LongLiveRalph

The only thing that really impressed me about him was his 3rd down conversions. On 3rd & 8, he'd throw a pass (usually to the tight end Keller) for 9 or more yards. Nothing is worse than watching a QB (like our buddy Trent) throw the 4-yard dump off on 3rd & 8. Other than that, he showed solid arm strength, but certainly not cannon. He showed he could be quite boneheaded at times, which wasn't a huge surprise, considering he really only started one season at USC and then was a starting NFL QB in a tough division in a tough media market. The boneheaded plays can be solved with experience, which is why I think he has a chance to be good, especially with the help they've surrounded him with.

Rex Ryan gave a press conference after they lost 10-7 to Atlanta at home, falling to 7-7, and conceded that it was a decent season, and they're unhappy that they blew a chance at the postseason, but that there was a lot to be proud of. Then, they got to play two games against teams who were laying down, Indy and Cincy, who barely played their starters, and the Jets got to 9-7 and earned a great matchup at Cincy in the 1st round of the playoffs. Couple that with a nice win over SD in rd 2 and suddenly they jump from out of the playoffs to in the AFC championship game. I'm not sold on the Jets either, I think Sanchez can be good, but we'll see. He progressed and regressed several times last season. It really will be up to him, they have the other pieces in place. But if they get off to a rocky start, it's a roster with a lot of questionable characters, who knows what could happen. On the other hand, if they get off to a hot start, they could roll to a division title, as the 1st half of their schedule (Balt, NE, @Mia, @Buf, Min, @Den, GB are 1st 7 games) is much tougher than the 2nd half of the schedule (@Det, @Cle, Hou, Cin, @NE, Mia, @Pitts, @Chi, Buf) I do like Rex Ryan, I think the NFL needs more guys like him...I'd take his juvenile, honest, trash-talk press conferences over Belichick's monotone any day.

Lalime's record with Buffalo has been rough, but his stats have been okay. He had a .907 save percentage last season, slightly above his .905 career average, and a respectable 2.81 GAA. I'm not sure what else you'd want out of your backup, especially at 1-year, $600,000. It is well documented and cannot be discounted of how well-liked Lalime is in the locker room, and he has a GREAT relationship with Miller. Did you notice the one person Miller specifically cited during his Vezina speech? Yep, Lalime. It's highly possible that Miller is the real reason this team won a division last year (remember, they also missed the playoffs the previous two years.) Perhaps the 18 players in front of the goalie just aren't that great. When Miller was average, the team usually lost. Lalime is just average. He's had his share of duds in the Buffalo net, but he's also taken plenty of losses that had very little to do with him.

I completely disagree. Players in their prime taking less money to try to win a title used to be applauded. Now, apparently, it's a devilish plot. Free agency is just that...Free options for the players. Free to take the most money, or free to go to a team and city of your choice, maybe for less money. The draft is set up to help the have nots. Free agency in every sport benefits the chic markets. You can't present the available free agents with a list of the five worst teams and tell them to make their choice out of that group (although I'm sure the Bills wish that was the rule.) Collusion is only bad when owners combine to limit salaries and opportunities. Players who have been friends for a decade, who want to play together in a warm weather international city, tax free, and try to win rings, is not the problem with the NBA. The problem is the owners crying poverty after they sign Joe Johnson to $100 million contracts and 11-minute backups to $5 million deals. The salary cap is there to protect the owners from themselves.

A few quick thoughts on LeBron to Miami: 1. Who really cares. He wants to win, he wanted to go to the warm weather, state-tax free, play with buddies, and try to win. He's allowed to do that. 2. "Cowardly betrayal"??? Grow up Dan Gilbert. Have more respect for yourself, your team, and the guy who added $100+ million to your franchise for the past 7 years. If he's a coward and he quits, as you say, why bring him back? 3. Cleveland's roster now looks awful. 4. There are no guarantees in Miami. With so much salary tied up in 3 players, they could run into problems. Dwyane Wade has major injury history. Chris Bosh is a nice big man, but FAR from a superstar. If Wade gets injured, the roster wouldn't be all that different from Cleveland's, with LeBron, a big man, and a bunch of also-rans. 5. Next offseason, the owners should hold a 1-hour ESPN special in which they announce that there's a lockout.

