Casey D

I agree completely with this observation on Jauron. Super Bowl 25 not so much--there was only 7 or 8 seconds left when Norwood kicked. Another play and the clock could easily have expired. No such excuse last night. Settling for a 47 yard field goal try into the wind on a cold night is utterly indefensible when there is a minute on the clock. While all aspects of the team sucked last night, the game was still winnable but for that final coaching error. Lindell has hit 44 in a row inside the 40. Get to the 23, and you have as sure a thing as you can get in football. But we essentially kneel down at the 30, and so we lose. I can't watch this stupidity for a while...Cd

Marv tried to rebuild this team with character guys--guys who would pull together. You never learn that much in life--or anything--when you are doing well, a test of any person is how they respond when things go bad--when there is adversity. Well the Bills face adversity in bucketloads right now. They now face another soft patch in their schedule. If they dig down deep, there is no reason they cannot get on a little roll--if they want it. I agree it looks grim at the moment, but the hole is not that deep at 5-4, thanks to the fast start. They need to stop digging, and move forward. If these guys have the character I believe they do, things could still get interesting in December...CD

I don't think the seeding works the way you indicate any more. Winning the division no longer seeds you higher than a wild card with a better record, at least I think they made that change in the off-season. The reason was to force teams to continue to play until the end, and not hold back when their seed position was locked up...CD

Then you should bet on Buffalo when the time comes...lol...CD

Frankly, your post is kind of silly, with 9 games still remaining. You are putting way too much stock in yesterday's game, and the next two games(assuming we don't lose all three). Nothing was ever a lock, and nothing is out of the question. Suppose we are 6-3, as you suggest--which may be likely(say beating the Jets and losing to NE). The Bills next four games are Cle, at KC, SF and Miami--all very winnable games(all games in which the Bills will be favored--probably by a touchdown or more). Even if they lose one, that gets them to 9-4 with three games to go at NYJ, at Den and home against NE. If they split the first two of those games, they are 10-5 facing NE on the last game of the season at home. A very good(and fun) place to be if you ask me--and something a playoff caliber team ought to be able to get to given the schedule. If they can't get to 10-5, they don't deserve anything anyway...CD

I think you totally nailed it. The NFL is very even right now--no real dominant teams, and only a few terrible teams. So any given week, teams that just played well play poorly, and vice versa. For example, San Diego loses to Miami and then pounds New England--so they are back. Then the Bills beat them, after the Bills suffered a bad loss to Arizona. New England gets pounded by San Diego, then pounds Denver. Arizona gets pounded by the Jets, then beats the Bills and Cowboys. Miami beats NE and San Diego, then lose to a winless Houston team. It goes on and on. The whole season has been like that--not just with the Bills. If things go according to this roller coaster form, I expect the Bills to do very well against the Jets. I am not nearly as sure that they will beat NE in NE. But after the NE game, the Bills have four consecutive very winnable games(Cle, at KC, SF and Mia). If the Bills go 6-3, and stay reasonably focused, no reason they cannot be 10-3, or at the worst 9-4, when they hit the final three games which are a bit tougher(at Jets, at Den, NE). I like our chances...CD

Peters and Butler both came back and played.

Reading all the comments on the Board--and from the media experts--this seems like a perfect trade. Column in the Baltimore Sun says the Ravens gave up too much. Others ask "are the Bills crazy." So like a settlement in litigation when nobody is totally happy, the deal is usually fair in these circumstances. Time to move on and use the draft pick resources to our advantage... CD

This is wrong I believe. The news story is that since New England traded a 2nd rounder to Miami to get Walker, it will be hard for them to pursue Moss, who they have had an interest in. I could be wrong, but this sounds like a game of telephone...CD

You're most welcome...CD

I don't give much credence to the arguments of the big market teams. They basically want a baseball model, where they can buy a title. It's the only way a guy like Danny Snyder can do it, given his horrendous track record even on the mildly biased--in his favor--system now in place. When the Steelers become like the Pirates, you'll know the NFL has killed the golden goose.. Hopefully the owners will heed the motto "pigs get fat, hogs get slaughtered."...CD

