klos63

I would hope the new owner has a better understanding of the draft and the importance of the offensive line than you do. I doubt GM's get fired for making 'safe' picks, if that means building a great offensive line. They get fired for making bad picks. Picking a strong OT is never a bad thing to do. You can get all the great WR you can find but if you have a crappy offensive line, kiss the season goodbye. It's that simple.

I was being sarcastic when I said that you are right in one aspect. It doesn't always come through in the written word. Drafting one of two franchise type WR in the draft would not be considered an unsafe pick. You're really stretching your argument with the reasoning being a round 5 pick from a second rate college will start at tackle - that boarders on ridiculous. You are trying to create a scenario that is so unlikely to occur it needn't be discussed. Basically you are saying, they probably won't do something obviously stupid, else they may make a bad impression on a prospective owner and lose their jobs. Yeah, you are on to something there. (that was sarcasm!). Do you think Seattle won because of their Wide Receivers? I would think taking a WR who some are projecting at #2 would be an incredibly safe pick at #9(Watkins). Just because we may not be able to name the starting RT of Seattle, it doesn't decrease his value. I think the term 'safe' is inappropriate here. Is it a good pick or a bad pick, and that will be determined after the player actually plays some games.

Really makes no sense at all. What does playing it safe mean? Not making a ridiculous pick? I can't imagine they are thinking of new ownership when deciding which player to pick. If they want to improve their resume, you make good picks and then coach them well. I guess you are right in one aspect, if they picked a player not a value at #9 in a position they don't need - say Center..., yeah then they should worry about their jobs.

saying there would be teams lining up to move here may be the most ridiculous statement ever posted here. Really.

Do you really think the Bills are bringing in a punter just for kicks(sorry). Moorman is no longer an elite punter, far from it. I was surprised they signed him in the offseason to come back. The Bills will bring in people with the hopes of improving the team, whether a long shot or a solid prospect, they will try to improve. I don't believe this is a situation where we just bring in someone for reps. If we go into the season thinking we are in great shape at punter, that's a bad move.Also, if you were expecting stiffer competition - who would you bring in instead and why?

Agreed, we also need a fall back should Moorman get hurt at any point during the season and then we have a player we have familiarity with. Sometimes I really don't feel that people think before they write.

Players are so easy to assess now. Just look at some numbers. No need to watch players or have them come to camp.

Just curious, how good is our franchise? what will people around the league find out about our team? Have you been to other stadiums and training facilities? I think the national perception of the Bills is probably spot on. Over 50 years, the majority of the time a pretty lousy team playing in an outdated facility.

I'm assuming everyone realizes this, but trading down(or up)requires another team to want to trade with you. I see people all the time suggesting these trades as if it's a simple choice to move up or down. The other team needs a reason to do it too.

I think the off the field risks are overblown, however troublesome. It hasn't affected his play on the field and if Tampa wasn't in a position to draft a top WR, they may have kept him. I think they tired of him, but he is still plenty useful. The Bills may tire of him after a couple years too, but this guy gets about 7-8 TD's a year. That's huge.

Exactly, with a dominant line, you can dictate the game.

If we need a tackle, why not draft a great one. It's an important position and we won't have to worry about the huge contract for 4-5 years. Doesn't make sense to wait a few rounds if a stud is there at #9.

you have a very bright mother!

are we talking a $300 - $400 million dollar policy? What insurance company would insure and 85 year old for that amount?

One point that I have not heard mentioned. Perhaps the buyout was put in to avoid a court hassle and benefit the county. Use the example of Bon Jovi purchasing the team in say 2016 and wanting to move to Toronto. If he waits til the buyout the county gets $28MM. If the county lets him break the lease early, the county gets $400MM. If Bon Jovi buys the team, they are leaving at some point. Is it worth making them play in Buffalo a couple more seasons knowing the inevitable, or getting maximum money out of it?

how would that drum up interest?

There is probably a good chance another team will commit to LA before the Bills are available. Even though the NFL is rumored to want two teams in LA, I can't imagine the second team would happen for some time after the first. I really think Toronto is the biggest concern. They seem to have an ownership structure in place now, plenty of funding and Bon Jovi is already on good terms with the most influential owners like Jones and Kraft.

That just means a large amount of local residents watch the Bills games. It does not mean we have a large market. We are a small market. The NFL would not be what it is if all the cities with teams were the market size of Buffalo.

Not sure too many people would notice or care if NYS doesn't have a team. As far as the league is concerned, regarding exposure, ratings...., the Giants and the Jets accomplish what they need even though the stadium is in NJ. They are huge market teams. Buffalo, regardless of being in NYS is small potatoes when it comes to marketing. Harrumph

How can Wilson settle the ownership situation? It is settled now, he is the owner.

I'm sure there are good reasons why they don't. If that's truly the case. Obviously, they just signed Aaron Williams to an extension. You need two to tango and some players like Levitre, Byrd... might want to test free agency to see if they can get more money. Also, many of these players probably wouldn't mind playing somewhere other than Buffalo. I think a lot of fans think that this is a way to save money by signing them early but I can't imagine agents would still not try to maximize the players value. Look what Williams got, hardly a bargain for the Bills. he had already returned from his injury and finished the season healthy. So not really a risk on San Diego's part.

He cares, and that's pretty much all that matters. Can't force him to sign a contract with us. Jim Kelly didn't play for us his first 2 years of pro ball, only played when he had no other options.

I don't think he wants to screw over the Bills, he just doesn't want to play in Buffalo. If you really think about it, can you blame him?

Good points, I don't understand how fans value players, let alone wonder why we even care what the team spend. Get and keep top players and let the team worry about the money. We as fans don't have near enough knowledge of what the plans of the team are in regards to personnel and cap strategy long term. Just sit back and hope they keep the right players, like Byrd. And please can people stop with the silly trade proposals. I wonder if a fan ever actually predicted a trade that really happened.

I agree right now Williams doesn't offer the same skill set as Byrd. But I think many fans aren't looking at the whole picture when they want the Bills to sign a player before his contract is up in order to lock him in at a better price, why would, in this case, Williams sign a deal now knowing he has a chance for a much larger payday in a year or 2? We may be able to sign him early , but don't expect a discount.