Ralph talks to the NY Daily News

[Mr. WEO]

If you have so much disdain, go find another team. You are talking about the same guy that literally had a hand in making the NFL what it is today. The same owner that brought us 4 strait superbowl appearances. The same guy who didn't want the last CBA. For someone who is soooooooo inept he, sure has pretty damned good vision. I don't see you running an NFL franchise and seriously, what makes you think you are even qualified to make such statements? I get that you are frustrated, but you sir don't have a clue.

The concept that someone could be a fan of a team and not be supportive of its owner is obviously beyond your mind's grasp. Besides, he has admitted his bumbling of the team.

 

What are your thoughts regarding Al Davis (an owner who has actually "brought" SB victories to his team's fans)?

GO BILLS!!!

You keep repeating that local economy has affected the success of the Bills, yet you cannot explain why--in fact you reiterate that ownership ineptitude is the real cause.

 

Even if we were to entertain your notion, again, it is interesting that you pick one or two teams (the high grossers) and on the one hand demonstrate how their money hasn't brought success and on the other hand you insist they have some sort of advantage. You seem to skip over the several other teams that have had success over the past decade without such massive revenues--or spending habits (Indy, GB, NE, Pitts).

 

If "both teams spent 143 million" (or the max), and each team has at least tens of millions left over in operating income....so what? And as far as "recovering financially from mistakes"--Ralph has never suffered financially from his mistakes, so you make no point there.

 

My disdain for Ralph's "cheapness" is mostly directed at his coaching decisions over the past 10 or more years. His selections were indisputably bad, but you will disagree. You will also disagree that he re-signed DJ prematurely because after 4 or 5 wins early in his contract season, Ralph thought (bizarrely) that there would be some sort of "bidding war" for DJ at the end of the season. When the Bills went 7-9 yet again, Ralph didn't fire DJ because he would have to eat his new contract. You would, laughably, disagree with that too, no doubt.

 

Look, my original point was that there is nothing unique to Buffalo's economy that would prevent putting a winning team on the field. You have conceded that the real reason is that the owner makes bad decisions. So why are you "spending hours" repeating this other nonsense, as though if the Bills would only have another 100 million in revenue, they could compete with such successful teams as the Cowboys and the Skins?

 

You like Forbes? Me too--you will note that all but 6 teams in the entire league fall outside of a very tight 220-260 million revenue range. Over the past 12 years, all SB winners but one were in that range--in fact, only one recent past SB winner grossed over 250 million last year. The the field is pretty level. You're way off.

Edited May 16, 2011 by Mr. WEO

[K-9]

I think you're doing a little revising yourself:

 

Pat Williams desperately wanted to re-sign with the Bills. Unfortunately, Bills management didn't feel at 32 going on 33, he had enough left in him to give him a long term, big $ contract. Although that wasn't being cheap, it was looking at a heavy guy getting old & misjudging how much longer he could play at a high level.

 

The Bills did not suck when Kelly was drafted prior to the 2003 season. In fact, before Joe Ferguson hit the wall, they started the season 5-2. The main reasons Kelly signed with the USFL were because he got more money, he could choose where to play & he would be able to start from day 1, something the Bills weren't going to let him do because Joe Ferguson was still entrenched as the starter.

There are a lot of revisionist stories, but the fact that Kelly was at 1 Bills Drive, seriously negotiating the Bills rookie contract when the secretary came in & Kelly took the USFL call telling him not to sign anything, shows that Kelly was a lot closer to signing in 2003 than the revisionists care to remember.

 

The Bills never signed Tom Cousineau with the expectation of paying him that contract. They had already worked out a deal with Cleveland to trade him & only signed him because the deal was already worked out. The Bills never wanted Cousineau at the price Houston was willing to pay, but at the same time, they couldn't let him go for nothing. The Cleveland deal worked out well for the Bills, but please don't revise it to look like the Bills were willing to make him the highest paid defensive player in the NFL.

 

Just keeping it real.

 

Yeah, I was disingenuous about the Cousineau sign and trade. My apologies. But the reason Cousineau didn't sign with the Bills originally had less to do with money than it did with being stiffed for dinner and I put that on good 'ole clueless Booth Lusteg. Perhaps we can accuse Ralph of being rude, too. But losing Cousineau wasn't because he was tight with money.

 

Same with Kelly. I know his agent got the famous phone call from the USFL while he was thisclose to signing with the Bills while at One Bills Drive. Again, it wasn't about money because Greg Lustig would have signed if the USFL didn't knock him out with a Namath-like AFL offer. Kelly reportedly received $1m up front, an interest-free loan, and a contract for his college roommate. RW never would have, nor SHOULD have agreed to match that. And your point about Kelly having to back up Fergy is a good one and most likely a contributing factor in the Kelly decision. However both Kelly and Lustig spoke about the Bills being in turmoil (post strike, Knox leaving, etc.) as well as their concerns about the OLine. But the main point is that Kelly not signing was not because RW didn't want to spend the money to do so.