I think the reason people are upset is that the free agency period thus far indicates that the Sabres believe that their core group is good enough. The Connolly/Stafford/Pominville ship has sailed for most Sabres fans. The sample size is large enough now that we know what they are...Yet Darcy seems to continue with the "internal improvement" model that in his mind has Gaustad scoring 26 goals, and Connolly racking up 105 points. This management group wasted one elite goalie's prime. Hasek was an introvert and a dick, but can you blame him for wanting out of the Derek Plante-era Sabres? Ryan Miller is 30, and the Sabres aren't a gritty 4th-liner away from winning the Cup. A little urgency would be welcome, but that's asking a lot of Darcy. I appreciate that they're trying to add some missing ingredients, and I appreciate that the team gives an honest effort almost every night. But the stars shine in the playoffs. Perhaps Vanek's absence vs. Boston made the ineptness of Connolly/Roy/Stafford/Pommer more noticeable. Perhaps. But then again, at times Vanek is a guy who fits right into that group of having a Houdini tendencies. They were a very good team when Miller was great. When Miller was average, they were nothing special. The vibe of the whole season from the fans was trying to figure out exactly what this team was. They won a division, which is cause for a celebration, as that is not a regular occurance. But they also never TRULY felt like a contender. Who knows, perhaps Darcy tried to bundle some of the dead weight together and make some trades when Chicago had their fire sale, and the interest was minimal. It's certainly possible.

I don't understand why he's a dick if he leaves Cleveland. He was drafted there (after they tanked a season to have the best chance at the #1 pick) and he made them relevant. He's played 7 years there (already re-signed with them once) and given them incredible regular seasons, several playoff runs, a trip to the finals, and two NBA MVP awards...Not to mention millions upon millions of dollars in ticket sales, sponsorships, and merchandise revenue. You can't say Cleveland's organization hasn't tried to surround him with championship pieces...They have...They've retooled the roster several times in an attempt to bring in guys who could support Lebron. It's just that Mo Williams, Delonte West, Antawn Jamison, and 36-year old Shaq aren't very good, when matched up in a 7-game series against the best 4 from Orlando, Boston, or a western conference contender. It hasn't worked out, and it happens. The best thing for LeBron is to win. He needs it for his legacy, his brand, his money, his icon status. It doesn't matter where. Cleveland, Portland, NY, Miami...He doesn't need a major media market. He just needs to win, and he should go to the place where he thinks he has the best chance to do that. As far as the "he couldn't win it on his own" angle, "he needed player X to help"...Who cares??? Win eight titles and let history sort that b.s. out as far as comparing titles. In my opinion, the best thing he could do would be to sign a 3-year deal with Cleveland, give them a full decade of service. They have had the best regular season record the past two years. THey are a contender with LeBron. He should try to bring a title to the city. By doing so, he can still play the "hometown hero" role. If they win, he's a miracle man and in Cleveland's hearts forever. If they don't, he can take a 5-year max contract in 2013 to go to a loaded roster (he'll only be 28), and state that he tried for a decade in Cleveland but it just wasn't in the cards. But frankly, I have no problem with him going anywhere else. That's sports. The hour long special is what it is. Don't pin it on LeBron, the show reeks of Nike and ESPN, who's own corporate self-promotions make LeBron look like a buddhist monk. Meanwhile, while "King" James looks to join whichever All Star team gives him a chance at a title, the real best player in the game is just sitting back and smiling, glossing up his 5th championship ring.

Look for Rick Vaive to play RW on Niedermayer's line.

Well stated. For what it's worth, I've read everything having to do with this case and the CBA. It's clear the owners didn't read the CBA. However, isn't the ruling increasing the possibility of a MORE united ownership group of the 22 "weak" teams? Clearly they understand the ramifications and potential windfalls for the big dogs, just as you do. And aren't the "MAJOR" teams basically a function of success? The NFC East, Pittsburgh, and New England are the league superpowers right now, and that has everything to do with success on the field (coupled next with market size and stadium.) With the exception of Dallas, Pittsburgh, and the NYG, isn't it possible that the perceived leverage decreases dramatically when they are in a 4-year rebuilding mode? Weren't the Patriots a realative also-ran, even with a #1 QB like Drew Bledsoe? They certainly weren't a major players. The Raiders still have great merchandise sales. But would Al Davis be able to hold that over the head of the rest of the league when attempting to re-negotiate TV revenues? Would anybody give a flying F about a Raiders-Redskins game from the last three seasons? Wouldn't a San Diego vs. Minnesota game be much more attractive???

