JohnC

Let's make sure we get it right before we publicly execute someone. Are you sure you are not mixing up Beerball with eball? As an option we can knock off the both of them and thus be sure that we at least got the right one at the expense of the wrong one.

I don't want to quibble or have a discussion that goes in circles. What is needed more than anything else from this historically malfunctioning franchise is not having the mind-set that it has to act out of desperation. That is a bad approach to take. The mind-set should focus simply on doing the right thing and functioning at a high competency level as a general practice. Acting out of desperation with a short term perspective is not the right approach to take. It's about time that this erratic franchise act in a more stable and purposeful manner. If this franchise functions at a reasonably smart level over a two or three year time frame then it will get back into being relevant. You stated that the Bills are not the Steelers. You are certainly right about that. The reason that the Bills aren't like the Steelers is because the Bills under the auspices of a buffoon owner has created an environment of constant change. It seems that every three years or so there is a change of administrations. The characteristic that most epitomizes the Steelers and the Ravens is stability in the coaching staff and front office. Excuse me for seeming to be judgmental but you and NYC Bill have allowed the Levitre transaction to cloud your perspective on everything. Let it go and look at the bigger picture. Don't get me wrong I'm not saying you are wrong on the Levitre issue---you make a good case for his retention. But in the NFL player movement is a common occurrence. Because of the cap all teams are required to make many judgments on players. Some work out and some don't. I'm confident that if Manuel shows promise as a qb in his rookie year that your attention to the Levitre departure will mostly fade. I don't want to sound like a hypocrite but if the Bills don't come up with a deal on Byrd then I will be joining your camp with a lot more aggression and hostility.

If the team is moved it will be due to the highest bidder for the team in auctiion wants it moved. It has nothhing to do with the support of the fan base. Your claim that the mediocre Bills haven't been supported is not only not true but makes no sense.

The JM infraction, as you referred to it, is not mostly about a single event; it is about an accumulation of events None of the infractions by themselves mount to anything serious. But the string of events do indicate a lack of maturity. That is a very important issue when considering drafting a qb with a high pick. JM is a high profile player and person who has won the Heisman award. As it currently stands he has not handled his very public position too well. I'm sure that even he would admit that he has brought a lot of the unwanted attention onto himself with his less than mature off field behavior.He's a kid, I get that. But he chose to participate in a high profile football environment. Dealing with that environment is part of the business that he can't escape from.

I understand you and NYC Bill's disappointment in the team letting Levitre walk. However, you are taking that single company judgment and extrapolating it beyond it's actual level of impact. You and Bill are making the Levitre transaction a test of faith of the organization when it is simply a cost/benefit judgment. You may disagree with the judgment but there is a rational basis for it. There are many other organizations that are reluctant to over spend for the guard position.You might disagree with that view but it is not a unique (if not prevailing) view within the league. Is this backwater organization in the process of changing into a more forward functionion organization? I believe so. Although at this very early point it is based more on speculation than on action. You are essentially suggesting (my opinion) that because the organization made the Levitre decision that was no doubt based on money that it signals the same old way of doing business. If I am correct in how you are interpreting this particular player transaction then I think you are reading too much to that single transaction. The owner is no longer involved in the operation. There is a younger and more modern GM. There is a new HC with a more sophisticated staff. This draft had a different feel to it. (Simply my impression.) And most importantly this frustrating organization finally has used a first round pick on a legitimate franchise prospect. That is a sign of progress for this lagging franchise. My underlying point is that overall this new team has made a number of medium range personnel moves that make a lot of sense. In general this new staff has competently acted. Don't over analyze a particular deal but look at the totality of the transactions. I'm not naively optimistic about the short term but in the longer term I feel this franchise is moving in the right direction.

Don't be surprised if the Bills add a veteran guard off the street. Some times you can get good value from dumpster diving. When you ride on a merry-go-round or ferris wheel the direction of the ride is very predictable.

