Dibs

I didn't realize this bit.

Clements walking may be a good thing for the team if we spend the money elsewhere. Your .02 cents is correct. Lets say 10 big market teams make an extra $100mil each. That will put up the cap $20mil. Which means they have operational profits of +$80mil each. If the Bills can only generate $10mil in 'extra' money, they will be out of pocket $10mil. And the figures just go up each year. It's not a matter of making more money.....it's a matter of over time making less & less profits in comparison to your capitol(percentage).

It is not a handout. Money is being taken (at a greater rate each year) from RWs pocket & he wants to stop it. There is no way that can be considered a handout. It doesn't negate an argument about him actually spending the money.....it doesn't negate any argument to do with an over-all picture. The reality is that with the increase in populations....therefore increase in 'extra' money, the bigger markets will increase the cap so that each year the operating profit percentages will increase the most for the biggest markets & will actually decrease for the smaller markets(& decrease the most for the smallest). That is what the Bills face under this CBA.......smaller profit percentages each year. RW owes it to the fans to rock the boat. You may disagree with how he is doing it but surely you can't disagree that it needs to be rocked. You mentioned loans & upkeep & stadiums. It all comes back to profit percentage.....regardless of size. People surely can't be wanting RW to just shut up & have the Bills slowly diminish till they have to move. At some point a low enough profit percentage is going to mean just that. In the end, it is a business, & it needs to make a reasonable profit for the capitol involved.

WHAT????? What are you talking about? IT'S THE OTHER WAY AROUND Look Kelly, you're getting me worked up a bit here......I respect your brain(from reading your posts) but I truly think that you are not grasping this particular aspect. Please try looking at the explanation without any preconceived thoughts........ This started a while back when certain big market teams realized that they could make 'extra' money that would not have to be shared in 'NFL shared revenue'. That is all well & good....nobody was too concerned with people making extra money. The problem occurred however when it was determined that the 'extra' monies made would count towards figuring the players cap number. This means that when a team makes 'extra' money, every team is encumbered with a bill(the salary cap increase). RW(& others) want the 'extra' money to not count towards figuring the cap. RW is not asking for a handout......it's the opposite of handouts. He is paying the debts incurred by the bigger teams. The future projections for the situation are horrendous for the small market teams. Are you understanding of the situation re: 'extra' money & shared revenue/salary cap?

The second part is a reasonable point but I can't see it counteracting supply & demand much at all. Teams already will have a rough figure amount that they would be willing to pay for a FA CB. If there are 2 teams willing to spend huge numbers on a FA CB & there are 2 CBs, they will bid a bit but can pretty much call the shots. If there is only 1 FA CB, then the two teams will bid upto one of their maximums that they will go. If there is more bidders than CBs, there is more chance that the maximum that some team will pay is higher.

First bold..... Wellington Mara understood that good for the league meant good(better) for him in the long run. It's having a more long term view of economics than simply "what's my profit this year". I'd hazard a guess that if he didn't do what he did all those years back, there certainly wouldn't be $500mil+ spent on new franchises like there has been. Second bold..... The opposite is the case! It is "unfair" to the smaller market teams. Ralph wants to not have to sacrifice(at a theoretically increased rate annually due to population expansion) his money to help support the big guys. You said you understood......the smaller market teams are paying for the non-shared profits that the bigger market teams can generate.......because the monies generated is counted under the cap but is not shared revenue. That means this is "unfair" for the smaller markets.

I'd think the opposite would be the case. Having only one high class CB on the market will increase the cost due to supply & demand.....not decrease it.