 

I knew better about Pat Williams as well. That was an oversight when I lumped him in with the other FAs. But again, PW leaving wasn't because RW was cheap. It was a FO (TD and GW) decision. Nothing more. Back when GW didn't like fat players. Back when he was going to stop the run with numbers.

 

GO BILLS!!!

[QCity]

Got this from the Ny Daily news and Ralph claims that it is hard for buffalo to make it because the big corporations have the left the area. I am so sick and tired of this BS! Buffalo can support the Bills. Pittsburgh is no different than us and yet they are one of the most successful teams in the league. You don't hear about them leaving or being unviable, sames goes for Cincy, Cleveland or Detroit.

Sigh. Corporations buy the luxury boxes, and the luxury boxes are exempt from revenue sharing. Why is this so hard for people to understand? Do you want me to explain it?

 

RW never said lack of money was the reason for the dreadful last decade, I think most of us know it was 10 years of terrible drafting.

 

Do you need money to win? No of course not. But it does help and offers a huge advantage to those that have it - you can't retain your best players or make big splashes in FA without it.

[Trader]

Among the largest 100 metros, only seven lost population from 2000 to 2010 (Buffalo-Niagara Falls was 6th worst):

 

http://www.gnocdc.org/JobsPopulationAndHousing/OtherMetroGraph.png

 

The fact that Pittsburgh, Cincinnatti, Cleveland and Detroit--despite their economic woes--are 2-4 times larger than the Buffalo metro area is surely an advantage. Rochester and Southern Ontario help even the field, but there's no question that this region is hurting more (in terms of filling a 72,000 seat stadium) than any other NFL market but New Orleans.

 

Metro area population:

 

Detroit---4.4 million

Pittsburgh---2.3 million

Cincinnati---2.2 million

Cleveland---2.1 million

 

Buffalo+Rochester---2.1 million

 

Buffalo---1.1 million

I agree completely someone compared Buffalo to Pittsburgh. Buffalo is not even in the same league in terms of corporate HQ's that Pittsburgh is. Other than M&T bank, Rich Products and Moog Buffalo is dismal in terms of large corporate presence - those people buy the box seats.

[Lurker]

Don't really understand the Cash Flow argument. If anything, teams like the Bills who spend under the cap have more cash flows than operating income and teams like the Cowboys who invest in billion dollar stadiums have more operating income than cash flows.

Spending under the cap has nothing to do with cash flow. The cap is just a budget concept, unrelated to revenue streams.

 

Cash flow from "top line" revenue sources (think PSLs, suite leases, naming rights, corporate sponsorships, etc.) is often coming in faster/sooner than payroll and operating expenses go out (i.e., game checks are paid in 1/16 increments starting in September). It's a timing thing.

 

Say Jerry Jones gets Coke or Nike to pay him $20 million a year, payable on January 1. This gives him a big advantage when it comes time to write a check in April for a FA or structure a contract with front loaded money. He can essentially draw funds from his cash account to pay this expense (say a $10 million signing bonus), rather than having to dip into money from other sources (his personal wealth, other business ventures, a bank loan, etc.). If Ralph wants to match the $10 million bonus, he most likely can't do it from cash flow since the Bills revenue stream is tied more heavily to ticket sales--that might not be collected until July or later.

 

Jones might have significantly higher expenses/stadium debt than Ralph but if he times his obligations correctly, it can almost be like a ponzi scheme as long as the revenue machine continues to run smoothly (think Bernie Madoff before his bubble burst).

 

The real mystery to me is how Jones and Snyder continue to fumble this competitive edge vs. well run small market teams like the Steelers and Pack. Fans of the 'Boys and 'Skins should be more livid about their performance over the past decade than we are of the Bills ineptitude. On the other hand, we should take heart from the success of the Pittsburgh and Green Bay organization's ability to capitalize on the draft to continually replenish the talent pool.

 

Hopefully, with Buddy and his "football people," we're moving closer to this ideal.

Edited May 16, 2011 by Lurker

[K-9]

The concept that someone could be a fan of a team and not be supportive of its owner is obviously beyond your mind's grasp. Besides, he has admitted his bumbling of the team.

 

The concept is easy to understand. Even for us idiots. What's hard to understand for this idiot is how anyone purporting to be a fan feels a compulsive need to incessantly rail against the same thing over and over and over again. Why torture yourself? As for RW admitting his mistakes, well, yeah, so what? He's always done that. Write him a letter saying, "I told you so" if it makes you feel better.

