Casey D

You don't win every game you are "supposed to." It's a long season, they might end up 3-13, but losing today merely gives them an opportunity to show their resilience-- or not. Playoff teams dust themselves off after games like this(and they all have them) and come back. Bad teams fold. We'll find out soon enough--there's lots of games left.

And this all just occurred to you now?

quote name='Pilsner' timestamp='1317599038' post='2270589'] Critiquing is fine but anyone who bitches n moans needs to grow a set. and ya a shameful bump It's OK to be upset right after a loss. And this was a game on paper that you'd mark down as a win. But the Bills were only slight favorites, and many teams lose to inferior teams every week, the Bills/Pats game being an example just last week. The Bills are better than last year. Does that mean 6-10, 8-8, 10-6-- who knows. But three wins out of the box and 3-1 tells you little about how things will turn out. People were too low before the season started, and too high after last week. The truth likely is in the middle. But I have to agree that people who come out of the woodwork to exhult in the Bills sucking is odd for supposed fans of the team. Must be truly unhappy people to get all revved up that they are now sure the team will be .500 or worse because they got nipped today 23-20 on the road. Truly bizarre folks. But to each their own I guess. CD

Exactly. The clock would have started, so he needed a time out there anyway.

Why-- is the world going to end in December so we can't finish the season? Now that would suck.

Wow. Ruvell Martin back.

When did Jackson sign his last contract, was it one or two years ago?

That's fair. I think it is a matter of calibrating the risk, and different people might see it differently. The Bills problem in recent years is not that they let talent flee, they have had little talent in the first instance. I don't think you will see Fitzpatrick or Johnson going anywhere if they are worth keeping-- and I think they are. There is plenty of time to lock them up.

Because the Dallas guys were known as the Triplets. Not so much the Buffalo guys.

And read the NY Times piece posted on the front page. Talk about daylight and dark in the writing and thinking of the Times guy as compared to Sully. I mean wow... CD I think the use of the word bare is quite strained. No one bares a chip on their shoulder-- they wear it. I think you were right in your original post-- IMO.

There is also risk in tying up money in guys who have not proven themselves--then you are stuck with bad players with big contracts. How about the Jauron deal--did you like that? Most people are saying Fitzpatrick is not very good, not a franchise guy. If that's true, why give him a franchise guy contract. You can't have it both ways-- which is what Sullivan is trying to do. There is no free ride on these kinds of things. The Bills have been, lately, paying for performance-- e.g, Williams, Roscoe, Kelsay(perhaps misguided)etc. They have cap room to pay the guys they want to keep--smart planning there(just luck of course, because Ralph is cheap). Right now they are still trying to determine if Fitz can be the guy for 5 plus years, and Johnson a true #1(again with people complaining about trading Evans because now we don't have a #1 receiver). You can't say guys suck and then say we should have given them long term expensive contracts(well you can say it, but it does not make walkin around sense) Dime to donuts if these guys shine through 8 weeks-- they'll be given nice raises and will stay long term. And you are right, it may cost a bit more, but you also have more certainty on what you are paying for.

Actually, my point was that if my name is on something, it won't fly for me to say that it was someone else's job as an excuse. Sullivan is a nitpicker-- sauce for the goose and all that. My main point was simply that Sullivan in an instant flipped from "the team sucks and has no talent because it is being run by bean counters and we won't sign free agents" to "wow look at all these guys that we are underpaying." Now the team is bad because it won't pay it's star players? It's utterly inconsistent, and illustrates that complaining for complaining's sake is the theme. If you don't get it, that's OK. Your invective sounds like him by the way.

Of course. But if I used that excuse at my job, I'd be fired. It's got your name it, you own it. Fix it now at least.

Wow, for a guy who casts lots of stones, you'd think Jerry Sullivan could avoid a typo in the banner of his story. And after complaining for years that the team has no talent, he's complaining that the Bills suck for not paying their players more. I know consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, but he's actually getting paid to do this sh#t? I mean there should be talk shows analyzing writers like we do sports, he'd be a major fail on this one--can't proofread and pivots on a dime with no apologies after one decent game. I think we should send out Jerry Seinfeld to heckle him.

