BarleyNY

Dammit. Was hoping Costco was moving forward with their Buffalo store. WTF is taking that so long?

Agreed. Dalton at 13 over Flacco at 15? Also ridiculous. Some other pretty bad errors too.

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.

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: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2014-08-27/why-espn-pays-four-times-more-for-nfl-games-than-nbc-cbs-and-fox http://www.forbes.com/sites/sportsmoney/2011/12/17/billions-of-dollars-through-tv-deals-coupled-with-cba-means-huge-windfall-for-nfl-players/#c34f1a0224d7 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. 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.

Exactly! And don't forget Women's Beach Volleyball!

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: - 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.

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.

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. 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

6th round pick

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.

But of course!