Casey D

It's hard when you follow a giant like George W. Bush.

Excellent questions and points. I think the draft is one of the most interesting issues. It is generally thought that a CBA is needed to have a draft. You are correct that exisiting players may make concessions more readily on rookies because they are not rookies anymore, but even high rookie salaries benefit all players to some degree, as they provide something to point at when veterans are FAs. With a CBA, I think the rookies have no case, even if they may be used a bit by the union. Without a union/CBA, whether a draft would be sustained under the antitrust laws is difficult to predict. Certainly allocating new talent around the league to maintain a fair basis to maintain competitive balance would be a procompetitive benefit for the NFL joint venture to maintain a game product that people will want to watch. On the other hand, as you point out, the restraint on rookie compensation is likely very great--imagine no draft and Andrew Luck auctioned off, followed by all the likely top ten picks. How much would the Jerry Jones and Danny Snyders be willing to spend/throw away on each one of these guys? That is what a rookie lawsuit would argue. But also imagine how that process would likely destroy competitive balance. What do you think is the right answer? I think the players have suggested a new model with a true partnership with the owners amd more sharing of risks and rewards. I think the owners have no interest in that--they want control over their property and are not interested in giving it up. But litigation softens peoples views over time, so we shall see. You have identified the core truism of this dispute from the players' perspective. What you underlined is what the players believe will make the owners retreat and why they decertified and elected to litigate. We shall see if they are correct.

The theory of the players case is simple-- maybe not right, but simple. First, there is a union/labor exemption to the antitrust laws. For purposes here, while there is a union, there can be no antitrust claims due to the exemption. So decertification, if valid, eliminates the exemption and opens the path to litigation. In litigation, the players' theory is that each NFL team is an independent competitor, competing for the services of labor, i.e., the players. No different than if you are an employee in the high tech area, each company is competing for your services with pay and benefit packages. Those competitors cannot collude i.e., agree, with each other on what they will pay employees as it eliminates competition and drives down employees' compensation. The same applies here. Each team arguably would have to compete for each and every player. No draft "allocatin" players(the only reason there can be a draft this year is that it was grandfathered in in the old CBA), no caps, no nothing. More or less a free for all. That is the players' position and certainly result in much higher salries and benefits for some players. The owners have a number of arguments against this. The first trench is that the decertification is a sham so the exemption is still in place. One problem with this for the owners is that in an old CBA(early 1990s) they agreed never to challenge decertification as a sham again. That agreement may not be valid as against public policy--I am not expert on that. If they win on the sham thing, they are in good shape. But even if the labor exemption does not apply-- i.e., no sham is found or the owners waived the right to raise it-- the owners are not devoid of arguments. They will argue the players' position is simplistic and wrong because the NFL is not comprised of 32 individual competitors in an economic sense, but is a joint venture where the well-being of each team is in the other teams' interest in order to have a viable product to sell to fans. Thus you need agreements and rules amongst the teams to ensure competitive balance so the games are entertaining. With a free for all, you might end up with a handful of Harlem Globetrotters and most everyone a Washington General--no chance to compete. If that happens, fan interest falls, the league ultimately collapses. The owners' basic point about needing rules etc, to make the league work is undeniably true--this is a joint venture and it is not the same as say car manufacturers competing.. So the true antitrust issue, setting aside the exemption, is what agreements are needed to have a competitive league and a good product, and which agreements restraining competition on bidding for players go too far. This is evaluated under something called the "rule of reason" where the competitive benefits, i.e, creating a good entertaining product, is balanced against the players' right under the antirust laws to have unfettered bidding for their services. What is reasonable and unreasonable in these circumstances will not be clear cut, it gives lots of room for judges and juries to interpret. Here, Judge Doty is not a great judge for the owners. He tends to see things more the players way if the past is an indicator. To be sure he is held accoutable by appellate courts-- the 8th Circuit and Supreme Court-- but that will be a long an difficult slog for the owners. And I don't know if the owners with big new stadiums can afford the debt service on their stadiums without a season. Doty's earlier ruling that the TV deal that paid them this year violated the players' rights under the CBA is certainly not helping on this point. So the players knew exactly what they were doing when they decertified. My view(and the players too I am sure) is that in court--at least with this judge-- there will be lots of rulings that pressure the owners to settle--but that's just my view as it is hard to predict how a judge will see things. If the owners can hold out long term, they may be OK when the comptitive rules are evaluated fully by multiple courts, but my bet is they can't take that much time and that you will see a settlement where the players come out better than the owners--likely in late Spring or Summer. Hope that helps.. CD

He was terrible against a solid BC defense in the Fight Hunger Bowl in SF. If he plays like that against a good college defense, he has light years to go to play against NFL defenses. I would be shocked if he went in the first two rounds.

