OvrOfficiousJerk
-
Posts
187 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Gallery
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by OvrOfficiousJerk
-
-
"I believe Adrian Peterson came back naturally." You were saying?
Doc, from an immediate standpoint you're right; Simmons does think that Peterson is clean. However, that misses the point of his article. He's arguing that every quick recovering athlete, every athlete who's playing beyond his supposed prime, needs to be questioned as a possible cheater. Given a gamut of variables -- age, general health, past medical/drug history, comorbidities, speed of recovery, position played, relationship with the press/general demeanor -- we can adjust our index of suspicion for a given athlete. Taken all these things together, Simmons is in a position to say that Peterson is most likely clean, but we can't rule out foul play. Conversely, someone like Lewis will garner more suspicion.
On a continuum, from 0-10, with 5-10 being "I believe you range," Simmons probably puts Peterson around a 7 -- saying that "hey, his recovery time was a bit quick, but James Andrews has a good alibi for it". For what it's worth, I would place someone like Barry Bonds (old, expanding head, adversarial toward the press) at 0; someone like Mariano Rivera at 10 (honestly if Mo ever cheated there would be nothing holy in this world and I would reflexively punch out my eardrums if I ever heard "Enter Sandman" again).
And I would say that Lance precipitated this argument just as much as Lewis, with an assist to the guy who was fired for his comments about RGIII (as it relates to the omertà around controversial topics in the sports world). So I'm not wholly convinced this is sour grapes on the part of a Pats fan.
-
The Pats are known juicers as well. Rodney got busted for HGH and obviously wasn't alone, given the number of older players they had who suddenly found the fountain of youth while there.
And Simmons claims that AP was clean when rehabbing. And that's based on what? A gut feeling? Yes, real objective there.
He starts off his article w a quote from Dr James Andrews saying that ADs knee was basically that of a newborn, ie Peterson has some insane genetic qualities (and also is a lot younger than Ray Lewis). Throw in the fact that his rehab time wasnt shortened to the same proportion that Lewis was. I mean Simmons is still being subjective but the chances that Peterson is clean are relatively high
The thing I don't really care for about Simmons is that if you were to turn this around and asked him about his beloved Patriots or Red Sox (known championship juicers, at least where the Sox are concerned) and said, "well, you've gotta ask the question," he'll get all bent out of shape. He has the right idea but his motive (discrediting the "leader" of the team that knocked the Pats out) is suspect, when the likely reality is that every team has players using performance enhancers.
At the same time though he does go out of his way to complement Celtic-killers Lebron and Kobe. As much as he is a homer sometimes - I agree that this article is not written if Lewis is a Patriot - he can be surprisingly objective
-
I respect Brady but I have no use for Belichick. He is a cheater the same as Lance was. But you have sycophants like Peter King that drool on his every word and are amazed at his copy of Art of War on his library shelf. He sucked in Cleveland and he hasn't won anything without cheating. Yes they are still a very good team but you can't change the fact they have zero championships w/o knowing what the defense was going to do pre-snap.
Remind me again, what was Marv's record as HC of KC?
Ehhh... I feel the exact opposite in regard to Brady and Belichick. Yes they have zero championshiips since spygate but they still have been one of the more dominant teams in the league. Belichick can make the most out of fringe players and maximize every draft pick. I'm not sure how most players are after they leave a team in free agency, but I can't name one former Patriot that went on to succeed on the next team.
Also in regard to Brady, Belichick took a team that was 18-1 the year before, subtract Brady, and still made it to 11-5 with a guy that didn't take a snap since high school. Colts without Manning? 2-14. Brady would probably have an SB ring and make the HoF w/o Belichick but would not be the same player he is today.
I agree that Belichick doesn't deserve the sycophants bc of his base lack of sportsmanship, but I'm inclined to give him some credit for what he has done in NE.
-
I remember growing up (~early 90s), there were a LOT more Saturday games, specifically after college FB ended. And, for that matter, I think they were afternoon games at that (NFL network had some Saturday night games in the last few years; the Patriots-Giants 2007 pre-Super Bowl matchup, for one). Anyone else remember that?
An explanation would be the proliferation of mid-December bowl games (there were two each of the last two Saturdays). But rag on the Gildan New Mexico Bowl or the R&L New Orleans Bowl at your own risk; they were actually good games
-
Well if this is kicking the can down the road, then what lease isn't? Seriously??
PTR
A lease that lasts longer than 10yr, for one.