Yes it's fair that new owners pay more than previous owners.....for many, many reasons.....& rubbish, the new owners are not mega rich because they buy businesses for too much money just to be in the cool club.....and even if it were so, RW helped make the club cool so should reap the benefits. No it's not fair(on the surface) that revenue is shared. The owners all bought into it though......so no complaints.....and it has been THE major reason as to why the NFL has thrived. None of that relates to my point...... Here is the situation.... When Jerry Jones makes a tonne of extra profit due to luxury boxes etc(from any area that is not shared revenue).....that money is counted towards the cap numbers.....& every team has to pay the players more without receiving any extra monies. It directly relates to my analogy. Here it is again. Your co-worker is making more money for himself.....and you have to pay for some of his operational expenses without being recompenses anything. That is what RW is upset about.....not that he doesn't make a dollar.

None of that has any bearing at all. The new owners came in and purchased franchises at what the market would bare. If they had paid more.....or less.....that would be what the franchises would be worth. They increased in value because the product....called the NFL.....has become more & more profitable to own. You imply the new owners didn't make sound business decisions & simply wanted to pay tonnes of extra cash so they could be in the club. Keep in mind, I was not & am not arguing that RW & the Bills are poor. The argument is that the big franchises cost the smaller ones operational profit. I'm going to re-post what I said before.....slightly changed to be closer to NFL Kelly, if you were in the situation at work......& you had been getting annual salary increases due to the company doing so well(equivalent of franchise buying cost increase you wrote of)......would you put up with a decrease in income due to someone else's operational expenses being higher due to them achieving a bigger income?

1. Verbal contract....he'd sue our asses 2. We don't want that much money spent on a CB in this system

How?

Agreed, it isn't true....they are not in the poor house. They are however in the drastically unfair house......which most fans(& it appears media) don't really understand. The world of the NFL. It's like you having a co-worker who generates more business for the boss than you do.......but in doing so he incurs bigger business expenses....some of which you have to pay. The more money he makes, the more you have to pay. That is what the bigger market teams are doing to the smaller ones. That is why RW is making such a fuss. Does anyone really thinks he should bend over & take it?

Not that I'm wanting us to go for a FA DE....and....not that I place too much trust in SI.com but their top 20 FA list has 4 DEs in it. #4 Freeney-Colts #6 Grant-Saints #11 Kerney-Falcons #18 Smith-Bengals ....also, there are 4 DEs who may be considered to be top 15 potential in the draft. Gaines Adams Jamaal Anderson Adam Carriker Charles Johnson DE looks rather solid this year.

In relation to that......it seems there are quite a few DEs projected for the top 15 of the draft. I wouldn't be surprised that Kelsay's replacement(if he goes) is in this draft. Re: your other point......we've recently(ish) re-signed/signed Crowell, Peters, Denney, Schobel, Triplett, Fowler, Royal, Reed, Moorman, Lindell & McGee. When you consider that most of the other starters that are worth re-signing are still in their rookie contracts(Whitner, Simpson, Losman, Evans, Pennington, McGahee & Williams), I'd say that letting a few players go is not going to affect the status quo/chemistry much at all. The defensive sytem was new last year with 5 new young starters. The only real problem I see is Fletcher but he is likely gone soon enough anyway due to age &.....particularly thinking of continuity......I'd rather replace him sooner so that the continuity can start quicker with the new guy(?). I don't see us wanting to simply replace existing guys with other guys of equal talent. I see us consciously down-grading at CB.....getting younger(better?) at MLB......hopefully improving at DE(if Kelsay goes).....& majorly improving at OG(& maybe TE/FB/#2WR).

That's right.....you lose them via free agency & you get some other starter calibre players via free agency. If what I've read in another thread is correct & we are obliged to spend 90% of the cap, we will simply have to replace NC & LF with high priced FAs(Their contracts alone last season added to over $11mil). On this team, I'd have Steinbach & a 2nd tier CB over NC any day.

Thanks....saved me from typing pretty much the same thing.

What difference does this make???? He is as much one of our FAs as any other FA who is not tagged or restricted. We have as much chance as any other team to sign him.....or any FA in the same situation......regardless which team they were with before they became FAs. He is a FREE AGENT.......he is not ours. We have no reason apart from emotion to consider signing him above any other FA.

