klos63

exactly, which is why he is now on the outside.

I'm not saying they did things correctly with free agency, but do you think it's reasonable to sign Campbell, Miller, Vanek , Briere, Drury, Tallinder... as free agents and still have cap space to put a full team together?

Actually, it wasn't 4 consecutive first round picks, i would have been every other year and to assume they all would have been number 1 overall would have been quite a stretch. At the time, it wasn't a bad idea to sign vanek.

why were they good when he bought them? Regier must have built a good team and Ruff coached them well. Who hired Regier? Quinn.

This means nothing, everyone who posts here thinks they can run a team, a draft, free agency, coach in games.....

let's look at the record when Quinn was around compared to when he wasn't. First go around with the team they reach the finals in 1999 after he brought in Ruff. Then he came back after the Regis episode and they were successful again. He leaves when Pegula arrives and now we stink... really bad. Not saying it's all on him, but there might be something there. The Sabres told Drury they would match any offer he got. Drury said they would give the Sabres an opportunity to counter an offer. He did not give them that opportunity. This comes from Quinn. You can believe your source or him. This is not my assessment. Although I am accurate in that they were cup contenders and if we were not down 4 defensemen in game 7, there is a good chance we win the cup that year.

Whatever your feelings are, the facts are the were Cup contenders and my point about the bottom line relates to your Drury/Briere comment. They did not sign Briere because of money, they did not sign Drury because he renegged on a deal with the team. But with the Bills/NFL, this is a huge money maker even in a small market and spending up to the cap. Those situations don't need to happen with the Bills.

The Sabres were legitimate Stanley Cup contenders for a couple years under these 2 guys. I'll take that over what we've had recently. And Golisano is worried about the bottom line - can't lose money owning an NFL team, a far cry from NHL.

Seems like this could only be positive news. My guess, like others have said , is that a lot had been done behind the scenes for some time now. I think Ralph knew he was nearing the end, how could he have not. If our best hopes are true, even though the success on the field has been limited, Wilson's legacy will be that he kept the team here long after he passed.

If we had more talent we would have made the playoffs. Jackson is a wonderful player, but to assume he will be affective for 3 more years is unrealistic. If it happens great, but don't plan on it.

Wasn't he with the team for 3 seasons? Seems like a pretty fair shot to me.

What the hell is a blue collar team? Stadium? I know the phrase blue collar, it does not apply to a multi billion dollar sport where it's lowest paid players make close to $1 Million per year. This is a phrase I really can't stand in reference to sports teams, also 'lunch pail' players - who brings a 'lunch pail' to work anymore ? Nobody since Archie Bunker.

The NFL seems to be doing quite well with their TV contracts, I'm guessing the networks are quite pleased with the 'flawed slate of games' . So you won't watch games that don't involve the AFC or the Bills? How many fans out there want to spend their Thanksgiving or stay up late Monday night watching the Bills? Be serious, the Bills high TV ratings are for local viewership - Buffalo fans watch the Bills games. The rest of the nation probably isn't too hot on them right now. I doubt the networks want a MNF game with Tim Tuel at the helm.

Exactly, this is such a useless discussion. We are now analyzing the percentages of AFC / NFC matchups on primetime. Seriously. I wish my life so free of obilgations that I can worry about things like this. I'm looking forward to the season, I really won't give the schedule a second thought except- who do we play next week? It's not really very interesting. Better matchups, more high profile teams for better ratings. It's just like Yankees / Red Sox always on ESPN - it's what the majority of viewers want to watch - viewers = $$$$. It's really quite simple.

you are assuming the weather won't suck in Buffalo when San Diego and Miami vist. That's a big assumption.

I don't believe I have contradicted myself, but my personal preference is OT. I think it's a higher priority than any other offensive position.

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.