BarleyNY
-
Posts
10,403 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Gallery
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by BarleyNY
-
-
Watkins says he doesn't know timetable for recovery from foot surgery. Not sure if he'll be at #Bills camp.
Also said it was a hope when Sammy directly said it was coming off tomorrow.
Sammy Watkins does not rule out being ready for Bills training camp. "Hopefully," he said.
#Bills Sammy Watkins says stress fracture (foot) was detected as part of normal evaluation... Doesn't know when it happened. @wgrz
#Bills Sammy Watkins on concept of being injury prone: "That's the world we live in... Everybody needs a story." Says injuries happen. @wgrz
You know who gets labeled "injury prone"? Guys who try to come back from injury too quickly and keep getting hurt. Take your time and get right, Sammy.
-
Just like most things of this type, when they get too big they start to become institutional.
That true, but much like the government it's often a lot nicer to have them around to complain about (even with their myriad faults) than not around at all. I hate what ESPN has become, but they pay the NFL a lot of money. Here is a couple articles worth reading:
So here is the basic issue:
- ESPN's (stupid) contract with the NFL pays an average of $1.9B per season.
- The CBA guarantees the players 55% of national TV revenues (maybe their only concession this time around).
- That works out to about $32.6M per team per season on average toward the salary cap. That's for the length of the contract.
- ESPN pays over 4 times what other networks pay per viewer for NFL games. If they paid the going rate, each team's salary cap would be reduced by over $24M per season (on average).
I don't see ESPN folding, but I could see them filing Chapter 11 at some point to get out of this and other deals. The NFL could sell those rights to some other network, but probably at a much lower price. The NFL has been growing at an amazing pace. The salary cap was growing by 8% on average - and that was before this year's big jump. I just don't think that kind of growth is sustainable under current operating practices. The NFL isn't going to want to see a shockwave of a cap (and profit) reduction come through and they'd definitely try to stave that off, but I'd wonder how. International games or teams are very possible. So is an extended season. Pay per view maybe, but that has to coexist withor replace DirectTV's deal. Heck, they could put advertising on jerseys. I don't know, but I do expect to see them get creative in regards to increasing revenue.
Great post by the OP.
My thoughts:
1. I rarely watch ESPN unless they have a game on it that I have an interest in watching, which might be 1-3 times a year.
2. The only reason I have not cut the cord is because the local sports channel that carries the local MLB and Hockey team (Pirates/Penguins). If I could get that channel w/o cable, or watch those teams w/o cable, I would cut the cord tomorrow.
Hopefully MLB and NHL offer a streaming product so people can watch the teams of the cities where they reside.
I have Direct TV online version the past 2 years. It's a work in progress, but improved greatly from the 1st to 2nd year.
Thank you. If I watch ESPN it's to catch a game or highlights usually. If I'm driving I'll listen to Mike and Mike or whatever is on sometimes. Or more often the NFLN station. I have Sirius.
I'm thinking that NFL Replay might be the way to go. I didn't get it last year cause they really raised the price. But I can watch replays of every game, including the ones where all the filler between snaps is cut out. Plus All 22s are available.
-
Australian Football, motor sports, cliff diving, anything but talk. C'mon man!
Exactly! And don't forget Women's Beach Volleyball!
-
I just looked up today's programming line up for ESPN. From 12:00am to 12:00am...not a single sport to be seen. Hours upon hours of sports talk and highlights. ESPN is the same crap.
Why can't they figure it out. Show some GD sports. Like actual contests. ANY FREAKIN THING!
When ESPN started they used to broadcast stuff like Australian Rules Football late at night. That was a blast to watch. They'd be way better if they'd go back to that kind of thing rather than doubling down on Hot Takes!
-
I posted this as a reply in another thread but thought it'd be worth discussing separately.