However, this lease is part "kick can down the road" and part hard commitment. I see this lease as that one year bandaid (which I knew was never going to happen but still was reported as fact up until this week) with teeth and a bigger cushion to keep the team here. Something had to happen with the Ralph in the short-term, but its utility a decade down the road certainly is questionable. So to lock an owner for >15yr may hurt the team's profitability in the long-term.
Ultimately, the lease lets the team maintain leverage for that new stadium in the future while demonstrating a strong commitment
-
Spent the good balance of the day trying to find a modicum of truth to that whole "world's gonna end" hooey. Then I queued up tBN's Bucky/Sully show and heard Jerry be genuinely impressed and not depressingly sarcastic over something (specifically, the buyout fee Poloncarz negotiated).
By golly the Mayas were right.
-
Just as ugly as the Steelers game last night.
I was surprised how many yellow seats I saw at Heinz Field for the MNF game -- very crappy weather, night game, mediocre opponent (sound familiar?). A few people on this board like to rag on the fact that we are "bad fans" because we can't sell out in December. If the Steelers can't pack 'em in, no one can.
-
9. I'd like to give myself 9.5 because I knew the DC for the Super Bowl teams but not the nickname, though I figure that's common knowledge enough that maybe I should just get a 9. And the correct answer for the Plan B LB (#9) was my second guess, so I was a little cheesed about not getting that one.
At any rate, thanks for the trivia. I was watching the 1994 Sabres-Devils Hannan game on MSG, and I had a minor crisis because I didn't recognize #10 as Hawerchuk. But at least I can go to bed tonight knowing that I'm a respectable Buffalo sports fan.
-
...but my irrational funding of an industry that is a proverbial economic vacuum cleaner has finally ended. The MLB strike poisoned my love of baseball, and current trends have poisoned my desire to make the 12 hour round trip to Buffalo.
+1,000
Maybe you were thinking more along the lines of what's going on with the Bills, but the referee strike is what did it for me in terms of pro football as a whole. All the signs during the preseason were that the replacement refs were going to be a s**t-show, and I can't forgive the league for only acting after three weeks of a pathetic, sub-par product culminated in a variety of games being affected directly by replacement refs. Like others have said, the fact that the league was so stingy about saving a couple bucks tells me that it won't bend over backward to keep the Bills where they are.
Don't get me wrong, I'm a dirty capitalist in many ways. Sure, make money, but have some class/pride/self-respect when you peddle your goods. it pains me to see businessmen disrespect their product/commodity so much like what the NFL does now, and the image that comes to mind is what Bryan Cox did to the Rich a couple years ago (decades, now?). No matter what, people will still overpay for their product; they can extort millions from communities with impunity, and there's little to stop them.
-
http://espn.go.com/n...lease-extension
The one year extension has been agreed upon instead of a longer term extension because the owner and his reps don't want to commit to a longer term lease that would justify the major extension for the prospective renovation.
Here is the article I was thinking of, which came out right after that glut of reports saying the one-year extension was "agreed upon:"
http://www.buffalonews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20120912/CITYANDREGION/120919682
Poloncarz said that the one-year deal had not been finalized, and reports saying that it has are false. And all sides characterize the one-year extension as a way to give them more time to put together a longer term deal. If Ralph really wanted to play an indefinite one-year waiting game, he would've asked for the Vikings stadium and the $500mil in gov't funding, not get the terms he wanted, and then done one-year extensions at a lame duck RW Stadium while negotiations are "on-going."
IMHO, the stumbling block was probably the fact that the government wanted the team to chip in $$$, while the Bills were balking at that prospect. I'm actually okay with that, since the anti-business atmosphere of NYS prevents the Bills from generating revenue by luxury boxes/club seats/etc. But that means the state/county should get a longer agreement to balance out a larger government contribution.
And as it relates to a next owner to keep the team in Buffalo, like Golisano, the Ralph provides a good option to minimize team overhead costs: it's easy to extract necessary repairs and operation costs from the authorities, as opposed to a new covered stadium downtown that will necessarily mean the team kicks in a lot of money.
Thanks for the info about Jack Kent Cooke. Always wondered what the timeline might be like if (when) the team is sold on the open market
-
i don't think there's precedent for a 15 year nfl stadium lease deal, so i think you can stop holding your breath on that one.
Well, the last Bills lease deal was for 15yr, for one; personally I would like 20yr (not too much different than 15yr), which is how long the Arrowhead one is (then again, they pumped in more money for that what the Bills are asking for -- $375mil for KC; $220 for BUF).
