mjd1001

You can pick on the play calling, but usually a play is a 'bad call' simply when it doesn't work. The problem today is the OL. With very few exceptions, they aren't blocking 4 rushers good enough on passing plays, and have created holes in the running game not often enough(especially on QB draws). These OL just are overmatched one-on-one against too many good D-units.

Agreed. Alone Bulldog is tolerable. Maybe more than that. Hes not exactly 'smooth' but he is interesting enough to listen to. Schopp is the opposite. He has a good radio voice. He is smooth, he has almost all the qualities you want in a talk show host except for the most important one. The problem is he is slightly annoying and just doesn't talk about sports. In a perfect world someone sits him down and says tells him to focus more on sports. less about his personal life. Get to sports right at the show starts. Many of us don't care about is 14 different fantasy teams. But WGR had years to tell him that and apparently they don't/wont. Their ratings may be good but they can be SO much better, as many of us get frustrated and just turn to sirius/XM channels or 590 out of Toronto instead.

I know there are SOME people who say they like the casual talk...I get that, but just how many? Don't they get that people, a LOT of people, actually turn off the station when they do that. As others have said, we are only a couple days from the HOME OPENER and you hear about what he likes in his personal life, him bragging about how many fantasy teams he is managing, etc. It is beyond annoying, it is bordering on embarrassing for a Buffalo sports talk station days before the Bills opener and a few weeks before Sabres camp opens.

I agree that is too much for him. The dollar number is hard to compare to other contracts because the cap changes...but you look at the percentage. $28 million with the Cap this year that means the 'average' of his year number will be over 15% of the cap. If it was for his brother during his peak years....or a player like Reggie White or Bruce Smith at their peak I can maybe see that.....but I just don't see Watt as worth that. Is he one of the best pass rushers in the league? Yes, but he gets 14-15 sacks per year...not 20....and in the few games I have seen him play, he isn't dominant against the run spending the entire game in the backfield disrupting running plays either. With no QB on he horizon for the Steelers in the near future they will have to pay out big dollars to, I guess this works.

That is what drives me crazy about their show, and especially him. I actually LIKE him when he talks sports. But I hate it when I turn on the radio at 3pm and have to wait 20 minutes for them to even mention sports some days.....and the fantasy sports/betting stuff, especially when it isn't talking about the topic in general but about how he does in his leagues? WHO CARES about your team!! I almost always end up listening to 590 out of Toronto or ESPN radio after giving WGR a shot with their 3pm show.

I really don't think that is much of a 'call', as with 17 games. He is averaging 52+ yard rushing per game played for the last 2 years. If he stays healthy and you just project that out...that gets you to almost 900 yards. Just ONE or two big runs across the entire season, or a slight injury to anyone else in the RB room gets him there (not to mention maybe a little less running by Allen.) I'm not saying it IS going to happen, but I'd put odds at close to 50-50, especially with the added game this year.

Again, it depends on if you are trying to build a 'franchise' or a team. If I want a QB that will be with my team for 20 years..then yes, Brady. But I can honestly say, 100% that if I want to put together a 5 year run of an elite team, I'm taking Manning over Brady. Give me both of them at their peak, and Manning at most times was just unstoppable. A 20 year Franchise...Brady. I'm on a 5 year contract as a head coach and 27 year old Peyton Manning is avaialable...I take his next 5 peak years over Brady every time.

This is tough because how do you define the 'greatest qb'? As far as Brady vs Manning for me....at their absolute peak of their career Manning to me was for sure better than Brady. Take longevity into it and it goes to Brady over Manning. And Kelly? I was happy the Bills had one of the top QB's, but even as a Bills fan I never though of him as even the best in the league during his time. Marino and Montana to me were better than Kelly for sure. As far as more recent QB's, Rodgers, Brady, Manning , Brees, Mahomes are all better than Kelly. That isn't saying Kelly was bad to me, I just think he is in a category a step down from the above....more grouped with guys like Favre, Rivers, Eli Manning, Rothlesberger, Elway, Russel Wilson and others.

Agreed. I wanted it downtown, but oh well. Once this thing is starting to get built, most people will get more excited about it. Just make sure its nice and it at least comes close to justifying its price tag.