You are giving the Patriot owner's version of the contract negotiation saga. Welker and his reps have a different take on the negotiations. In the end Welker felt that his loyalty wasn't appreciated as much as it should have been during the negotiation. After a difficult contract fight it is not unusual for each side to frame the issue in the most favorable way. http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap1000000151816/article/wes-welkers-representatives-respond-to-robert-kraft You must have misread my previous point or I didn't clearly make the point. It was that each team has their own unique situation. What you just stated underscores the point that I was making. Go back and reread it. Apparently I wasn't clear on that point. If so then it is my fault.

Bill, It is evident that they simply don't value the position as much as you do. There are organizations that place much more value at the tackle positions than the guard positions. Some organizations put a lot of resources in the interior of the line and other organizations don't There are teams that place much more value on the CB positions than the safety positions. There are other organizations that prize playmaker safeties. Bill Polian has stated that he doesn't like to spend too much on guards and safeties. Different organizations have different philosophies. Sometimes the issue isn't right or wrong so much as that there is a difference in philosophy as to how to build a roster and apportion cap money.

You are absolutely correct that the team doesn't set the market. The market sets the market. But it is the individual team that has to decide whether the market price is appropriate for the team. If you have five upper tier players whose contracts are up to be negotiated at the same time and their contract values are all at the upper end of the market then under the cap system you won't be able to retain all of them. In that scenario the team has to determine which players can be replaced at a lower cost and which players are more essential to the success of the team. You cited the Patriots as a well run organization. I agree with you. But what happened this offseason? They let Welker go, the best slot receiver in the game, and signed Amendola to a cheaper contract than what Welker wanted from them. How a team values one player can be very different on how the same player is valued on another team. Welker went to Denver at a price that the Patriots weren't willing to pay. Another example of that is that the Bills signed Mario Williams to a golden contract while the Texans let him walk. They drafted a better player in Watts and paid him less than Mario if they would have kept him. The Texans made a decison that was right for them and the Bills made a decision on what was right for them. That's how the cap system works. Each team has different needs and circumstances. It might not be smart to keep Levitre at a market rate, on the other hand it might be smart fro the Bills to keep Byrd at the market rate. My point is simply that in decidng whether to pay or not pay a player the market rate and keep or not keep a player is a multi-layered decision-making process. It is not as simple as you made it out to be. What is right for one team is not necessarily right for another team.

Bill, there is nothing mysterious about the Levitre release to the open market. It was simply a cost/benefit decision. Is Levitre better than his replacement, whoever it may be? Probably so. But that is only half of the calculation made to keep him. This staff felt that the downgrade in play at the guard position was less significant than the higher cost of his contract at the expense of the team's cap flexibility.I would have liked to have kept him but the decision the organization made is more than reasonable. The organization is now going through the same issue with Byrd. Similar to your position with Levitre I am taking with Byrd. I want him kept under a standard contract, not a tendered contract. My positon on Byrd is that he is more of a playmaker at free safety than a guard can every be. Or another way of looking at it is that he is a more valuable a player the way he plays his positon than Levitre is playing his position. Bill, Levitre is not a dead horse. He is a horse now ensconced in another barn. The system in his case worked out wonderfully for him. That doesn't always happen in this business. I'm happy for him. He deserved everything he could get. And he got it: $$$$$$$

I'm not for or against a force feeding approach to playing EJ. The central issue is what is the best approach in facilitating his development. Rodgers is the best qb in the game. Did the sideline approach hurt or advance his almost immediate impact when he eventually played? Were the Packers foolish having him on the sidelines when he could have been in the huddle? Were the 49ers wise in the cautious way they handled Kaepernick in his rookie year. In his second year he became a dynamic player. He is still somewhat raw but withut a doubt he is a very scintillating playmaker. I am very open-minded on this issue. What I want more than anything is to come out of this season with the knowledge that Manuel is going to be or not be the long term franchise qb for this franchise. Whether he gets immediate playing time or not by the end of the season we should have a strong inkling as to whether he is going to be the qb answer for this franchise. That's not precisely what I said. My stance is the coaching staff has to determine what is the best approach (fast or slow track) to take in developing EJ. If he can handle the immersion approach and not be overwhelmed then I'm all for getting him on the field sooner rather than later. If the coaches deem that it is better for his development to take a more cautious incremental approach then so be it. The issue is what approach is in the long run the best approach to take with him. I'm open minded on this issue. At this point I simply don't know.

