MattM

OK, I'll play: 1. Re-sign Poz and Florence; ideally Whitner, too, but not if he's asking for more than $4m a year; 2. Ideally sign Tyson Clabo or one of the other prominent RT FA candidates; 3. If go with a cheaper option at RT than Claybo (maybe M. Yanda of B'more, for ex.), then go for Zach Miller at TE. If go cheaper at TE sign one of Kevin Boss, Bo Scaife or Matt Spaeth (in that order); 4. Sign a backup QB--personally, I'd love to see us take a flyer on VY, but suspect they'll stay clear; and finally 5. Pick up 2-3 FA depth guys. 1 on OL and 1 LB a must. That would be my dream offseason. Personally, if they did that and Fitz turns out to be even an avg NFL starter, with a few breaks this team could be competing for a playoff spot in Dec.....

I'm also a Roch guy originally and will be "home" next weekend instead of my usual end of July run. First time I'll have missed TC since they opened it at Fisher (suppressing a sniffle). Still, I'll be happy as a pig in slop if they can get this thing done this week.....

And yours is an extremely pro owners view. I'll try to be briefer than you were-- 1. First, you haven't seen the relevant provisions of the old CBA, but presumably there is something in there that contractually requires the owners to act to maximize revenue to be shared with the players via the TV deals. In the unlikely event there's not, the law may very well fill that term in as part of a party's good faith obligation to its counterparty. Personally, considering the lawyers involved in deals like this, I'd be shocked if there was no such contractual provision. Again, that's why that was probably one of the easiest decisions in Judge Doty's history on the bench; and 2. Secondly, as someone who helps folks negotiate large deals for a living, I can without hesitation tell you that there is indeed a dollars and cents value to the owners' "lockout insurance". You don't get something of that magnitude without giving up some real dinero. Think about it for a second--it was an obligation of the networks to pay $400m in the event that they HAD NO GAMES TO BROADCAST. Let that sink in for a second. No games to make revenue off of, yet they had to fork over $400m. Worse yet, the ability to collect on this insurance through making sure there were no games by (a) canceling the CBA and then (b) forcing a lockout was also in the hands of the folks who stood to be paid the $400m. Holy conflict of interest, Batman! I can guarantee you that the price of this was steep in terms of lost player revenue. The owners have shown multiple times throughout this process that they were not to be trusted. This was one of the most egregious examples. Yet throughout, perhaps because of his "funny name", De Smith was the one who was repeatedly attacked and mocked. Only in post-2008 America.....

As Mickey noted, what the owners did was not buy an insurance policy, but instead screw the players to whom they had a contractual and legal fiduciary duty to maximize shared revenue. By taking a TV deal that still paid the owners in the event of a lockout they left shared money on the table that the players didn't get and thus violated their duty to the players. Easy open and shut case from a pure legal perspective, which is why the owners lost badly on it. There's a huge difference between that and what the players did, which was simply buy insurance to cover the players in the event of a lockout. Nothing at all wrong about that in any way, shape or form. Remember, too, that the players aren't on strike here. They wanted to play under the old CBA. It was the owners who blew up the CBA and forced the lockout. Finally, for someone who's taken such a lot of criticism (any of it racially tinged, I wonder?), that was an incredibly smart and shrewd move by De Smith.....

Don't be so hard on yourself, Mr. Straw Man, I'm sure there's some substance there in you somewhere (although we didn't see it in any coherent response to the points either I or Van City made). Van City wrote a response that echoed my sentiment on not being so quick to judge others because there's no simple answer to the educational system and problems different people in different parts of society have with it and you responded that "yes there is, it's called parents" or something to that effect. I then pointed out that while ideal, that doesn't always work in reality for a number of reasons and that if it doesn't is that really the child's fault? You came back with nothin' of substance, as far as I can tell, other than accusing me of putting words in your mouth. The words you wrote and that I responded to were your own, no more, no less. Anyone reading this thread can see them (unless, of course, you want to go back and do some editing). Thanks for trying, come again....

And I suppose it's the kid's fault if they're (a) actually not there or (b) there, but "not there" due to any number of factors like addiction or working two or three jobs to make end's meet? Or if they themselves don't know any better about life, school and the opportunities available for their kids because they never had such opportunities themselves? As someone who grew up a blue collar kid in a blue collar town myself, I've seen plenty of all of the above in my time. I had an econ professor at Columbia (Sunil Gulati, who's now head of US Soccer--a great teacher and a great guy) who said at the end of a year long course that featured many spirited debates between students from the right and the left, "You know, I hear everything you're all saying, but I've yet to find an economic justification for why the homeless woman on 110th Street's kids are out there in the cold begging with her every night just to survive. How does that makes sense, what purpose does it serve and how is that fair to them?" We all knew the woman he was talking about and we all saw her kids there with her every day. Walk a mile or two in those kids' shoes and tell me how easy it is to go from nothing to something in this country before spouting off with glib Rush Limbaugh-approved answers, most likely from the safety of a middle class upbringing and home....

Just curious--what inner city or other economically challenged public school did you graduate from? If the answer is none, then I kindly suggest you not pass judgment on those in that situation. I just love how upper middle class folks (making an educated assumption here based on prior posts) pass judgment on folks whose shoes they've never walked an inch in, much less a mile....

You mean other than returning that Joe Pisarcik fumble at the end of the game for a TD in the late '70s? That's still my number 1 Herm memory personally.....

