I realize this is now a dead topic, but I just wanted to vent for the last time on the Panda issue. The news that Bryant Johnson signed a 1-year $2 million contract with SF instead of Buffalo is an odd one, if reports are to be believed that Johnson really preferred to sign with the Bills for a 1-year deal. All reports are that Buffalo was offering a long-term deal instead (maybe 5-years, $16 million?). Johnson's agent must have offered a 1-year deal similar to that of SF that Buffalo rejected. How could the Bills reject this? Usually, it is the player that wants a long-term deal (I recognize that he wanted a bigger contract and is hoping for one after this 1-year tryout). Buffalo, even if it preferred a long-term deal, obviously wanted Johnson (enough to offer a long-term deal) and should have been ok with a 1-year deal ($2 million, instead of a $4-$5 million long-term average). A 1-year deal would have allowed for the Bills to draft a WR in round 1 or 2 and develop him for a year, while trying out Johnson -- and with minimal money committed on Johnson ($2 million is really low for a No.2 WR), the Bills could easily extend Evans and draft a WR. Frankly, a 1-year deal at $2 million (other than the notion of locking a WR we really like for cheap) would have worked out great for the Bills. It certainly would not have made a dent in our cash-to-cap, nor the salary cap (even if you divide the salary cap by the number of players, it is greater than $2 million).