I agree with almost everything you stated except for your emphatic point that there is no use for Kolb to play at all. EJ's playing time issue has nothing to do with Kolb. It has everything to do with his own preparation. The primary issue is what is the best approach to enhance EJ's development. If the coaches determine that it would be better for him to start after the first quarter or half of the season then I'm fine with it. If the coaches want to ease him in than so be it. No one who is realistic believes that this staff is invested in Kolb as a long term starter. That is a given. As I previously stated my preference is for Manuel to play sooner rather than later. But if the coaches believe that he should in the beginning of the season sparingly play then I will be fine with it. Kaepernick's playing time his rookie season was very limited. The 49ers brought him along very gently. For the Bills I trust that they will make the right decision that will ensure his development rather than retard it. Maybe after the preseason I will be less equivocating. As it stands I am open-minded on this issue.

You are giving way to much authorityand credibility to a moderator on this board. Your reputation is not being sullied by a moderator from this board. If your editor calls you for a stern talking to then that is a different issue. I'm sure you are a participant on twitter. How many times has your sanity been questiioned in that venue? I want it understood that I appreciate the efforts of the moderators. They volunteer their time to keep things conducted at a reasonable level. In general they do a good job, even when they sanction me.

John, Toughen up. Sometimes the muck gets unfairly thrown. The discourse on this board is in general reasonable; sometimes it is not. This is not a location where one's honor has to be upheld. If someone is out of bounds you can either ignore it or punch back. Anyone who is a regular poster who has a contrarian view (doesn't uphold the company line) of this bumbling organization will be responded to as if they are a traitor. At times I have had my nuts kicked in for expressing my view. That is the nature of environment. Whether I agree or not with your viewpoint I always consider it. It is usually fair minded and it comes with healthy skeptical eye that a company public relations office doesn't appreciate. Let me offer you some unsolicited advice: ILLEGITIMI NON CARBORUNDRUM P.S. Being sanctioned by a moderator for an inexplicable offense is a common occurrence. I, as many others. have been subjected to such discipline.

How much do the Bills really save if they tag him this year (which they did) and then again tag him next year? If that happens then the annual salary difference is not significant. Just because you have the ability to play contract hardball doesn't mean that it is the smartest approach to take. I would rather pay a productive player such as Byrd a little more than over pay a middling talent such as Fitz an over valued contract, which they did. The Bills are far from being cap strapped. They not only have room to give Bryd a fair market contract but they also have roster flexibility for more cap adjustments (savings). The Bills have been bad for a generation. They have had a losing record either 8 or 9 times out of the past ten years .You get better by locking up your best players, not by squeezing them

Because of the injury risk he has little incentive to report to training camp and play in preseason games. His salary scale on a one year deal is not cheap. But if you put it in the context of a typical contract deal of at least a fews years with more guaranteed money than under a one year restricted deal you can understand why he wants a full contract deal done. There is another perspective to be taken in this contract negotiation. Byrd has been one of the top 5 or so safeties in the league for the past few years. Although he signed a deal within the CBA system the team still got above value from his performances with his first contract. The Bills have the leverage ---there is no doubt about it. But what is the end game? The Bils have been losers for a generation. Why not bend a little bit and get one of its best defensive players locked up? Byrd is certainly seeking a good deal but it is not outside the boundaries of a fair market deal. As I stated in the prior post the Bills have enough cap space to come to a reasonable contract settlement. They also have pleny of cap flexiblitiy with higher paid players who are not playing up to their contract level. Sometimes being tough isn't always being smart.

