mjd1001

As is the thinking in all of our society. There is minimal critical thinking. Watch your news network of choice, follow who you want on social media. Argue with people on message boards. People no longer read opinions, THINK about them, and then develop or alter their thinking. Now it is a matter of finding a source of information that you WANT to believe, have it presented to you in a way that you want to hear, and then take it as truth. Going to message boards is the same, it is no longer about hearing other points of view that might be different than yours so you can think about them. It is developing your own opinion, and looking for people to agree with you and preparing for battle with people who don't agree with you. I was always thought the best way to learn about things is to take in as much information as possible, engage with people who don't agree with you with an open mind (basically asking them to explain to you why they think they way they do) and then developing your own theory. Then, you try to disprove that thought, break it down to is smallest parts, and if you cannot do that, then and only then have you 'validated' your line of thinking. When I come up with what I believe, I WANT to hear other opinions that are different. I WANT to hear people give me a WELL THOUGHT OUT counter point for me to consider, maybe they thought of something I didn't think of, and I want to hear that. But in todays world, its all about 'being right' or just getting spoon fed what you want to hear like a baby eating baby food.

It all matters, like you said, how well he develops as a passer. He might be a good passer, he might not. As far as his running, yes, he is dangerous. Just remember, a flashy, exciting to watch 20 yard QB scramble is just as valuable as a simple 15 yard crossing patter completion where they WR falls forward to get 20 yards. Sure, a mobile QB has to be accounted for which may open up things downfield, but he has to make those completions.

If they want to try to build something 1.5 miles away from the stadium, with private money or "orchard park" money go ahead, I don't think a new stadium is going to help whatever they do all that much. The attraction will the the stadium. The things that might/will succeed will probably not be private businesses outside of the Bills, but rather anything/everything that the Bills can do right on that plot of land. Bills Hall of fame, Restaurant ON site, as other have said stadium tours, etc. Its a fallacy that sounds good...that development can happen outside of a football stadium that gets used 10-15 times per year. A few years ago I talked to a small business owner up in Lewiston about how business was on Tuesday nights when Artpark used to have their free concerts in the summer. 5,000, 10,000, sometimes more than that would show up and many would have to park in the village or beyond it to get to Artpark. He told me it was awful, probably his worst night of the week. Why? The locals didn't want to come to the village shopping and deal with traffic, and the people attending the 'event' would walk right by because they wanted to get to the concert. Once they were in Artpark, they ate and drank there, but then once the concert was done, their goal again was not to go shopping or go out to eat, but rather to get to their cars and get out of traffic and get home. Any thing you can build 'on site' will do fine. Development even across the street from the stadium will be 'iffy'. Development more than 1/2 mile away that you think will be supported by fans...pipe dream.

Ultimately I agree with you. Private development and restaurants/hotel might do well during events, but will struggle year round. Put a Bills Hall of fame there (the one at Lambeau is really nice), the larger stadium store, and stadium tours would be a hit for years after the new stadium was opened. Creative ideas would be welcome, but year-round, non-gameday development is a tough sell. Think of things that would be cost effective and popular DURING game weekends.

Boston isn't a city that is known to get stuff done quickly, but it is startling to see how fast they developed that area, compared to what is happening at Canalside, when planning and development started about the same time (within a few years) The seaport district 15-20 years ago was not a place you wanted to be. Abandoned warehouses and empty parking lots. Yet today, it is filled with glass skyscrapers 20-30 stories tall (or more) for business hotels and apartments, high end restaurants, outdoor plazas, nightlife, rooftop bars overlooking the downtown skyline, the Childrens museum, new subway stations and more. Its a place that families can walk around feeling safe at night. It hasn't taken away from Downtown boston, instead it is like a whole mini-city that was built attached to it. Now, I'm not comparing the money available in Boston to Buffalo, but still, that one district of the city is brand new and it probably has multiple times more development in it than all of Western NY combined and it has turned into a really, really great place. Whoever is in charge of Canalside should look at how things were approved and done there.

