mjd1001

No he isn't. They got beat. If anything the offensive line is 'soft'. They tend to get pushed around physically. Their bad play leads to the lack of a running game, which leads to obvious passing situations, which leads to a pass rush they already can't handle getting worse for the QB to deal with. The coach is not soft. If anything he may be tougher than you think because he knows this is a long season, because he CAN control his emotions, because he has the discipline to think of the long term plan for the season and not abandon it at the first 1/2 of game that doesn't go his way.

With regard to all your comments about the offense, maybe they are true, maybe they are true and don't really matter. I am of the belief that none of those things matter IF the offensive line played better. If this Bills offense gets slightly above average protection from the line (either because they play great or they are playing against a bad defense), then this offense hums. Bad playcalling, too much or not enough running...none of it matters. The problem is this offensive line is NOT good, and this group hasn't been good for over a year. Allen can beat pressure. Allen can beat a D-unit that drops into heavy coverage. What he can't do on a regular basis is beat a Defense that does both. If they only rush 3 or 4 and get pressure on him, he isn't going to beat you downfield when he has the pocket collapse on him AND there is 7 in zone coverage. The offensive line isn't good enough to win ALL the time.

Unless he can block 300+ lb defensive tackles very well...nope

No. The OL isn't good enough. The Steelers were playing 100% looking for pass. If the bills even gave the ball to Singletary 10 more times, the Steelers D-unit would have played even more balanced, and Singletary would have gotten under 4 yards per carry.

This OL is just not good. Average starters at best. All last year they proved they couldn't open holes for RBs on consistent basis, and their pass blocking is decent, but they can be pushed into the backfield against a very good DL. They are not the worst unit in the league, but for sure they are a weak spot on this team, just like there were last year for anyone who really paid attention to their play. It is a position the coaching staff will have to work around.

Ok, its a LONG season and you weren't going to win them all. With that said..just how big as next weeks game going to be now? Go to Miami in a 90 degree day and come out with a loss......well 0-2 with 2 conference losses so early would be time to hit the panic button. But a convincing win next week makes things a lot better.

They are just 'smart' and 'experienced' enough to not allow many unblocked guys in...but they certainly are bad enough in terms of talent to keep an above average DL from collapsing the pocket on a regular basis with 4 rushers. Blame play calling if you want, but the overall play and talent of this OL may be second on the list of problems in this game.

Every single play the OL is getting pushed back yards off the LOS. They just aren't that good.

I just saw the bills blitz 2 and Ben had more time than Allen is getting almost every play when the steelers send 4.

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?