I read an article about ESPN's problems almost a year ago. By the end of last year Disney (ESPN's parent company) was one of the most shorted stocks on the NYSE. It is all due to ESPN dragging it down as the Disney business is doing very well. It is why ESPN nixed their new, big, expensive NYC studio and office project. It is also why they've been letting their expensive personalities walk. Cost cutting is severe and ongoing. The situation is basically this:
- ESPN has spent a lot of money on long term sporting event contracts. That includes dramatically overpaying for their NFL contract and several expensive college contracts. The strategy was to make ESPN indispensable to sports fans.
- ESPN has used this leverage to charge quite a lot for their channels. That's not just profit as the above has driven their expenses through the roof. The flagship station is the most expensive non-premium station on cable/dish. Collectively their stations are a disproportionately huge part of your cable/dish bill.
- In 2014 ESPN cost cable providers (not customers) $6.04/month. The median price of a station was 14¢. 2018 estimates are that ESPN will cost $8.37/month. http://blogs.wsj.com/numbers/how-much-cable-subscribers-pay-per-channel-1626/
- The expense is pretty reasonable if you love sports, but sucks if you don't. And most people don't. Many of those people - along with those who can't afford the ever growing cable bills - are cutting the cord.
- ESPN is retaining most of the people who love sports, but they've lost some of them along with a lot of casual viewers
- Fewer cable subscribers sends less direct revenue to ESPN and fewer viewers equates to less advertising revenue.
The cycle of revenue loss leading to cost cutting is continuing as more and more people cut the cord. But those expensive long-term contracts ESPN signed are still in place and they are dragging the network under. Soon there won't be much more to cut. ESPN is already becoming the network of "hot takes" because they've cut out so much of their more expensive good programming. As a sports lover I can say honestly that the only reason I haven't cut the cord is sports, but I really only care about games - college football and the NFL primarily. Something major is going to happen with ESPN and how sports programming reaches viewers in the coming few years. This could go a number of ways, but it has to change.
I'm sitting here wondering how this is affecting everyone else and how you are all reacting. Personally, if I could get NFL Sunday ticket a la carte I'd probably cut the cord. I might soon anyway. We pretty much just watch sports (80-90% football), FoodNetwork, HGTV, Comedy Central and regular network programming (ABC/NBC/CBS). We have Netflix and Prime and use those sometimes.
-
That's correct. I read an article about this almost a year ago. By the end of last year Disney (ESPN's parent company) was one of the most shorted stocks on the NYSE. It is all due to ESPN dragging it down as the Disney business is doing very well. It is why ESPN nixed their new, big, expensive NYC studio and office project. It is also why they've been letting their expensive personalities walk. Cost cutting is severe and ongoing. The situation is basically this:Yeah, I'm confused by this, too. As a TWC customer, I get all of the ESPN crap whether I want it, or not. I personally can't stand anything-ESPN and will only tune in when it's an NFL game or a Mets game that's not viewable elsewhere. But I'd assume that I'm still counted as a "subscriber," because I'm a TWC customer.
- ESPN has spent a lot of money on long term sporting event contracts. That includes dramatically overpaying for their NFL contract and several expensive college contracts. The strategy was to make ESPN indispensable to sports fans.
- ESPN has used this leverage to charge quite a lot for their channels. That's not just profit as the above has driven their expenses through the roof. The flagship station is the most expensive non-premium station on cable/dish. Collectively their stations are a disproportionately huge part of your cable/dish bill.
- The expense is pretty reasonable if you love sports, but sucks if you don't. And most people don't. Many of those people - along with those who can't afford the ever growing cable bills - are cutting the cord.
- ESPN is retaining most of the people who love sports, but they've lost some of them along with a lot of casual viewers
- Fewer cable subscribers sends less direct revenue to ESPN and fewer viewers equates to less advertising revenue.
The cycle of revenue loss leading to cost cutting is continuing as more and more people cut the cord. But those expensive long-term contracts ESPN signed are still in place and they are dragging the network under. Soon there won't be much more to cut. ESPN is already becoming the network of "hot takes" because they've cut out so much of their more expensive good programming. As a sports lover I can say honestly that the only reason I haven't cut the cord is sports, but I really only care about games - college football and the NFL primarily. Something major is going to happen with ESPN and how sports programming reaches viewers in the coming few years. This could go a number of ways, but it has to change.