 

What are your thoughts regarding Al Davis (an owner who has actually "brought" SB victories to his team's fans)?

 

I have no problem with Al Davis. Never have. He's been a terrific owner in the past and it's too bad his teams have fallen on hard times. He's contributed a lot to the league. Was an innovator and took what Sid Gilman taught him and had great success with that. I think he's a bit rigid in his thinking that the same formulas for on field success still work but adapting can be difficult, especially for an elderly man who's had success in the past. I don't think he did his fans any favors by taking them out of Oakland and then LA. But you'd have to ask them how they feel. I DO know he's very appreciative of the fact that RW's cheapness baled him out when the Raiders were on the verge of folding in the 60s.

 

You keep repeating that local economy has affected the success of the Bills, yet you cannot explain why--in fact you reiterate that ownership ineptitude is the real cause.

 

I and others here and in the media have explained it seven ways to Sunday over the years. Ultimately, all teams are not successful because of wrong decisions. Whether on GMs, coaches, players, schemes, whatever. The advantage of having more cash to play with is that you can recover more quickly from those mistakes. You can more readily sign more talented FAs and more of them to get your team back on track. You can go out and sign that BIG NAME coach or GM to generate excitement and ticket sales. You can sink that much more into the operations and marketing departments, etc.

 

Even if we were to entertain your notion, again, it is interesting that you pick one or two teams (the high grossers) and on the one hand demonstrate how their money hasn't brought success and on the other hand you insist they have some sort of advantage. You seem to skip over the several other teams that have had success over the past decade without such massive revenues--or spending habits (Indy, GB, NE, Pitts).

 

Again, it isn't about money not translating to success. Money doesn't buy you 20/20 foresight and protect you from making the same wrong decisions that teams with less money make. Having more cash on hand makes it easier to recover from your mistakes. Nobody is skipping over anything. Indy, GB, NE, and Pitt have made far better decisions and, oh yeah, have far better QBs than the Bills.

 

If "both teams spent 143 million" (or the max), and each team has at least tens of millions left over in operating income....so what? And as far as "recovering financially from mistakes"--Ralph has never suffered financially from his mistakes, so you make no point there.

 

Who said anything about RW "suffering?" If you have 143m in operating income and I have 28m in operating income, you are far better able to fix your mistakes from a cash perspective than I am. You are far better equipped to win a bidding war for a particular player's services. You are far better able to infuse more cash into operations, marketing, etc. You can gamble more. I have to be more conservative.

 

My disdain for Ralph's "cheapness" is mostly directed at his coaching decisions over the past 10 or more years. His selections were indisputably bad, but you will disagree. You will also disagree that he re-signed DJ prematurely because after 4 or 5 wins early in his contract season, Ralph thought (bizarrely) that there would be some sort of "bidding war" for DJ at the end of the season. When the Bills went 7-9 yet again, Ralph didn't fire DJ because he would have to eat his new contract. You would, laughably, disagree with that too, no doubt.

 

I disagree with his choices as well. Surprised? But I also know that I have the luxury of hindsight. When RW hired TD, made him one of the highest paid league execs, and gave him autonomous control nobody had the foresight to say that was a wrong decision. Indeed we were all happy that he finally gave full control to a respected "football" man. Everybody has 20/20 hindsight.

 

While RW has the last say on coaching hires, he deferred to TD and Levy regarding GW, Malarkey, and DJ. Perhaps extending Jauron at the time he did was a mistake but Jauron's season record to that point along with the highly-valued opinion of Levy made it easier for RW to to. Had the Bills not collapsed, DJ may well have been attractive to some team at the end of the year. Who knows? We have the luxury of judging everything in hindsight. RW doesn't.

 

RW fired DJ during the season. He had to eat his contract. The Wade Phillips fiasco aside, RW has paid a fired coach in the past. Another specious argument that the "Ralph is cheap" crown like to trot out.

Look, my original point was that there is nothing unique to Buffalo's economy that would prevent putting a winning team on the field. You have conceded that the real reason is that the owner makes bad decisions. So why are you "spending hours" repeating this other nonsense, as though if the Bills would only have another 100 million in revenue, they could compete with such successful teams as the Cowboys and the Skins?

 

Yep. Buffalo's economy is just as robust and filled with corporate revenue potential as any city in the league. Again, having more revenue doesn't mean you have success on the field. Nor does not having it mean more losses. Not having it means you can't be as aggressive as you'd like to be in making your team better in all aspects. You are the one that insists on equating revenue with wins on the field. That is a narrow point of view and doesn't take into consideration other factors.

 

You like Forbes? Me too--you will note that all but 6 teams in the entire league fall outside of a very tight 220-260 million revenue range. Over the past 12 years, all SB winners but one were in that range--in fact, only one recent past SB winner grossed over 250 million last year. The the field is pretty level. You're way off.

