Casey D

As long as you understand have an opinion based purely on speculation, that's cool. It is just not persuasive to me. On a conciliatory note, the salary cap is not a revenue sharing device, and based on a quick look nothing in the article you linked suggests differently. Revenue sharing is done by a formula among the teams that throws all sorts of revenue from various sources, e.g., TV rights, radio rights, and portions of ticket sales to name the major ones, into a common pot that is then divided equally among all the teams. That is revenue sharing. A major issue facing the league right now is non-shared revenue, that is increasingly creating financially have and have-not teams. These revenues include, most significantly, PLCs and stadium advertising, that is kept by each team and not shared. From these non-shared sources, teams like Washington and Dallas earn far more than teams like Green Bay, Pittsburgh and Buffalo. This gives them more cash to pay coaches and signing bonuses. The prime obstacle to a new CBA, as the current one expires in 2006, is a new revenue sharing formula. The big market teams like the current disparity--guys like Snyder and Jones--because it gives them a competitive advantage. The small market teams want more of the current non-shared revenue to be put in the shared pot, so competitive balance is maintained. Until the owners get this settled amongst themselves, it is nearly impossible to negotiate a new CBA with the players, because the amount of money available to each team is unclear. The salary cap, however, is a mechanism to minimize each team's disparate revenues from creating an unfair advantage in fielding a team, like it does in baseball. The cap limits how much money a team can spend on players, no matter how much money they have. So while Danny Snyder can spend millions on coaches--because there is no cap on coaches--he can't do the same thing on players and become the New York Yankees of baseball. The cap(and revenue sharing) are the main reasons why a team from Pittsburgh can win the SB, but not the World Series. Small market teams have a chance in football, but not really in baseball, because baseball has neither a cap nor revenue sharing. So while revenue sharing and a salary cap both are designed to make small market teams competitive, they are different things. But you are also implicitly correct that Buffalo is at a financial disadvantage in the amount of money it has on hand to spend on coaches. But that is not a product of cheapness, it is the reality that the Bills are a relatively "poor" team financially compared to almost every other team as a result of low ticket prices and relatively small non-shared revenue... regards, CD.

Your analysis is remininiscent of Colin Powell at the UN in February 2003--remember those mobile chemical weapons facilities. You simply repeat rumors that have no factual basis, but because someone else said it and you are simply repeating it, you present it as a fact. RW said money was no object in hiring coaches. You say he is a liar. Your proof is what? You do not know that DJ is making $1.5-1.7 M--show me how you know that. Show me proof that RW mad MM quit to save money. How do you know that Haslett and Sherman were passed over because of money. Show me a single fact--not surmiee and speculation--to support that. At bottom, you have a thesis that RW is cheap, and you believe that as an article of faith, fact be damned. Do you work for the Administration? As to your discussion about the bottom line-- I am not sure what you are talking about. The salary cap has nothing directly to do with revenue sharing in the NFL. The NFLPA negotiated for it to ensure certain % of revenues were paid in salary, and the owners want it to keep a lid on player costs and to keep the competitive playing field more or less equal(as to this last point, revenue sharing does this too, but in a different way) Money paid to a player, a coach or a peanut vendor comes off the "bottom line." If what you are saying is that hits against the salary cap when a player is cut after having gotten a bonus--from accelerated player bonus amortization--is not real money against the bottom line is correct, it is merely an accounting rule in the NFL. But what does that have to do with whether we paid OL a lot of money, which was the issue on the board. Because when the Bills paid those big signing bonuses, I can assure you that was real money.

Thanks Marv!

I like that.

The discussion here is as fact based as the Administration's claim that Iraq had WMD. Think about the logic. Someone says Ralph is cheap, ergo every decision made is based on money. We hire bad coaches because they are cheap. Bob Matthews writes that why not hire Martz instead of Fairchild..because Ralph is cheap of course. First, I have seen no data on what anyone is being paid. So like WMD, no one has any facts. For all I know DJ is getting $3M a year. So all the talk about dollars is simply speculation. Second, did anyone ever think that a guy like Martz might not fit into what Levy is trying to build here-- a high character team with coaches who are good teachers and an organization who treats its employees like family in a tough world, not just as a piece of meat. Look at the hires we have as coaches so far, good people, good teachers. Maybe, just maybe, that's why they are being hired--good coaches, good people, good team players. Third, the hires are not scrubs. Koller turned down NO to come here, by accounts Fairchild turned down the Jets. Fairchild was tutored under Martz who, like him or not, is a recognized excellent offensive mind. People have to get over their obsession with money. It's not yours to begin with--if you want to spend millions on coaches then go get a job, earn a lot of money and buy a football team and overpay for names. But it does not mean that the Bills--Levy in particular-- don't have plan. And Levy, like Churchill, is going to stick to that plan, whiny critics who really know nothing about football be damned.

Interesting stuff!

If we could be 9th in total offense, I would be absolutely thrilled. Run, pass, swimming, it's all good...

real Slim Shady... got it... thanks...CD

I never could figure out how the Fake Fat Sunny tied to Mularkey--I understood all the earlier ones so I feel dumb on this. Do you know?