And speaking of precedent, there really isn't one for the Ralph. Besides the aforementioned Arrowhead, Lambeau (lease matters are academic) and the old Giants/Meadowlands Stadium (people in NYC can just make it rain), there's no other football-only stadium that predates 1995 (note: Soldier field got gutted in 2000, so I'm excluding that one as a new build). Every other stadium in the NFL post-merger has either been a dual use stadium (at one time 17 venues had both MLB and NFL) and/or a dome, both of which have terrible shelf lives. We'll see how the stadia that replaced legacy stadiums turn out; most of those leases are for 30yr, so we won't know that until the mid 2020s for the first of these newer stadiums.
Joe Frandina, the Bills' former VP for stadium matters (or some such) and rehired to take care of the renovations said in as many words, as long as the Ralph is updated, she'll "outlast you and me." And there's an element of truth to that. What a 15yr lease does will make sure that the state gets some income tax $$ back to compensate for the investment, but lets the next owner evaluate the situation and take it from there.
So I would say it's rather disingenuous for people to say "oh the Ralph is old as dirt" when it's so easy to upgrade and maintain that stadium versus a domed or dual use stadium. Honestly, add a couple bathrooms and widen the concourses, and it can easily last another 20yr as a viable venue.
-
wilson is already the poster child for lame duck owner. he's 94 y.o and a career loser by football metrics. enough said.
stating his intent to sell to an owner committed to staying in buffalo does nothing but improve his ability to immediately negotiate with those who would decide on funding a new or improved stadium. this statement would do nothing to limit further negotiations between potential buyers with the same intent to negotiate future stadium deals. they're free to hold the region hostage, just like wilson has and currently is doing.
I guess my point is that he doesn't have to explicitly state that there is going to be a succession plan. He can say it indirectly by signing a lease that will keep the team here another 10-15 years. If he doesn't do that, then I will worry significantly. But ultimately, every NFL lease negotiation has involved a team holding a region hostage by maximizing the threat of the team moving
-
the only explanation i can imagine is that he'd lose what little support and, surprisingly, the significant amount of respect he has in wny if he announced he had no special arrangements to keep the bills in buffalo. i can fathom no such explanation if in fact he has made those arrangements.
I've given you an explanation on this board already, so here it is again. If nothing else, maybe someone will reply to these thoughts this time around, so I don't mind:
1) He doesn't want to be a lame duck owner, which is understandable after you've owned something for 50+ years, and you don't want people clamoring for the next guy
2) Lease negotiations suddenly go in favor of the government when they know the team is going to stay. The only way the Bills are profitable is if the stadium is paid for, and this remains true for the next owner. If he has made such arrangements, he doesn't want to screw over the next guy by saying "no worries guys, the Bills will always be in Buffalo." Doing so will remove a credible threat of moving to Los Angeles, and Cuomo suddenly isn't sweating bullets. The end result is that the state will decrease the contribution to stadium improvements, and hurting the Bills profitability.
@JohnC
Not sure that one year extension is confirmed yet and, if it is, emphasis on the "extension" part -- it's going to give them more time to negotiate a long-term deal, not because Ralph is averse to a long-term commitment.
-
Heck, one should be excited and energetic about owning a team, Golisano comes off in his interview as if he would just be doing everyone a favor as he did with the Sabres.
Point taken, but I bet the lack of overt enthusiasm is more out of deference to Mr Wilson who is still the owner.
-
No Thanks. Saved the Sabres my arse. He bought them dirt cheap and made a huge profit.
Because NHL franchises are all cash cows. Dont get me wrong, I'll never forgive him for letting Briere and Drury walk. But tell me that you weren't on your knees next to the radio when the Hammister deal broke down. I remember i had an off day in band, listening to WBEN praying that we werent going to be contracted. Anyone who'd trust Bettman is either naive or stupid; Golisano saved the Sabres more than you'll give him credit for, especially when that dumb idiot hoser Basille probably threw corelone money at Golisano to move them up the QEW. I won't begrudge him if he made a few bucks in the process
Like JW said this is hardly news, but the NFL would certainly want someone with a track record of making a major league franchise work in a small market like Golisano in an ownership group
-
is he the worst supposed "Special Teams Ace" in the NFL?
