Pyrite Gal

It pretty clearly says JP will have to compete on the field and win the job. Not only is this how it should be but it is how JP himself is on the record stating that the job should be won. When Bledsoe got cut, JP said in an on camera interview that he had gotten the #1 QB job not in the way one should get the job but that the was going to do his best to play well and lead the team. I'm not sure why anyone would have a big problem with this. Instead folks like TD get a little too full of themselves and simply anoint a player as our next savior. Sometimes this works but mostly it doesn't.

The question I think you asked was whether her words to us bystanders was merely a fun idle musing or a serious expression of interest. My sense is that it was merely an idle musing because she has shown all signs of taking the ideology surrounding the administration and her current jobs seriously and my sense is that too the extent the approach of her current job is one of preaching a commitment to free trade, capitalism and the Administration's version of authoritarian democracy and this differs a lot from the NFL's economic approach based on: 1. Parthnership between the workers and the owners rather than individual money-making. 2. Strict market control based on a player draft which restrains individual trade rather than allowing each individual competitor to pursue the best deal he can get in a free market. 3. Collaborative action between the team owners and the players to restrict "underage" athletes from entering the professional draft (unlike MLB, HHL, NBA etc). 4. A commitment to a pension system which builds the NFLPA collective rather than an individualistic approach based on retirement accounts, 401ks. etc. 5. A bunch of other details reflected in the CBA which at the very least are reasonably defined as socialistic and collaborative rather than individualistic free market approaches central to the nation building work the State Departnment under Rice espouses. There is a substantial difference between the basis from which the NFL Commmissioner and our current State Department head operates. Woyuld this ideological difference make a difference in how she would do the job as NFL Commissioner? You bet! Unless she gave up the ideological framework she operates under. There have been two bookend signposts of Tagliabue's work as NFL Commisioner: 1: He oversaw the development of the CBA as a respose to the mid-80s NFL team owner lockout where the NFL beat the crap out of the NFLPA. The NFLPA threatened to decertify and force the team owners into an MLB like free market where small market teams like Buffalo would likely end up geting savaged and the golden rule (he who has the most gold rules) ran the day. Seeing that there was more money to be made by the team owners co=operating rather than fighting he fostered development of a CBA which gave the players a sliding scale of up to 70% or so of the designated gross (which did not include luxury boxes etc but did designate the big cash cow TV money). The players agreed to this deal because they had just had their butts kicked and because with a stable product providing something to sell commercials around to a defined audience of sports watchers+ the workers (along with the team owners) would make more money than they ever made before. 2. Tags oversaw last minute ownership agreement to the new CBA where the DGR (designated gross) has been replaced by a calculation based on total revenue and the players are the majiority partners receiving 59.5% of the gross. Tags played a central role in this where he was a partner with Gene Upshaw and the NFLPA educating team owners about the deal and Tags making a critiical last minute plea to the owners to bend over and be minority owners because their partners the players would merely use their bending over to put $ into their wallets in their back pockets rather than screwing them up the butt. I simply do not see Condi furthering the Tags socialistic collective approach that has brought so much wealth to the NFL team owners unless she is willing to do an about face on the individualistic free market mantra of the current Adminisitration's ideology.

Look. sports radio is merely doing its job of commitment to filling its role. Unfortunately, its role is not to report accurately for the community about the Bills and its other sports franchises, but simply to make as many nickels as they can for the radio investors who live far from this town in the new consolidated media age. The media have identified that they can make nickels easier by serving a community which tried to fill important by blowing up and pointing out the failings of others. Its easy and it works so they go to it. Its too bad because IMHO, just as the NFL used to be a sport that happened to also br a business, now its a business that happens also to be a sport. This seemingly small change has made all the difference in how the NFL works. The media used to be a public service which happened to also be a business. Now its a business that happens also to be a public service. Yhe media makes a show of being a public service and of accuracy, but when it comes down to a chance to sell commercials to an identifiable (and usually small numerically) group of buyers, the bias is toward get the nickels rather than wait a second and make sure they get it right.

One reason i doubt we would see Condi as NFL Commissioner is that if she took this post she would be rejecting the ideology of free markets and be embracing the collective virtually socialistic economic approach of the NFL team owners. Even worse she would be moving into a system where not only is their a partnership between the owners and the workers, but clearly with the new CBA applying to total revenues and the workers commanding well over a majority of the gross receipts, the workers are the majority partners. Perhaps she would be willing to toss aside the ideological commitment reflected in the Bush Administration and GOP policies of a free market approach were owners rather than workers rule, but even for this personal plum and the huge amounts of money produced for the team owners by joining with the workers to restrain trade its hard for me to see how someone who has written about and studied continuously the limits of the communist system that she would make such an ideological about face of becoming NFL Commissioner.

