Dan

I agree, other than the first 2 games, I think we have a great schedule. Home games in Dec. and all 1pm starts are both good for us. And even starting at NE isn't so bad, because they'll have zero film to study on our new offense. So it may be our best shot at them. And Miami may still be questionable at QB in week 2. So, I can even find silver linings in those two games.

I wouldn't doubt it at all. I have a friend that's considering moving to DC and they're looking at a Condo for over $2000 per month. I have no idea where it is or the size. But, I couldn't imagine moving there with those prices.

When I worked in NYC 4 years ago, my boss had just bought a 360 sq.ft. apartment for $660,000. (At least that's what he told me.) He was quite pleased with the "find". Now, I know it's not DC; but, I've always heard that DC and Manhattan real estate were on par with one another. So he may not be exaggerating as much as we may think.

"Aiello adds that the league is putting together a 'best practices' model that will give guideance to small market teams on ways to maximize the money they can make." Am I the only one that sees this document as becoming something that could force the Bills to increase the number of luxury suites, sell their stadium naming rights and raise ticket prices, parking fees, beer prices, etc. OR move? If a team doesn't follow the "Best Management Practices" then they're cut out of the revenue sharing deal. Generally, that's why you develop a BMP policy. Its a way of saying this how we think everyone in our association should operate, and if someone doesn't operate by following these policies, then they can't be in our association. Let's face it the Bills don't do alot of things that otherr teams have done to make more money. Maybe the other owners are tired of Ralph complaining when he has some of the lowest ticket and concession prices in the league.

I agree. A very interesting tidbit. There's definitely more to all this than we can see on the surface. And this theory could have some validity in the mix.

I think there's alot more to all this than any of us may be aware of. From reading the news clips, its seems like there's a few possibilities: 1. If Ralph wills it to his daughter, she pays bigtime taxes. Therefore, that plan is probably not a plan. 2. If Ralph sells the team and the new owner moves the team, they don't get the same sharing deal as everyone else. So the Team is no longer worth $700 million, It's worth substantially less. 3. If Ralph sells to local investors and they keep the team in Buffalo, they' have to meet certain qualifiers to get full sharing. They supposedly can't meet these qualifiers in Buffalo, therefore the team is worth much less. Essentially, as I'm seeing it, the Team is ESTIMATED to be worth $700 mill. However, that's based on the revenue sharing deals and TV and all this stuff I don't completely understand. So, if the new deal goes through and Ralph keeps the team in Buffalo, the actual value of the team may be several 100 million less. That's a loss of 2-300 million, and that's probably what Ralph's worried about. However, he could move the team himself and retain that full estimated value, if not gain value. Another thing you have to consider in all this is legacy. At a certain point, you've made your money, you live well, your family lives well. So money is less of a concern and your interests become more of a "I want what I built to be here for ever". That could possibly be at the heart of wanting to keep the stadium with his name, as well as keeping the team in Buffalo. I'm certain, Ralph doesn't like the idea of working his whole life to keep the Bills in Buffalo and building this great legacy, just to see it sold and moved and everything he's worked for and been a part of for half his life is gone.

I've said it before and I'll say it again. Our biggest problem last year was coahing. It was miserable! Granted, the players need to play better and definitely we need to revamp the lines; but the single best thing we've done this off season was get a new front office and coaching staff. Even if we made no other changes, I'd feel optimistic.

But if those 7 supposedly better players are not needed by your team, why take them? We have 9 WRs right now, should we draft a WR just because he grades out at a certain position?

Exactly what I've said in the past. Everyone says trade dow nand take these guys. But not at #8! But, what if no one wants to trade with us?? Then we can't pick these guys because its too high in the draft? I almost want Marv to pick Justice or Bunkley at #8, just to watch some of these guys bust a blood vessel.

I agree, I'm defintely liking many of the moves Marv and Co. are making. There's nothing flashy, but for a team that's supposedly done nothing in FA, we've signed 14 free agents (according to what I read). Signing 14 guys and still plenty of cap room - that seems unrealistic. And lets not forget the biggest moves - new front office, new coaches, new philospohy. I'm still taking a wait and see approach, but I definitely feel more optimisic about our future than I did 2 or 3 years ago. I'm not sure about the whole communicating thing. I don't watch much national media any more. So I have no idea (nor care) how we look in their eyes. I'm definitely in the camp of hoping we take a lineman in first round. I know there could be alot more flashy or exciting picks. But, we all know our lines are miserable, so why not make a statement and actually do something about it? That's how I see it. Although some line guys have been brought in, I doubt any of them are going to be the final solution we've been waiting for. So, more help would be great in my mind, not only for possibly finding starters, but also just for depth. Also, I think taking a lineman sends a serious message that Marv and Co. know what's wrong with this team and they're going to fix it. That's something I haven't seen at OBD in quite some time. And, I agree, this site absolutely rocks! I moved into my new house and for over a year had no internet at my house. I was miserable! because I couldn't log in and read all the crap being said each day. some good, most bad - but I enjoy reading the negative posts for some sadistic reason. Last season without TBD was the worst season I've endured since 2001, when I pretty much missed that whole season for possibly obvious reasons. I leave you with this thought - for the last several years, this board was abuzz with optimism and talk of playoffs, even the Superbowl. Each year the Bills shocked everyone by sucking like an hoover. This year, the board is abuzz with pessimism and talk of getting the 1st pick in '07. Maybe that means the Bills will shock them again and actually be good. Its a nifty little negative correlation theory that gives me hope.

I absolutely agree. I hope that Gibson got a 4 year 40mill deal. It would defintely go a long way to legitimizing Marv as a GM. Come on Marv sign some big, inflated contracts. Get 'er done!