What in the interview do you disagree with? Byrd is seeking a fair-market contract. He would be a fool not to. What he is seeking and the amount paid on the restricted deal (on an annual basis) are not that far off. For a team with a dearth of talent and a near generational losing record isn't it better to keep talent than let it walk? There is no doubt that the organization is exercising the levearge that it has. But to what end? Is using that leverage going to make the Bills a better team this year or next? Odds are that he won't return back to the team until the season starts. Will the defense be better with his late arrival? I doubt it. The Bills have the cap room and they have roster flexibility that could give them even more cap space. Playing management hardball just because you have the ability to do it is not going to help this losing franchise win more games.

You summarized very well the issue regarding Manuel as a qb prospect. He had better physical tools than the other prospects in this year's draft class. There are times when he makes eye catching plays and there are many times when there is nothing about his play that sticks out. Does he have the "it" factor? Probably not, because there are too many interludes where he doesn't stand out. A qb such as Nassib is a more even keel play who would have been a safer bet. This staff decided to bet on the better talent. I'm glad they did. What is the best approach to take with Manuel as a rookie? Should he immediately be thrown into the fire of competition or should he be eased in ? I simply don't know. My preference is to get him on the field sooner rather than later, but I don't want to set back his development and confidence by playing someone who isn't prepared to handle the onslaught. This is where coaching becomes critical. In my view regardless what the team's record is (probably less than .500) if Manuel demonstrates that he can be a legitimate frachise qb, then the season is a success. For nearlya decade the bumbling front office was very lax in its pursuit of a credible franchise qb. That passive approach to addressing the most important position in the game was emblematic of its stupidity!

You are correct that some of the same cast of characters on the money side of the operation are still involved with the organization. But there is a different set of rules that they have to work under compared to prior the recent CBA. Teams are now required to spend up to 90% of the cap. No longer can Littman and Ralph (now out of the picture) squeeze this franchise into obvlivion. Some of the owners from the richer organizatiions, Jerry Jones and Dan Snyder, resented the fact that while they put in the money to invest in their product some owners such as Ralph took advantage of their subsidy by squeezing their franchise to enrich themselves and remain uncompetitive. What enraged some of these big market owners even more is the constant complaints from owners such as Ralph who whined how unfair the revenue system was while they continued to manipulate the system for their own advantage.

He sounded as if he was on the Bills' payroll. He stating that the Bills can challenge for the division is very much a leap. Where he makes an excellent point is that Kolb has topped out at his maximum, and it isn't good enough. He makes a good argument to play Manuel sooner rather than later. If Manuel demonstrates that he can be a legitimate franchise qb then the most important building block for the franchise is finally set. The commentator assumes that a very large contingent of young players will be playing this season. I agree with that view. But with that over reliance on youth comes a lot of mistakes and inconsistencies. The best perspective to take on this upcoming season is not to stresss over the record but focus on player development. Watching how this draft class performs will be intriguing to follow. There are a few UDFA who are interesting prospects: WR Da'Rick Rogers, WR Kaufman, LB Pough and CB Robey.

I share your frustration with this long term troubled franchise. The weird owner hired incompetents to run his football operation. The past six years starting with Levy/Jauron and ending with the befuddled Nix brought us back to the point of starting over again. Tell me how smart it is for an owner with a billion $$$ asset to hire incompetents to make hundreds of million $$$ decisions on hhis behalf? How smart is it to repeatedly change staffs in the standard three year cycle of futility? If you have an approach that fails and you continue to resort to that same approach then how dumb is that? Ralph Wilson is not involved in the operation. The old guard football people are gone. The only way to get back on track is to have a front office and coaching staff who have a shared vision and philosophy. The ugly past is over with; it's time to move on. The situation is not hopeless. The GM for the Seahawks,John Schneider, and the HC/real GM for the Redskins, Mike Shanahan, started at the same time as Buddy Nix started as the GM for the Bills. Look at what those teams acccomplished? Compare it to Nix's record? The point I'm making is that if you run the football operation smartly you can turn things around in a few years. The essential ingredient that both of those teams have was securing the franchise qb. I believe that with Brandon as the President and Whaley as the GM with a new coaching staff this franchise has a chance to succeed. If Manuel turns out to be a legitimate franchise qb then the foundation for success is built. If not, then back to the drawing board. I'm not saying anything that is original but what I am saying is fundamental for all successful franchises. There is no quick fix. It is going to take time.

