the bottom of our division? I appreciate the optimism. But, I'll stick with pessimism and hope to be pleasantly surprised.

Speaking for myself: 1) Because if the Bills played any one of their up-coming regular season match-ups today, they would be considered underdogs in all but four of them. 2) EJ did not show me nearly enough to think he could be successful, if he stays healthy. 3) Our weakest position was at QB, and we have not improved that position. 4) One knee injury could, perhaps, be bad luck. It's hard to look at three knee injuries as bad luck. 5) The best thing about our team last season was our defense. Then we lost our DC, and our pro-bowl safety. 6) I haven't seen enough improvements in the offseason to warrant that large of a shift in our record.

My opinion is that we should go for best offensive player on the board, at nine. Pretty much against trading up, unless it is dirt cheap- which it won't be. Hoping Jake Mathews is there at nine.

I'm sure that this has been said in this thread, already. but this is VERY GOOD NEWS. I believe that the sooner they are sold, the more likely it is that they will be staying. Logistically, lining up the ducks to move the team would be an enormous task, and much of that would have to be done before investors would make the purchase. I have little doubt that out-of-state prospects are number-crunching right now. An early sale would head that off.

I think there has been some misperception on how "forced" the new owner's hand will be. I think "incentive" will be a better approach.

I have no doubt that it was Ralph Wilson's desire to keep the Bills in Buffalo. I did not know that there was league resistance to the lease agreement. Honestly, that doesn't make me feel any better. My hope is that what RW was able to work into the lease will be enough to keep the team in Buffalo. As I have stated previously, my fear is that the Bills will be sold to the highest bidder, the highest bidder will want the highest ROI, and the highest ROI will not be in Buffalo.

I assume that the executor of the estate is going to sell the team to the highest bidder, who meets the terms of the lease agreement.

I think that there has been some misinterpretation on the part of some posters that the Non Relocation Agreement states that the Bills can't sell to someone that they know is planning on moving the Bills. That simply isn't the case. They can't sell to someone who is planning to move the Bills during the Non Relocation Term. Some people think this is a deal-breaker, anyway. Who would want to buy a team that they can't move for seven years at the earliest? I think this is misguided reasoning. It could take two years just to secure ownership. In Los Angeles (where I live, and have been following the stadium situation fairly closely), the contract for building a new stadium hinges on there being a team to move there. Once there is a team, the stadium will be built. The most likely place for a LA stadium would be at a location called Farmer's Field. That contract is already pending with an extension likely to be signed this October. Should it be built, it will be a logistical nightmare and will take years. Seven years from now might just time out perfectly. Currently, most people consider the Rams the front-runners for a move to Los Angeles, with the Raiders in second. Jax, and SD are essentially out of the running. But, if people in Buffalo don't think that moving to LA isn't a distinct possibility, I would say they are wrong. There's a lot of money in LA, and I have no doubt that the owners of some of that money are looking at Buffalo right now.

This is actually a really misleading article. It even goes as far as to quote the Non Relocation Agreement without finishing the quote. Specifically, "the club shall not “sell, assign or otherwise transfer the team to any person who, to the Bills’ knowledge, has an intention to relocate, transfer or otherwise move the team …”" The full quote, reiterated several times in sections 3 and 4, state that the Bills may not "enter into any contract or agreement to sell, assign or otherwise transfer the Team to any Person who, to the Bills’ knowledge, intends to relocate, transfer or otherwise move the Team during the Non-Relocation Term to a location other than the Stadium." Note that there is no comma in the phrase, "...transfer or otherwise move the Team during the Non-Relocation Term to a location other than the Stadium." In other words, there is no language in the Non-Relocation Agreement barring the Bills from selling the team to a person who intends to relocate the Bills after the Non-Relocation Term. Now, nine years may seem like a long time, but I hardly think it's a deal-breaker. In fact, (and this is my fear), it could time out very nicely for a prospective owner to plan a move to a city with a much higher ROI.

I think the FJ/CJ duo has been a top three tandem for as long as the two of them have shared the field.

We should bring Incognito in to help keep Mike Williams in line.

What I fear most: The Bills will go to the highest bidder. The highest bidder will want the highest ROI they can get. The highest ROI will not be in Buffalo.

Pretty well answers my half-hearted, rhetorical question posted above- "Why not."

I know that this topic has been commented on in just about every thread in the last month, or more. But, I don't feel like I have seen an actual consensus on what our needs are. So, TWB, I challenge you: What are our top five player needs in order of importance, and WHY? Why seems especially important because I am hoping (and expecting) that most of you will have very strong opinions on the subject. I am also expecting (and hoping) that about 50% of your opinions will be malarkey. But, as with most threads, it should really only take a few sentences, or so, to figure out who is rational, who is full of a-word-the-mods-would-strike, and who should be locked up. And, no, I don't think those three classifications are mutually exclusive. But, the one thing that pretty much every single person posting on this sight (especially this time of year), has in common is: You're all football junkies!

At first blush, I thought, abso-frikkin-lutely NOT. But, then I got to thinking'... a) He'd be cheap. We'd get him for a song. b) We really DO need an LG. c) He'd be on his BESTEST behavior. d) He was a Dolphin. And they ARE our division rivals. e) He'd play with one helluva chip on his shoulder-- especially against said Dolphins. Why not?

So you know, I have lived in Los Angeles for 23 years, now (born and raised in Rochester), and the negotiations for a Los Angeles NFL stadium have been hinging on the availability of an NFL franchise for a few years, now. Los Angeles has already signed a plan with AEG that includes renovations to Staples Center and the LA Convention Center and would build a new stadium at a site called Farmer's Field. The $1.4 billion contract includes $290mil in public financing. All of the public hurdles have been accomplished, and the only one remaining is the lack of an NFL team. The contract expires in October, and will likely be extended, and rewritten to start the Staples Center/Convention Center renovations without the Farmer's Field build, pending the availability of an NFL team. As it stands, the current favorite is the Rams, although, I fear that the recent availability of the Bills might move them up in the running. Indeed, the timing of the Non-Relocation Agreement might even time out perfectly for such a deal. Be that as it may, both the City of Los Angeles, and Roger Goodell and the NFL have expressed a commitment to getting an NFL team back in Los Angeles.