 

Glad you like Forbes. Read the accompanying article to the valuations chart. If the league keeps trending in the same direction (and there's no indication it won't) that comfortable mid-range buffer of teams you cite above is going to be threatened. That's what RW and others have said. The time to raise the concern is NOT when that time arrives. But given your penchant for hindsight I'm sure you're comfortable with that.

 

GO BILLS!!!

 

EDIT: Please see Lurker's post above. He explains it in real applicable terms far better.

Edited May 16, 2011 by K-9

[Mr. WEO]

GO BILLS!!!

 

EDIT: Please see Lurker's post above. He explains it in real applicable terms far better.

Lurker points out that having lots of money allows you to front load big FA signings.........OK....A

 

Again, how has that worked out for the 1 or 2 teams in the league who have that kind of money vs. the rest of the teams who don't--and are winning all the superbowls? Or for NE, which has the extra money, but doesn't spend it on big FAs. They dump pricey FAs (and coaching staff). Crazy bidding for the services "of a particular player" is a recipe for failure in this league--why claim otherwise?

 

Having lots of revenue helps teams recover quicker from their "mistakes"?? Really? When did the Skins and the Cowboys "recover"? What is your evidence that Ralph has not financially recovered from his mistakes of the past dozen years--is it the hundreds of millions in operating revenue he has banked? Come on! This is what you're left to argue---lots of money gets you out of trouble in the NFL?? There's simply no evidence to this.

 

The revenue range for the league has had the same outliers (Cowboys, Skins, PAts) for years, yet teams clustered around the middle range (which hasn't changed much in years either as far as the number of teams in that group) dominate post-season play.

 

Just as you were being "disingenuous" with your claims regarding Cousineau and Kelly, you are doing the same with regards to Al Davis. You would be hard pressed to find anyone, I would imagine, who does not think he has run that once proud organization into the ground.

 

As for DJ, he should have been dumped before the 09 season. He wasn't--because he had just signed a contract extension during the previous season.

 

You are the one that insists on equating revenue with wins on the field.

 

Actually, I have only said the opposite. It's been my point throughout. Not sure how you missed that.

 

As for Ralph, I am hardly on a "Ralph is cheap" tear--although your line of thinking would make better sense to you if I was---I am responding to the OP's article reference where Ralph is singing his one tune: how hard it is to compete for Buffalo.

 

At the end of all this back and forth, we agree that money had and has nothing to do with success on the field and that success is due to making sharp decisions and living within your financial means. If you want to cling to this "money helps correct mistakes" (whatever that means and despite no such evidence in the league now--except to the opposite) thing you came up with, fine. Whatever gets you through the night.

[BuffaloRebound]

Spending under the cap has nothing to do with cash flow. The cap is just a budget concept, unrelated to revenue streams.

 

Cash flow from "top line" revenue sources (think PSLs, suite leases, naming rights, corporate sponsorships, etc.) is often coming in faster/sooner than payroll and operating expenses go out (i.e., game checks are paid in 1/16 increments starting in September). It's a timing thing.

 

Say Jerry Jones gets Coke or Nike to pay him $20 million a year, payable on January 1. This gives him a big advantage when it comes time to write a check in April for a FA or structure a contract with front loaded money. He can essentially draw funds from his cash account to pay this expense (say a $10 million signing bonus), rather than having to dip into money from other sources (his personal wealth, other business ventures, a bank loan, etc.). If Ralph wants to match the $10 million bonus, he most likely can't do it from cash flow since the Bills revenue stream is tied more heavily to ticket sales--that might not be collected until July or later.

 

Jones might have significantly higher expenses/stadium debt than Ralph but if he times his obligations correctly, it can almost be like a ponzi scheme as long as the revenue machine continues to run smoothly (think Bernie Madoff before his bubble burst).

 

The real mystery to me is how Jones and Snyder continue to fumble this competitive edge vs. well run small market teams like the Steelers and Pack. Fans of the 'Boys and 'Skins should be more livid about their performance over the past decade than we are of the Bills ineptitude. On the other hand, we should take heart from the success of the Pittsburgh and Green Bay organization's ability to capitalize on the draft to continually replenish the talent pool.

 

Hopefully, with Buddy and his "football people," we're moving closer to this ideal.

 

Forbes' numbers are nothing but 'guess-timations'. Individual NFL teams guard their numbers very closely as evidenced by the players insistence that they see audited financials for each team. Spending under the cap is a positive cash flow if you assume every team has $143m as an expense. What other expenses does Ralph have besides payroll? Tv money covers player salaries, plus bonus money is increasingly being paid out in multiple years across the League. On top of that, giving big money to free agents is almost always a losing strategy. If cash flow was a problem for Ralph, he'd be crying poor a heck of a lot more than he already does.