No. GG lectured me with a realistic scenario in which Jerry Jones and Daniel Snyder are going to employ thousands of Haitians to make their hats and t-shirts, sell them for $89.99 each, jerseys for $699.99 each, and sell their upper deck tickets for $3,500 each. Fans of these teams (because they're "large market, successful, teams with a national following") are going to scoop up all the hats, t-shirts, and tickets they can get their hands on, with no regard to cost or market forces. Then the other 30 teams are just going to fold because they can't compete, and the NFL will consist of a 26 game schedule where the Cowboys and Redskins play every week until their Super Duper Bowl, which will rotate between Cowboys Stadium, FedEx Field, and a new stadium being built on the moon. Jerry Jones then becomes principal of Orchard Park High School and offers that the football team will play in vacated Ralph Wilson Stadium, as long as Erie County foots the bill for another tier of luxury boxes and a retractable roof.

Michael Bradley is this team's key and he wasn't playing either. He is a rock in central MF and has a work-rate that's world class. I was skeptical of the "coach's son" early on, but he has won me over. I really think he's the team's engine.

Listen man, all your "realistic" scenarios are not addressing the major issue. You are tied up on the merchandising aspect and have your panties in a knot over Jerry Jones and Dan Snyder. The fact is, 32 independent owners operating a league where they're trying to make their franchise championship-caliber and valuable is better than one centralized despot league with autonomous rule in a NYC office. You are correct in suggesting that the Cowboys and Redskins and the other four superpowers have a chance to be more profitable. At the same time, you're discounting the fact that there are 26 other owners who know this. You are discounting the fact that the "weak" teams are still a VERY valuable and profitable asset, both on their own and for advertisers. You are discounting the fact that there is still an NFL commissioner, league bylaws, and a 70-year history for the league. You are discounting the fact that the Cowboys can only be "good" and "successful" when compared to another team (Detroit, Buffalo) who is "bad" or "unsuccessful." They all need each other. I can't believe that you continue to post about the unwielding power and money that Team-X might be able to earn, forgetting that a ruling the other way would give the NFL unwielding power and money. Isn't it better that 80% of the league's teams are "have nots" and will be there to provide checks and balances against the 20% of the "haves"? As opposed to one league with total control over every aspect, with no fear of anti-trust legislation and no players union to deal with? As far as the owners opening the books...Do you think we would EVER learn the profitability of each team if the NFL had autonomous control? And have you ever considered why the league only discusses its financials in terms of percentage of revenue growth over the previous season??? It would be a league driven even more by the bottom line than it is now, with revenue growth as the tunnel-vision target. I find it funny that you'd be okay with this, and yet you feel that Jerry Jones signing his own deal with Nike and Heineken is the apocalypse.

I'm missing the point??? You're acting like Jones and Snyder are going to raise hell and run the barrell over the rest of the league, laughing all the way to the bank. In making your own point, you're discounting the reason those owners have been so successful. Who is on this list of big, bad owners who will run roughshod over the league, laughing all the way to the bank????? Who are these teams with seemingly "unlimited" resources? (6) Dallas, New England, NYG, Philly, Pitt, Washington. Six teams in the league who are "HAVES." They have extremely wealthy owners willing to spend, they have new stadiums, and they have a solid national following. (4) Chicago, Denver, Miami, and NYJ are in the middle group. You can't tell me Miami could gouge their ticket prices, nobody shows up at the current rates. And Chicago, for being large-market, is notoriously cheap. The Jets have been a joke franchise for the majority of their exsitence but have a huge market and new stadium. Denver is debatable in this group, but are a well run organization with a fairly new stadium. (22) Arizona, Atlanta, Baltimore, Buffalo, Carolina, Cincinnati, Cleveland, Detroit, Green Bay, Houston, Indy, Jacksonville, KC, Minnesota, New Orleans, Oakland, St. Louis, San Diego, San Francisco, Seattle, Tampa, and Tennessee make up the rest of the league. So what if Jerry Jones wants to produce his own t-shirts and charge $800 per ticket? If he can do it, so be it, and so be his profit maximization. We are already in a system where the bonus money means everything, and those same 6 teams already have the competitive advantage in that regard. Players want to play in nice stadiums with plush locker rooms. Those same 6 teams already own those advantages. Players want to play in a large market on national TV to increase their endorsement opportunities. Those 6 teams already own those advantages. There is still a salary cap, and still a relatively competitive balance on the field. That won't change much from today's scenario. Just a select few teams will be more profitable. The point is, those six teams or ten teams still need the other 26 or 22 teams in order to maximize profits. That's what the last 40 years has shown. And the last 10 years have shown that you can be an NFL powerplayer with an All Pro QB, or a garbage franchise without one (see: New England Patriots and Indianapolis Colts, 1980-2000 versus 2000-2009.) People throw this "small market" lingo out there all the time, like it's a disadvantage for Buffalo. The vast majority of the league is small market. Additionally, you are acting like the NFL itself as a governing body will dissolve completely, unable to steer these rogue owners at all. That isn't realistic. The real issue out of all of this is that the NFL owners should be forced to open their books completely and declare their bottom line, as they continue to treaten taxpayers for new stadiums and land concessions. If Justice Stevens considers it each owner's right to maximize profits, all profits should be declared.