I expect the front office to spend the money on at least 2 above average players to compensate for the loss of NC & LF. The thing to keep in perspective is that when a player actually hits the FA market & is not tagged(or restricted in any way), that player is a FREE AGENT. He no longer has ties to his old team.....& his old team has no ties to him. There is no reason why we would chose to go after NC over Steinbach if management deems we have more need at OG than DB. This is not 15+ years ago.......STAR players move teams every off-season. It's the wrong mentality for the modern era to say....."He was our star so we should keep him." Perhaps more appropriate is to say......"We've just being paying for a star who is now a FA, which FA stars would be best for us to spend big on."

I'm with you.......cover 2 Defences seem to achieve success with lower round drafted CBs than non cover 2 teams(see list below). I see absolutely no reason why we must use a 1st round pick to replace NC......half of the non-cover 2 teams do not do it anyway......why must we? Cover 2 CBs Bears Tillman..........2nd round Vasher..........4th round Colts Harper..........UFA David...........4th round Bucs Buchanon.....FA acquisition(Originally 1st round) Barber.........3rd round Bucs(superbowl year) Barber.........3rd round Kelly............2nd round ************************************ A quick look at the AFC playoff team corners Patriots Samuel.........4th round Hobbs...........3rd round Jets Miller............2nd round Dyson...........FA acquisition(Originally 2nd round) Ravens McAlister.......1st round Rolle.............2nd round Chargers Jammer.........1st round Florence.........2nd round Chiefs Law...............FA acquisition(Originally 1st round) Surtain..........2nd round

I always get PFW......not as good as it used to be but still the best I've seen. I also get Lindy's.....mainly for the easy look roster/one-liner comments......also quick/easy to see when/where every player was drafted/aquired(for future reference material).

Great stuff.....thanks.

The thing that still confuses me is the size of the NT that many seem to think is expected. K.Williams is only 295lbs & is considered(by most) to be capable. As I mentioned in a different thread......it could well be that a larger, wide bodied, immovable object type DT may not even be in consideration due to the cover 2 scheme. It sounds like even Branch would not have the attributes that I understand are vital to a cover 2 DT. I have read that Branch "...is not an explosive penetrator". As I said previously, I don't really know what I'm on about but.......I get the impression that there is the distinct possibility that many here are promoting conventional wisdom to the DT(NT) position irregardless of the concept that the system we have adopted doesn't subscribe to the same defensive philosophy. Basically......are people asking for a big run stopping DT because we couldn't stop the run & that's how you do it?......or are people asking for a big run stopping DT because it would fit in with what DJ & ML would assess as best for the cover 2 D?

What makes you think that we are even considering that type of DT?????? From everything I've heard.....& by looking at the cover 2 Ds around the league(& historically)....they don't target DTs over 110lbs. You may want us to get one........and you who are reading this may want one.....but if the scheme requires a quick first move & penetration ability from all the DTs, I don't see how all yall can continually holler for a BIG DT. Simply.....we need a good DT....not a big DT. If a big guy can get the job done....good, get him. If a little guy can get the job done....get him. From what I understand, the system prefers not to have the immovable lump in the middle. Can somebody who actually knows the details of all of this please educate us here?

Isn't Briggs considered the better FA LB?

You've made a compelling argument(I'm not sure why I missed it the first time....) You argue more along the lines of "if the shoe fits"....if you get my meaning. I'm totally happy getting a WR with our 1st pick. My argument were more against the school of thought that even if the shoe doesn't fit, we go after a WR in the 1st. Basically, if a WR makes the most sense to take when it's our turn to pick......take him(or trade down). I'm against the phylosophy however that targeting (IMO the luxury) possition of #2 WR when there are many other areas of concern is a glamourous strategy......not usually a sound football strategy. BTW.....I'm trusting your thoughts(& others as well) on the whole DT/NT thing in that I don't know myself so I trust that the possible draftee DTs will tripple up with Tripplett/McCargo rather than replace Anderson.