-
I'm not so sure that's the case.
There are only 32 of these jobs, and they didn't have any trouble attracting candidates after Marrone left.
Add to that the idea that a new HC will have some talent to work with on both sides of the ball, and an owner willing to spend what it takes to bring in more talent, and it's likely a relatively attractive destination.
This. A coach has to think he has a reasonable opportunity to win.m Buffalo can offer a better opportunity than some other teams. There aren't a lot of HC openings on stocked teams that just went 12-4.
-
I am very surprised that Carolina didn't keep him under the tag - or at least have his agent look to negotiate a trade and contract with another team. Carolina did make a big mistake here. You can't lose a player like Norman and come away with nothing.
-
Josh Norman went through a very similar situation.
LMAO! Outstanding.
-
There was speculation, but nothing concrete on that. I would never have expected Schwartz to take the DC spot under Ryan - or any other defensive minded HC. That's why I specified a quality offensive minded HC. Seeing as how he took a job as DC under an offensive HC in Philly I think it's certainly probable he'd have stayed in Buffalo under Gase or Jackson.It was reported that Schwartz wanted the head coaching job or nothing. He wasn't going to serve under Rex,especially since their two philosophies are 180 degrees apart.
Also there were reports that the Bills were planning on retaining Schwartz, but that plan went out the window with the hire of Rex. An OC moving up to HC fits nicely with that.
-
That's doubly disturbing. First, they're still playing a Pro Bowl. Second, it's in Orlando.
-
in a perfect world? i'd have paid the farm to keep schwartz as DC if his defense succeeded another season. then gone after anyone i could find for offensive coordinator to become head coach. in a perfect world i would have got pederson, gase or jackson as head coach this year after forcing a coordinator change on offense last year and hopefully landing roman. such a change i would ensure that provided roman not fail, he would be retained with the new head coach likely brought in.
the hard part now is going to be keeping roman while ditchign rex next off season.
Retaining Schwartz as DC and adding a strong offensive mind as HC would have been the way to go. Jackson and Gase definitely would have been on that list. But not Pederson - that guy's a trainwreck.
-
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-36400365
Seriously. He's 96 and used it to save the life of a woman who lives in his retirement home. It was the first time he had ever used it to save a life.
"Staff had rushed to the table when the woman started choking, but stood back to allow Dr Heimlich to carry out his manoeuvre."
-
Whaley & Co. have been giving some very large guarantees in the larger contracts. Much larger than what is standard practice in the NFL. It seems to be their way of getting deals done. Buffalo hasn't been a primo market and they seem to be utilizing the larger guarantees in lieu of bigger overall contracts. It carries some significant risk, but it's not the worst strategy. It will be interesting to see how it works out.I think Cogs did give a bit of a discount, and i recall he had suitors.
Hughes came back into the fold at less then most of us expected. And Dareus might well have gotten more elsewhere. Just guessing on that though.
Players have done some nice renegotiating too.
I think there is buy in.
On the other side,
Glenn got paid and Dareus got paid, those guys are worth every penny. I think its a combination of elite players , very strong players and a strong contingent of believers who can execute the play. Plus the rooks and UDFAs fill the ranks with a strong mindset to grow into the starter
-
I fully understand your point but I never do this. It's embarrassing how people take pride in labeling players busts after a bad training camp practice.
And I find it embarrassing to watch people make s*** up out of thin air to try to make a point or seem superior to others.
-
Why? He's 35 and has made $62M in his 13 year career. He is either going to take a smaller deal on a strong contender or look for a big payday (relatively speaking). He'd certainly be a lot of help at a position of need, but I just don't see the Bills dropping 5 or 6 million on a one year deal for him.Agree. Michael Bolton likely will not. Anquan Boldin might.
-
This team is far from trustworthy, that is a fact. They lie, going back many years. They mislead the fans and spin the PR machine to sell tickets. This is a business, after all, a business too many of us are deeply invested in on an emotional level. If I could flip a switch tomorrow and not have my emotions tied to their success or lack thereof I would, trust me. This is not a fun team to be a fan of.
