Rubes

Correct. No contract negotiations until the team is knocked out of the playoffs (or they win the Super Bowl, I guess).

What I find most interesting is that the talking heads on ESPN and NFL Network all seemed to agree that Reid's best fit was in Chicago, and they all expected him to end up there. He didn't even interview with the Bears, much less end up the coach.

I don't know. I've always been very wary of college coaches with no prior NFL experience coming to the NFL, but after seeing a few guys do it successfully, and then hearing and seeing Kelly's body of work, the idea of an innovative, highly sucessful college guy like him is starting to grow on me.

You mean the extension he signed last offseason?

Did anyone here know that Lombardi was an assistant coach with the Giants before coaching for Green Bay?

According to the Chicago Tribune: "After the Super Bowl, the Bears appeared set up to be a strong contender for a while. But they failed to reach the playoffs the next three seasons and have made only one postseason appearance in the six seasons since." More to know: Tribune Linky

Is there really a person called Optimus Klein? Seriously? How great is that.

I agree, this concerns me. The guy was around for 8 seasons and tried four different offensive coordinators. Only once did the team finish ranked higher than 23rd in offense. They ranked 28th or lower four times, which is half of his tenure. Great defensive mind, but he proved to me, over a considerable period of time, that he could not get the job done on the offensive side. That's not what I'm looking for.

I can't imagine a better 3rd down back. Blocks great, catches great, strong runner, great team player. Aside from a recent case of fumblitis, what else could you possibly want?

I'll give that an Amen.

Those are some fresh ideas, there.

Sounds good to me. Sanchez will play well, the Bills will get a better draft position, and maybe the Jets will be convinced enough to stick with Sanchez another year.

It has taken more years than I care to remember for this team to FINALLY build a decent offensive line. If they go and screw it up by letting the most consistent guy walk, then I just won't know what to say other than, "Check, please."

If nothing else, I've had a few good chuckles out of this thread. I'll have to remember the Febreze metaphor.

Gailey would have to go undefeated for three straight years to have a similar won-loss record as Tomlin. Think about that.

See, I can definitely appreciate this perspective, certainly much moreso than the typical knee-jerk responses about whiny fans who always want to B word and can never be happy. What the discussion has helped me understand is that this lease agreement is not about the years remaining for Ralph Wilson, and it's not about the Bills making a long-term commitment to Buffalo. It's about one thing, and one thing only: Ralph Wilson stadium. As it should be, since that's what the lease is really all about. I think there is a tendency—and I am guilty of this myself, but I also put some of this on the media and on the parties involved, since they also do this—to make this out to be more than what it is, that it's really about the Bills relationship with the Buffalo area. But it's not. What this lease is saying, loud and clear to me, is that the Ralph has a remaining useful life span of 7 to 10 years (with a few hundred million in fix-ups), and that's all the Bills are comfortable committing to as far as a stadium to call home. After that, there needs to be a plan in place for either a new stadium, or major upgrades to the Ralph (which I think is unlikely). I do think that becomes a serious bargaining chip for the Bills when the time comes, and it's going to be a political hot potato. And 7 years is going to come a lot sooner than it seems. But really, when I was considering the prospects of a new lease, I was really hoping for something in the 15-20 year time frame. I think we all were, because what I was thinking was that the lease was more about the Bills committing to Buffalo, and we want that to be as long of a commitment as possible. Upon hearing that it's really a 7 year (and, at most, 10 year) commitment, I think many people (myself included) thought, "that's not really much of a commitment." But it's really just about the Bills commitment to the Ralph, and upon reflection the Ralph is a really old stadium, and things are going to have to change in a major way. The lease is telling us that the change is going to occur in the next 7 to 10 years. That's what it's about. I made the leap to make it out to be more than that, which added to my cynicism. I'm still cynical, mind you—7 years isn't really long, Ralph is really old, do we really know what will happen with a new owner, and I mean, how do we really expect things to go in terms of a new stadium given the problems in New York state, and upstate in particular? But yes, I'm glad we have seven secure years to think about it. I wish it were more, but I have a better understanding now of the reasons why.

You did, thanks!

Honestly, if you're so boorish and blind as to only see a discussion like this as "just another jerk Bills fan who can never be happy and can only whine and complain," please take it elsewhere. You're just as simplistic as you're making everyone else out to be. Like I said, I'm happy about the new lease. It does provide a measure of security. I just don't think it's a "yay, the Bills will be here forever" deal like it seems to be sold as. Some people have made some very insightful and useful comments here that have broadened my understanding of the deal. I'm still a little unsure of it, but I have a better view of it. Comments like yours, on the other hand, are just as useless, ridiculous, and pointless as you claim this thread to be. Thanks for contributing!