Martin is okay as a STer but not up to the level of April's guys like Stamer, Haggan and Aiken. And the difference with those guys is that they were serviceable backups at their respective positions. Can't say the same about Martin
-
You complain about 2 kickers and 4 QBs but want to keep 6 RBs?
PTR
When one is coming off a season-ending injury and another is more of an H-back, it makes a lot more sense.
-
I'm glad we got the blow-out losses out of the way. The problem with the 2008 and 2011 seasons was that they got out to a great start but then the wheels came off famously. They had no experience bouncing back from consecutive ugly losses, and that's when the losing streaks really piled up. A loss is a loss no matter how bad (unless the points for/against tiebreaker comes into play for some ungodly reason) and the three games we lost were expected. So yes, until the Bills lose the games they should win and fail to pull off one or two upsets, it's okay to say the Bills are still in the hunt.
-
Like everyone else says, it's a good sign when your castoffs are picked up by other organizations.
I liked him too, and with CJ/Fred being injury risks, having a fourth RB is critical. Dorin is a good pass catcher in the flats and such, but Johnny was a decent RB between the tackles. Too bad to see him go.
-
I thought Carrington got a hand on it. Sully brought it up like ten times in his report card so I'm glad someone else saw it. Everybody else said Feely missed it
-
Roughly everything discussed here -- luxury boxes, Patriot Place-esque developments, etc. -- exists only for the benefit of the owner and to pay off stadium upgrade (which the state is covering in our case). I would agree with OP that all these bells and whistles are unnecessary. And honestly, in the City of No Illusions, we go to watch a football game, not to sit in padded heated luxury VIP seats and go shopping before and after the game. Yes there is some club seating/luxury boxes to generate some revenue, but we don't need a fancy stadium to stay viable, especially when you reach the point of diminishing returns (after what point are you making $$$ versus paying off an expensive stadium)
-
Man - just seems like it's a reality that it can't be as profitable for either the owners or the NFL itself to have the team where it belongs. And given Goodell's willingness to sully "the Shield" for such a relatively small amount of money with the ref situation, do we truly think there's a chance? I pray so, and hopefully such creative financing mechanisms and willpower will help make it happen.
Moving the team won't be profitable necessarily for the NFL -- it would be for the individual owner. All the luxury box/psl etc etc stays with the owner, so the NFL has no incentive really to move the team
-
Is $100M enough of a dent to make it profitable enough to stay in Buffalo? Great idea and I love the creativity but I'd think we'd need to be contributing significantly more - like $250M+. And even so, when looking at the interest on that amount versus additional revenue from advertising / luxury boxes / seat license fees in a larger market, how does this stack up?
Every hundred million counts. The issue won't be how to keep the team profitable, it'll be how to throw enough money around versus offers from L.A. The luxury boxes/psl's exist mainly to pay off the stadium; the government takes care of the stadium in our case. Whoever buys the Bills to keep them here won't be doing it to turn a profit -- make a couple million every year definitely but not rake it in. What the Buffalo Fan Alliance is for is to make sure these guys don't go into debt up to their eyeballs so the debt service isn't unbearable. IMHO First Niagara should make like "Bills savings accounts" where the money you put in goes toward financing these guys debt. Make crappy interest for yourself but the bank has the capital to give to the owners.
-
Modell t-shirts are a terrible idea (relocation is never a laughing matter) and the whole Lebron thing is so 2000-and-late. That first year after he left (Fall 2010-2011 finals) there was definitely bad blood in the Cleve but last year (2011-12) there were a few boos when he visited but hardly a huge deal. In maybe a decade you could probably wear one ironically I guess?
If anything we should feel empathy for Cleveland (no major championships since '64, general malaise in the region, etc.). Conversely, I'd support wearing a Jeter, Kobe or David Tyree jersey to Gillette stadium. Crapping on Boston is much more appropriate.
New York State Bulls?
in The Stadium Wall Archives
Posted · Edited by OvrOfficiousJerk
The nickname may have to change, too.
When I saw this thread I immediately thought of the New York Red Bulls, the MLS team. I hate trademark infringement lawsuits intensely (part of me dies whenever I enter a Walgreens), but depending on the name of the school (e.g., New York), Bulls would have to go. I'd argue that SUNY Bulls would be okay though.
I'd argue it's no different than the confusion between Ohio University and Ohio State. Having lived in the state of Ohio for five years now, I can assure you that confusing the two is hardly an issue. And as a University of Rochester grad, if I had a nickel for every time I had to say "no, not RIT..." I could've given more money than Golisano to make UB change to New York State University.