I think Denny made such a bad first impression when he was not even able to be made activite initially because he apparently had a technical flaw in how he came up from a three or point stance that he was easily neutralized by even a rookie blocker that he had to go back to the drawing board. He changed the manner that he held his body or bent his knees upon the first hit and could actually hold his own by the end of his first season, but the damage was done in terms of his rep as a productive Bills for many fans, In addition, since TD had to trade up in the draft to select him when Pittsbirgh was on the phone with him saying they would take him the pick after next, the folks who were after TD's hide adopted the mantra that TD was a fool to spend extra resources to get him. Actually. iMHO it was an impressive move set-up by TD to compensate for several events: A. He did stupidly hire GW who stupidly switched us from a 3-4 to a 4-3 at exactly the same time we were in a two year process of losing 3 DEs (Hansen, Wiley, Bruce) and Big Ted to retirement, FA and as cap casualties. Expanding our DL need to 4 while undergoing the losses are a problem we are still coping with and picking a DE capable of starting was a huge need. B. Further, TD could not resist picking a projected first rounder Reed with our 2nd round pick even though we seemingly we set at WR with Moulds/PP. This made trading up in the 2nd essential. The Reed pick obviously did not work out (though it looked brilliant for a year as Reed had a very good rookie year and produced credibly enough to make it justifiable to tag PP and let him go for a draft pick which replaced the one given up for Bledsoe and actually turned into WM. However, as Reed developed the droppsies and then got hurt, the dislike of Denney was reinforced for many as we needed to spend to move up to get him because the 2nd was used on Reed rather than a DE. The fact this idea was a rational move at the time that even worked out for a season is overlooked by folks so set on savaging TD they interpret everything he did in the worse light and paint all players he acquired as total idiots, TD deserved to be canned for lots of mistakes and reasons. However, Denny solved his original problems and really stepped up and contributed for this team and picking him in itself was not a bad move.

No prob, It is neat to me because this is some fairly counter-intuitive and high level economics playing out on a level where even us football crazy folks can relate to it. I actually take a little time to try to lay out an explanation as it helps me understand and keep track of it all to explain it. In addition, errors I make in my grasp of the economics are usually quickly (if not harshly also) corrected by the TSW folk and I learn alot.

The economic things which seem cool (interesting to me are): 1. Though perceived as capitalist, the team owners and the NFL as a whole are profiting hand over fist from what Forbes magazine called a "socialist" system. 2. I can see being mad at the NFL because really the owners and players have created a partnership to get money from you and me. However, between aggressoce ticket selling has eliminated most blackouts and modern internet technolgogy that makes it fun to follow games on the radion and the TSW chat room, one can actually opt out of these payments and still enjoy the game. 3. The players are money-grubbing idiots, but i do take pleasure in seeing these money grubbers beat even bigger money grubber owners. What's not to love about that?

As best as I can tell the Skins have done several things: 1. They really did make a few painful cap friendly cuts such as LaVarr Arrington. While these cuts actually represent poor investments by the Skins as seen in an increase in their deadspace numbers. The cuts are cap friendly because they already were accounting in their cap # for a large base salary payment ot Arrington. This much the same as why cutting Eric Moulds will be cap friendly for us. 2. The Skins apparently did a furious round and amount of restructuring contracts when it looked like the cap would be much smaller if there was no deal. This move in essence robbed Peter to pay Paul as they converted base salary payments due this year into bonus payments. Their level of high revenue gives them the cash on hand to make these immediate bonus payments, but this year's cap hit went down as they prorated (distributed this bonus cap hit over the 5 years allowed in the CBA or the life of the contract if it is shorter than 5 years They likely are doing the quick signings with cap room they generated doing this in preparation for a tighter cap. 3. This is a classic example of what folks refer to as cash over cap. While the Bills generally try to hold money paid out to the actual level of cap room (except in cases like Takeo Spikes or a first round draft choice to whom we pay a significant bonus upfront though this amount is prorated over several years. The Skins on the other hand have so much cash flowing through their money making machine that they barely seem to notice when they have to layout a huge bonus. This payment of cash upfront is allocated over several cap years and represents the cash they paid out over the cap total. In general, this definitely will come back to bite the Skins at some point. We see this in cuts of players like Arrington, but the impact of this is greatly lessened by the huge growth of the salary cap as NFL revenues increase/ This year ironically will probably see few cuts in the Skins as many players have already been paid by the Skins because their base salary was converted to bonus. In addition, it is clear from cases like Royal that money is not the only thing players want and high revenue teams can lose players they want to the likes of lower revenue (but still massive profit centers) like the Buffalo Bills.

