CosmicBills

Where your thinking is flawed (in my opinion) is in thinking that whoever steps in to buy the team is going to expect to generate the same kind of income that the Krafts, Jones and Johnsons of the league. That just isn't true. With TV money and shared revenue a team in Buffalo can and will make money for whoever buys it. Will it make as much money or be as valuable as it would if it relocated? No. Buffalo just cannot compete with financially with the likes of the Pats, Cowboys, Jets and Giants. It never has and never will. But that doesn't mean an owner will lose money in Buffalo. But that's the point you're missing. You're not accounting for the fact that someone will buy the club because it matters to the region and to the history of the league more so than their personal bottom line. I'm not saying that WILL happen, but it is just as likely to happen as someone who's only buying the team to increase the franchise's value.

:lol: Well played, Chef. Well played.

Thought you'd like that one

Like this? USAF Aircraft Identification Chart

Maybe "THEY" know ....

Sure. But driving downtown is easier than driving to the IE. Thousands do it daily for Dogers, Lakers and (gasp!) even Clippers games. That's the big hurdle they have to pass in the IR; proving that increased traffic flow of 75,000 10 Sundays a year is feasible. But if you think about how often they have games at Dodger Stadium and the Staples on the same day ... I think they'll be able to convince the city that it's manageable. But again, I really don't know specifics. I'm just going off of what the press and AEG are saying here and reporting back.

The difference is that Meadowlands are not downtown. The new proposed stadium is. It is a very different situation. I agree that the Chargers are the most likely candidate. However, they're going to aim for two teams. If the downtown stadium can clear the environmental impact report hurdle (which we'll know in the next 6 to 8 months while the CBA is dealt with), then there will be a downtown stadium 100%. It's preferable to having a team in the Inland Empire. It's more than 20 miles from the city and, in LA, 20 miles equates to at least 45 minutes to 1.5 hour drive time. The IE stadium is not a good spot for an LA team in my opinion. Certainly not compared to a down town stadium.

LA doesn't get a lot of the big conventions because there isn't enough hotel space downtown. They said on the radio that there are something like 2,500 hotel rooms in downtown LA, compared to Denver which was over 10,000. Most of the big conventions go to Vegas when they swing out west because of this. A new stadium next to Staples most likely will mean several new hotels nearby in downtown to accommodate -- which is part of the whole "stimulate downtown" plan for AEG. They certainly won't get a Final Four every year, but they'll get it more than once a decade. And once you're on the Final Four circuit that means you get the regional rounds more often as well. Point is, AEG has been building sports complexes all over the country. They know what they're doing and wouldn't be sinking money into a stadium in downtown LA without a means of making money. I'm not sure what that is exactly, but I found it interesting that they said they didn't need to have full ownership of a franchise to be financially viable. And now that the city and state seem to be behind their plan (thanks to Farmers) it's going to happen. Again I have no idea what they have to do to cover their nut nor what their financial plan is. I'm only reporting what AEG's president said yesterday ... so take it for what it's worth.

I used to say that before I moved out here. It's a weird sports town on a lot of levels. But I will say that I think a downtown stadium would do wonders for the local support. One of the things Leiweke pointed out on the radio was that the ownership groups in the NFL who would consider moving KNOW that they have to succeed. The NFL KNOWS they have to succeed. Because LA is the only city in the country that can say they lost not one but two teams. That said, I don't think AEG nor Farmer's would have put this deal together if they didn't honestly think the tides have changed. I tend to agree. I think the NFL is going to do very well in LA when they come back. And I do think they're coming back. Soon. You're not going to need a dome. The Giants and Jets just paid 1.5 billion dollars on a new stadium without a dome. But yes, a new stadium will be needed down the line. But I don't think that's as big of a hurdle as you think it will be. A new ownership group will certainly sell the naming rights and partner with some corporation to keep the team in Buffalo. I think that will have to be part of the deal ... and I think it will be. Because without it, you're right. LA will be a very logical solution.

All excellent points. From my understanding (based mainly on the chat with Leiweke on 710 tonight), AEG is planning on making most of their money from other events outside of the NFL. Like: The Final Four, a possible annual BCS Game, Conventions -- of which they discussed many, and the occasional Super Bowl. They made clear they would have at least a minority ownership stake in the NFL club as well, but they seemed to be playing coy about outright buying one. Which I think is because there are no teams for sale so long as Ralph and Davis are alive. But it seems that AEG would be content just convincing a current owner to move in exchange for a small stake in the team. Which, I think an owner like Wayne Weaver or Wilf or (definitely) Spanos would be willing to do considering the increased value to their franchises a move to LA would bring. The one thing Leiweke kept reiterating tonight though was that they weren't going to steal a team in the middle of the night. That he in fact has ongoing conversations with "several" teams about moving the team to LA. Which I take to mean as teams not in Buffalo since Ralph wouldn't be having such talks. What concerned me was the talk of moving 2 teams rather than just one. I think if they do that, San Diego is for sure one of them though ...

