BarleyNY

The Bills had the most penalties and the most penalty yards in the league in 2015. How is calling them undisciplined unfair?

Exactly. Well said.

NE. They're limping into the playoffs, can't protect Brady and have to deal with a very good KC team that's playing lights out and cruising right now. Honestly, the only advantage NE has is at QB.

The incredible premiums paid by ESPN aren't sustainable though. The model was put into practice how you stated, but it isn't working. Disney's (ESPN's parent company) stock plummeted from 120 to 95 last year due primarily to those kinds of deals by ESPN. It's also why there have been so many cost cutting moves made by ESPN of late. They spent crazy to corner the market on a lot of sports, but didn't realize that the non-sports watchers would cut the cable and stop subsidizing the sports enthusiasts. It is a huge issue with ESPN right now and there isn't a clear way out. They've locked themselves in with the cable/dish companies and really can't go a la carte.

I didn't even address the politics or offers and counter-offers of the situation. There's no way St. Louis (or San Diego) can compete with stadium revenue in LA. None. The money in LA to buy luxury suites, local advertising/sponsorship, etc. is worlds apart. That argument concerns why those owners want to move to LA, not why the NFL wants teams there. I was primarily addressing the latter as the former seemed pretty obvious. And I thought I covered that with my teams-belong-to-their-owners-not-their-host-cities bit. It sucks (and as a native Clevelander I know it all too well), but it's reality.

Advertising dollars during football games and programs really are the basis for the network contracts. That's what pays for virtually all of the contract. Feel free to tell me what else is paying for it and how that works if you honestly think it's something else. As for waiting 20 years, how about this? 20 years ago the NFL was vastly different in many ways, including revenue sources. TV revenue didn't factor into the equation nearly as much and has only exploded in recent years. Thus we have the push for the lucrative LA market now, when finances are driving it.

You don't think their eyes are on that next contract with this move? I sure do. It can be argued that this won't have much of an impact on viewership - and I allowed for that - but I expect that it will. it might not be immediate, but I bet you'll see it before that next TV contract gets negotiated. Die hard fans will still root for their old team, but they'll probably root for an LA team (that's on local TV) too. Casual fans will put eyes on the new games as well - especially if one of those teams is winning. It sure doesn't hurt to hedge on that winning thing with two teams either. Done expect Bills-level loyalty either. How many more Clippers fans appeared when they got better than the Lakers?

Some networks pay a premium beyond what advertising brings in in order to pimp their other shows and gain the prestige that comes with carrying NFL games. It's often a loss on the NFL games, but is made up elsewhere due to viewership of other shows, etc. The contract is still based on advertising revenue though.

Apparently Jackson from Cleveland has also asked Schwartz to be the DC for the Browns. The man has a lot of options from what I hear. I bet he gets paid very large.

That's a bit different than a team moving BACK to the city that was its home for almost 50 years. It'd be like if the Ravens never existed and the Colts moved back to Baltimore. Obviously there is a big financial incentive for the Rams, too. Everyone should remember that just because a team uses the name of the city in which it resides doesn't mean it's that city's team. It's not - it's the owner's team. It's only in that city because it's their best financial option. Green Bay excepted, of course. The Rams are moving for financial reasons (what's specious about that?), but I'm having a difficult time getting worked up over St. Louis losing the team that they took from LA to the city they took them from, LA.

The TV contracts are driven by advertising dollars which are driven by eyeballs watching. If LA teams drive that up (which is a big question), then TV revenue will rise. And we all know that TV revenue is what drives the NFL. So I'd say that the question of whether or not these moves increase revenue is yet to be answered. There was a team in LA twenty years ago and it was the Rams. (Okay, they moved in '94.) They were there for almost fifty years. I didn't see many care when the Rams bailed LA for St. Louis. Now that they're moving back (as in getting the team that they lost back) everybody is outraged. Why? Because LA is easy to hate?

Agreed. Heard that Kelly's offense never progressed to a complexity required in the NFL. Too often defenses knew what was coming. Yeah, it really should be. I bet RG3 is his guy. Word was that he was ready to jump at him if Washington released him last year.

Totally agree. My first thought after reading the OP was "Oh, yeah! That's EXACTLY what this team needs."* (*Note the sarcasm.) Seriously, how determined are some of you to head off any hope of success?

Man I was praying this was a joke thread. Tebow is not an NFL QB.

A little history on the Rams: 1936-1945: Cleveland Rams 1946-1994: Los Angeles Rams 1995-2015: St. Louis Rams 2016-?: Los Angeles Rams I feel for the fans in St. Louis, but it was really Los Angeles's team to begin with. I don't really consider them Cleveland's team because they left when the Browns began because they didn't think they could compete. Plus they were in LA almost 50 years.