Even near Boston with the money and population around there it is an iffy proposition. I lived in that area in the past, my work office is about 10 minutes from Patriot Place, and when we vacation or visit friends in the area we stop by on occasion. Not on gameday, but on an average typical weekday, its open but it isn't that busy. Over the years, a lot of shops have come and gone. Unless you live right near it, the shine has kinda worn off of it over the years. If you want nightlife, entertainment, or even a fun meal out, The Seaport District in Boston seems to be the new 'in' place to be. I'm sure its great on gamedays or when events are going on, but I'd say 60% or more of time its pretty dead. And that is in the Suburbs of Boston (not to mention Providence RI being less than an hour away also.). I agree something that size wouldn't do well in OP.

A small museum dedicated to Bills history, a nicer, expanded Bills store. A cafe/restaurant/eatery open not just during games, and one or two other things (maybe a small, nice hotel) is something they can do. Patriot Place I don't think can be replicated in OP, not enough demand for it. But something closer to GB could be done, just DO NOT make it 1.5 miles from the stadium. Anything they do, no matter how big or small needs to be done right near the stadium.

Not sure if this was posted yet or not, haven't seen it: full article: https://www.wgrz.com/article/sports/nfl/future-of-the-bills/economic-development-ideas-new-buffalo-bills-stadium-site/71-6bf9dc8b-f307-4e56-abc8-0bebb1a86d17 Lorentz envisions both the Patriot Place retail, office, services mix concept as we've shown you before surrounding Gillette Stadium in the much larger Boston market. But actually, the Titletown development built around Lambeau Field in Green Bay may be closer to the mark. He is already in touch with their planners. Lorentz also has an idea for a location, but it's not right around the stadium. Lorentz suggests land right across from the existing Quaker Crossing retail complex on Milestrip Road. "Build across the street from there," Lorentz said. "Build a beautiful hotel, a museum, everything else, and you're within walking distance to the stadium, or we can shuttle people to the stadium from there." Personally, that last part I don't like. Building something "Bills related" that is over a mile away from the stadium to shuttle fans back and forth seems more like someone trying to get a land development deal done than building something for the fans. 'Walking distance' to the stadium is not 1.5 miles away, if you can't figure out something that is within sight of the new stadium, then that distance is too far.

I wanted a Dome. I wanted downtown. We got neither but I'm pretty sure I will really like and be happy with the stadium when it is done. Except for the cost.

The thing I don't get about Watson is....the NFL could just ban him from the league, suspend him long term....just like they could have done with a few other players in the past...and it would have a minimal impact on the game or their revenues. If Watson wasn't in the NFL at all, how many people would stop watching? Very few. Its not even like they need or 'want' any story (good or bad) to keep the league in the news. it pretty much is already in the news most of the time. Personally, I'll root against him and that team now. And if Cleveland happens to go to the playoffs and they are winning big, I'll just turn the game off because I don't/won't want to watch him succeed. I'm guessing there are others that feel in a similar way.

Agreed. Is he, or has he progressed into an 'average' QB? I think that is possible/likely. And as an average QB, you surround him with great players and he can statistically have a very good year. Play pitch-and-catch with great playmakers and you will win some games and put up numbers. However, if you DO make the playoffs and need to win some games against QB's that are better than you on teams that are as good as you or better than you...good luck.

Don't you think you should see how he actually does in the role before you make him your 'lead analyst'? I guess they want to throw money at him and get him to sign up, but just how much impact does signing these guys to top dollar have for the networks? I can't imagine a LOT more or LESS people are going to watch a game based on who is, or isn't doing the broadcast?

I don't know how much money/term he wants, but if it is high I'm good with letting him walk. Is he a good player? A good leader? Yes to both. But when you are a team now competing for Super Bowls with a top tier QB, I really think you have to identify the 6-8 core pieces and just fill in around them. To me he is just outside that important 'core' group you pay big $$ too, especially at his age. When you are up against the cap, there will be tough choices to be made EVERY year going forward. I don't think giving a 30+ year old safety top dollar would be a good choice.