Anderson really disappointed and sucked for the most part last year. However, cutting him gives little financial advantage. It seems to make far more sense (particularly given longtime Bill watchers like VABills feeling his play improved a great deal in the last five games though that might not be saying much given his inconsistent and stinky early efforts) to keep him and let him compete for at least a back slot.

A few days back in the midst of the CBA aggreement, talk emerged on TSW about Tom Golisano buying the Bills. I lik many others would love to see this because it likely means the Bills new owner would keep them in WNY. However, I did ask this quiz question: A Golisano purchase would almost certainly strengthen the hand of the NFLPA, I'm curious whether folks can explain succinctly why this is the case. Those who can explain this can do so if they understand the economics so please do so. I got a few answers before this one fell into the old post reaches, but here is my cut: A. The team owners and the NFLPA have a partnership in running this league which has been growing and developing since the CBA was created. (For those who do not believe this please see the Paul Tagilabue interview on NFL Network where he states this truth). B. Using the measure of % received of gross assets, it is fair to argue that the players are actually the MAJORITY PARTNER in this set-up as the CBA brought them a a majority of the gross receipts when it was developed. (This measure has been cemented in the new CBA where by aggreement of boh parties the players receive 59.5% of total gross assets. C. A alternative method of measuring majority partnership would be in pointing out that the team owners own really control aspects of the game such as stadiums, medical and rehab facilities, camps, etc while players at most influence rather than control these decisions. However, from an economic standpoint, these aspects are for the most part liabilities rather than pure assets (stadium ownership for example) D. Even someone worth an estimated $1,4 billion like Golisano must take out substantial loans to buy the team and in particular to build an own a new stadium which is the cash cow that has brought huge wealth to folks like Robert Kraft. (Golisano being worth over a billion does not mean he has all that cash under his mattress or even in some bank account. Much of it is invested in long-term assets which throw off profits he uses to buy other invesments. Just as you would not take cash out of your pocket or account and buy a new house one room at a time, the intelligent and only way to buy a franchise is to take out a series of massive loans which you slowly and profitably pay off with part of the profits earned by the investment). What this all adds up to is that the exchange from Ralph Wilson to Tom Golisano means moving from an owner who has paid for the Bills lock, stock and barrel (with his original $10,000 investment) whose team (and thus him) only owe money for small loans as he has wished over time) to an even richer guy who will owe massive chunks of dollars to the bank. The NFL makes such massive amounts of money (mostly from the billions paid by the networks in the TV contract) that he can easily pay off the monthly payments for this debt with the profits from franchise ownership. However, understanding this financial aspect is the key to understanding why the NFLPA has won more than a majority share of the gross assets received by the NFL. The team owners hold all the liabilities associated with owning a franchise. In particular as a majority of the owners are entrepreneurs who bought their franchises since the last work stoppage and old owners who have leveraged their franchises like a homeowner who uses home equoty loans as though they were an ATM/ The team owners are dependent upon the steady cash stream of income provided by the networks and other sources. The NFLPA members on the other hand, while dependent upon their contracts, actually are in a powerful position that if they were locked out as the players were in the mid-80s they still have their bodies and can do other things, It would take a lot for individual players to turn their athletic bodies into cash from still being able to sell autographs, get paid to play in the CFL or Arena football, appear at restaurants, play other sports in a few cases or even start a new league. However, while the team owners would still owe monthly payments to banks, the players would have liabilities to the extent they invested their 250K annual minimum payments wisely or like Travis Henry they blew their wad. If it came down to a work stoppage, the NFL team owners would have heartless banks and their lawyers banging on their doors. Players would have to listen to Mom, Dad and their wives, but particularly given all the wealth that players have accumulated recently, a work stoppage likely would have been a killer for most NFL owners, even the rich ones like a Golisano. IMHO, this is why the current dispute over the CBA ended like it did. Hene Upsha and the NFLPA had such a huge advantage in the negotiation the fight was not over whether they would be majority partners or not, the fight was over whether they would get over 60% if the take. Once Upshaw "gave-in" and settled for a mere 59.5% the actual last day of the dispure was not over the amount the players would get for it, but over how the NFL team owners were going to divide up paying for it. When one of the old guard team owners goes to that great stadium in the sky and a new new owner (even one as wealthy as Golisano) takes over and if he is smart and by necessity has to go to the banks and capital holders to make the cashflow of this effort fully profitable for him, the NFLPA will have yet another team owner in place where he will painfully but yet profitably vote to accept a deal with the NFLPA where they receive the vast majority of the gross receipts of the business. Sorry for the length, its really a pretty cool economic thing and impossible to say it all in a few sentences and be accurate and do it justice/