[QCity]

Having lots of revenue helps teams recover quicker from their "mistakes"?? Really? When did the Skins and the Cowboys "recover"? What is your evidence that Ralph has not financially recovered from his mistakes of the past dozen years--is it the hundreds of millions in operating revenue he has banked? Come on! This is what you're left to argue---lots of money gets you out of trouble in the NFL?? There's simply no evidence to this.

 

At the end of all this back and forth, we agree that money had and has nothing to do with success on the field and that success is due to making sharp decisions and living within your financial means. If you want to cling to this "money helps correct mistakes" (whatever that means and despite no such evidence in the league now--except to the opposite) thing you came up with, fine. Whatever gets you through the night.

 

You can seriously be arguing that more revenue doesn't help your team recover.

 

Jets draft Ghoulston. He's a bust. Jets are able to sign Trevor Pryce away from Ravens and the D plays great.

 

Bills draft Maybin. He's a bust. Bills sit on their hands have to wait for the next draft.

 

Giants draft K. Phillips. He's sidelined with tons of injuries. No problem Giants sign A. Rolle and the team competes for a playoff spot.

 

Bills draft [insert anyone here]. He's a bust. Bills have to make due with what they can.

 

The Cowboys make a ton of terrible decisions over a decade yet still compete for playoff spots (4 in last decade)

 

The Bills make a ton of terrible decisions over a decade and can't crack .500

 

See, you are inferring that "recovery" means a Super Bowl appearance. No, the difference is slighter, like a team that can still play over .500 vs. a team perpetually mired near the bottom of the division.

[Mr. WEO]

You can seriously be arguing that more revenue doesn't help your team recover.

 

Jets draft Ghoulston. He's a bust. Jets are able to sign Trevor Pryce away from Ravens and the D plays great.

 

Bills draft Maybin. He's a bust. Bills sit on their hands have to wait for the next draft.

 

Giants draft K. Phillips. He's sidelined with tons of injuries. No problem Giants sign A. Rolle and the team competes for a playoff spot.

 

Bills draft [insert anyone here]. He's a bust. Bills have to make due with what they can.

 

The Cowboys make a ton of terrible decisions over a decade yet still compete for playoff spots (4 in last decade)

 

The Bills make a ton of terrible decisions over a decade and can't crack .500See, you are inferring that "recovery" means a Super Bowl appearance. No, the difference is slighter, like a team that can still play over .500 vs. a team perpetually mired near the bottom of the division.

Besides the obvious problems with your argument that the Jets or Giants defense was made "great" by the addition of a single FA, the Bills were free to make the same deals. They chose not to.

 

The Bills, Jets and Giants were all within 13 million in revenue last year---and one of those teams (guess!)didn't just split the cost of a 1.6 billion stadium. The Bills had ten times the operating margin of the Giants.

 

Your own post shows that money had nothing to do with the Bills problems. They made their decisions.

Edited May 16, 2011 by Mr. WEO

[K-9]

...Just as you were being "disingenuous" with your claims regarding Cousineau and Kelly, you are doing the same with regards to Al Davis. You would be hard pressed to find anyone, I would imagine, who does not think he has run that once proud organization into the ground. ...

 

I was not being disingenuous regarding Kelly. Only Cousineau. If I was being disingenuous about Al Davis I'd admit it. You asked me how I felt about the man. I gave you an answer. Because it wasn't the answer you wanted, it's the wrong answer. Has he contributed to the downfall of his organization just like RW has with wrong decisions? Of course. Does that make me dislike the man? No. Do I feel the same compulsive need as you to kick RW in the nuts because he hasn't made the best decisions for my favorite team? Not at all. I choose to continue to hope he can surround himself with enough good people to get him a championship before he passes. I choose to be positive in light of all the negative history. You choose to be something else. Whatever gets you through the night, indeed.

 

As for DJ, he should have been dumped before the 09 season. He wasn't--because he had just signed a contract extension during the previous season.

 

And yet he was fired DURING the 2009 season, RW had to pay him for not coaching anyway. Your argument that DJ was only retained to save money going into 2009 makes no sense. He paid DJ regardless. He would have had to pay DJ regardless. If RW wanted to simply save money he would have retained DJ. Another specious argument made in a vacuum and fueled by your preconceived "Ralph is cheap" belief.

 

Actually, I have only said the opposite. It's been my point throughout. Not sure how you missed that.

 

Maybe it's because you insist on making "revenue=wins, no revenue=losses" the gist of my argument when it never was.