What is the point of any thread? Come on, Promo, you know better than that. It's about discussion. I'm just struck how everyone is patting themselves on the back over this, when it strikes me as neither long term nor any type of guarantee, as its being sold. I think that is deserving of discussion, particularly if there are those who can intelligently argue otherwise. I'm generally not the typical doomsday poster, but you can either lump me into that category and blow it off, or you can engage in a dialogue. If its the former, then I would ask you the same question: what's the point of your post?

I'm as happy as anyone that there is a new lease. That gives me comfort, at least for the next seven years. But allow me to play Sully for a moment. But you know what? As Sully said today, seven years will go by real fast, and before you know it, we'll be right back where we started. Even if LA gets a team in the meantime, of which there is no guarantee. To me, this is a lease that guarantees the Bills will stay in Buffalo until Ralph is no longer the owner. But you know what? They were staying that long anyway. The politicians like to point out that the Bills could have moved for a pittance these last few years, and look, they didn't, so they're committed to Buffalo, right? Sure, but Ralph has always intended to keep the Bills here as long as he is the owner. This lease, especially the seven year clause, guarantees that they stay in Buffalo for what are likely the few remaining years for Ralph, which they were already going to do. But the only thing the seven year clause (and even beyond that, the relatively short ten year overall term of the lease) guarantees is that the team will have options to renegotiate or leave once a new owner comes along, and they won't have to wait very long to do so. Unless Ralph goes in the next year or two, but even then, they'd only have to wait what, five or six years at most to get out of town? The prospect of a new stadium, to me at least, only raises concern that it can be used against Buffalo when a new owner comes around and has the option to get out of town early. Like everywhere else, it becomes a bargaining chip that will be used either to hold us hostage, or to show that the city is not committed enough to the team to keep them around. I'm happy with the comfort of the next seven years, but that's hardly a long term lease. Even ten years isn't long term to me. If the Bills were truly committed to Buffalo for the long haul, we would have seen a twenty year lease, or longer. The current lease just seems like a very temporary thing designed specifically to give a new owner the ability to quickly negotiate a new lease, or to get the heck out of Dodge, without having to wait very long. Enough cynicism for one day. Back to holiday cheer!

From the UFA group, I would love to see us keep Byrd, Levitre, McIntyre, McKelvin, Moore, and Reinhart. I think we should (and will) keep all of the RFAs and ERFAs. I'd like to see Merriman stick around as a backup at the right price.

Just did exactly that.

So now that Freddie's down for the count, we're all expecting CJ to get his share of the load. I know we're all hoping for 20-30 carries a game, plus a few receptions, but we're skeptical. Why? Because the same situation happened last year. After Freddie went down in week 11 last year, here are CJs stats: Week 12, NYJ: 19 carries, 55 yards; 3 receptions (22 touches) Week 13, TEN: 14 carries, 83 yards; 3 receptions (17 touches) Week 14, SD: 12 carries, 46 yards; 3 receptions (15 touches) Week 15, MIA: 12 carries, 91 yards; 9 receptions (21 touches) Week 16, DEN: 16 carries, 111 yards; 2 receptions (18 touches) Week 17, NE: 13 carries, 60 yards; 4 receptions (17 touches) So he averaged about 14 carries and another 4 receptions per game, averaging 18 touches total. I guess it's better than 8, but still well below what I think we all consider him capable and worthy of.

Bills are now 21st overall in defense (total yards), which actually ranks better than Baltimore, the NY Giants, and the Patriots*, and just a hair behind Atlanta. That includes 14th against the pass, 28th against the run, and now 12th in sacks. Yes, we've been playing crappier teams lately, but that's how it works: over the course of a season, you play some good teams, some bad teams. Perhaps the other teams just played the crappier teams earlier in the season than we did. Yes, the defense still gives up the big drive and TD when it matters most at the end of games, but the defense played extremely well all game and should not have been put in that position (CHAN) so late in the game. Yes, it would be great if they could have made one play to seal the win (I'm looking at you, George), but it doesn't eliminate the improvement we've seen in the defense. It's not a championship defense by any stretch, but it's becoming the kind of defense that, with some real LBs and continued improvement, could certainly carry us to the playoffs next year. So does Wanny deserve another shot next year? If Chan goes, Wanny likely goes with him. Is that enough to argue to keep Chan around for one more year?