He is too talented not to land somewhere but it looks like Denver or Dallas as best as I can tell. He has been a team killer wherever he has gone and is more than likely to be a team killer wherever he goes. Most people do grow up eventually and many of the ones wgho do not grow up get killed or kill someone else. It would be awful though to have to watch Marv try to work to find out whether the next go round for TO is the unlikely route of redemption. His act is incredinly old.

This is why the ojly potential trade partners I can see would be teams which are interested in TO but lose out on getting him when he hits FA. By definition they are teams which see a need for a proven WR (which I think Moulds is for the few short years til he hangs em up) and they have already shown a certain psychotic tendency because they would even consider bringing TO in, The only way we find a trade partner is if the team sees WR as the key to producing next year and they are stupid enough to take the penalties that Moulds brings with him to get this ring.

It's not that I am nuts for saying that pundits on NFL Network are talking about Vernon going in the top 5 (that's simply what they are saying and I reported that) I am nuts for other reasons. I commend you for coming up with an interesting read and for advocating an approach rather than just a simple silver bullet theory vested in one player's talents. The over-focus on one single performer is great for watching soap operas but simply isn't how winning TEAMs are built in this game. I commend you (not that my assent or permission is worth anything or needed at all) for having the football intellect and taking the time to lay out a multi-player theory. However, this focus on solely the offense as though it did not have huge impacts on our absolute need to also retool our D if we hope to win, is a fatal flaw of this plan for instant offense. With Evans and Parrish in place and under contract as our #1 and $3 WRs and with Moulds either kept or cut to give us lots of cap room we can use on a #2 WR the outside receiver question is unsettled but we are in goof shape. Likewise at TE, While it is quite unlikely that either Royal, or Everett, or Euhus is going to step up and be a great TE, it is likely that the new Bills will be able to find one adequate player among these three young highly regarded players (based on their recent draft positions and the FA deal) who will be adequate for us to produce the instant offense you and we all want at no additional expenditure of our small limited resources. In my mind, I like the focus you are taking on how having Davis mutant talents may well help other players perform better, my sense is it makes a lot more sense as we push for offensive production that instead of building strategy around exploitations of the very impressive combine test results of a pre-rookie, that instead we build our O strategy around getting the blocking talent we need from the TE to help spring WM. Rather than building the O strategy around an impressive rookie's test results running and jumping in shorts, it seems IMHO to make far more sense to instead build around getting TE talent to help the fastest Bill RB ever to reach 2000 yards rushing in the actual pro game. I too was surprised to hear the NFL pundits talk about giving a Mike Williams size contract to a TE. However, stranger things have happened in the NFL and if you really are going to base a theory around getting Davis at #8, then such a theory is not credible unless you also talk about what we do if he is gone or what your plan is to trade up so he won't be gone. Regarding the rest: I like Bryant and cutting Moulds and getting Bryant as our #2 seems like a good trading of talent with us getting a younger guy. As far as Runyan he is a bit long in the tooth in years, but this OL needs leadership and if he an JMac can work well together to provide it that is good enough for me. A basic level of talent is essential and Runyan and a number of other folks have it, but the critical thing to me in making this work is not the level of talent beyond some basic level that must be there, but how does it feel talking to this man and can he lead others for several years. Getting an upgrade over Shelton strikes me as a good idea. i was very disappointed with is inconsistent performance last years and in particular his failure to catch a couple of passes Holcomb threw to him and them taking bad bounces which became INTs. Our safety valve FB needs to be more sure handed. The other comment I would make is to point our the seeming contradiction in your lead post and your reponse to me. In one post you describe counting on Everett as useless but in the other post sing his praises in a two TE set with Davis. If you are going to be extreme then pick one assessment. Either Everett;s talents can be worked with or they can't. At best you seem to feel he is not to be counted upon unless Davis is there to unleash his talents. It already is a leap of faith to assume his great combine workout numbers are going to translate into an equally potent pro performance by Davis. To purport that his combine workout numbers are also going to result in far better performance from a teammate that you say cannot be counted upon seems contradictory to say the least.