The more I think about this, the more I am OK with not having it in downtown. When I think of other large football stadiums across the NFL, the majority are not in downtown areas. But with that said, if you are going to do it in Orchard Park, make sure you do it right. When you look at some of the other 'non-downtown' stadiums in the league, what are features they have that make them special? Is there anything different, or even the same you can do with a new Stadium in Orchard Park that will make it better than just a 'nice new stadium?" -The Fan Atrium in Greenbay (a much larger and better indoor version of the HSBC Atrium -Patriot place, the mini shopping mall/entertainment district built right beside Gillette Stadium in Foxboro -Could you move the Buffalo Sports hall of fame to the new stadium? Would you want to do that? -something like the 72 club in Miami....outdoor seating (not luxury boxes) but luxury box amenities like reclining seats, video screens for each seat..etc.? Anyone have any other ideas? I'd personally be more interested in things to do just OUTSIDE the stadium walls. Maybe have large public gathering areas inside the gates but outside the stadium walls where local bands can play before the game, or a mini version of the Superbowl fan experience can be had before the games in a public square type area. I'm not good at this type of thing, but if the stadium will be built in Orchard Park, what are some specific, but practical ideas anyone has they would like to see there?

I really don't get this argument, about the lack of tailgating or the gameday experience. its not like there couldn't be ANY parking. Lets say a downtown stadium had 60% less parking lot areas. That is still a LOT of parking. Would you be able to tailgate in one lot..then walk 1/3 of the way around the stadium and tailgate with friends in a different lot? and then walk another 1/3 around the stadium and tailgate with even different friends in ANOTHER 3rd huge lot? No. But if the new Downtown stadium had 2 or 3 major parking lots instead of 5 or 6 like in Orchard park....how does that make the 'tailgating' experience for any individual group worse? I haven't been to a game in years at the stadium, so I'm asking as an honest question.....if a downtown stadium was built and had less than half the parking but DID still have 1 or 2 large parking lots...how would that make tailgating worse? I just want to know from people who don't like the downtown idea.

I'm probably what you would consider an average fan now. Growing up as a kid through the late 80's and 90's I was a lot more than that. Season tickets for 10+ years since I was a teenager. Watched every game. Played as the Bills on all the video games. Took pride in knowing virtually the entire roster every year, knew where each Bills starter ranked among the league leaders in stats, etc. I had Bills hats, t-shirts, jerseys, a Buffalo Bills clock on my wall, posters, all of it. Now, I'm not there anymore, not even close. I follow the conversation on this message board and on Twitter (that is MOST of how I am a fan.) I watch most games, but not all of them. Haven't been to a game in person in years. Sometimes I start watching the game on Sunday, and after about a hour just start doing something else, checking in on it before it ends. Why? Not quite sure. I'm like that with all sports now (especially baseball). I think a large part of it is...when actually watching the game I don't see much new anymore. I have seen countless comebacks, countless 50+ yard TD runs with broken tackles, countless game clinching interceptions. Countless 50+ yard TD throws/catches. Not much is new anymore. When I was younger, my first 10+ years of watching football (200+ NFL games total) I was always looking for something I never saw. I don't really see much that I haven't seen before anymore, so I guess I'm just not that interested. I actually find the conversation on forums and the offseason more enjoyable than watching the actual games.

I'm not here to 'take things up' with anyone and start heated discussions/arguments. My point is simply that very few stadiums generate that kind of money for the community, even in larger areas than Buffalo. There are countless articles written years after new stadiums have been build that look at those revenue 'projections' and study after study show they fall well short of giving the economic impact to the community that they were promised.

for the intents of this discussion, I am not differentiating between them. To me a stadium is either funded by the team, or it is not. By publicly or tax funded I am viewing that as anything not funded by the team.

How would it generate 900m over 20 years.....net 900m that is after expenses and maintenance (and interest cost) that the taxpayer would have to put in? Not being sarcastic, but i'm wondering where that figure comes from.

So my original point stands...if you are going to build it in Orchard park, then the taxpayer cost better be pretty low ($500 million or less). does that sound unreasonable? Maybe, but if you are not going to bring much new other than a replacement in the same location, then there really isn't much benefit for the public at large to build something that cost that much. The taxpayers won't get their money back with it downtown, but if you are asking for any public money, at least you are giving SOMETHING back to the city...by keeping it in OP, you aren't giving as much back (esp if it will be used pretty much for Bills games only). Other than for the 70,000 poeple who attend the games, what will a new stadium down there bring to the rest of the community?