The NFL is a perfect television sport, and television has exploded over the last 40 years. That's how the league has been able to destroy every other professional sport in popularity. Plus it's BY FAR the shortest schedule so each game means more. That's why ratings and attendance are high. It doesn't mean the NFL isn't greedy. You're criticizing me for not understanding the underlying issues. I think you are being quite short-sighted here. How is an all-controlling sports league a good thing (outside of the MLS?) What would stop the NFL from moving Buffalo to LA for "profit maximization?" What would stop the NFL from steering marquee free agents to it's marquee teams (a la MLS sending Landon Donovan and David Beckham to Los Angeles?) What would stop the NFL from looking at stubhub and seeing that some tickets to games are going for $500, and just setting the prices there, or opening their own auction website? What would stop the NFL from raising the prices of jerseys and t-shirts? What would stop the NFL from setting player salaries lower and lower, again for profit maximization? How could any issue ever get voted on, or appealed? Decisions would be made in an NFL board room, with no explanation or recourse. And what would stop every other sports league from following suit? I realize you're looking at this issue from the angle of a Bills fan. It does benefit the big market teams. But I think you're missing an important chunk of the data if you think that it hurts the Bills. The majority of the league (say 24 out of 32 teams) are already at a competitive disadvantage when compared to the 6 or 8 mega-rich teams and stadiums. The league seems to be working out pretty well. Just assuming that the NFL with total control would bring those mega-profit teams back to the pack is crazy and naive. It will still be a salary cap league (I'm assuming.) The Bills will not reap the profits that teams like Dallas and Washington will, but they don't now, and neither do Seattle, Oakland, Tampa, KC, and 80% of the rest of the league. And they will have every chance to remain competitive on the field. And they will still make a profit. Just not $200 million profit. They haven't sucked because they're small market. They've sucked because of personell decisions. Are Indianapolis and New Orleans reaping their big market competetive advantage???

So basically, it will be exactly as it is now? The Redskins and Cowboys and Giants can offer the largest signing bonuses to free agents, today, because of their extensive cash flow. Like you said, it still doesn't guarantee anything. There is NO WAY this is a bad decision. You think that allowing the NFL free reign to determine player salaries, free agency, ticket prices, jersey prices, etc. etc. etc. and on and on, with no threat of anti-trust legislation, is a good thing? You think basically rendering the Players Union powerless is a good thing? The NFL is a dirty greed machine. Leaving them with unchecked power would be bad news. And it would set precedent for every other sports league. They would be money whores and commercialized to an extent that would make today's sporting events seem pure. Trust me, I have read extensively on this issue, and while it may be good news for Jerry Jones, it's also good news for Bills fans who don't want to pay $200 per ticket.

This ruling is great news for sports in general. Giving sports leagues above-the-law treatment from anti-trust legislation would be bad, bad news for players, and ultimately fans. It's a complex issue with many layers, but I believe the decision was correct. Unanimous, 9-0 from the Supreme Court, by the way.

The Bills biggest strength is that injuries don't hurt them, because they don't have any players who are irreplaceable.

I didn't think that hit was a horrible play. He's the captain, it's game 7, he probably decided before the faceoff that he was going to lump somebody on the 1st shift to send a message to his team. He's used to getting every call so I'm sure he was surprised it was a penalty (I know I was surprised they called it.) But I look at that particular situation as Crosby being too amped up, rather than frustrated or lacking composure. And while the penalty resulted in a PP goal, Fleury definitely could've bailed him out. It was a fluttering puck- I know it got tipped- but it went right through him. F Crosby anyways though. Have a nice summer 87.