And that stadium is as close to Oakland as it is to San Francisco. Plus then nobody would have to go into Oakland to see a game.

Little was horrible at catching the ball, as noted. However, in Cleveland at least, he didn't work at his craft like he should have. That showed in his route running too. It's very much an outside chance, but maybe things can click for him if he does. And he is an outstanding blocker for whatever that's worth.

The way that I look at this is that So. Cal. is gaining one NFL team, which makes sense. The Chargers are moving because they're going to lose a huge portion of their market to the new LA team if they don't. Incidentally, St. Louis is a baseball town through and through. I'll be sad for their football fans if they relocate though. That sucks.

Absolutely nothing will get me excited for next season until next season. I will need to see some positive strides on the field in real games to get excited. But some quality improvements/additions in the QB corps would sure help.

Every month or so....

Well, yeah. But there's a circus coming with RG3 wherever he goes. Teams have to weigh that distraction against what he might bring. If he's been humbled by what's transpired in Washington then he could have some real upside. If not, then he's not going to help anyone.

It is more of a tool for teams already in big cap trouble to free up space to sign draft picks and some bargain basement free agents. It won't help with Mario at all, for example, as it would be a minimal deferral of $1.6M. Also any moderate or large contracts the Bills ink this season will be easy to structure so that they have a lower cap hit in 2016 than in subsequent years so there's not much point in using the post June 1st deferral. It really wouldn't help because 2017 would be cap hell if they were so tight in 2016 that they needed to defer money that way. Some vets are going to go or take a pay cut. But the Bills need to be judicious about that. Spending sprees in free agency rarely yield good results. Yes, cut some fat. Don't gut a unit though. Kyle in particular is someone I leave alone this year. I don't like losing two of the four starting DLmen at once and next season there'll be a lot more flexibility with him. He'll be tough to replace for the $5M saved and as much as I'd love a guy like Wilkerson I just don't see that happening for a variety of reasons. Oh, and I was wrong about the Sanu contract. As you said, $3.5M per year is certainly fair and reasonable for him. Don't know where my head was. I do see him as more productive in the slot though and maybe backing up the outside though. The Bills sure could use that skill set and he'd be a good fit.

Oh I think understanding the decision is a very good reason for bitching.

Here is a good link regarding post June 1st cap cuts and cuts designated that way: http://overthecap.com/explaining-the-june-1st-designation/ Something many don't realize is that the current contract of a player cut using the post June 1st designation stays on the books until June 1st. All the designation really is is a way of teams protecting themselves from players they intend to cut post June 1st from getting injured (and thus being on the hook for their salary) and from having to pay offseason bonuses, but still getting the post June 1st cap hit delay. In return those players get to hit free agency early instead of in the summer when the cap dollars have dried up.

That doesn't paint an accurate picture of the Bills' situation at all. The current cap situation is this:$6.2M over an expected cap of $150M (this might be as high as $154M) with a carryover of $5.2M. Harvin's exit is accounted for and they'll gain $7.5M from the Clay restructure. So they're sitting at $6.5M in space before any moves. Mario will likely be cut adding $12.9M (less $500k for offsetting player's salary) for a total of $18.9M in space - but the team will need a starter to replace him. Other players will be cut too, but all will need replaced. Cutting Kyle would save $5M, but his replacement is going to cost too and interior DLmen aren't cheap. $3-$4M can be gained in 2016 by signing Gillmore to a long term contract though. Then there's retaining or replacing Glenn, Incognito and Harvin. 1st year cap hits can be minimized, but you have to keep an eye on 2017 and beyond. Glenn's yearly average will likely be in the $10M-$11M range, but the 1st year hit could be $6M-$7M. Cogs is worth something like $7M-$8M a year, but the first year hit would be less and he might come at a discount due to his past. But it won't be $3.5M. Sanu or a quality starting WR will be more expensive too. $3.5M doesn't buy much on the open market for WRs. And then there's finding a RDE replacement, which will be costly. The Bills can draft some help, but you can't expect much immediate impact from many rookies. Oh and those rookies need paid too. The real issue at hand is that there can be a lot of moves made, but for every starter or quality back up cut or with an expiring contract there has to be an addition. The more cuts made, the more likely a team is to find themselves coming up short on talent or cap space. Unfortunately I fear that's where the Bills are headed. Edit: Actually $3.5M per year is about right for Sanu, but I do see him as more of a slot WR than an outside. The Bills could use one of each and Sanu could slide to the outside in event of injury so he's actually a pretty good fit. Still, he's not the impact WR I'd like to see across from Watkins to open him up.