 

As for Ralph, I am hardly on a "Ralph is cheap" tear--although your line of thinking would make better sense to you if I was---I am responding to the OP's article reference where Ralph is singing his one tune: how hard it is to compete for Buffalo.

 

At the end of all this back and forth, we agree that money had and has nothing to do with success on the field and that success is due to making sharp decisions and living within your financial means. If you want to cling to this "money helps correct mistakes" (whatever that means and despite no such evidence in the league now--except to the opposite) thing you came up with, fine. Whatever gets you through the night.

 

Given your dissatisfaction with the coaching hires, would you have been happy with a big name coach? If Gailey doesn't pan out and we have to hire yet another coach will you feel more confident if we hire a big name coach? What if that big name coach is courted by other teams? Given that coaches, GMs, players, etc. might not like what Buffalo has to offer culturally, might it be that offering the most lucrative deal is going to be what it takes to get them there? Might it be that the Bills would be in less of a position to offer the best deal vs. other teams?

 

Maybe the labor issue has changed things but teams have certainly paid ridiculous amounts to FAs, coaches, GMs, etc. in the past and will most likely continue to do so. It's nice to think that Snyder learned a lesson with Hayneworth but given that he didn't learn it previously with other players, I'll stick with the idea that he'll keep doing it. That will drive up the cost for other FAs and having more money will make it easier to sign them, especially tier-1 FAs.

 

If you want to cling to your belief that having more cash flow isn't an advantage to an NFL team go right ahead.

 

GO BILLS!!!

[QCity]

You seem to have a problem with comprehending what we are arguing about. Let's try again

 

Besides the obvious problems with your argument that the Jets or Giants defense was made "great" by the addition of a single FA

First of all, I never implied that the signing of one free agent all of a sudden made their defenses great. If you fail to recognize this, then you lack the basic reading comprehension skills necessary to continue this conversation. What these teams did is patch up holes (from their mistakes) by signing veteran players (using their revenue). Teams with higher revenue can correct their mistakes easier. I've underlined it for emphasis. There are hundreds of examples of this.

 

the Bills were free to make the same deals. They chose not to.

Exactly. They chose not to. Now why did they choose not to? Were they snowed in? Was Ralph in a bad mood that month? Some world crisis distracting them? No. The Bills are a low revenue team that doesn't have the revenue to easily fix their mistakes.

 

The Bills, Jets and Giants were all within 13 million in revenue last year---and one of those teams (guess!)didn't just split the cost of a 1.6 billion stadium. The Bills had ten times the operating margin of the Giants.

I don't even know what to say to this. Are you somehow implying that the new stadium is a financial burden to these teams? Use all the fuzzy logic/math you want, the Bills are no where near the revenue the Giant/Jets take in.

 

Your own post shows that money had nothing to do with the Bills problems. They made their decisions.

Exactly. I never said money got the Bills into their problems, ten years of mismanagement did.

[Mr. WEO]

You seem to have a problem with comprehending what we are arguing about. Let's try again

 

 

First of all, I never implied that the signing of one free agent all of a sudden made their defenses great. If you fail to recognize this, then you lack the basic reading comprehension skills necessary to continue this conversation. What these teams did is patch up holes (from their mistakes) by signing veteran players (using their revenue). Teams with higher revenue can correct their mistakes easier. I've underlined it for emphasis. There are hundreds of examples of this.

 

 

Exactly. They chose not to. Now why did they choose not to? Were they snowed in? Was Ralph in a bad mood that month? Some world crisis distracting them? No. The Bills are a low revenue team that doesn't have the revenue to easily fix their mistakes.

 

 

I don't even know what to say to this. Are you somehow implying that the new stadium is a financial burden to these teams? Use all the fuzzy logic/math you want, the Bills are no where near the revenue the Giant/Jets take in.

 

 

Exactly. I never said money got the Bills into their problems, ten years of mismanagement did.

Ah... the old "reading comprehension" stuff. Bold!

 

You certainly implied that signing these 2 players made a significant impact on the defenses, compared to what they were before the signings.

 

In fact, here's what you said:

 

Jets draft Ghoulston. He's a bust. Jets are able to sign Trevor Pryce away from Ravens and the D plays great.

Giants draft K. Phillips. He's sidelined with tons of injuries. No problem Giants sign A. Rolle and the team competes for a playoff spot.

 

Yup, the implication is clear--or maybe I don't comprehend what you are now trying to say...

 

As for revenues, I go by the only source I know--Forbes annual NFL valuation:

 

For 2010:

 

 

Teams Current Value ($mil) 1-Yr Value Change (%) Debt/Value (%) Revenue ($mil) Operating Income ($mil)

 

New York Giants 1,182 0 55 241 2.1

 

New York Jets 1,144 -2 66 238 7.6

 

Buffalo Bills 799 -12 16 228 28.2

Are you somehow implying that the new stadium is a financial burden to these teams?

