MattM

Yeah, they've scared the wits out of the guy with intimidation so that he won't talk, that's what I predict they know.....

Isn't your title misleading--there's nothing in here about a source saying he has nothing. There's conjecture that Walsh no longer is as eager to step forward, but that's nowhere near the same as implying that he has nothing. As noted above, he may certainly be feeling pressure not just from Kraft but the League itself that he will get put through the holy ringer for coming forward. How soon they all forget that the NFL's first reaction to Walsh's story was to send an ex-FBI guy to start snooping around Walsh, not the Pats*. That really tells you all you need to know about the parties and their motivations here.....

I like the comment further down from the blog on how little naming rights at RWS might be worth, considering its uses and location, but then again why let the facts get in the way of a good screed.....

Interesting point--I was about to hop on Bob as well, but there may be some truth to what you say, although part of me thinks that Kraft may want to be able to let loose his inner Steinbrenner and buy another Lombardi after this year's disappointment. In terms of the other guys, I have absolutely no doubt that Snyder and Jones would love to go uncapped, no matter what that does to the League.

Much as I dislike them, I expected the Pats to be in there somewhere. Very weird (and goes against a shallow tradition of having the SB loser on one of the games as well, if I recall correctly). Not quite sure what's up with that. I agree that these games kind of stink for opening weekend--nothing I'm too jazzed about myself there......

I'm not surprised at all by this article. It just lays out the truth that people here knew (or should have known) for years. Unfortunately, I find it highly likely that at some point the NFL will go uncapped or the cap will rise so high that many teams won't be able to spend up to it. If you think about it, the only folks against that are the small market owners--the big market owners want that, as do the players. The MLB-ization of the NFL will be sad and will ultimately, I think, destroy the NFL. Look at what it's done for MLB over the last 20 years. Remember when there was a Monday night baseball game on ABC and NBC had a Sat. afternoon game? Considering baseball's ratings, that seems laughable now to have a prime time baseball game on a major network that wasn't a playoff game. I'd wager it would finish with about the same ratings as a rerun of "The Gilmore Girls" and MLB has no one to blame but themselves considering how popular a sport it was in the late 1970s. Now, unless you're a Yankees or Red Sox fan, who cares, and their ratings show that. Popularity of a sport isn't guaranteed and without competitive balance in the NFL it risks the same fate. The League's crown jewels are those TV contracts and with low ratings, they won't be worth anywhere near what they are now with folks all over the country psyched up about their teams. Coincidentally, I was arguing about this on a Pats fan board this morning--he was of course of the mindset of "F" the small market teams. What I thought really funny was his insistence that Bob Kraft was really a compromiser who has helped out the small market teams--I have no idea where he got that idea and asked him several times for links to back this up, but got nothing each time. While this may be sacrilege to some here, if an uncapped league (or a meaninglessly capped league) happens I must admit that part of me wouldn't mind seeing the Bills sold to a Toronto multi-billionaire willing to spend money on the team and, if he's smart, make a nod at least to Buffalo by (a) building his new stadium 30-45 minutes south of Toronto (i.e, close enough for B'lo fans to get to the games, too), (b) play 1-2 home games a year in Buffalo and © calling the team something like the "Niagara Frontier Bills" in order to capture the idea that the team is a regional one. It may be the only way that the Bills could be competitive--question is, is it worth the price of "losing" the team in some sense. Like many of you who've grown up with the Bills in WNY, a move would tear me up in some ways, but I think that Toronto is a heckuva lot better than LA, where I'd previously figured they'd end up after Ralph's passing. I must also admit that this is all easier for me to say, as I live in NYC now and fly up for the occasional game, and could do so just as easily to Toronto. Still, as a native Rochesterian, it would also pain me more than folks in Buffalo in some sense, as that distance, while doable for people from B'lo may be a lot tougher for folks coming from Roch. Some tough issues here--I fear the NFL will kill the golden egg laying goose, as I trust the current head honchos on Park Avenue about as far as I can thrown them on issues like this. It's no secret that Goodell was the choice of the large market owners and I suspect that he'll follow his bosses' dictates on this issue.....

So far as you know, that is. Anyone else ever been close to a story that's been in the news and realize how little journalists usually get RIGHT? Downright scary at times.....

Just dumb it all down for Generation Y (or Z or whatever late teens and 20 somethings call themselves these days), he says in his best Grandpa Simpson impersonation.....

The Colts, who used the 9ers pick they got last year to pick Tony Ugoh.

I don't know about anyone else, but if I ever get my act together enough to get into heaven and God's voice isn't that of John Facenda, I'll be deeply disappointed.....

I think Kevin Curtis got something like a 48 or 49 as well a few years back.

No takers, huh? Just a simple question, looking for some simple responses. No need to write a treatise, but I am curious about which direction folks would go on this....

By bias, do you mean because we're Bills fans (i.e., in the same division)? What I'm trying to do is gauge the attitude to such a scenario of fans of teams other than the Pats--any fan of a team other than NE may (or may not) have some bias to the Pats, but considering the nature of my inquiry I'm not sure how I remove that from the equation here......

I'm trying to conduct a poll of sorts (informal though it is). What would your reaction be if (a) Walsh comes forward and has a copy of the Rams SB walkthrough and (b) the Pats claim for whatever reason that Walsh was acting alone and they had nothing to do with it and © the Commissioner does not punish the Pats or punishes them leniently. Would this make you angry or would you abide by the Commissioner's decision? Thoughts?