As reported on the Wall many times over the past few months, the talk of the NFL coming back to LA has heated up. While this has happened in years past, today AEG took a huge step forwards by announcing the largest naming rights in sports. With Farmer's insurance, AEG unveiled the name of the new downtown stadium: Farmer's Field. On the drive home I listened to AEG president and CEO Tim Leiweke discuss the ramifications of the deal with the local sports radio. What was interesting to point out was that he referenced that Jerry Jones and Kraft have been at the forefront of pushing the league to have a team -- and based on the Jets and Giants, they believe LA should have TWO teams. Further more, Leiweke expects these moves to happen in the immediate future. Possibly as early as 2013. It was also interesting to note that Leiweke is not expecting to OWN the team that comes here. Instead, he is expecting a minority ownership agreement because he said (paraphrasing) "It's illogical to assume that we could convince someone to sell the team to us before moving here when the value of the team would double with the move". According to Leiweke, the design is to build a stadium that connects to the Staples Center and would boost downtown LA's economy by providing a home for Final Fours, conventions and would lead to as many as 25,000 new jobs. The fact that they have gotten 1 BILLION in private funding for this means that the local taxpayers will shoulder no risk. Which means now that the city itself is finally fully on board -- which has not been the case in the past. Based on just who was at the press conference (from city and state officials to the local sports celebrity) it seems that this movement is gaining more steam than ever. Leiweke was quick to point out that while the NFL wants this to happen, and frankly expects it to happen, nothing will happen until the CBA is resolved. That's the first thing to handle. But while the NFL is dealing with that, AEG is shopping for an architect and expects to have the plans in place within 6 to 8 months including the Environmental Impact report -- which, coupled with the naming rights and financing, would be all the hurdles they'd need to overcome to lure two teams here. The focus seems to be on one team but Jones and Kraft are apparently hoping for two. Which, makes sense. He refused to mention specific teams, but the Vikings, Jags and Chargers were the most talked about during the aftermath of the press conference.

Working in the industry is an eye opener -- especially when you get network notes on what is or isn't acceptable for TV. The show I'm currently on has horrific violence and gore week in and week out. It's a staple. But we get flack when we show sexual intimacy of any kind. Whether it's a husband and wife, boyfriend or girlfriend, or god forbid two people of the same sex. It's absolutely insane. In the eyes of the network it's more acceptable to show someone being skinned alive than it is to show two consenting adults having sex.

I chose LB for both options. The LB corps here is the worst in the league and has been for a few seasons. It simply needs to get better.

If I were able to have a say in things, I'd make Harris the top target. He'd instantly improve the quality of the LBs and bring needed experience to the scheme. Plus, he'd weaken the Jets. A win win. I'd also look hard at offering Mankins big money to come here. With Wood moving to center there's a hole at Guard. Ubrik isn't a sure thing (for me) and frankly I think some here are counting on him to be more than he is. Bringing in a pro bowl interior lineman like Mankins, someone with attitude to put along side of Wood would do wonders for the running game. But, I find it hard to believe that Mankins will be allowed to walk away from NE. There's no way Ngata gets anything other than a franchise tag. Otherwise he'd be on my list. But Harris would be priority number 1 (and should be) with Mankins being 1a or 2. Just my worthless two cents.

With Wood moving to center, we have a hole at G. I'm not sold on any of the meat sacks they brought in during the season. Mankins would make the line better the moment he signed on the dotted line. Then again, he's going to stay in NE so it's a moot point I guess.

Jackson and Lynch weren't Nix's guys. He didn't pick them.

Last year these threads were about picking Spiller. They slowly built up validity and (gasp!) support the more often the appeared on the board. "He's explosive! The best player available! There's only one Spiller!" ... how'd that turn out? I'm not as high on the WR corps as most people are. Outside of Lee and Stevie there's not much there other than average to below average NFL wide receivers. So Green would be a huge upgrade at WR. Peterson would come in as the best player in the defensive backfield by leaps and bounds as well. So I can see why people would be willing to accept either pick (let's be honest, we don't have any other choice but to accept whoever they pick). Still, they'd not be the ones I'd look at in the first round. I'd rather address the front 7, especially LB. But if you held a gun to my head and asked me to choose between just those two, it's Peterson in a heartbeat. Green does nothing to help this team win games NEXT season. He does sell a lot of tickets though ...

It's a valid point.

Fisher will most likely take a year off ... maybe he'll be an adviser or do some TV. But next year he might not be a bad guy to look at (either as DC or head coach if Chan doesn't continue to improve).

The Bears could have avoided all of this if they had given Cutler a pair of crutches to use on the sideline. Let the cameras see him on crutches and no one would be questioning his toughness today. The Bears hung him out to dry.