 

Ah, yes, I am. It's not?

[QCity]

Ah... the old "reading comprehension" stuff. Bold!

 

You certainly implied that signing these 2 players made a significant impact on the defenses, compared to what they were before the signings.

 

Yup, the implication is clear--or maybe I don't comprehend what you are now trying to say..

You can use use all the hyperbole and strawman arguments you like, it won't make your point valid. The argument was that teams with higher revenues can more easily fix their mistakes. Rather than argue the point, or just admit you are wrong, you try to derail it. I gave you two quick examples (out of hundreds) off the top of my head of where a high revenue team was able to overcome their mistakes with money.

 

Before I typed this reply, I just noticed you have 5,000+ posts in 2 years. Now it makes sense, you're the Google-educated forum warrior that argues just for the sake of arguing. I know the earth is flat and I'll toe the line regardless! Anyways I'm not going to continue this back-and-forth. Maybe you learned something today, even if you won't admit it.

 

As for revenues, I go by the only source I know--Forbes annual NFL valuation:

 

For 2010:

 

 

Teams Current Value ($mil) 1-Yr Value Change (%) Debt/Value (%) Revenue ($mil) Operating Income ($mil)

 

New York Giants 1,182 0 55 241 2.1

 

New York Jets 1,144 -2 66 238 7.6

 

Buffalo Bills 799 -12 16 228 28.2

Here's one for the your reading comprehension file: The article you are quoting uses figures from the 2009 season and the Giant's old stadium, yet still reflects the debt of the new stadium built in Apr 2010. So even your derails and grasps at straws are factually incorrect. Good work.

[LGB]

You can seriously be arguing that more revenue doesn't help your team recover.

 

Jets draft Ghoulston. He's a bust. Jets are able to sign Trevor Pryce away from Ravens and the D plays great.

 

Bills draft Maybin. He's a bust. Bills sit on their hands have to wait for the next draft.

 

Giants draft K. Phillips. He's sidelined with tons of injuries. No problem Giants sign A. Rolle and the team competes for a playoff spot.

 

Bills draft [insert anyone here]. He's a bust. Bills have to make due with what they can.

 

The Cowboys make a ton of terrible decisions over a decade yet still compete for playoff spots (4 in last decade)

 

The Bills make a ton of terrible decisions over a decade and can't crack .500

 

See, you are inferring that "recovery" means a Super Bowl appearance. No, the difference is slighter, like a team that can still play over .500 vs. a team perpetually mired near the bottom of the division.

 

The obvious difference here is that the Bills play in the AFC East (not the NFC West) which means that they need about 7 more wins to even get a whiff of a wild card birth.

[BillsVet]

It's ironic in the discussion of big market versus small market that Green Bay was the SB champion this season. Some will rush to point out how the Packers spent a lot of money, but pay close attention to where they allocated their dollars. It was re-signing current players, originally drafted, undrafted, or in the case of Ryan Pickett, on free agents they're giving a 2nd contract.

 

And I'm sure someone will point out their ownership structure is different, and that's valid. Except it has nothing to do with their ability to build a championship caliber team, while transitioning from a HOF QB and implementing an entirely new defense.

 

The Bills are where they are because the owner sought to meddle and only now is delegating authority over football decisions to actual football people. You won't see Mark Murphy telling Ted Thompson what to do, even though both played in the NFL. For all the credit some Bills fans give RW, he is directly responsible for their inability to win these past 11 years. Small market or big market, a team has to have an owner who A) finds quality people in the front office and B) let's them do the job they're hired to do. Maybe RW is finally realizing this, but in the interim it's inexcusable to waste an entire decade like Buffalo did.

[Doc]

It's ironic in the discussion of big market versus small market that Green Bay was the SB champion this season. Some will rush to point out how the Packers spent a lot of money, but pay close attention to where they allocated their dollars. It was re-signing current players, originally drafted, undrafted, or in the case of Ryan Pickett, on free agents they're giving a 2nd contract.

 

And I'm sure someone will point out their ownership structure is different, and that's valid. Except it has nothing to do with their ability to build a championship caliber team, while transitioning from a HOF QB and implementing an entirely new defense.

 

The Bills are where they are because the owner sought to meddle and only now is delegating authority over football decisions to actual football people. You won't see Mark Murphy telling Ted Thompson what to do, even though both played in the NFL. For all the credit some Bills fans give RW, he is directly responsible for their inability to win these past 11 years. Small market or big market, a team has to have an owner who A) finds quality people in the front office and B) let's them do the job they're hired to do. Maybe RW is finally realizing this, but in the interim it's inexcusable to waste an entire decade like Buffalo did.