Were Poz and Peters no-shows? (or at least not seen by CB?)

Wasn't Burress' rookie year somewhat of a bust? 22 catches for 273 yards and 0 TDs, and he was a Top 10 pick, if I recall correctly. How is that a good rookie year by any stretch?

I thought I'd read that Ralph has little or no debt on the team, so if that's the case (and I'm sure he's not alone), then there must be some teams that are close to half their value in debt. While the NFL is hugely popular, you never know what a downturn could cause in terms of economic havoc even for them. Perhaps this is part of why Goodell is fighting so hard to sweep Spygate under the rug--that kind of news ain't good for business......

The lifelong Pats* fan part might actually explain why he never came forward on his own in the fall--imagine how you'd feel as a Bills fan and you got your dream job working for them, only to find out they were a bunch of cheaters, willing to do anything (legal or not ) to win.....

One of those two 3rd round picks and one of those 5th round picks went Jacksonville for Stroud. Not saying we won't get them back (for ex., by trading JP for a 3, but probably a later 3 than the one we lost, and by getting a comp. pick for Gandy's loss last year (I've seen us getting a late 4th for this on other boards)), but at the moment, we ain't got them.

Not only that, I found it on the most played page.....

If we draft Patrick Willis and trade for Turner or instead draft Antonio Pittman or Irons then I'd say that the only position we haven't at least stayed the same talent-wise at is CB. IMHO, Willis, Crowell and Ellington would be at least as effective as Fletcher, Spikes and Ellington or Fletcher, Ellington, Crowell, our two LB combos last year. Don't get me wrong--I loved TKO when he was here, but he was just not the same player last year. Ellington looked like a promising rookie and should be even better with another year under his belt. Willis being a high draft pick (for a reason) should be able to fill in for Fletch. The other Willis did not have a great year for us last year (the Jets games excepted) and I think Turner or one of the rookies, along with a steadier does of A-Train, would be his equal or better. As for Nate's loss, we clearly did not compensate for that so far this offseason, and likely won't. We'll be relying on our scheme and getting to the QB better than we did last year, which may be helped by the acquisition of D. Walker (27 sacks or so from the DT spot in his career) and the return of McCargo, who had a rep. as a similar penetrating DT in college. As that also illustrates, we have also upgraded our D-line at least slightly with those two being available this year. With that, no one will deny that we also upgraded our O-line. This should help both JP and whoever our RB is immensely. We also seem to be getting no credit for our increase in experience. Our players will also have one full year in our systems on both sides of the ball under their belts and our young guys, especially our rookie defenders (Whitner, Simposon, K. Williams, Ellington) and JP, who each effectively had their first years as starters last year, will take a big step up in my opinion based on that experience. We had the second youngest team in the League last year and at times it showed. Young guys do have a tendency to get older and more experienced and I think we see a big jump this year in that regard. Your biggest jump up the learning curve is from year 1 to 2 IMO, so I expect good things from that whole crew. That's one reason why I think it's actually likely that we'll actually get closer to the Pats this year (not saying we'll overtake them in 2007, but I fully expect us to by 2008)--they have played together for years and their learning curve is likely to stay relatively flight, albeit at a higher level. Can't wait for them to strap them on and see how we do.....

That's great work, dude. Many, many thanks for pulling all this together. It confirmed one thing that I suspected, namely that we have really gotten hosed in this regard. I'm surprised that the Patsies have gotten stuck 6 times in the past--maybe the "love" from Park Ave. wasn't so strong a few years ago. Only half jokingly, you ought to consider sending this to Marv and the staff, as they may want to gently remind the League office of this for the 2008 schedule somehow, since I suspect we will be alone at the top after 2007, since we have two more this year.....

For whatever reason, the odds of this happening randomly 4 years in a row are 1 in 4100 or so (1/8 per year each year for 4 years). Doesn't sound too much like coincidence to me. I'd really love to see which teams get stuck playing multiple opponents after a bye each year (like us seemingly every year--again, statistically it should be one each) and which don't face anyone coming off a bye (like the Pats at least this year). That's where there's something screwy. Combine that with all of the other evidence (horrible pro-Pats officiating in many of their games over a number of years, which no one can really credibly deny, even Pats homers--if you think this is just a sour whine complaint of Bills fans, go ask fans of other teams who the "luckiest" team is in the League when it comes to officiating--getting tons of supplemental draft picks each year through the supposed "black box" award process while teams like us get stiffed (remember how much/little we got for losing Phat Pat and JJ, each among the biggest FAs the years we lost them,), etc.) and it starts to add up. Money talks in the NFL like anywhere else and the big market owners that have it seem to be able to call the shots.....

What I'd like to see is how often a team has had to play other team's coming off their bye the last 4-5 years, as I seem to recall us getting reamed every year in that regard. Wasn't it a couple of years ago that we had something like 4 or 5 games like this (so, I'm exaggerating, but it was at least 3, when statistically it should be 1)? How does that not get evened out over time? Once again, not surprised to see the Patsies "luck out" in this matter--how is it they always catch us off a bye and yet this year don't play anyone coming off a bye? I honestly wouldn't be surprised if we find out 10 or 20 years from now that there was something fishy going on between Boston and Park Avenue.....

Don't get me wrong, I was the biggest Takeo fan ever--I was doing cartwheels the year we signed him and thought he played great for us pre-injury. It was sad last year, but you just didn't see him making plays. What I saw a lot of last year was Takeo getting there a step or two slow, just as the play was over. In all honesty, I really don't think our D will be all that off from losing him.