silvermike

I don't care who's saying it, but I think the NFL should open its books as it continually raises prices and insists that its current operating structure demands it sacrifice an entire season. I am inclined to like the NFL, and I'm open to persuasion that the current salary structure is unworkable. But I want them to prove it to me, and I think the players deserve to have it proven to them before they accept less money than before. I don't trust the NFL on this without proof.

I'm not certain, but I think RFA tenders have a minimum based on the player's previous contract. I'll have to double check that, though.

If the Bills only UFA signing is Tyson Clabo, I'd be happy. I don't think there's a player out there who would do more for this offense.

Addicted to drugs like heroin or cocaine? Or addicted to drugs like vicodin and percoset stemming from treatment of football injuries?

The Willis trade was great. The problem was paying for yet another dime a dozen running back. Especially when he had Fred Jackson on board for a dime!

And don't forget, that while Cox made his name as a Dolphin, he went on to play for the Jets under Parcells and the Patriots with Belichick and Brady in their first Super Bowl season.

I like to hear someone I agree with interview a politician - they'll ask the questions I want asked. But I don't care to hear them yell at me any more than someone who hates what I stand for, and it's always miserable to hear callers either suck up to the host or get berated.

How bad would a rookie QB have to be before you (or anyone else) would be calling for Fitzpatrick to take back the reigns? Say he starts the first three games, they go 0-3, and ends up with three TDs, 5 picks, and an average of 200 yards/game.

Ryan Harris, draft pick, or Tyson CLabo, please. I don't want to go into the year starting Erik freaking Pears.

Incognito isn't much better than Hangartener. He's a journeyman, replacement-level interior lineman. Scott is worse than that.

I really don't mind giving a QB a year on the bench, especially on a team as far away from the playoffs as the Bills are. If the goal is to get a franchise QB as soon as possible, there's no difference between giving Newton or Gabbert a year on the bench, and drafting a "day one starter" in 2012. If you draft the QB this year, you can look for an immediate starter in 2012 at a position where that tends to work better.

There are obviously millions of people who disagree with me, but I think radio is a terrible format for politics. The only thing worse than listening to someone I disagree with is listening to someone I *do* agree with. I generally come away embarrassed to be affiliated with that host. It works well for interviews, but past that...ugh.

The problem with Sanders is that he's not a player who gets hurt because he has bad luck. There's a set of guys who have suffered multiple injuries that bounce back afterward because they really did just draw the low card three seasons in a row. That's not Bob Sanders. He's a guy whose style of play launches him into contact, and his body can't sustain the damage. He had a hell of a run, but I think it's probably time for him to go home, polish his Super Bowl ring, and remember that with 40-50 years left to live, he doesn't need any more brain damage.

What is Miller's show about? Sports, politics, or comedy?

What is it that prevents a guy like this, with all the phyiscal tools, and then some, from having elite talent? I'm asking honestly - there are certainly bigger, stronger, and faster men out there who get cut from NFL rosters in favor of guys with more football ability, but I don't know what that means.

Cox was the last Fins player I really remember HATING. With a passion. Since then, it's been a bunch of generic players who I really can't muster up too much emotion for. Chad Henne? Ronnie Brown? Maybe Brandon Marshall can join the club.

The difference is that this time, the players want the status quo and the owners want changes. But if the league declares an impasse and imposes terms, the players could still strike.

Is this guy trolling?

I like the idea that Astro was going for here, but I think he's got to start over if we're going to do this. You start with a list, and we make changes in turn and see where it ends up. This isn't a criticize and analyze thread.

I'm not really convinced by any of that. Other than Minnesota (for obvious reasons) how much do new stadiums do anything good for the fans? I'm not willing to lose a season for more luxury boxes in San Diego. A rookie wage scale is a good idea, but it's not what's holding this deal up. Nobody wants 18 games. I'm fine with the status quo, and there's no evidence yet any NFL teams are losing money under it.

As long as people keep buying $200 seats in the upper deck and pay $20 for a beer and a hot dog, the owners are going to keep raising prices. I'm not sure who these fans are who are willing to drop a thousand dollars to bring the family out for a day at the stadium, but there seem to be at least 50,000 of them in every NFL city. To some extent, it might be some good for the common fan if the NFL gets a lot *less* popular because of a nasty lockout fight. They'll come back playing the same game, except the league will be groveling to win back fans, probably in the form of cheaper tickets and concessions, etc. Of course, I don't think that's worth a whole lost season. On the other hand, the free product the NFL puts out on TV is still really good - the stadium experience is really falling away as an integral part of fandom. It's not like baseball or hockey, where 90% of the fun is being there. I'm not sure where that takes us.

Not by me. I just found them on another message board. If anyone knows G. W. Scherer, it's his work. Anyone?

The players didn't really give back 10%. They're also changing the calculations. As a percentage of all revenue the players get between 50% and 52% most seasons. So at best, they're giving up a couple percentage points. That's still tens of millions of dollars, of course, but it's not a sweeping concession. Not that it's at all clear that it would be fair for the players to give back any of their share from the last deal. The league is still overwhelmingly profitable at the current rates.

The issue is between 50% of "all revenue" and 59% of "Football revenue" a distinction that comes to about the same total $ amount. I don't know what's excluded in the latter category - concessions? parking? Ultimately, football revenue grows for the teams together (I think) while all revenue could spike for Jerry while leaving us behind. I think as fans, we want a deal that is carved out of football revenue.

I hope they don't really change the logo. Jersey designs and color schemes can come and go, but I want the symbol of the team to remain the same.