The picks rotate in each round between the three 4-11 teams. So in round 2, Buffalo picks second, Cin third and Denver 4th. In round 3, Cin picks second, Denver 3rd and Buffalo 4th. 4th Round repeats round 1. And so on. Hope that helps.. CD

Merry Christmas!

How do you know if "he's" available? Will that first round QB be a Kelly or a Manning, or a Joey Harrington, David Carr, Heath Shuler, JeMarcus Russell, JP Losman, Ryan Leaf, Brady Quinn, etc., etc. If what you have is good at QB, do you build a supporting cast on defense etc, or gamble on that elusive "franchise QB." If you are absolutely sure, for example, that Luck will be another Manning(Peyton, not Eli)or Brady(a 6th round pick of course)and not a backup like his Dad, then go for it. But you'd better be right, when there are so many areas of need, and you seem to have a capable QB who is just turning 28, and might continue to improve, as many QBs do, with time. At bottom, it's a crapshoot either way.

What does that mean Yoda?

There is no reason yet to have faith in Buddy Nix et. al, but there is no reason yet not to have faith. It is evident that the Bills over the last 10 years have not done well drafting. They got few if any impact players, and most of the 1st round picks have been a bust. Add that to little activity in FA, and no QB, and what you see on the field is a team woefully lacking in talent. Nix and Gailey have no magic wand--no one does-- to take a team without talent and make them a good team in one off-season and 4 games. This is a major rebuilding effort from prior failures that took 10 years to dig a hole this big. It's like Obama with Bush--you can't fix something right away that took 8 years to f*&k up. I know we all want instant solutions, but they don't exist. We have to hope this year's draft turns out better than the past 10, and next year's is even better. Right now the new regime has been in evaluation mode, and tear it down modeand stockpile picks mode. Only when that process is complete, can they go into full rebuild it mode, because it is only then that you know what you need for sure. Whether Nix and Gailey are the right guys--I don't know. See if the team looks any better over the last 6 games--that would be an indication of progress. See how it goes in 2011--if there is a season. But I don't think you'll see a competitive team until the second half of 2011 at the earliest. Hopefully these guys are turning it around--don't give up hope yet, the process has just really started. CD

Notwithstanding this, however, I can see college players eligible for a 2011 draft challenging it under the antitrust laws. I mean as of April 2011, there is no effective CBA. Why should the players' union be able to permit the draft and essentially give the owners an antitrust exemption when the CBA that provides for that right has expired? I mean if I am a top college player, I'd like every team to bid for my services--let the big money team's outbid the weak teams. Why should an expired CBA restrict me, and a draft without a CBA is plainly illegal. I suspect if the NFL tries to hold a draft with no valid CBA, there will be litigation up the wazoo. Give me a top QB in 2011 as a client, and I'd take it on a contigency basis against the NFL.

You are correct--my bad. As long as it is in the CBA--and it is in Article 16-- it would be fine under Section 1. So there can be a draft in 2011, then no more under this CBA. I am not sure it really matters though, as the newly drafted players would be subject to any strike or lockout, unless I am missing something in this huge document, which is possible. All this does is keep the League functioning from a draft perspective so when things are finally resolved, hopefully before Spring 2012, there is not two years of drafting to do in terms of college players in the event of a long labor dispute.

I don't care what they say--as powerful as the NFL is, they are not above tha law and are not generally exempt from the antitrust laws as is baseball. So it is not the end of the "arguement"(sic). Give me the legal argument to support your position, and let's evaluate it. Perhaps the NFL thinks it is going to win totally in American Needle, but short of that there is no draft.

Not legally, under Section 1 of the Sherman Act--unless the NFL gets a ruling in the pending Supreme Court case that it is a single entity. That seems an unlikely ruling, and short of that an agreement by a group of competitors to divide up employees through a "draft" is per se illegal, and would be treated as a criminal offense by DOJ. The only reason the draft works now is the labor exemption to Section 1--which exempts agreements that would otherwise violate the antirust laws IF they are part of a collective bargaining agreement. No CBA, no exemption, hello jail for Jerry, Danny and Ralph if they conduct a draft. Lockout means no CBA, which mean no draft.

No draft without a CBA--unless the owners want to go to jail for violating the antitrust laws in such a flagrant way.

Exactly. And who you think will win the job is based on how you think each of the 3(four if you include Brown, who is the longshot) will perform with new coaching, systems, line etc. My own view is its' 40-40% chance of Edwards/Brohm, 19% Fitz, and 1% Brown. But that's just my betting line.