As far as dropping passes go, he's not even close to being in Reed's league. So, if dropping passes is cause to cut a guy, he should be the first to go. I'm not saying Price was a great receiver. I'm just saying that as far as receivers go, he wasn't the worst of them. He had nearly 100 catches for 1200 yards in his last year here. So how can you say he completely sucked and shouldn't be playing? I still say his biggest problem was poor coaching. As I recall, alot of players sucked it up for GW and didn't seem to give their all. And now, after a few cuts, I think he's likely to have something to prove and will likely play alot tougher than before.

I have to fall on the side that likes this signing. I never thought Price was as bad as people made him out to be, plus it looks as though its another very favorable contract. The thing I like so far is that all our free agent signings are relatively young, have something to prove, and are coming in at very reasonable prices. If one or two or three don't pan out, they get cut and no big cap hit. Alternatively, if one or two work out they're here for several years at a great price. Another thing, it definitely seems like there's a plan in place. Marv's not just signing anyone that comes along or some big name just to fill seats. Now, granted, I'm not sure what the plan is; but I get the distinct impression that there's a method to the madness. So, I say another good move.

In reading the latest news article Ralph says, "As to my succession, I don't know what I'm going to do now," he said "Before, I was going to sell the team or something, but I don't know now. This has changed everything." Could it be that Ralph is making all this fuss, because he was planning to sell the team. However, the new "qualifiers" make it difficult because a new owner would lose the revenue sharing if they stayed in Buffalo. ?? So now his potential buyers are getting cold feet.

That is an awful lot of supposition, assumption and just plain old guessin.

I couldn't make it. But just a suggestion - If you can get 100+ to attend, you could make signs with Bengals logos, Cleveland logos, etc. and give the appearance of multiple team's fans representing. I'd also suggest anti-CBA signs (CBA=End of Small Markets), rather than just Bills signs. Might have more of an appeal in other cities.

I agree. That's how I interpret that comment.

That's the completely wrong attitude, in my opinion. The Bills are not a luxury at all. The Bills are an integral part of WNY as well as being integral to WNY's economic revocery. I agree, you can't tax people like mad to keep the team there. But, I also thing that's what underlies alot of Ralph's concerns. He's more than knowledgeable about what it takes to run and maintain a franchise in Buffalo, and the last thing he needs is for the league to pass policies that hinder his efforts and make it harder to keep the team there.

Again, I still haveto very much disagree with you. First of all, I don't just care because its the Bills. I was quite pissed when the league let Cleveland lose its team and never considered them the LA Raiders, but always the Oakland Raiders. I think that's one of the better things Tags has done is try to put an end to all the moving around of teams. If you care anything at all about the NFL and the Bills, then you want teams to stay where they are. You want the rivalries and the tradition. And you want small market teams to be competitive with large market teams. I agree you probably won't get new teams into small market areas, suc as Buffalo. I lived in Memphis for 6 years and watched them try to get team. There were alot of reasons they didn't get a team, but I'm sure one of them was connected to Memphis being a smaller market and somehow making that work. Free Market or not, the NFL enjoys the success that it does because of its Revenue Sharing and Salary Caps. Thes two poicies more than any other, I believe, help to keep all teams on a level playing field, personnel-wise. Which, in turn, leads to all teams being equally matched, i.e. parity. Because all teams have a shot, not to mention its a relatively short season (only 16 games) in comparison to other sports, combined with the fact that only a relatively small portion of teams make the postseason, all means each game does matter. Therefore, you want to watch every week, because week one is just as important as week 6 or week 14. Hence, TV ratings/revenue are great. If they change the league such that many of the teams have no way of competing, how many years before people begin to give up hope and stop watching games? When that happens, ratings will drop and so will the money from the TV companies. The league has been extremely well managed and marketed over the years. Such that it is the premier sport in the US. However, I can assure you that if it changes and the haves and havenots diverge from one another, the league may still make money, but it'll loose everything it has built up.

Do I even need to respond to this?? So you're advocating that the NFL become baseball, where the richest team in the richest market has all the money, buys all the players and most every year buys the World Series. The idea behind revenue sharing is to keep the League strong, balanced and competitive. Without that, you'd have about 2 or 3 teams taking turns at winning the Superbowl each year. And what has become one of the greatest worldwide spectacles each year would loose its luster and be replaced in the ratings by Survivor. Revenue sharing is perhaps the biggest reason the NFL has become the most popular american sportt today. So you're right. Why share your money with less profitable clubs? To hell with Clevland, Buffalo, etc. It'll be a great ride for a few years, but get rid of the smaller market teams and the league becomes a shell of itself in less than 10 years.

I can remember, growing up in TN in the 80's, getting Bills information was next to impossible. Other than the occasional little snippets on Sunday, there was nothing. The advent of the interent has made my Bill's following all inclusive. In fact, I read so much Buffalo newspaper, I should probably pay taxes. However, I fail to see how any of this has to do with the Bills current situation regarding a move or losing money. If anything, all this added exposure would seem to make the Bills more money. Look at my house and you'd see all the Bills' gear - surely some of that money feeds back to the organization.

May I suggest dusting that letter off, and sending it to Gov. Pataki.

I would have rather read that Jauron told the players... they better be fighting, because some of them will have to be cut and only fighters and guys that want to play and win will make it past those cuts. Rather, than telling them to calm down and walk away.

I'd agree with him. Ricky doesn't have a problem at all with drugs. Actually, he enjoys them quite often.

I still fail to see the big name, big money free agents that we missed on. I agree we didn't sign alot of big FA talent. But who out there was really worth big money AND would have greatly improved this team?