Name a franchise, good or bad, that doesn't lose players to free agency due to cap and contract issues? Let me rudely answer my own question: There is none. Player movement is part of the landscape of managing a franchise. The Ravens won the last SB. They have already gone through numerous personnel changes this offseason. I wasns't surprised at the Levitre departure. I understand why he was allowed to walk. Byrd is a player I would like to keep. That scenario hasn't fully played out yet. Buffalo is not going to be a franchise that typically chases the stud free agent. The Mario Williams gilded contract acquisition is an exception to the rule. How the Bills perform on the mid-range and value free agent market is more important for this franchise. There is still more to be done prior to the season. Make no mistake about where this franchise is: It is rebuilding. If you can't handle the trials and tribulations of a team going through that torturous process then you are going to be very frustrated.

Whether Manuel turns out to be good or a bust I have no criticism of the organization for this selection. They did their due diligence and acted on a conviction. What more do you want? What is worse: making a draft mistake on a qb or having Buddy not taking a risk on a qb prospect during his three year tenure? What is worse having teams drafting behind us taking qbs that we pass on and then rather quickly they excell? There are no quarantees that the qb you select to be your franchise qb turns out to be a franchise qb. What is a guarantee is that if you don't take a risk on drafting a credible qb prospect you will never have a credible franchise qb on your roster. When an inane organization continues to repeat the stupendously stupid cycle of acquiring cheaper by the dozen caliber of qbs such as Fitz, Kolb, TJ Jackson, Holcomb, Thigpen etc., etc to be their franchise qb the results are predictable. The below link is a Greg Cosell assessment of EJ Manuel. http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap1000000148931/article/ej-manuel-offers-both-concerns-positives-cosell-says

If you are expecting a quick fix then you are going to be disappointed. Six years under the Levy/Jauron/Brandon/Nix have put this franchise in a bind. Nothing was going to substatively change until the organization was reformed. Brandon didn't do a good job when he was involved with the football operation but in my view he has done an exceptional job in restructuring the football operation. He has basically modernized a very backwater organization. The Bills will probably not match last year's record. On the surface that sounds disasterous. But it isn't necessarily so. What is going to matter is how professionally the football operation functions. How do the new draftees perform and develop? What good value mid-level players are added to the roster? Is the coaching staff a significant upgrade over the dullard bunch that preceded it? The Bills would be continuing on their typical path to mediocrity if the old guard remained in place. The dinasaurs are gone and the organization is infused with more youth and vigor. If you are not willing to be patient then you are going to be frustrated. At least for this upcoming season focus on the developmental process more than the wins and losses. It will be the best approach to take to maintaining one's mental health.

Colin Kaepernick was considered a "raw" type of qb coming out of college. He ran a pistol offense that many pro people felt wouldn't translate to the pro game. There were many analysts who believed that Cam Newton, although a physically imposing athlete, would have difficulty transitioning to the pro game. As it stands he is the dominant player on Carolina's roster. With respect to your qualms with Manuel they are well grounded. The Bills organization could have played it safe with the more cerebral Barkley and Nassib. Instead they went with the riskier prospect who had more tools than the other competing prospects. I salute them for not being afraid to take the risk for the bigger talent. Coming from a stolid organization I find that encouraging.