Good input, thanks for taking the time to add that! I'm saying and (have been saying) that there's a glaring issue that's not even being mentioned: The NFL's 8-month appeals process for a failed test. The league has a banned-substance list, Cushing tested positive for a banned substance in September...What's the issue? What's the delay? Whether he took it unknowingly, it was prescribed, etc. is irrelevant. The list is provided to every team and player, he failed the test. I couldn't care less about sportswriter opinion awards. I'm trying to steer the discussion into something relevant, like actual games that count in the standings. If the Bills missed the playoffs by one game, and they lost to Houston in a game that Cushing had 11 tackles, three sacks, two forced fumbles, and an INT, I'm sure the conversation would be quite different than "I'm writing a letter to that hack at the Seattle Times!" What if Houston won the Super Bowl and Cushing was the game MVP? Is the NFL going to come out in May and say, "Oh by the way, the MVP of the biggest game in our sport was on steroids, and we knew it, but were taking a closer look." ??? So THAT'S what I care about. Not this ancillary B.S.

Who actually gives a rat's ass about the ROY awards? Who remembers them even four months later? I honestly forgot Cushing won. It's hilarious, the self-righteous people on here who will boycott various publications and networks, but will not boycott the NFL, who made this whole fiasco possible with their failure to suspend an offending player in a timely fashion. I keep posting that this should be more of the issue, but there hasn't been much response. Isn't it true that allowing Cushing to play in actual games that matter, and affecting the seasons of his team and their opponents, is more of an issue than who the Detroit Free Press beat writer votes for in a worthless award??? I sure think so.

I was simply enjoying the reviews of the concert in Buffalo. People talking music, talking Pearl Jam, talking set lists. Then you're posts came along referencing Green Party honks, tools who voted for Obama, and your whines about a George W mask. Trust me, it's ok to separate the music from the musician. You don't have to blow guys to like Elton John. I've been to several Rage Against the Machine shows. Heavy, heavy rock. They play their asses off. But I didn't want to secede from the United States because of Zack de la Rocha's ramblings. I just paid him no mind, and got pumped when they started the next song.

You are angry at all the wrong people. You should boycott the NFL. They allow players who fail a drug test to play a full season. If the league suspended him in a timely fashion, he wouldn't have been eligible for the ROY. Instead, you're mad at 18 writers who vote for some meaningless award, and you're mad at Bills fans here. You're wasting your energy on a school night.

I wasn't aware that it was the job of these no-talent hacks to "make statements" and fight cheating in sports. But apparently it is. I'll ask once again, how is the NFL getting a free pass here? Why is it not the NFL's job to fight cheating in their own sport, and actually suspend an offending player within a reasonable amount of time of his offense? What if the Texans made the playoffs, went to the Super Bowl, and Cushing was voted the MVP after a huge performance in leading Houston to victory??? Would that award be revoked? Would the Super Bowl be revoked? The NFL dragged their feet here. The AP even issuing a re-vote was a mistake, nobody really cares about these awards. By the way, Offensive ROY Percy Harvin failed a drug test at the combine. Marijuana. What kind of message is this for the children??? Waaaaaaahhhhhhh!!!! REVOTE!!!

When I was a Buffalonian, Riverside Mens Shop. Now in Tampa, most often it's Kirby's. Great deals, loyal to their customers, excellent in-house tailors, stand by all of their products for lifetime, (I returned a 6-year old suit that had been through the ringer and they gave me full store credit). Honestly I was just busting balls and if I saw you wearing the suit I'm sure I'd think you looked great. I really just don't even notice that stuff, I'm not pretending to be a "high end" guy with Italian suits. Not casting judgement...Just saying, I've been to Jos. A. Bank and when they stick a $750 price tag on a suit, I damn well better get some free stuff!!! I usually spend about $600-$800 on a suit, I have two that are more expensive than that due to the fabric that helps during July in FL. I usually buy one per year, give or take. I've been able to put together a pretty sharp collection and stay within a middle class budget. I probably wear a suit (including work and personal events) around 9-10 times a month. I'm happy with what I have and generally don't mind spending a little more because when I wear one, it's generally an occasion to look sharp. If you have to wear a suit daily (that sucks) I could see how it becomes tedious and you'd look for value.

Once again, I find it funny that people are outraged at VOTERS for a meaningless award and not outraged at the NFL. The NFL knowingly let a violator of their drug testing system play an entire 16 game season at a Pro Bowl level. Doesn't his 2010 four game suspension simply mean that he can juice for an extra 2-3 weeks this summer? Get over the ROY vote. Byrd didn't really deserve it anyways. Why does the appeals process take 8 months? Why wouldn't a team built for success (say, Dallas or San Diego) just tell their entire team to use steriods for the whole season, and they can appeal all of the results, win the Super Bowl, and then worry about it later?