Green Bay won thanks in large part to Aaron Rodgers, who wasn't drafted by their current regime, and who was bypassed by 21 other teams in 2005, many of them needing a QB. Has Ralph's alleged "meddling" prevented the Bills from getting a decent QB all these years?

[K-9]

It's ironic in the discussion of big market versus small market that Green Bay was the SB champion this season. Some will rush to point out how the Packers spent a lot of money, but pay close attention to where they allocated their dollars. It was re-signing current players, originally drafted, undrafted, or in the case of Ryan Pickett, on free agents they're giving a 2nd contract.

 

And I'm sure someone will point out their ownership structure is different, and that's valid. Except it has nothing to do with their ability to build a championship caliber team, while transitioning from a HOF QB and implementing an entirely new defense.

 

The Bills are where they are because the owner sought to meddle and only now is delegating authority over football decisions to actual football people. You won't see Mark Murphy telling Ted Thompson what to do, even though both played in the NFL. For all the credit some Bills fans give RW, he is directly responsible for their inability to win these past 11 years. Small market or big market, a team has to have an owner who A) finds quality people in the front office and B) let's them do the job they're hired to do. Maybe RW is finally realizing this, but in the interim it's inexcusable to waste an entire decade like Buffalo did.

 

From 2001 through 2005, nearly half the 11 year playoff drought, Ralph had what everyone thought was a "quality" person in the front office, gave him unprecedented full control of every aspect of football operations and let him do the job he was hired to do. Exactly as you laid out above. We all know how that turned out. I'd like to see all the posts from those with 20/20 FOREsight who claimed hiring TD and giving him full control was a bad decision at the time.

 

RW has admitted time and again that poor decisions by him and his staff have resulted in poor team performance.

 

He has never once said that the economic disadvantages of the Buffalo market is the reason for poor team performance.

 

It's not how much money you spend, it's spending it wisely. Unfortunately you don't know it's unwise until it's too late much of the time. Both Snyder and RW have spent money foolishly. Jones and RW have both spent money foolishly. But when Snyder and Jones do it they still have far more resources to allocate to getting it right. RW doesn't have the luxury that deeper pockets provides.

 

Hopefully, Nix and Co. can replicate the good decision making of GB. Taking nothing away from Thompson, Murphy, McCarthy, etc. They've made some great personnel decisions. But it would help if the Bills could get one of the best QBs in the game as well. GB doesn't win a SB last year without Rodgers. Having a QB like that can make a lot of front offices look like geniuses.

 

GO BILLS!!!

Edited May 17, 2011 by K-9

[BillsVet]

Green Bay won thanks in large part to Aaron Rodgers, who wasn't drafted by their current regime, and who was bypassed by 21 other teams in 2005, many of them needing a QB. Has Ralph's alleged "meddling" prevented the Bills from getting a decent QB all these years?

 

Quibbling and sophistry. How predictable from you.

 

You think GB knew (EDIT: they) had a SB MVP on their hands in early 2008 when AR hadn't started a game in 3 seasons?

Edited May 17, 2011 by BillsVet

[Mr. WEO]

You can use use all the hyperbole and strawman arguments you like, it won't make your point valid. The argument was that teams with higher revenues can more easily fix their mistakes. Rather than argue the point, or just admit you are wrong, you try to derail it. I gave you two quick examples (out of hundreds) off the top of my head of where a high revenue team was able to overcome their mistakes with money.

 

Before I typed this reply, I just noticed you have 5,000+ posts in 2 years. Now it makes sense, you're the Google-educated forum warrior that argues just for the sake of arguing. I know the earth is flat and I'll toe the line regardless! Anyways I'm not going to continue this back-and-forth. Maybe you learned something today, even if you won't admit it.

Here's one for the your reading comprehension file: The article you are quoting uses figures from the 2009 season and the Giant's old stadium, yet still reflects the debt of the new stadium built in Apr 2010. So even your derails and grasps at straws are factually incorrect. Good work.

The Forbes numbers ALWAYS reflect the previous season. Most knew that. The debt will certainly climb with the 2010 data which will come out in September. The total revenue numbers are what they are, despite your claims otherwise. The jets and the Giants aren't really the high grossers you pretend they are, in comparison to the Bills. Google will tell you that.

Sorry, but your argument that "high revenue" teams, which the jets and Giants really aren't anyway, "fix their problems" with all that extra revenue is not convincing. Ralph tired to correct the mistake of the lack of talent on the o-line a few years ago and poured a ton of money into two bum FAs. He had no problem coming up with the cash. Make a better argument and I can be convinced.

 

Doc, Rodgers is quite a pick, no doubt. But check out the Packers drafts over the past few years. Not too shabby.

Edited May 17, 2011 by Mr. WEO