Drunken Pygmy Goat

I get the point you're making, but I still don't agree when it comes to Gore. I've watched him pretty closely his entire career. He played on some terrible SF teams early on, yet still produced. Having that longevity and consistency should be viewed as positive reason why he gets in, and not as an "in by default" reason IMO. He's also been one of the best blocking RBs in the league over the last 20 years, and has pretty good scrimmage yards numbers as well. Had he retired after his 10 years with SF, his numbers would be comparable to Thurman Thomas' 11 year career. Granted, TT had some great/elite years, but also some dud years. I've considered Gore to be HoF worthy for 3-4 years now, and I've always thought he was the most underrated player in the league for a long time. Continuing to play has solidified that HoF opinion for me. Fair enough.

Gore will be a 1st ballot easy

He also said he was kicked out of practice yesterday for bruising Josh Allen, and said it was just a matter of time. Someting similar in college as well. Gotta tone it down a bit against your own, but you have to love that kind of intensity from a rookie DT.

Hopefully he'll end up being this defense's "Josh Norman"

He was on wgr today and said the guys call him Frazier.

They led with a quote frim 2017, and followed with a more humbling quote from Tre on GMF after his 2nd season. I'd like to see how many balls were thrown his way last year. I'm sure he had more passes to defend in 2017, since teams were probably trying to pick on the rookie on the field. After a very good year, teams probably tried to avoid throwing in his direction as much last year, hence the lower numbers. Perhaps the difference in targets isn't that great, and the numbers would still reflect a "down" year in comparison, but the drop in INTs and PDs may exaggerate how much of a down year it really was.

I don't care about the premium channels, just my Choice package and internet. I'm curious to know what others are paying per month for a similar package w/ ST (after negotiating, of course). Been a customer for a little more than 2 years, so my contract is expired, but I'm not a long term customer, which I believe factors into their discount amounts. I'm not sure what to expect. Currently my DTV+internet bill is $130/mo. $50/mo internet credit right now, so only paying $10/mo for internet until September, then back up to $60. DTV credit expired after May bill, went from $60/mo to $120. So come September, I'm looking at $180/mo without ST, and I'm already being met with some resistance by my better half, so I want to work something out with AT&T to keep their services at a lower rate, AND with ST, but I don't want to be greedy either.