The tone of the media coverage since the Lawson injury reveal has really started to get to me, however. Did the team lie about his situation? probably, or they were just utterly misinformed by their scouts and medical staff, which is much worse. But that's not my point. The draft the Bills had is now being lambasted. The Lawson pick was a bad pick. He's a bust before he ever suits ups. The season is doomed, again.
Relax, please. He will most likely play for the greater part of the season. If he doesn't he'll be here four more years after. He will have every chance to be a pro bowl caliber end. He didn't retire, his injury is not career-ending. He is not a QB. Him being off the field will not define the Bill chances. Neither will Ragland's aorta. Neither will Sammy Watkins missing some of camp.
It's May, and the pessimism is thick. I get it, you can't not be a pessimist if you're a fan of this team. But the way the Buffalo News has been stoking that fire is pathetic. Let me have the summer to think "maybe." Let me save my Bills depression for December.
I've been critical of the Bills this offseason - and they've deserved it - but I agree that there has been some very unfair coverage. The Buffalo News has been off the charts unfair, just ridiculous stuff coming from them. The national media has been critical, but much more fair overall. They aren't treating the Bills any differently than they would most other teams. For example, Whaley's recent comments from any other GM would have been ripped the same. Some people here are very sensitive to any criticism too. It would help this board if everyone could differentiate between: "Shaq Lawson is an excellent prospect, but was an overdraft at 19 because of the labrum tear. The Bills should have drafted another player at 19." and "Shaq Lawson is a bust." A lot here read the former as the latter.
-
Pegula's management style is to hire people and let them do their job, until they prove they can't. That's what he's doing. It's also what he did with the Sabres.
Lol. Doesn't everyone who hires someone to run something keep them in that position until they think they can't do the job? Is there an NFL owner somewhere who likes to leave a GM or HC in place long after they lose confidence in them?
Yeah. Rex was disappointing for sure, but Bowles was awful. He was particularly terrible at game management.Todd Bowles the goat !! Lost to Hoyer and Tyrod twice.
Crown him
-
You have to give a coach longer then a year to determine if its the right coach for your team chan
I give you Mike Mularkey, head coach of the Tennessee Titans. That seems to be their opinion regarding retaining him this season. And they're wrong. Retaining him for a second season is a horrible decision.
-
I couldn't get through the article. There's only so much I can handle of someone telling me how great they are. I understand that some people have big egos and that some people like to talk a lot, but it seems to me that if you're so great then it'll be easy for most people to see. You won't need to talk about it yourself because everyone else will take care of that for you. If it's true.
-
Antonio Brown went undrafted. What is your point?
6th round pick
-
I just hope fans and the team have the patience to give them more than a year or three before demanding heads. This team has had a new coach every 2-3 years for this drought, it seems like, and its clearly not working. Lets give continuity a try, even if its painful for a while.
Yeah, but you need to have continuity with the right people or you'll just be continuously mediocre or poor. The Titians are opting for continuity with Mularkey. How do you think that is going to work for them?
I read a study about successful people awhile back. One of the main points it made was that they typically failed - and quit - a lot, much more than the average person. Two of their best traits were: 1) being able to identify ventures that were likely to fail early in the process so they didn't waste time and resources on them and 2) continuing to believe in themselves so they kept trying new ventures. Eventually something clicked and they made it big. In essence, they did the opposite of what is usually praised in this world. They almost never saw things through. Over and over again they quit, usually early in the process.
-
Thanks for the confirmation Barley about the witting and whatnot !
But of course!
-
as in, witted ?
Oh, so witted.
Did not know he was from Sardinia. Will take note of that for future threads.
And he's totally from Sardinia. Wasn't it obvious?
Prisco ranks Taylor 26 out of 32 starting QBs
in The Stadium Wall Archives
Posted · Edited by BarleyNY
Agreed. Dalton at 13 over Flacco at 15? Also ridiculous. Some other pretty bad errors too.