This article bugged me for a lot of reasons ... but they've been difficult to formulate or even articulate. So forgive this rambling, incoherent post. On one hand, I'd love to believe every word of this article. I'd love to believe that the problems the Bills have had in the past 10+ drafts have been due to the organization being (uh-hum) disorganized or more simply that the "trigger" men of the past regimes such as Donahoe, Levy, Jauron and Brandon have been the root of all the personnel blunders. That at least gives us hope. Hope that things are going to turn around now that they've "fixed" the organizational problems. Hope that Nix is a better football man than his predecessors. Hope that maybe now the genius that is Modrak can finally be heard. But, on the other hand, if we believe that, what does that really say about the Bills organization as a whole? How much comfort can really be taken in the realization (and seeming acceptance by the top brass) that it took the franchise 10 years, three GMs and four coaches before it realized their system was deeply flawed and needed to be fixed? Or are we supposed to believe that the people that Ralph hired; the Donahoes, Levys, Jaurons and Brandons, were ultimately just poor hires and not the football men Ralph had hoped? If that's true, then isn't it logical to assume the problem is more with Ralph and his judgment than anything else? It's not easy to find the right man, people make mistakes and hind sight is 20/20 -- but you'd think a man who's been as successful as Ralph in life outside of football would have a better success ratio than 0-3 (0-4 if you count Jauron). It seems this is what the article is trying to convince people, but if that's true, why should the Nix hire give us any more comfort? After all, the same person hired him that hired the other men who've since come and gone. So now we find ourselves as fans in somewhat of a conundrum. We are left to believe that either it took Ralph 10 years to figure out that there's a problem with the organizational structure or that Ralph has finally found a better trigger man in Nix. It seems that Ralph, and the article, is trying to steer us towards the later. But again, if that's the case, how can we be expected to believe that a 70 year old, with no prior GM experience and whom was hired from within this admittedly broken organizational structure is not just more of the same? Of course, both of those roads lead to the same conclusion. A conclusion which isn't very reassuring. Namely that Ralph himself is the problem. Whether it be in the form of poor hires or, the more likely (and perhaps more unsettling) scenario, that Ralph is making the final call in the war room on draft day in terms of who is picked. If that's the case, then it really doesn't matter who's installed as the GM. Or the head of scouting. Or the coach. Because at the end of the day, those men won't be able to build the team the way they wish. Like I said, this article is disturbing the more you think about it ...

Why only use the last 14 Super Bowls? Well, truthfully I'd say you only should use the last 10. The reason, which again you fail to discuss or accept, is that the rules of the game changed in the past 10 years (once again) to help the offenses and up scoring league wide. Thus, it's silly to look at stats from the 70s, 80s or 90s to try to prove a point about the current league. It's like using deadball numbers in Baseball against the steroid era. It just doesn't work. So again, the 3-0 you're talking about are worthless stats. Not just because 2 of those teams had Hall of Fame QBs (and none of the teams pitched a shut out), but also because their statistical relevance in today's league is worthless. Again, that's a highly logical and coherent reason why the numbers you're using are flawed. Which just means you won't see it because you're incapable of thinking logically or rationally. That and you're a giant troll just looking to cause a fuss. Hope that paper is going well. Remember, color inside the lines. INSIDE. Never out.

Isn't it???

It's a false question with terribly misleading logic that you're manipulating. It's dishonest and logically unsound. To be an honest question, it should be: If a team scores 32 points a game will they always win & If a team doesn't allow a single point will they always win? You're mixing and matching. But, because I'm bored, I'll answer your dishonest and flawed question. Of course the answer is no, a defense that gives up 0 points will never lose. But they won't always win either. But what does that prove? Nothing ... it's as meaningless a stat as tackles. Your thesis statement in the title of the thread is that Defense wins .... PERIOD. You say you'd LIKE a franchise QB, but they're not necessary. Teams with the best defenses ALWAYS win. That's what you're hammering. You're dealing in absolutes but ignoring the true facts. After all, winning in the NFL means winning the Super Bowl. That's the aim of each team when the season starts. Yet, this year, the number 1 ranked defense in the league didn't even make the playoffs. How can you then say that "defense wins.... Period". Clearly it doesn't. The question I pose to you (again) and that you keep ignoring because you know you can't answer it, is how do you explain the last 14 Super Bowl winners? During the past 14 Super Bowls, 10 different QBs won during that time. 70% of them are Hall of Famers. Of the remaining 3, two played at or above Pro Bowl levels during the championship run. The one who didn't had the benefit of one of the best defenses ever assembled. So, one time in the past 14 years a team has won a Super Bowl without a franchise QB at the helm. That's a 0.071% rate. Do you really believe that a 0.071% success rate proves your theory? Does that prove that Defense wins ... Period! That's what you want to hang your hat on?

I've answered all of your questions yet you refuse to answer mine. Which again shows your utter lack of reading comprehension. But again, keep swinging. It's great.