I think this type of a move is a real possibility as the cap $ seemed to work out for both teams, but it is certainly much more a possibility than any kind of reality or even probability because its such a multi-rail billiard shot of a bunch of things having to work out: 1. Is Keyshawn a real goner and will Dallas be in the market for an experience WR? 2. Would Allen want to move to a new team or would he simply prefer to retire. 3. Does JMac think Allen has enough left and what is his semi-long term strategy for rebuilding the OL and would Allen fit in? I think this works capwise as we seem to have the room and even might be considering keeping Moulds at a hit of $10 mill so $7 mill for Allen actually gives us cap room and obvioussly adds experience to the OL. Dallas does take a bit of a cap hit assuming Moulds salary so my gues is they would likely want to work out a reduction with him, but while the Bills are probably a couple of years away from the playoffs, Dallas was on the doorstep last year and reuniting Bledsoe and Moulds may help put them over the top since I think Moulds would be a clear upgrade over Keyshawn. Could be we'll see.

I aggree that it obviously is possible and would be beneficial for us to trade him, but it will be hard to find a partner who is not simply just willing to wait for him to be cut and then to try to sign him for less than his current contract which led to the Bills cutting him because it is larger than his value as a player and without giving the Bills whatever trade compensation is required. It will be hard to find a partner. However, if you are interested in who these partners MIGHT conceivably be, then look no further than the teams currently hinting at interest in Terrell Owens. They are looking for a big time receiver and obviously are willing to take risks to get one which might be similar to the costs of dealing with the Bills. My understanding is that Denver and Dallas are the two teams that have expressed interest in TO. Marv and the Bills may be hanging onto Moulds waiting to see which one TO ends up with. If this happens, the other may well be in the market for Moulds. Denver is a player away from the SB and a quality WR may be just the thing so if the lose out on the TO derby they might jump. Dallas is also a player away from making the playoffs potentially and word is the Keyshawn may be done with the Cowboys. Particularly given that Dallas QB Bledsoe had a successful run with Moulds (100 catches in 2002) this also might make sense. We'll see.

Let's be clear about this. 1. Yes, the new deal gives a higher % of the total revenue to the players than the old deal (the old DGR figures amounted to around 54% of total revenues going to the NFLPA and now that will go up to 59.5%. 2. No, the new deal does not give Ralph NO additional money in revenue sharing, it gives the smller revenue teams less $ than they wanted. The deal calls for a revenue sharing package whose final numbers are not set yet because they depend upon how the independent team businesses do, but it will provide a pooling of $ to the tune of $850-$900+ million by the large revenue teams over the 6 year life of the CBA and its direct distribution based upon income to lower revenue teams. 3. Even if the deal does end up eating into the profits (I suspect it will) of lower revenue income teams like the Bills, we should be clear that it will lower the profit level from super huge to merely huge. The Bills and Ralph will rake in less % of $ under the new deal than they would rake in under the old deal compared to the players or the higher revenue teams. However, with even a conservative estimate of the level of growth of revenue expected by the NFL and with a rate of growth in revenue consistent with the real world growth in the past 17 years under labor peace, the BILLS WILL MAKE MORE MONEY UNDER THIS DEAL THAN THEY CURRENTLY MAKE NOW. This deal made sense for the NFL to do because the actual alternative was that they make no money under a work stoppage and that is where this seemed to be headed unless they made a deal. Will the Bills be outspent in terms of acquiring on field talent by the higher revenue teams? Yes, if they are not willing to probably even further reduce the amount of profit they put in their own wallet instead of reinvesting in the team. However, even this spending seems like it can be done by continuing the retraction of their profits from the super huge to the merely huge to even come down to a substantial profit in order to compete on the field with large revenue teams. There is no requirement under law or normal business practice that Ralph and the Bill merely "settle" for making a substantial profit instead of merely a huge profit simply to remain competitive on the field. However, he would be operating as a great sportsman and a good person if he does this. Being a sportsman and continuing to be a good citizen for this community may not be as important to him as being an obscenely profitable businessman. However, I think that being a good sportsman and a good person are important to him and sense he can achieve both these goals and still get a reasonable profit (but not an obscenely huge one) under the new CBA, I think it is a good deal.