Some people refuse to accept the fact that multiple factors can go into these decisions. If Evans or Hangartner is only marginally better than the alternative, then of course the fact that the guy makes, relatively speaking, a lot of money is a reason to go with the almost as good cheaper guy. This is especially true if the cheaper guy is viewed to have upside, and the higher paid guy is in decline. It also helps that Evans fetched a draft pick, which is coin of the realm in Nix's world. At the end of the day, everyone is both right and wrong vis the decisions to get rid of Evans and Hangartner. Were they worthless players--no. Were they great players-- no. Was Evans better than the alternatives-- yes but he is not a good fit in the current offense. Would Hangartner or Evan get us even one more win--doubtful. Given all this, is saving money, developing younger players and getting a draft pick a reasonable decision while leaving the team a bit weaker short term-- I'd say yes. You can obviously disagree, but this is what happened in my view. That is why the JW NGU debate presented a false dichotomy. They were both right. Just different emphasis in my judgment on money versus performance. End of the day, paying a lot more for something only a little better is not always the right move. CD

Much appreciated. Good stuff that makes sense.

Indeed, they seem to have dropped any request for relief related to the lockout. Their only factual allegations is that the lockout hurts retired players because there are no games and thus no money for them. It is a completely derivative argument, so if the courts can't end the lockout via injunction for active players, then they have no basis to seek the exact same injunction to get active players back to work so there is money for the reitired players. Their lawyers figured the lockout thing for the active players was not going to work in light of the 6/3 hearing, and rebooted.

They are employees--they just have an express written contract rather than the at-will employment contract most folks have and typically is not in writing. If the NFL wanted to go out of business--no antitrust violation. Stupid, but legal. I don't doubt they asked for the relief--but that does not mean it makes any sense. Plaintiffs' lawyers do that all the time. I doubt there is anything is the complaint to explain why they are entitled to such relief.

I don't think the lockout impacts retired players one way or the other. The negotiations impact retired players, but not a lockout--they are not being prevented from working. Draft picks are being prevented from becoming employees by the concerted action of the owners, and NGL(per the 8th circuit) allows them to lockout employees withour court interference but not non-employees, thus the possibility of an injunction to force the owners to deal with draft picks. Of course if they sign a K then they become an employee and can be locked out, as the court observed. If any kind of injunction is pursued or granted, it would be with respect to the draft picks. I mean what would an injunction in favor of retired players force the owners to do vis a lockout-- I mean there is no remedy. That being the case, I don't know what relief the DC could order vis retired players--which sort of proves the standing issue.

I don't think protected is the right word. They could be racking up billions of dollars in damages in locking the players out if it is found to be an antitrust violation. In a certain sense, what the court held today is that if you want to slit your own throat, we won't stop you--but you might have other horrible consequences by doing that. Retired players are not being locked out--they are not employees. And NGL clearly won't allow the DC to interfere with how the NFLPA is doing business. So there will be no injunction. The retired players just want more input into the negotiations and want the court to order they get more input, they don't want to end the lockout, as they are not impacted by the lockout and have no standing They are claiming it is an antitrust violation for NFL and NFLPA to make decisions on their pensions, etc. without a big enough seat at the table--not a challenge to the lockout. It is a very very very weak theory--but it is what it is. Make sense?

Your characterization is exactly right. I think they knew that, and just wanted to clear their docket. The decision is probably wrong too, the dissent has the better analysis-- not that it matters legally.

My pleasure.

To the contrary, the opinion holds that the owners may have to negotiate immediately with rookies because the labor exemption does not extend to non-employees. They may have to negotiate, enter contracts, and then lock out these "new" employees. There really is no win here for the owners, other than they can continue to lockout the players(but not draft picks--maybe--if the district court so decides). But they may be liable for damages for the lockout--so the league still is under pressure to resolve this by agreement.

I read the opinion and that seems unlikely. All the opinion holds is that the courts lack authority under the Norris-LaGuardia Act to enjoin the lockout. But the lawfulness of the lockout under the antitrust laws, and whether the NFL is protected from the antitrust laws by the non-statutory labor exemption remain open questions as the court declined to address these issues. So the NFL still has considerable litigation risk going forward. The Court ruling really keeps the pressure on both sides it seems to me.

Wonderful. Don't have to ask who he is.