Why are you so bitter? No one knows how a coach will turn out. Levy has a business plan. He wants an intelligent, high-character team. To that end he wants a coach who is of high character, a team first guy, who can teach. Levy thinks with these qualities he can build a successful team. By all accounts, DJ has the qualities Levy wants. I want to see how the plan works. I am tired of the old approach, that most certainly did not work. Moreover, any experienced coach will have failed somewhere--by definition. Haslett, Capers, Sherman--all fired. Were any of them coach of the year? DJ may be a bust, but I'm willing to see what happens because I finally think we have a sound plan in place by a man who knows football and is in the Hall of Fame.

That's tautological--what kind of insight is that?

Now I know you are reaching--the Bears hardly had coffers full of talent when DJ was there. Thanks for the thoughts.

And you are the GM of what team? And are you a Bills' fan? You say you hate the hire and then say you would have hired Jim Caldwell, then say have fun Bills' fans because we are going to hate him? Yeah and bend but don't break schemes must be bad, we did so well with blitzing on every down this year...lol...

Not saying he is(who is?)--but DJ's record has been quoted even more times as sure proof of future failure. And you know he will be a failure how? Because Mike Sherman with Brett Favre beat Jauron with Jim Miller. Tell me you know something more than that to explain your certainty that DJ will be a failure.

All well and good, someone tell me his w/l record with the Bears and the Lions. 579201[/snapback] Tell me Bill Belicick's 5 year record with Cleveland? Rep on him at the time, great coordinator, over matched as a head coach.

The Buffalo Bills have been run like a fantasy team for the fans over the last five years. Lots of flash and good PR, but no character. Need to get the fans excited, trade for an over-the-hill Bledsoe and watch the fans come out like he's Jim Kelly. Need another shot of adreneline, sign an aging Lawyer Milloy in 2003. Fans hate Gregg Williams, fire him. Fans want a hot new QB, draft Losman. Fans sick of Bledsoe and want hot young QB, dump Bledsoe. And the fans lapped it up, selling out every game in 2005, while the team sunk to new depths. Now we have a new sheriff in town named Marv Levy, who has a very different approach. We are going to build this team right, from the bottom up with quality, character players. Not everyone will be from that lack of character institution--the University of Miami--we'll get some quality guys. We will build the lines-- so we can block and tackle. We will get the fundamentals right. Enter Dick Jauron. Certainly no flash there. But by every account a quality man who players will play for. Oh, and he went to Yale, so he's likely smart, and can learn from his mistakes. And he's high character, and a teacher. And he knows the value of a stout D-line. So what do many on this board want--run him out of town. Why, because we did not hire the flashier, instant gratification candidate in Mike Sherman. And truth be told as much as the fans say they hated TD at the end, they in fact miss his "give the fans what they want" approach, even if they don't know anything about building a winning business, much less a football team. All they know is that they want to make a big splash today, so the media will say nice things about us. I am tired of the TD approach. I am tired of the push for instant gratification. I want to see teams, like those when Levy coached, who know how to take a punch and get back up and fight some more. I want a team that beats Miami when the QB finds a way into the end zone on the last play, not one that loses on the last play. Levy knew character and quality before. I think he still does. And while Jauron may not be flashy, he has the brains and character that this team so desperately needs right now.

Gee, they've taken 9 days so far to make a critical decision at a critical juncture in the team's history. Slackards. I agree, they should take less than a week, optimally only 48 hours...CD

Well if ML goes out and hires the OC of Arizona, I'll retract my comment...CD

I agree with your parting observations. In terms of customer relations and service, as a club seat holder they are world class. Constant phone calls, Christmas gifts, all sorts of little stuff. Well run business--just a depressing on-field product...Cd

Mariucci does not want to coach right now. Payton is supposed to being close to being offered the NO job...CD

No, I think he did it because he thinks he is smarter than everyone else, and because by reaching for a coach, the coach would feel indebted to TD and not challenge him, like Cowher did in Pittsburgh. No inside knowledge, just an insight into likely human behavior...CD

Leading candidates for the HC job seem to be Sherman, Haslett and Payton. Gee that sounds so much better than the relative unknowns of Williams and Mularkey back in the day. Marv does not seem to mind finding a real coach, not one that simply knows his place...CD

Of course it makes sense. TD has been running this show for 5 years. Many of these folks in "turmoil" were hired by him--he is the only "father" they know. This chaos could have been avoided by maintaining the status quo. That would be nice for the employees--and there were good things about TD--but the product on the field sucked. If you are going to try and get a better product on the field, you have to break a few eggs, to mix a metaphor. Chaos will pass. Levy is a good man. New stability will emerge at OBD. And maybe this time, in due time, we will also get a decent football team with some heart and character--something that we have not had in oh so long... CD

Closely, but not in close proximity?

It seems pretty clear that Ralph really turned everything over to TD. RW was more or less just a spectator--he wanted to retire. It went terribly wrong, and RW now thinks he can't--or won't--be totally uninvolved. So he wants to talk to people, maybe interview coordinator candidates, not to micromanage but to have an opinion, and to stop something that seems ridiculous from happening, e.g, hiring Kevin Gilbride. Being more involved does not mean heavily involved. It means more than nothing--that's all. I would not worry about this at all, in fact it's a good thing. TD had absolute power, now we have some checks and balances. If all opinions are considered, and then Marv makes decisions, I think this will work far better than the prior dictatorship of TD... just my opinion...Cd