All Activity

rise up LA…defend your turf and defeat ICE…

I have them at 23.5 sacks, what do I choose?! Kidding. Went with under. Too much potentially working against it odds-wise. Bosa could get injured. Rousseau never had more than 8. Epenesa probably good for 6-6.5, but there is a non-zero chance that he or Solomon are not on the opening day roster be it via trade or cut.

100% NBA and MLB both stopped seasons to get what they wanted. Both greatly impacted the popularity of both. NFL is in a spot at the top and a false move would have negative impact. Players should hold out for guaranteed contracts no offset. Give up an extra game and 16 internal games a year. Probaly need to give a percentage point or 2 to the owners.

I’m sure little girls screamed for help when the IDF dropped bombs on them too…guess it’s hard being a kid out there these days! It’s not just American children being killed.

well if players feel this way they can vote no cofidence and change leadership. From what I understand this is being discussed between players

Never. Grandma took me to a Bills game as a kid in the mid 80s and I don't think I have missed watching a game since. Like someone mentioned before up thread, Sundays being reserved for the Bills was always something that was brought up early in any of my relationships and something my wife has now embraced. Sabres on the other hand.... 🤢

Imo they always have and that is why the NFL players have the worst contract structure of every pro league.

"Were there ever years you were disinterested in the Bills?" During the back-to-back 2-14 seasons, 1984ish. Hank Bullough and Kay Stephenson were two totally uninspiring head coaches. This was during Ralph's cheap phase.

Blow Away from that show might be my single favorite Dead moment, Brent was in another zone on that song. That 89 summer tour is up there imho with Europe 72 and spring 77 tours in terms of awesomness

Long snappers and special teamers unite!!

My counter is the sport isnt played and managed in a vaccuum. Resources are limited. They have invested more into the TE and Wr rooms than RB. Now where limited resources come in. Remove positions who performed and produced the best last season comparable to the league. Allen, Dawkins, Browns, Mcgovern, Benford and without question Cook. Shakir and Bernard were extended but did not have the production Cook had. At a point you need good players. Today Cook is a better NFL back than Shakir is an NFL wr. Even with a Contract to Cook he wouldnt be the highest paid none qb on the offense or make Rb the highest paid positional group. So in terms of positional hierarchy rb would still be slotted appropriately. Without a true number WR or elite TE. Cooks value to the current roster is very high.

So the Bills will have one of the highest paid QB's in the NFL, and also the one of the highest paid running backs. That's a lot of salary cap for two players. I don't want to hear any complaints when they have to skimp at other roster spots.

Damar makes it.

Perhaps they think labor peace is better for the game and fans long term than the minor gains they would be getting. When you are arguing that hundreds of millions isn't enough, I think the average fan would be hard pressed to take their side...or really the owners side. Millionaires vs. Billionaires doesn't really resonate with fans if that's the cause of them not playing and being able to consume the product.

Dear Grandma: Trump took your Medicaid, so it's time for you to work the fields | Opinion https://flip.it/.54E2z

If Damar Hamlin is a starter for the Buffalo Bills again, then Beane should be fired. &nbsp He is a goddam practicing squad player. He shouldn’t be starting on a team that’s supposed to be contending for a Super Bowl. It’s nothing short of laughable.

We always do. When you raise minimum wage. When you impose regulations. Etc. The horror stories of “ugh, you idiots are now going to pay 80% more for an iPhone” are just ridiculous. It’s not 1929 anymore. How many times have we said this. And like he says here and I agree - they’re neither a panacea nor a poison. The manufacturing long run goals are true; so is the desire for revenue and increasing leverage with competitors. https://fortune.com/2025/01/05/tariffs-donald-trump-us-economy-jobs-wages-producers-consumers/ https://finance.yahoo.com/news/different-now-tariffs-boost-u-205119631.html In a column in Foreign Affairs late last month, he argued that today's U.S. economy is much different from the one that was crushed by disastrous tariffs in the 1930s. The key difference is that America now has excessively high consumption, while it had low consumption and excess savings when the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act was passed in 1930…. …But Pettis cautioned that tariffs are neither a panacea nor poison, because their impact varies depending on what the economic circumstances are. In the case of the Smoot-Hawley tariffs, they went into effect during the Great Depression, when demand was crashing as other countries were taking similar steps on trade. The U.S. also had the world's largest trade surplus and top global exporters with production outstripping domestic demand. Fast-forward to today: The economy is nearly the total opposite and is no longer producing far more than it can consume, Pettis noted. While tariffs act as a tax on consumers, they also essentially subsidize domestic producers, who can add jobs and raise wages that eventually lead to more consumption, he explained. But if U.S. firms were facing weak domestic demand, tariffs would make matters worse. And if the global economy couldn't absorb more U.S. exports, then tariffs would depress domestic production. "In this case, tariffs (properly implemented) would have the opposite effect of Smoot-Hawley," Pettis added. "By taxing consumption to subsidize production, modern-day tariffs would redirect a portion of U.S. demand toward increasing the total amount of goods and services produced at home. That would lead U.S. GDP to rise, resulting in higher employment, higher wages, and less debt." Since Americans are the world's consumers of last resort, tariffs would serve another purpose too: U.S. producers would no longer have to accommodate the needs of foreign rivals, he said. Rather than aiming to protect certain sectors or businesses, tariffs could counter the economy's "pro-consumption and antiproduction" stance. "In the end, tariffs are simply one among many tools that can improve economic outcomes under some conditions and depress them under others," Pettis pointed out. "In an economy suffering from excess consumption, low savings, and a declining manufacturing share of GDP, the focus of economists should be on the causes of these conditions and the policies that might reverse them." Manufacturing as a share of GDP has gone from roughly 30 percent in the 1920s to less then 10 percent today. https://prosperousamerica.org/u-s-manufacturings-shrinking-share-of-gdp-and-how-to-catch-up/

For me it was that time as well. (2001-2003( I was 22, living in Vegas, the team wasn't great, games were on early, and I had a lot of distractions. Now I was still there and a fan, but where I was at in life, they didn't get the time and attention I gave before and after the

Over and it won't be close IMO. I think our improved DL will make this statement. I'm thinking 30+

I saw Sinners recently and agree with your take about Hailee Steinfeld. She has that wholesome attractive vibe. But not gorgeous.

Nope, every single year there is a reason to be hopeful.. Now I did not watch full games at times during the drought because it was too painful knowing the outcome was prety much written in stone by halftime to often

And Hamlin was thrust into the starting lineup because of players retiring.

Who are the Bills?

None of that seems like that big of a deal to me, but I don't really care what the NFL or NFLPA does. Until it has a direct impact on my ability to watch Bills football, they can do all their squabbling and legal posturing they want. I'm just a football fan.