To me if you are going to spend $1billion plus, it needs to be downtown. Asking the taxpayers for that much money, and you have to at least TRY to justify more use than just 10 bills games per year. Will you get your money back no matter what? probably not, but you can make a case for greater use downtown than you can tucking it away in Orchard park. But if you REALLY want to keep it in Orchard park, the cost has to be a lot lower. Down there you don't need a 'modern' palace. You want it there, then it will be enjoyed by the same people who go to the game now. It can be brand new, but you don't need much/many of the modern ammenities. We could go round and round on this topic and everyone has their own point of view, but for me it is simple...if it is staying in Orchard park, the taxpayer portion of the bill better be pretty small. You want a LOT of taxpayer money? The the project better be downtown.

I think Pats fans are still in the area where they think their team can do little wrong and any bad season is just a blip. Kinda like Yankee fans were in the early 2000s or even Bills fans were in the middle 1990s. The friends from there (and co-workers, we have an office in Foxboro), really REALLY think last year was a result of covid and the pats deciding to reload. Many of them think it is a given they are going to be 12-4 or 13-3 this year...that they drafted the right guy at QB and that they will be playing in the superbowl 5 times in the next decade. Seriously, a lot of them actually THINK that there is just something different about the Patriots that no matter what, they are and will be the best franchise forever.

I have a few Pats fans still as friends (I lived quite a few years near Boston) and already got 2 text from them....they are trying to justify among themselves how this is a terrible deal for the Bills, that they overpaid for a QB that will be the 2nd or 3rd best in the division 2 years from now..etc, etc.

Not exactly. Personally I am fine with it, because I think he isn't the highest paid guy in the league, and he is likely to be passed by a few more guys by the time the deal is done, and I like him as a QB. However, I can see people out there thinking "he did it only for one year" or " there is a chance this could be a Wentz/Goff type situation" and I still here a few people (not many, but a few) thinking his success is a result of a perfect storm of the right coach and right surrounding cast. I just thought a poll would be good to see where everyone lands on there, some people may not think it is a good deal and don't want to make a direct post about it because they don't want to be attacked by the vast majority of us who do think it is a good deal.

This thread might not go anywhere, but in light of most of people I have talked to loving the deal, does anyone not like it? Either when they heard about the deal it just didn't seem right? Or maybe they think it is a bad deall all around for the Bills? I'm just curious as to the actual percentage of fans that may not be on board with it, because since yesterday, it seems to me like 95% + love it. I know we have a huge thread on this, but I was hoping to see the results of a poll, a 'quick look' at responses as an alternative to spending hours reading through the tread and mentally tallying the opinion.

You just don't get it. It DOESN'T matter that is or isn't true if it is out there. Blame someone for leaking it. Blame the media for reporting a false rumor or a true fact. It doesn't matter. It IS OUT THERE, so it is a discussion point...people want to talk about it. Because you personally KNOW (somehow) that it isn't true doesn't just mean you should be the authority on this thread being closed down because you know so much that no-one else does.

Yeah, even though something is a big story, and something a A LOT of people want to talk about and give their opinion about....lets ask the mods to end the thread because someone doesn't want it to continue. THAT is what message forums are all about. lol

I'm not saying anything you bring up is false, but the fact this news is out there is already a PR disaster for the Bills. You don't bring up relocating the team as a possibility in any way if it can even have a slight chance of going public this early in negotiations.....in light of all that is going on with the Sabres and the Bills just turning the corner after a couple of bad decades.

I'm just not a big fan of the Pegulas as owners. It seems like they are sucking the fun out of being a sports fan for me in Buffalo. Sure, they are a big reason the team was kept here but: -To me the mess the Sabres are in is on them. I think we are looking at at least 2 more years without the playoffs for the Sabres (at least). That will have them as owners of the team for a full 12 years, and 12 straight years of no playoffs (they made it the tail end of the season they bought the Sabres.) Before Kim and Terry? The team never went more than THREE years in a row without making the playoffs. -The Bills. You just DON'T make that kind of threat, or even bring it up casually, in a way where it can go public (leak or not) in the opening rounds of stadium Negotiations. It might not matter to them, but this city is starving for something good in sports. The bills were bad for SO LONG, and we are coming off the pandemic so with the exception of a very small number of people, it has been HOW long since there was even a home playoff game? And with what is going on with you and the Sabres in this town, you just don't let the threat, or even the THOUGHT of moving get out right now.