Let's go through at a basic level the economics of an NFL franchise, and then you can answer your own question. We'll use two teams as examples, with numbers that are not actual, but a good guesstimate. There are two basic sources of revenue for all NFL teams--shared and unshared. Shared revenue includes 1/32 of the TV money, and formulaic sharing of ticket sales. Unshared income includes private suites, charging for training camp, private seat licenses(PSLs), merchandise, and stadium deals. Each team also has costs. Salaries are the biggest. Right now the cap is around 64% of TOTAL League revenue under the new CB(which has not yet been ratified by the owners, by the way). Under the last CBA, the cap was linked to total shared revenues only, and this change adversely effects the Bills, let me illustrate in a moment. Teams have other costs as well, such as debt service on the purchase of the team and stadiums. These costs do not adversely effect the Bills--as Ralph owns the team free and clear and did not build the stadium--but it does effect teams like NE, Philly, etc who have new stadiums. Let's use Buffalo and Washington as examples. Let's say the Bills get $110 M in shared revenue. Let's say they make $35M in unshared revenue. That's $145 M they can spend on EVERYTHING and stay in the black. Say Washington also gets the same $110 M in shared, but earns $125 M in unshared. It has $225 M to spend and stay in the black. Let's also assume that the average team has total revenues of $175 M, so the salary cap is set at 64% of $175 m, or roughly $111 M. In this example, the amount that the Bills can spend under the cap is actually 76% of its total revenues, while Washington only has to spend 49%. In $$$ terms, after spending to the cap, the Bills are left with just $34 M to pay for everything else--all overhead, coaches, debt service(none right now), out of pocket bonus money,etc. Washington has $114 M. If the Bills do not "spend to the cap" as you suggest, it does not create more revenue, it simply let's them keep money for other things. For example if they only spent $100 M on salaries, they would have $45 M left for other things--still far less than Washington. What Ralph wants is more of the unshared revenue to be shared, to fix this imbalance. While this might seem like asking for a handout--and it is a bit-- actually it is fair because now that the cap is a % of all revenues(as opposed to only shared revenues under the old CBA), the unshared revenues from teams like Wash, Philly and NY(especially when they have a new stadium) drives up the cap, and creates revenues for the big teams to pay the increase, but adds nothing to Buffalo's revenue stream. In other word, the big teams drive up the Bills costs with their unshared revenue schemes, but provide no new income to Buffalo to pay for it. Now the big teams argue that they have a lot more costs--mostly debt service for their stadiums and/or paying the debt on purchasing the franchise)-to make the extra revenue, and its not fair for them to give money to Buffalo who, while having low revenue, have lower costs. But that's why Ralph gets all worked up about a new NY stadium, it just is going to make worse the problem the Bills and other small teams already have. Now the Bills will be OK until Ralph dies, but then we will be screwed unless new revenue sharing has been put into place. The reason is the new Bills owners will have to pay say $700 M for the team. They will have to borrow money to finance some of this-- let's say half or $350 M. If they have to pay 10 % interest on this annually--that's $35 M more each year in costs for the new owner that Ralph does not have. That makes the Bills a non-viable operation in Buffalo, without revenue sharing. So that's what all this is about. I believe that ultimately there will be more revenue sharing that will keep our Bills safe. But until we get it, Ralphie will B word. And it's not because he is whiny, it's because of the economics I just laid out. Sorry this is long, but it's a little complicated... Happy New Year... CD

Of course that is true--but if they remember how bad they felt on Sunday night, it will be a learning tool for 2007, i.e., finish the game when you can.

Notwithstanding his misstep in the end zone--and who among us has never screwed up--I really like this guy. Listening to him talk, he's smart, and seems like a quality guy. Fairchild started working him into the offense late in the season, and he has responded. At 27/28, I look for big things from him next year. I really think the Bills need to spend all their off-season addressing the lines, with some lesser re-examination and tweaking at LB and WR. I leave it up to Marv and Co. about how critical Clements is at the price he will cost. I think the rest of the team is solid, especially with a year with Jauron and company under their belt.

Me2. Since it didn't cost us a playoff spot, it let's you focus on all the good stuff that has happened over the past year, and think hopefully about 2007,

It's funny after how painful the loss on Sunday, it turns out it really did not matter from a playoff perspective. The Jets win last night would have effectively ended the Bills playoff chances even if they won against Tennessee, because it would have taken(at least) a Bills win against Baltimore, a DEN loss at home to SF, and a KC win over Jax, just to get the Bills into a position to get a tiebreaker. So to paraphrase Bill Murray in Meatballs, "it just didn't matter."

As painful as it is today, when we reflect on this season we'll remember how far we came since last January, when the Bills were a national laughingstock.

Me 2! And on turnovers, it's the only way for our D to survive against anyone, given how soft we are against the run. But the way the Ravens handled the Steelers yesterday, I would have given the Bills no better than about a 20% chance of doing that with the Ravens really wanting the game--per today's Baltimore Sun.

We should all keep in my that even with a win yesterday, and a Jets loss tonight, the Bills still had a hugely difficult game next week. The Ravens need a win against the Bills to ensure a bye. As much as I wished the Bills had won and kept their chances alive yesterday, we have to remember that it would have remained a longshot chance nonetheless.

I don't think your mind is small, just a tad confused.

excellent!

is it working?

Excuse me, but that's lame. No one will ever admit to that. You've backpeddled far enough on this, let's just for get it and have a happy holidays...CD

That's fine. RU in on the SF side too?

OK, fair enough. Do we have a bet?