HardyBoy

No, just no...this is a logical issue with the chart...this isn't an anecdotes thing or how the same data can be used to show two different things. If you gave a bunch of people bread of different sized slices, jelly, and butter and told them they had to put either jelly or butter on slices of bread...and then said Jimmy put butter on 20lbs of bread, and Johnny put 5lbs of butter on bread...therefore Jimmy values butter way more...except turns out Jimmy was given 100lbs of bread and so he actually put jelly on 80lbs while Johnny was given 8lbs of bread and used butter on 5 out of 8 lbs. Yes, that is an absolutely ridiculous example, but your argument...uhhh actually, I spent a year in therapy recently and one of the things I worked on was not feeling the need to explain basic things to people because the majority of the time it's not that they don't understand, it's that they don't want to listen/aren't acting fully in good faith and they want my energy. Not saying you're doing that, but a lot of people who are saying this chart is completely meaningless are also the same people who say the bills aren't spending enough resources on offense...the chart being total and utter garbage logically doesn't make that other thing true or untrue.

No, it literally doesn't show that, or at least you have literally no basis to make that determination based on the data shown in the chart. It's completely and totally possible that the bills have spent more draft capital on offensive players...this just tells you that good teams have less draft capital because they pick later in drafts.

Is this percentage of a team's total draft capital spent on offense or the actual draft capital they spent...cause good teams have less overall draft capital

That's one way too look at it, but I think that is kinda the definition of the sunk cost fallacy...this gave them a chance to save $3.5m

This might be worth it's own thread, but while I agree with it to a point...the whole best ability is availability cliche is so short sighted and silly and I hope is one of the first things that goes with McDermott. Obviously nobody is going to be fully healthy, but if you can get yourself to 90% for the rest of the season by missing an extra week or two vs playing the rest of the season at best at 75%, you do that...your best ability is maximizing your ability over the course of the entire season not proving you're tough enough to torperdo your max potential contribution. Again, I think this is highly nuanced, but I did not get the sense that it was viewed as nuanced, or not nearly enough, under the previous coaching staff.

More than 40 picks right? There are a bunch of 6th round comp picks after the 6th and before the 7th...

You're not getting an event at the level of the Miami Grand Prix in buffalo though...you're getting super famous international people coming to that and it's not just for the race...just like you couldn't get the Monaco Grand Prix in Buffalo either...those events aren't going there just for the event or the location's ability to hold the event...the location itself draws people and the event gives people a reason to go there. I think Foxboro is a better thing to compare to, which also does not have a covered stadium. They have Patriots place though, which from all accounts people go to all year, but the stadium is also used more (I'm assuming the New England Revolution still play there like they did when I lived in Boston from 06-12), but there is all sorts of stuff in Foxboro built up around the stadium. Can't really do that in Orchard Park, unless the team starts buying people out of their houses and is able to get things rezoned so they could do something similar. So...the line of argument of if you build the right stadium you'll get major events doesn't hold up, because Buffalo isn't winning competitions against other cities for major events consistently (not anymore, and that's not a knock on the region, it's just how things shifted over the course of the last 100+ years). They can't build something like Patriots place because of the area they built the stadium in and I'm still not sure the area can support something like that, because even though Foxboro is a bit of a drive from Boston, it is still fairly centrally located in terms of other places in the area. Given the realities, I think the Bills likely built the most realistic and pragmatic type of stadium to fit the area...definitely an interesting discussion on if they put the stadium in the right place, but downtown doesn't sound like it could handle it infrastructure wise and the current location made it so much easier in terms of existing infrastructure and traffic studies and all that. Are they going to convert the old stadium into a parking lot or are they potentially building something there that might draw people more year round...but again, why would I go to Orchard Park to a shopping center when I'm sure there are tons of places like that in the greater Buffalo area...actually, that could be a reason Patriots Place works...there really isn't all that much going on in Foxboro and you have to drive a decent distance to get to anything else so it draws people within say a 20 mile radius pretty regularly...that's not the case in Orchard Park.

Man that still hits me right in the feels, there's always a lot of energy at a phish show, but not quite like this... for context this was the the first song after reuniting post a four year permanent breakup...the guitar solo right after it cuts off is sooo good too

There's a colonel of truth there for sure

Fantasy sports starting to become widespread perhaps? I know I watch football differently seasons I have done fantasy football, which I haven't in a while cause I don't like being annoyed that the wrong person made an amazing play

I don't agree that there is an analogy in terms of the confederate history. Those monuments were put up years later by the united daughters of the confederacy, which people are free to read about as the see fit. Those statues were also put up years and years after the war with a larger political agenda. As far as christopher colombus, that is probably a better analogy to OJ Simpson. I don't think it's erasing history when the people start saying the full history of what happened, not just the people who win write the history parts, and then after it's out there, people don't want to glorify that... like that's not erasing history, that's looking at the history, seeing there's more to it than initially was being talked about, and then seeing if the full story is really still aligned to being glorified. Joe Paterno falls into this category too and all the good he did kinda doesn't win in the balance compared to his inaction...Bobby Knight as well kinda, obviously in a very very different way... in knight's case, no new information came out, but new psychological and neuropsych research has come out and frankly people's views on what constitutes emotional abuse have changed and causes people to reevaluate if that is someone they want to glorify and represent them and be a herald for their team or whatever

This past draft was pretty solid no?

Totally agree on the people are intentionally watching football more and that nfl viewership is likely up a lot and in very significant ways. I'd just argue that it's taking from the live sports pie that is basically all that remains of a communal entertainment experience (and live events like the oscars). And in no way am I arguing that 30 second or whatever short form videos are a good thing...far far far from it...just that stuff and streaming fragmented the viewing experience...so when someone is saying the top 80 most watched things on tv were nfl games, when in the past that might have been eaten into a ton by something like Seinfeld...but not all the people watching Seinfeld in the past combined would be way more than people watching nfl games, but all those people are fragmented across short form video content and 20 different streaming platforms...that stat just doesn't necessarily mean as much as it seems on the surface, all while I fully acknowledge the nfl is growing insanely in popularity

Watching 5 minute youtube videos for 3 hours is literally exactly the same thing as watching football in terms of time spent watching something

I hear ya, and I don't think you're entirely wrong by any means when it comes to tv...but gangam style currently has 5.8b views on YouTube... Live sports is absolutely one of the only draws left on TV though, of which the nfl is absolutely the main draw...but I'd be curious what a metric like total engagement hours looks like, and where tv ranks as a whole in that and the nfl looks like in terms of the overall number... I'm guessing TikTok and YouTube and such dwarfs tv