You are speaking from such a narrow point of view. Its almost funny how you are exasperated by my comment because you only see things through the point of view of an ardent Bills fan. I would bet the majority of the people living in the area are either not Bills fans or are casual fans.... a lot more than are hardcore fans. You just don't see it, you don't want to see it from the point of view of those people, or you aren't capable of. Everything I mentioned above does/would apply to those non-fans or casual fans (you know the ones who won't watch the Bills on TV or only watch them when they are competitive/winning.)

Other cities without the NFL would include places like....Austin, Tucson, Louisville, Orlando, Raleigh-Durham....Any Canadian City including Montreal, Toronto, Vancouver......not saying I don't want the Bills but just saying. Without an NFL team life goes on, and often times the money spent on those teams get re-allocated other places and generates other entertainment options. Again, I do not want the Bills to leave Buffalo at all, but I have to admit I have thought of what it would be like in WNY without the Bills and what may pop up in the void they leave for people to do with their entertainment dollar/time.

I'm not saying the Packers had any other choice, but I have a hard time seeing them as a Superbowl Champion going forward: -He got paid a lot before, but now with this new deal the Packers will have even less money to fill around him. Highest paid QB in the league means they have even les s money to improve other positions than anyone else, of course including KC, Buffalo. -As great as he was/is, in all the time he was a starter, in his last couple MVP seasons, they only one one Superbowl and failed in the playoffs not even reaching it most of the time. -Hes not getting younger. Will he hit a brick wall because of his age? probably not, but a contract like that you give to someone who is at their peak, or maybe still leading up to it. The best of Rodgers (at least physically) is no longer yet to come during this deal. He will likely still be great (at least for a year or two), he may very well be an MVP candidate, but this doesn't make me worry about the Packers as being a dominant team to beat.

I'm repeating what a lot of others have said, but the quality of the television broadcast is a big deal. If your team is really really good, you are going to sell out no matter what...not because your fans are great, but people really want to be part of a crowd, a positive party atmosphere, for some to say 'I was there' when something good happens to your team. No problem with that. But when you do have empty seats, it doesn't mean you have bad fans. It just means that there are a lot of people who USED to go to games in the past that now, they are perfectly happy paying a lot less, to sit at home, comfortable living room, any food they want to cook at reasonable prices...etc. That doesn't make them any less of a fan. In fact, I have a friend that played HS football, got into coaching, loves football, loves the Bills, never misses a game yet he won't go to one. Why? He says he could always look at the all-22 later in the week, but for the gameday experience he can see a lot more overall by being at home watching the game on TV and having access to his laptop or tablet to look up things while the game is going on. Its not just about your team, its not just about how 'good your fans are', it is about different people enjoying the gameday experience in different ways.

If the Bills are the #1 or maybe the #2 most important form of entertainment in ones life, it is a bargain. However, if you LIKE going to the Bills games, but you won't give up theater, movies, traveling a few times a year, other sports...etc.....then you have to make a decision how to allocate your money and $1000 a ticket might be better spent elsewhere while watching the games at home/bars/friends house. Personally for myself...The cost of the ticket, parking, concessions, the time it takes to spend a day at the stadium, it all adds up to quite a bit so for myself I'm much happier watching games at home. That is just me though. For others, the gameday experience is better than anything else they could do with their money so for them it is a no-brainer to go to the games. Its different for everyone, there is no right or wrong answer. Deciding whether it is worth it or not is like taking 2 people and trying to come up with what is the best food in the world, the answer is different for each person because each person is different.

I'd entertain the thought of Allen being the best sometime this year, but I need to see something first.... For him to have a more consistent year. Mahomes had a couple games this year that were 'average', but leading up to this year, how many games did he play where he wan't good to great? Hardly any. Allen needs to do that. Allen at his very best is just as good as Mahomes at his very best....just as good as pretty much anyone at their best. The issue keeping Allen from being 'the best' is my mind is...he isn't at 'his best' as often as some of the other top guys. He's getting there, but I want to see that MVP season where he doesn't have any 'below average' games.

