Casey D

Well according to the experts on the board, if we do make him an offer we are stupid either because-- we are simply taking NE's trash OR we are simply helping NE out by establishing his market value when he resigns with NE. If we don't sign him we are stupid as he is the greatest guard ever to have suited up to play football...CD

He's got a plan. He's got a team full of holes, so he casts as wide a net as possible adding players. High character guys, who have room for improvement with good coaching/teaching, but come at a reasonable cost. And for all the old guy jokes about RW and Levy, no one on the wrong side of 30 gets added. He does all this instead of spending a bunch of money on one or two guys, especially when there are so many holes to fill. He truly is the anti-Donahoe, everything he does is pretty much the opposite, no big names, no aging stars. As George Castanza would say, if every instinct Donahoe had was wrong... then do the opposite. And it's really cool how Levy is irritating the fans who lapped up the Donahoe approach-- we want Bentley, and Archuleta, big names with big contracts. Now if the results Levy gets in a couple of years is the opposite of Donahoe, then we are talking... CD

Based on your logic--who has signed the most big name free agents is doing the best job--the Redskins would have won the Super Bowl each of the last 5 years. Last I checked, they've been to the playoffs once in that time, but only after they brought back a Hall of Fame coach to coach, and help with personnel. Hmm, that sounds familiar. You have absolutely no idea if, for example Larry Triplett will be worse than Sam Adams. Or Royal worse than Campbell, or Bowen that Milloy. And being a critic does not make your views more accurate, or that everyone else has blinders on. No one knows how all these moves will turn out, including you. And your blantant prejudice against older people is neither funny, or a trifling matter. Why don't you add to that and say that African American athletes should never play QB(would you use the moniker--is McNabb eating watermelon?), or that women should stay at home and not be in the work place. Your obvious bigotry--evidenced by you stereotype moniker-- makes everything you say suspect, which is why I assume you are simply young and immature. If you are not, then you've got bigger problems.

I would not be "surprised" either. My point is that Marv's offer gives us a fighting chance. If the Cards love this guy, they'll keep him. But their lowball offer means either thay don't like him very much, or really messed this up and will have to pay a bunch of money they obviously did not want to pay-- cap space or not.

You have no proof yet whether this was a mistake or not, it is too soon. But you should go back to to your pre-algebra homework and bring that grade up instead of wasting everyone's time on this board.

You have a real funny moniker, what a clever boy you are. What Hall of Fame are you in? Or more accurately, what middle school? And the Cardinals have always been pathetic, when they get to one Super Bowl, tell me how wonderful they are... CD

Pretty stunning offer from the Bills in terms of money--they must really like this guy. Fits Marv's MO, players still on the way up(hopefully), not on the way down. This offer will stun the Cardinals. They gave him a lowball offer, so they only get a a 6th in return. If they'd offered him the $1.5M tender, they'd have kept him, or at worst gotten a 1st round for him. Big miscalculation by the dysfunctional Cards. Marv seems still pretty good at poker. If the Cards were not even willing to give this guy a high one year tender, are they gonna give him a $3M signing bonus and a multi-year contract? All their talk about keeping him was before they knew he was gonna get big bucks at a very young age. We'll see if they stick with that, because they already have F$%#ed this up, so don't be surprised to see us get this guy--it is the Cardinals we are dealing with after all...CD

Oh, a snippy whiner. I asked a simple question to determine what your opinions of players are based on--i.e., how can you judge the talents of linemen. Basically your answer is the team does not win, so that whatever player they get is no good, both those from the past and those just acquired. I would take your views more seriously, if you had sound information to back up your unhappiness. It is self evident the Bills have been bad for quite a while, that's why RW cleaned house this off-season. I also know that TD did not put together a winner, what I am trying to determine is if we are making progress going forward. Your repetition of your answer-- NO NO NO NO, we suck suck suck-- is simply a conclusion, and not something that helps me judge where the team might be going. But hey, the world needs whiners too.

Interpretation--you don't and you can't-- but you are great at whining?

Honestly, what tools do you have to evaluate line play? I mean, do you just depend on what the media says, because without tape, and without understanding the assignments on a particular play, how do you do it?

Of course they are. And basically they have little idea what they are talking about. All people know is that they want a name--like Bledsoe or Milloy--because they've heard of them so they must be good. That's why people loved TD for so long, he gave the fans what they wanted--names without much ability any more. Now the new regime might be looking for good, younger players at reasonable prices--like NE has done for years. You can assume how it will turn out--we will suck--as most people here do. I'd rather be optimistic and believe that maybe the new team knows what it is doing. If I'm wrong, so be it--better than living in constant misery.

The level of discourse here is really quite amuzing. "We're doomed," said hen #1, "because Marv is old and Jauron is a loser, you can just see it in these signings." "God I wish we had that cute Nick Saban as our coach--he's got Super Bowl written all over him." But I've just got to have (blank), he's the only guy for the Bills, I just know it looking at game film from the Houston/Oakland game that I have poured over," says hen #2. "Well Marv is a fool" said hen #3, "that guy is no good says ESPN scoutline, and the media always knows the most about what a player will do." In the meantime, Joe Gibbs is upset to lose Royal because he was a key part of their OL(where the Bills need no help at of course), and Triplett signed quickly because he loved Marv and Jauron in the interview. But hey, "everything sucks" say the hens in chorus, because, well, just because.