This thing of yours with Nix, Brohm and Edwards is very reminiscent of your mancrush on Rob Johnson back in the day--how RJ was the greatest QB of all time. You continue to crusade without listening. The two radio guys said "Can Edwards or Fitz be a star?" Nix then says don't forget about Brohm--which of course he would say if the job is up for competition as he does not want to give the impression Brohm does not have a fair chance--but then goes on to explain how Edwards was put in a totally unfair situation last year. From that, you say Edwards is definitely out, and Brohm has "the job to lose." That conclusion is nonsense--he went out of his way to excuse what happened to Edwards. I think Nix explained what they are doing--they have three guys with the physical ability and smarts to play QB, as much as anyone they would have drafted. He hopes one of them can grab the job. So do I, and I don't care which one, just use the best guy--hopefully he can be at least above average. If you don't like that, then you don't like what Nix is doing. So stop the hate on Edwards, he's going to get a fair shake and if he sucks like you say--can't make the throws, etc.(directly contrary to what Nix said by the way, so you and Buddy don't agree)--then he will lose out on the competition. But get used to the fact he will get a fair shot at being the starting QB.

Agree.

That makes no sense, given what Nix said. He, to a degree, excused Edwards and Fitzpatrick for last year--mostly Edwards--by what he said--it had no bearing on Brohm. I know you like to project your own feelings on Nix, because he is your hero right now, but facts are facts, even though you dislike Edwards as much as you like Nix. And the facts are everyone gets a chance to start based on who picks up the new system the fastest and can translate that into performance on the field. Given the Nix excuses for Edwards, it seems that they are leaning to Edwards out of the box, but that can change easily. You may not like that, but that is the situation, especially when you add the NGU insights.

Not really--it was more the MO of the Donahoe regime--although I think it unfair to lump Spiller into the McGahee and Roscoe bucket because I think he is ready and the real deal. And why would a 91 year old man, with more money than he can ever spend, worry about a few million dollars at this point in time. He is not a football man, and I think his football people did something thay have NOT done recently--take the best player available irrespective of position. You want splash to create flase excitiement, take Claussen. I think they took value--as Nix/Gailey see it. Whether they got value, only time will tell. But this draft is being so panned by the media for not getting a QB, I don't see how this can be viewed as a 'money move."

I don't think so. From everything we can tell, including NGU, the Bills had Spiller down with one of the highest grades in the draft. Higher than Graham or Davis. That does not mean they did not like Graham or Davis, but not nearly as much as Spiller. It appears that they wanted an OT, but not an the expense of taking someone, like Davis, whose first round grade was much lower than Spiller. The idea that this is some Ralph Wilson scheme, while of course possible, strikes me as only fitting your predisposition that Wilson is cheap, all about the money, and is not validated by the pick of Spiller. But ces't le vie.

Right, expert says, this is what I think they should do, and then they give a grade based how close the team conformed to the expert's position. Want a good grade, do what the experts say. Devaite, get a low grade. Does not mean either the team or the expert are "right or wrong" --only time will tell. But the grade is nothing more than how big the difference of opinion between the team and the expert on what to do.

As everyone here knows, drafting players is more art than science. Real GMs and armchair ones are all making their best guesses as to who can make the jump from college to NFL. History shows it is a very inexact art, see Tim Couch v. Tom Brady. Whether a draft is any good or not turns on something that cannot be known yet--how good were you at predicting who will become a good NFL player. That's why the old adage is you can't judge a draft for three years--it takes at least that long to see if your prediction is right. So why are the Bills grades by the "experts" mostly low? Well the Bills thought, for example, Torell Troup was better than Terrence Cody. So the Bills get a lower grade because they "reached" for Troup, when they could have had Cody. At the end of the day, this grade reduction is based totally on the "expert's view" that Cody will be the better player in the NFL, which, of course, is unknowable right now. The Bills obviously prefer Troup. The Bills are also downgraded because they did not get a stud LT and a franchise QB. I don't know how Wang and Brown will turn out, but the Bills obviously believed that Claussen and McCoy are not a franchise QBs, and any LT other than Williams and Okung were not surefire LTs. So they went elsewhere for talent and value, but for that they are downgraded. But if Claussen and McCoy turn out to be Jason Campbell and Brady Quinn, how wrong were the Bills? The Bills would have gotten a great grade from folks like Kiper and Bob Matthews if they took Bulaga, Claussen and Cody instead Spiller, Troup and Carrington. Are they any better with the former rather the latter--the Bills FO thought not, because they could have done that if they wanted. At bottom, whether this was a good draft turns on whether they the Bills new FO are correct that they got "value" at each pick, because they had a higher grade than the draft position they took the guy. Only time will tell, but this grading stuff is a circular clusterf%$k.

Exactly--if you are doing it right, position should be something of a tiebreaker. But if you have an RB with a much higher grade than an OT, you should take the RB, not the OT even though you have a much greater need for the OT. Teams deviate from this--but the better teams don't.

Wow, now I understand all the anger.

He said he was taken, so they did not move up...