Niether Triplett or certainly Royal look like momemtous signings which will be a key for us to make the playoffs this year, but hello Beuller, its possible in an NFL where worst to first is possible in a short time unlike ever before, but there is simply no silver bullet FA signing or draft pick that is going to make this team even a favorite the make the playoffs. Instead, we are talking about the necessity of the Bills really having a "small ball" approach to building a winner/ It strikes me that our acquisitions need to fulfill a number of aspects to be good picks: A. The FAs and the first day draftees need to have a very good shot at being starters in 06. B. The players need to have some upside as development prospects, this is true not merely for the draftees, but we are desperately looking for our new starters to be at a point in their career to not only start ut POTENTIALLY be the next Bryce Paup type FA acquisition (this almost certainly will nor be the case as this as a demand is unreasonable, but we need players who at least make that not an insane hope to have. C. They ned to be cost effective and not prohibit us from making other key signings. D> Most important his skills need to fit our plans to the extent we can figure out what Marv/Jauron have in mind. Both Royal and Triplett fulfill these aspects IMHO. Royal- Some troublesome injury issues his first two seasons. However, he had a solid though not illustrious campaign last year. For the most part he started for the 'Skins last year and press reports in the DC papers indicate that their HC Joe Gibbs has oublicly expressed a sense that he was going to resign and come back to be the Dkins TE. He is the odds on favorite to start for us at TE. Also Royal is just entering his peak production the next few years since he is well on the right side of being 30. Further, though his receivings #s are far fron impressive, last year was a career year for him and clearly he is developing into a more oroductive player. On the third point, folks are talking about us overpaying him Royal, but they do not seem to take into account that in partticular right after the new CBA agreement the new contracts are large for a normal person like you or me, but th contracts are amsll compared to the going rate.If the Bills were paying TE fracchise # even transition # then I would judge that too much but from what I have seen he will barely be at the level of the 10th higest cap hit this year and will be no where near the average of the top 10 TE contracts. Finally for Royal does he fit into our scheme. Its unclear what the new scheme wull be but for sure its hoinh o feature heavy doses on WM and I like us getting a blocking TE we will have train to be more of a receiver rather than geta receiver you have o train to block. Preferably we want both and in the face of the salary cap system we must make good choices which limitations. I thonk the calculus for Triplett is much the same.

Does the signing of Royal prohibit the drafting of Davis. No, not at all, The Bills can certainly do anything they want even if it makes little sense. Goes it inhibit the drafting of Davis. Yep. Big time. Davis was already going to be a stretch for any team as the current franchise # fir a TE is 3.3 million and even the transition # is $2.7 million. He turned in such a mutant performance at the combine perhaps a team can justify taking him in a place where his slotted contract will already put him among the highest paid TEs in the league, but already picking him is a load. Add to that the Bills already have 3 TEs under contract (substantial contracts as they gave one to FA Royal and both Everett and Euhus are working off 3rd round and 4 th round contracts and the idea of picking Davis with our # 8 becomes an even bigger stretch. Add to this that NFL Network had pundits on who also are ga-ga over Davis's combine work and are even talking about him as a potential top 5 pick which means we may well have to trade up to fulfill your goals. Add to this that this draft led by Davis is being talked about as one of the best TE classes in years. Even if we used a later or second day pick on a TE we probably would get a quality player and still would need to cut the useless player you mention who has made the Bills the last couple of years. The Royal signing in no way makes picking Davis impossible, but it and for several other reasons simply makes it so unlikely as you are way far away from meeting remotely any burden of a case that this move makes sense. In order for it to even make any sense I think the case would have to be made: 1. By drafting Davis we clearly forgo any chance at Ngata and a credible explanation would need to be made of how with Triplett and the current crew or a later pick we generate the pass rush necessary to make the Cover 2 work. 2. I assume we keep 4 TEs but two sit. The two who sit suck up significant cap space when as useless as Neufeld is we are probably limited to Neufeld level $ for a 4 TE. How does drafting Davis #8 make any cap sense for us. 3. We may well have to trade up to get Davis and if he is central to our desires we better trade up merely on the threat somone else will take him with an existing pick or somebody else will trade up and get him. How much and who do you think is worth giving up to do this?

The Bills are in a position of negotiating power with Clements as particularly with the new CBA and the increased cap we should be quite content to plau/pay him with the tag. The major fear we might have is that a miffed player simply mails it in. However, everyvody including NC has to admit that this past season was disappointing after getting a Pro Bowl nod. he simply cannot afford to play his hardest next year in what will be a contract year.