Oh no, we embarassed ourselves. I'm so embarassed, whatever shall I do? It's his team, it's his money, he has the right to do whatever he likes. When did you get a say in what he should or should NOT do? Do you know how many people he had at the meetings with him, providing advice and counsel as best they could? God bless him and the great gift he has given to WNY all these years in the Bills. When they are gone, you'll really appreciate what we had...CD

I an confident that when Jerry Jones told everyone during those 45 minutes that he would pony up some cash, and Ralph would not have to pay anything, he understood that in broad strokes. But everyone knew there would be some additional revenue sharing, and the devil was in the details. If you would take the word of Jerry Jones as gospel after 45 minutes, I've got some beautiful land near Niagara Falls in the Love Canal area to sell you. Great views, good commute, you'll love it. But you must act within 10 minutes , or the deal goes away. You get the picture. And, by saying no one can "rationalize an investment of that magnitude to pay dividends in Erie County" is your rather pretentious way of saying no one likely will keep the team in WNY like Ralph when he dies, we agree.

Pass the baton to whom? First he tried that when he turned everything over to TD. He said it was time for him to sit back and watch. You saw what happened. Second, be careful what you wish for. When RW dies, depending on the estate tax laws then in effect, chances are high that his heirs will have to sell the team to outsiders just to pay the estate tax given the appreciation on this team since 1959. It will be difficult to find someone with $750M who will keep the team in a city like Buffalo. Heck, the Sabres were worth almost nothing, and they could not come up with a buyer. And, since the league has no antitrust exemption, it can do little to stop such a move. So when Ralph passes the ultimate baton, and you get your wish that someone new own the team, good chance we'll be rooting for the LA Bills, or something like that... CD

This deal was crammed down very quickly. A guy doesn't typically get rich by having someone else explain a deal to him, without having time to study it carefully himslef. The league put itself in a jam timewise by its own action/inaction--Ralph just did not like the cram down at the end which was self-inflicted. Even as of now, no one seems to know how this works. If it turns out that the new revenue sharing is not enough to keep the Bills in Buffalo because the fans do not have enough money to pay real NFL prices, like they do in DC and Philly, then was Ralph wrong to vote no? I'm not saying that this deal may not be fine for Buffalo, but there is nothing wrong with having the time to carefully consider something--something that could have been decided long ago, i.e., revenue sharing, but was left to the absolute final minute because the big revenue clubs wanted it that way. His position was neither silly or foolish, and his candor was refreshing.

Nice post. And to those who want "better representation," go get a job, work hard and save, and buy your own team and you can represent it however you like. It's great to see people making $50K in a good year and have done nothing for the community trash Ralph and explain how they would do things so spectacularly for Buffalo. Can you imagine the sophistication these people would bring in a negotiation with Jerry Jones or Dan Snyder, while munching on their gourmet fries from Mickey Ds? God bless America.

That's absurd. The defensive player actually initiated the contact. If you are going to call a push-off--which it was not, it was like a hand check in BB--then you have to call illegal contact or PI on the defender.

Plus he's 60. I think he is done with coaching at this point...

Fairchild, Kollar, now Fewell-- all Rams coaches under Martz. Well at least they had some pretty good teams. Wonder who else we get from St. Louis?

No way. That cheap SOB who owns the Texans got a cheap coach when they signed Kubiak, for FIVE years, at just under $2m a year. They gonna pay Sherman as an OC more than the HC?

Thanks Dinger...lol

If so, who is it? The press says the Bills' DC job is the last one open, and I wanted to know if it is true? thanks...

Again, you are buying into media conveyed talking points--RW is not cheap generally, but his won't pay for coaches. That may or may not be true, but think how unlikely that is. This is a multi- multi- million dollar team in both revenues, expenditures and expenses. Ralph gives millions of dollars away each year to charity. But you expect me to believe that when it comes down to two coaches, coach A who RW thinks is great but costs $3M a year, and Coach B who he thinks is inferior but only wants $2m per, RW says let's go with B because he's just a coach and I'm cheap. That to me is so unlikely upon analysis as to be absurd. The chances of the President expressing a clear and articulate thought are much higher, in my opinion.

Being negative or positive on a subject should have a basis in fact, in my opinion. If you know enough to think that Kollar or Fairchild will be a bad coach, that's fine. To be negative and assume they must be bad because they must have come cheap because RW is cheap, seems irrational to me. Bob Matthews says in today's Rochester paper that, in substance, the Bills hired Fairchild instead of Martz because although Martz is obviously better, Fairchild was cheaper. There is so much that is logically and factually wrong with that opinion, that it is essentially worthless--although he is entitled to his opinion. I mean, given his personality and history, would we want Martz at any price; what would be the difference in price in any event; maybe Fairchild and an approach to coaching that fits with ML/DJ but Martz does not;Martz might be unhappy as a coordinator again, etc, etc. You get the point. The notion that we would have hired Martz except for the money is simply playing to a soft bigotry--RW is cheap--and is the kind of lazy journalism(and thinking) that offends me.