I'm not sure I agree with that--there's also Boss from the NYG, Bo Scaife of the Titans and Matt Spaeth of the Steelers, any one of whom would instantly upgrade us at that spot (since we're starting from such a low point admittedly.) Personally, my dream offseason is re-signing Poz and Florence, letting Donte walk, and then signing any of Claybo, Yanda, Gaither, Bushrod or Jammal Brown at T and one of the aforementioned TE's. If we can do that, I honestly think we've got a shot at being competitive this year (i.e., at about .500) even with out tough schedule. Throw in another decent FA LB and I'd say we should be at .500 or better. Rose colored glasses? Perhaps.....

Interesting that Donte is nowhere to be found on the list....

Slightly OT perhaps, but there is a football lesson here-- http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2011/07/03/magazine/03statsofsummer.html?ref=magazine Very interesting graph showing the impact of payroll on odds of winning the World Series. From my count, in 8 of the last 16 years, a team in the top 3 of payroll won it all. More daunting is the fact that only twice in that period did a team from the bottom half of the League in payroll win the WS (and one of those two times the winner had the 15th highest payroll out of 30). So I guess if you're a fan of a team perennially in the bottom half of the payroll structure then you've got to wait about 60 years on average between championships, assuming an even distribution among that group. If you're in the bottom third, I'd wager it's more like once in 90 or so years. Keep this in mind as football shifts more and more in this direction in terms of unshared revenue over the coming years. I used to love baseball as a kid, spending my Sunday mornings poring over the stats looking for my favorite players. Over the last twenty years that slowly died. It's now rare for me to watch a game or go to one, and I live a stone's throw from two major league parks and have young kids I could (and probably should) take. I spend little time and almost no money following this sport. Apparently I'm not alone, as over the course of that period the sport's ratings have tanked. I'm hoping that the NFL owners are smart enough not to make the mistake that baseball made and kill the golden goose of parity that helps keep their sport popular, but with greedy egos like Snyder's, Jones', Kraft's, et al. involved, I have my strong doubts.....

Many thanks, John. That's quite depressing hearing this from you, but it is what it is. Any specific basis (if you can say) or just a general vibe on this? Personally, I think the only really workable way for the team to stay here post-Ralph is for the team to regionalize and become something like "the Niagara Frontier Bills" playing in a stadium between Toronto and B'lo to draw on both fanbases (and, most importantly, Toronto's corporate luxury suite base).....

Senator, wasn't that David Tyree you're thinking about? Burress caught the TD with no trouble on that series, since the defender was basically befuddled. I've still got the 4th quarter of that game on my DVR after all these years.....

My dad and I are hoping to attend (if they play the games this year, that is!)

The bond trading background and living in LA, combined with a carefully worded statement on his "love for the [buffalo? LA?] Bills" and the idea that he's part of a group (read "a frontman") scares me. I got a bad feeling about this one....

Grew up in Easta Roch. Moved to NYC for college and around a bit since for grad school and work, but generally have lived in the NYC area since graduation from HS. Used to hit an Upper West Side sports bar called "Boomers" (part owned by Boomer Esiason) to get my Bills fix in the mid to late-'90s (funniest story from that time--spent a game standing next to, and chatting with, Phil McConkey, ex-NYG WR and Buffalonian and Bills fan, and didn't realize that it was him until the third quarter when he said something to the effect of "they didn't hit like that when I was in the League") and now live in the NYC 'burbs. Still get to a home game or two each year (have gotten my dad season tix for about the last ten years) and one away game each year. My Bills roots go back to my parents, some of whose earliest dates were to old AFL games in the early '60s at the old Rockpile. My own first game was a 17-0 drubbing by a Unitas-led Colts squad that featured a young Ted Hendricks.....

This must be Stevie J. all-media access month--a buddy of mine who's an editor at Maxim magazine had him in his offices with some other NFL players earlier this month. Said he was a very cool guy (in a good way). Very funny, intelligent and a generally good guy. Other than making my buddy feel really old, a great time was had by one and all apparently. Knowing that I'm a huge Bills fan, he got me an autographed set of gloves from him, pretty sweet, if I do say so myself.....

Completely disagree. The team needed to do something to generate support in Rochester, a city about 2/3rds (or more) Buffalo's size and only 60 miles away. I should know--I grew up there and remember being one of the few kids in my town who was a Bills fan growing up in the 70s. No excuse not to spread the faith in your own backyard. In terms of the camp itself, Fisher does a top notch job, as applauded by many of the national sports writers who come through town for it. I've seen a few (Clark Judge and Peter King (although he's skipped it in recent years), IIRC) list it as among the best in the League. Very smart move, IMHO.....

Never say never. An injury to Matty Ice, Abraham and/or Gonzalez hitting the "age wall" and losing two or three close ones and I could easily see this team losing more games than it wins, but that may be just me. I also believe that their RT Claybo is a FA (if we ever get to FA), so there's that to consider as well. (I'm personally hoping the Bills bring him in for a look if we do ever get to FA, but with the drafting of Hairston I doubt that's in the cards).....

They hit on McCourty as well last year and Mayo and Vollmer in recent years, but before that their last few drafts were pretty bad, actually. While I hate the Pats*, I think the Mallett pick was a smart one, if for no other reason than they will now have a competent backup for the next few years....

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=6456351 Nice work, Ray Ray--who says that people can't change and/or "grow up" as they get older.....

If the Bills can pick up Claybo, a TE and a LB in FA, we might surprise some folks this year....

One thing you can say about it--it's great for depth, but it's not adding folks likely to make a difference right away. For ex., Solder and Light can't both play at once, nor can Brady and Mallet nor the 2 backs they took.

Unfortunately, I think you're correct. Great move by the Cheats*. At least now they have an adequate backup to Mr. Bundchen. Our best hope is that Mallet gets Tombo hooked on weed and they both get booted by the League....

I was thinking the same thing myself tonight. Bonus points if he can bring Bo Scaife with him.....