It would seem quite doubtful this team would be interested in Davis. Given a depth chart with openings for 3 TEs you have Royal whom the current regime obviously likes well enough to give a bonus to, Everett who was highly repsected last year and is unproven in terms of whether he will make it but also in terms of giving up on him so with his bonus he stays. The you have Euhus entering his third year with the Bills after having a fiarly good opening year until he got a bad injury and last year saw him disappoint but again give his 4th round pick and the fact he was coming back from an ACL tear which costs good athlete's a season and a half but they can come back, it would seem dumb to give up on him as well. The roster at TE already will probably necessitate a cut of a long-time Bills as reserve Neufeld better convince folks he is worth keepin as an H-back or he is odd man out at TE. The idea of using our #8 (or maybe even having to trade up to get him( on Davis and passing on getting the help we need at DT or S from the draft just seems totally unlikely and wrong headed for a Bills team looking to win.

I checked for real #s regarding Indy's sell of their stadium naming rights. The actual take they got averages out to $6.1 million year from an oil company which is a n increase over the $1 million a year they previously got. The question as to what should the Bills/Erie County reasonably expect if they marketed our rights. The general answer which is correct is that they should expect what the market can beat. The specific real question is how much can the market bear? Obviously there is no definite answer to this, but it would seem that price negotiations would start at the going rate of what was the price for a similar product and they would move up or down from there. My sense is that negotiations for Bills naming rights start at the price recently obtained by Indy and go down from there. However, depending upon the availability of a buyer (real world negotiations will simply determine the outcome) I would not be shocked to see it nor drop too far. My reasoning is: 1. Reasons price would be lower than Indy: A. Naming rights for a new stadium rather than the good ol Ralph B. Exposure likely to be higher in the immediate term as Indy is doing well. 2. Reasons folks may see as important, but I think are inconsequesntial A. Buffalo is a small market: Yes this is true but tbe Indy deal shows that these sales are for national purposes and mere membership in the national item of the NFL is the driver, not the economic statuss of the resident City. Note that the Indy naming rights were bought by an oil co. This was not a local or even a consumer marketing purchase. B. Indy is a better team and will provide more advertising opportunities with likely home playoff dates and Indy getting more national coverage. Yes, true now, but these are 10-20 year deals and the Colts/Indy positions will likely reverse over time as things change. Consider if you had used this same logic to purchase the 40ers naming rights or to demand a low price for the Panthers naming rights 10 years ago. The fortunes of a team will vary widely during this time. 3. Reasons the cost for the Bills rights might even be higher. A. The NFL just signed a long-term CBA extension promising labor peace and a stable advertising environment. B. Supply and demand. As long-term naming rights deals are getting done, renaming the Ralph is going to be one of the few opportunities left. I simply do not think that one can be so certain the naming rights would only bring in a million or two.

