Rubes

I thought I read in one of those stories that this issue was one that still needed to be voted on by the owners. Not sure why, though. It's a terrible thing, to be sure. I would guess it was put in by the bastard new guard owners to prevent any team from being sold in the future to an owner wanting to keep the team in a small market town. Basically it grandfathers in the current small market owners and guarantees that, in the future, all teams will eventually end up in large market towns with no further revenue sharing. You're right, it was basically a big FU to Ralph and the small market owners. It's no secret that they have disdain for the small guys.

Sep 10 @New England - L Sep 17 @Miami - L Sep 24 N.Y. Jets - W Oct 1 Minnesota - W Oct 8 @Chicago - L Oct 15 @Detroit - W Oct 22 New England - L Nov 5 Green Bay - W Nov 12 @Indianapolis - L Nov 19 @Houston - W Nov 26 Jacksonville - L Dec 3 San Diego - L Dec 10 @N.Y. Jets - W Dec 17 Miami - L Dec 24 Tennessee - W Dec 31 @Baltimore - L 7-9 here we come!

Wow...haven't had 100 points in a season since 1979-80....

At least we'll finally get some national airtime at the end of the season.

It's all just a smokescreen! Don't believe it!

In an interview on NFL Network a week or two ago, Tags was asked directly about this but he never mentioned if it would be a new or existing franchise.

I've wondered if that was part of the motivation of guys like Snyder to pay excessive amounts -- not just to coaches, but to free agents. Our jaws all drop and we snicker when we hear how much Snyder is paying to some of these people...typically far more than they are worth. But what it ends up doing is driving up the overall market price, whether its a wide receiver or a defensive coordinator. In the end, he can afford it and the small market teams become just slightly less able to compete. What happens when that occurs year after year for 5 or ten years? A conspiracy theory for sure, but when I hear about guys like Snyder and Jones meeting and planning their "strategy" at the owners meeting, we know precisely who they are plotting against. Could this be one way of, in the end, getting what they want?

Tim Anderson. Cut him some slack.

I agree, when you measure Marv's performance thus far you have to consider the releases as much as the signings. I don't think I'd give him more than a B at this point, though, and probably more of a B-. I think the releases were all appropriate, he's created a nice cap space, franchised Nate, and made some decent though unspectacular signings. I'd give that a grade of just above average.

Criminy, is he still on the team??

Oh come now. From what I read the Bills cut Moulds weeks ago. At least that's what Clayton reported on ESPN.

Perhaps Marv could throw in our 5th rounder with Moulds to get their 3rd or 2nd.

Makes me proud to be a Bills fan.

What is this thread about again?

Just listened to Tagliabue on NFL Network as the meetings came to an end... FWIW, sounded like Tags indicated that a deal with L.A. might be on the horizon. He said it was probably the one issue he wants resolved before he leaves office, and he hinted that some kind of decision might be made at the May meetings. I didn't catch a lot of the details, so I don't know exactly what might be agreed upon then other than perhaps a site for a stadium. But he didn't mention anything about whether this would be an expansion team vs. you-know-what.

I think I actually feel stupider than just a few moments ago.

"things like me"? I knew chicks always objectified me, but I didn't think it was for my profession.

No you didn't. And yes, Mark, you did. Bastards.

Yes, that was generally meant for those other than you. You do make that point often.

I'm still sore about missing the opening day 31-0 blowout of the Pats a couple years back because I was in Texas at a wedding for a huge Dolphins fan.

Not saying there's anything wrong with not having confidence in the man's abilities. It's not like Marv's been an NFL GM in the past or anything. But here's the way I look at it: - Was I excited about TD being hired as GM? Absolutely. - Was I excited about TD hiring Gregggg? Yes, I was. I thought he'd be a great coach. - Was I excited about TD hiring Mularkey? Not really, but after the first year I thought he would be a good coach. - Was I excited about TD bringing in Drew? Hell yeah. - Was I excited about a lot of the free agents TD brought in? Hell yeah. Yet here we are six years later with a 5-11 team of underachievers and a long string of "I guess we were wrong about that"s. What does all this mean? I don't know. But it does show that it really doesn't matter if I agree with all the moves so far. I thought TD was the perfect hire, and I thought he was making a lot of good moves in the beginning. So what? So here we are now: - Am I excited about Marv being hired as GM? Not tremendously. We know what it's like to have a guy learn on the job. I think he's capable of being a good GM, but whether or not he will become one is definitely up in the air. - Am I excited about Marv hiring Jauron and the rest of this staff? Of course not. - Am I excited about Marv's moves in free agency (thus far)? Like you said, not much to get excited about, although I think they have been fairly solid moves for the most part. People may be getting ants in their pants about Marv and Co. but it makes little sense to blast the guy for not doing what we all want him to do and what we all claim he should do. Judging the guy makes no sense until we really know how he's doing. At least three years from now.

What I fail to understand is why anyone here sees this election-year partisan pandering to the voting public is any different than what either party has done in the past, is doing right now, and will always do in the future. I mean, seriously. How would this be any different if the parties were reversed?

Think that's a lot? Look at Reed's numbers.

When TD arrived, he inherited what most of us would agree is a mess. I, and most of us, seemed willing to cut him some slack on his three-year plan to get us back on track. In the first couple of years, he dealt with the salary cap problem and with Gregggg's coaching we were poised to make some noise in year 3. For many reasons that didn't happen, and another failed coaching attempt later we're back essentially where we started. We don't have the huge salary cap burden that we did when TD started, but the team as a whole has a lot of problems that need to be addressed. Marv's not starting with a blank slate, but this lump of clay needs a lot of shaping before it can get back to being a solid contender. Yet there seems to be a tremendous amount of impatience this time. Sure, it's now been that many more years since we've been in the playoffs, but don't Marv (and Dick) deserve the same chance we gave TD (and Gregggg) when they arrived? It seems to me a number of the moves made so far this offseason were made with the next few years in mind, rather than a quick expensive fix. If we give a draft class a few years before we determine if they worked out, doesn't Marv deserve the same?

How about an option for "No Longer the Buffalo Bills Quarterback".