For a lot of us we aren't 'done with football' because of one or two specific events. Remember this topic isn't who is 'done with football" it is who is 'losing interest'. there is a HUGE difference between 'losing interest' but still having some level of it..and being 'done with something'. I'm not quite sure why you are bringing up the 'done with football' when that isn't what this topic is about.

I am losing interest in pretty much all sports. I haven't "lost" it, but am losing it slowly. -I watch less and less of the games. I more 'follow' what is going on through reading articles and fan discussions like this. 15 years ago I would not have missed one second of any game, today though, if something better comes up I can even miss a Bills game and watch it later or just read about it. -The main reason? I'm not 100% sure, but a lot of it has to do with when I do watch a game, I don't see much that I haven't seen before. A run where a back makes people miss 3-4 tackles? Seen it. A come from behind victory? seen it. A 50+ yard game winning field goal? Seen it many times. One handed catches, strip sacks, pick sixes at critical times? Sure those are all exciting in the course of a game, but I have seen so many they aren't really new. -The process of watching the game. We all know this but kickoff or punt..commercials...change of possession...commercials...etc, etc. I read a study before that someone did that in an average NFL tame that you watch for 3-3.5 hours, there is about 10-12 minutes of actual action on the field. Take out the 'boring' plays (incomplete passes, runs for less than 2 yards, punts that are fair caught) and you are down to about 6-7 minutes. I can spend 1.5-2 hours watching a movie..that was scripted and its whole purpose was to be enjoyable and get a lot more entertainment out of it. -Finally, the end game. What do we all want? Our team to win (the Bills). But I'm tired going through everything that goes with that, investing time and money and watching every Sunday..to get to something that has never happened yet..and something that has a 1/32nd chance of happening....or even in the absolute best of years with the best Bills team...maybe 1 in 5 or 1 in 6? I do not see myself leaving this forum (or the Sabres forum), or getting to the point where I skip watching every single game. I am still a fan, but I'm probably 25% of the fan now that I used to be. On the other hand, I thought I would never give up baseball...when I was a kid or in my 20's I'd watch 150 of 162 games of the Yankees or Blue Jays...and I even remember in middle school I would supposed to be in bed and sneak a tiny AM radio under my covers to listen to the late night west coast games. But now, I haven't even watched a full 9 inning game in probably close to 10 years...so who knows.

I think that is a good way to look at it. To the causal/semi-casual football fan, this will be the game that in 5-10 years from now they don't remember much about. It is also likely to be the game that...when you challenge your friends to tell you the last 10 superbowl winners, this is the one in the future that is the least memorable and most likely to be forgotten.

The game was ok/good/competitive, but this was the least invested in any superbowl I could remember. I just didn't feel any excitement in it. Even at the end, I was like "Ok, there might be a game winning score here...or can the hold them?", but it was more like those thoughts were going 'through the motions' in my head instead of meaning anything. The Rams won, they are the champions...but deep down I don't feel they were even the best team in the NFC or the Bengals were the best team in the AFC. Again, the game was OK, but I personally didn't feel any drama...nothing invested. I don't know, kinda just an 'ok' but somewhat 'empty' feeling in this game because it just didn't matter to me in any way.

Not sure if this was posted from NESN out of Boston.... https://nesn.com/2022/02/mac-jones-became-afc-hero-nfl-pro-bowl-skills-showdown/ Mac Jones Became AFC Hero At NFL Pro Bowl Skills Showdown But the 23-year-old redeemed himself in Thread The Needle. After Minnesota Vikings quarterback Kirk Cousins scored 11 points for the NFC, Jones overcame a tough start to score 12 points for the AFC and lead them to victory. In the end, he was responsible for the AFC’s only victory. Those Boston Media guys/writers, they are reaching SO HARD to make him look like he is one of the best QBs in the league.

Stud DL if you can get one (if all you can get are average-to-above average guys then I pass, we have those already) CB OL Thats it, I'm happy with everything else at the moment.