Ealph has a captive buyer in the form of Erie County which owns the stadium as they were willing to pay a pretty high price to keep the Bills in town when the lease came up for renewal several years back. Ralphie played hardball with the negotiations and even though we now know that he is committed as any out of towner can be to keeping the Bills in Buffalo as long as he is alive, he did not make this commitment clear until after the lease deal was negotiated. Dennis Gorski, who was the County Exec at the time had put WNY in a bad situation by playing hardball with the negotiation prior to this one, because the NFL was in a much weaker state as team owners had wasted time and money warring with the NFLPA (and beating the crap out of them in the work stoppage of the mid-80s). The NFL was averaging roughly two work stoppages a decade in the pre-Tagliaboo-boo period and being an unreliable source of TV product and given the limited competition between the networks, Gorski was in a position to even flirt with the possibility that the Bills would leave town. The last negotiation was payback time and Ralph was in a position to write his own ticket and Gorski came back hat in hand begging for the Bills to stay. Fortunately for WNY, we had a couple of bright hard-working guys who pulled out far out of the fire. Rich Tobe was Gorski's Commissioner of Environmental Development, but proved to be so bright that he became Gorski's go-to guy on any big issue (for example in addition to handling the Bills lease negotiations, he also oversaw repair of a range of other County fires like reform of the County welfare debacle which had caved in under cost-shifting from NYS to the counties when Gerge Pataki became governor) and oversaw these items from his Environmental slot. Tobe either authored or at least understood a series of proposals which let the Bills get good profits without raping the County to much. It was in this context that the County "offered" to name the stadium after Ralph instead of selling the naming rights. The County would have been happy to sell the naming rights to the highest bidder as part of the offset against the numerous costs like security which the County took off the Bills balance sheet. Instead with a wink and a nod the County "decided" to "honor" (kiss the butt of) Ralph by naming the stadium after him, The other bright hard working guy was local lawyer Erkie Kilbourne who chaired the Business Backs the Bills effort which worked aggressively to do the Bills work in selling club seats and luxury boxes to local businesses in this small market and relatively easily met the luxury box targets and with a lot of hard work, negging and arm twisting eventually met the club seat targets as well. In general on the naming rights issue, Ralph can write his own ticket. The Bills are in a position of total power in negotiations with either party in charge of the Exec seat. Regardless of who actually owns the rights, their are ample methods for making the proceeds of any sale benefit the Bills (ex. the County sales the rights but the Bills either transfer costs they bear for operating the Stadium to the Coubnty who then pays for them with the extra revenue derived from the rights sale). In terms of how much they are worth simply do a search on the net for articles about the recent sale of naming rights by Indianoplis for their new stadium. While Indy is probably more bustling than Buffalo it also is a smaller market. There appear to be two reasons that companies want to by naming rights: 1. It actually is a national advertising opportunity rather than focused on local sales. The name of your company on a stadium appears at least 8 times a year on TV and in countless newspapers when stadium names are listed. This is not focused advertising that makes a pitch like a commercial, but in a competitive advertising context like America there actually is some real value to simply having your name mentioned a number of times that has been shown to be of some real value. The second reason is braggin rights. Your company shows that it is a mover and a shaker and a major league property because it canafford this luxury item. I think Indy had previously long ago sold the naming rights to their old stadium for a million bucks a year and the new deal calls for them to get something like $10 million. Not bad for something that really costs the team nothing to do beyond putting up a few signs (though a team can probably even shift this cost sway from the). I think the real ticket here though is that the NFL reaffirmed and reloaded the fund that teams can reach into for help building their own stadium. Buffalo's new Mayor Brown just mentioned the idea of building a new waterfront football stadium. For folks interested in keeping the Bills here in perpetuity, having this NFL fund invest in helping the Bills build a new stadium here is one ofr linking the Bills to an asset they cannot move and thus make it harder for the Bills to leave town.

In addition to his hard work and smart marketing, didn't Kraft also take adcantage of the NFL's $700 million welfare fund for the purchase of stadiums. Smart maketing and managing by large revenue teams recognizes that it serbes their interests for the NFL to produce a national qualty product by swharing thwie wealthe with their fellow team owners. The team owners kicked the players butt in the mid-80s work stoppage because the player did not remain unified and they got picked off individually until the NFLPA folded. This year it was the team owners who got divided amongst each other and the NFLPA rammed a deal down their throats. Kraft shows smart management and marketing when he makes sure the interests of his fellow team owners are satisfied.

Picking a QB would likely be good for selling tickets to fans blinded by the glitz in the short run, but it would set back building a winner in the short and medium run as the team dealt with: 1. The holes remaining in our line-up at DT and OL that might be helped by picking a stud linemen with the #8 (or even trading down and supplementing both poisitions with picks in the first two rounds.) 2. Like any young QB he will likely need a year or two of ttraining before he is able to win, and the odds are against happening given the crapshoot of picking talent in the draft which is at its worst in choosing QBs from the statistical comparisons I have seen. 3. We are commited to having AT LEAST the heavy slotted contract of 1 QB sitting on the bench as deadspacr and it will probably be two wasted fisrt roun contracts if Holcomb has an average camp and the two young QBs have young QB camp. I'm sure the media would delight in helping the Bills sell tickets to the rubes promotinh the presence of Leinart or Youig if we got one of 'em.

My guess is that the deal probably does disadvantage the small revenue teams versus the large revenue teams, but this disadvantage means that the Bills will make less profit than the large market teams if spends to produce a product competive on the field, the Bills still will make a profit. From my perspective as a fan and as a person, I think that Ralph or whoever owns the Bills next deserves to make a reasonable profit from their investment, but once they do I really do not care if some other team makes a greater profit. In fact, just as has happened during the last twenty years the Bills will not simply turn a reasonable profit, they will return an outrageously successful profi. Owning an NFL team is like owning a money-making machine. The complaints of Ralph or Mike Brown that they are only gonna make a somewhat outrageous amount while Dan Snyder make an outrageous amount does not drive me to tears. If he or the next owner chooses to leave Buffalo simply because they can make more money in LA, they have a right to do so, but if they do well shame on them. They reasonably could be judged not to be good people. The fact Ralph has in fact sacrificed maximizing profit to keep the Bills in Buffalo does speak highly of him. Whining about this though is not one of his finer hours as a human being.