First, let me apologize in advance for any rambling or tangents on my part in this post or others of mine...bear with me. I don't believe that the team trajectory plays as much of a role as you do, but I do believe it is a factor, and have thought about that since Goodell and Mr. Mara initially started the Bills stadium talks 4 or 5 years ago. One reason being is that G4 loan money is partially repaid via PSL/SSL money as well as opposing teams' share of ticket sales (these are considered "private" funds btw). Granted, PSL values in general have decreased over the last 10 years, and, of course, each stadiums PSL values are pretty relative to the local economies; Pegula says a new stadium must cater to Buffalo, and if the team isn't doing well, it would be more difficult to charge more for a particular seat license. But that's no different than the current Bills model (although Bills ticket prices have increased over the last several years, they're still "cheap" in comparison to the rest of the league). I do get your point about tailgating and a downtown stadium, but the current model standard for NFL stadiums isn't just some grand palace to play football 8 times a year, but more specifically, a "year-round" destination for locals. With all the money that the Pegulas have invested downtown, plus the Sabres, it almost seems as if an NFL stadium model has already been in progress for several years now, and a new stadium would put a cap on that. The revenue stream for the Pegulas would be much greater there than in OP, unless a similar model is in the plans of a New Era Field retrofit, but that approach just wouldn't be as feasible. There aren't hundreds of people walking around NEF each and every day like there already are downtown. Perhaps a major retrofit would be the best solution for appeasing both the fans and the league, but it may not be the Pegulas preferred choice. I'm not a multi-billionaire or a NFL team owner, so we are all generally in the same boat and share the same point of view regarding stadium funding and public money. But, when discussing the matter, I try to provide whatever insight I can, although what I provide may be subjective to my own interpretations...I try not to give opinions on the stadium topic, but rather thinking points based on the facts, dynamics, and surrounding circumstances, regardless of whether or not I agree with them. I do have opinions to share, but they're laid out plain enough to know. In other words, I really don't have a horse in the race when discussing the "political" aspect of stadium talk. The fact of the matter is that having a NFL team based in your town is a luxury. Buffalo today is definitely not as lucrative of a NFL city as a larger, more populated city with more fortune 500 type businesses based there. But I do believe that tradition still does have a place in the NFL, and I do believe that the league wants the Bills to stay in WNY. Five or six years ago, talks of an NFL team or teams in L.A. really ramped up, and Buffalo was often talked about as a serious candidate to move there. But that was based on nothing more than the uncertainty of the team with an aging owner, an old, outdated stadium, and last but certainly not least, games already being played in a different building (in another country, at that). Really, though, there was nothing substantial to tie the Bills to L.A., but it sure did generate a lot of clicks. The 3 other teams that were considered candidates were the Rams, Raiders, and Chargers. Interesting how that all worked out...The landscape has changed dramatically since then. The Bills weren't sold to Trump or Bon Jovi, and have owners that are very much more committed to the area. Fear mongering Bills fans worked a lot better back then, even without having produced a consistent winning team yet. But keep in mind that the public is not funding a building that the Pegulas or the NFL will own in any way. The Pegulas will simply use the building and pay rent annually to Erie county (I believe there's a Stadium Authority in charge) or whatever main municipality is chosen, should it be a new stadium away from OP. I don't think your example of buying a house and having taxpayers pay the interest is a good one, but I get what you're saying. How many people in WNY have attended a convention at the Javits Center in Manhattan? Probably very few, but the state of NY is on the hook for $1 billion for the most recent renovation project... The proposal: contributing to an econmic boon to the state on NY by creating more space to the center, allowing for more people at conventions, resulting in more tax revenue via hotels, restaurants, etc. (more on that later). Teams like the Giants/Jets and the Rams can afford to fund a stadium with their own money, because the markets they're in consist of payback by rich fans with ridiculous PSLs. Buffalo cannot, and will need some public help if they want a professional football team. PSLs will definitely be a part of it, but you're probably talking about $500-$5,000 for PSLs in Buffalo, far less than other, newer stadiums. A tax model similar to the one the Colts used should be more than sufficient, especially if less public funding is involved in comparison to Lucas Oil, which was paid for with about 85% public money IIRC. I'm glad you brought this up. Each individual case is different, but I think there's a case to be made by both sides of that argument. Perhaps the pros and cons even out, making any real economic boost a wash, or minimal boost at best. But, the current NFL stadium model is much different than it was 20 years ago. Now, teams are planning the stadiums around grander plans than just 8 games of revenue per year. They're planning "mini-cities" around the stadiums, with shops, restaurants, hotels, bars, movie theatres, coffee shops, etc., many of which are large, national corporations that also helps create business partnerships and sponsorships with the team, all of which creates more jobs and more tax revenue than a simple "field and seats" stadium model from the 1970s did. As far as economic studies pertaining to stadiums goes, I know of them but haven't done the research to form a better opinion, so that may be my next task, but studies generally take many years to conduct. This briefly touches on the subject: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stadium_subsidy In the case of stadium subsidies, you're talking about roughly a minimum of 15 years before that money is paid off, and possibly several more years before you see significant net economical boost. If I had to guess, many or most of those studies (relative to NFL stadiums specifically) could be outdated, given the fact that the current stadium model is much different than it was when those studies were conducted. Perhaps I'm overthinking things here; just saying that not everything is black and white. Studies can also be conducted with an agenda in mind, just like analysts can twist stats to "prove" a point. But I'm certainly not discrediting the notion that politicians could be twisting things like economic boost when it comes to lobbying for state money... This sounds like you have a worry wort on your brain that's been there for years and you should think about having it removed... I don't think that day will ever come from Bills fans. We've had a general "woe is me" kind of metality for years now, yet our fandom hasn't wavered. There's a connection between the Bills and WNYers and natives that goes way beyond football, much like the Packers and their fans. But even if that level of "hopelessness" were to set in, I'm pretty sure that the NFL TV contracts money would provide enough to overcome any losses in ticket revenue, until the team can turn things around and produce a winner. And TBH, I think this team is in pretty good shape going forward, as far as producing a winning product goes. There's a level of competency here that has been lacking for 20+ years. I think your idea here is worrying about the absolute worst possible scenario playing out, even though it probably has about a 0.0001% chance of ever playing out (IMO). I think the beaten down Bills fan history is slowly being eradicated, because it was more of a reflection of how the franchise was being operated under the previous ownership. That was magnified during Ralph's final years, as the team was basically being run by Russ for several years. It was a bit of a limbo period, and we as fans just had to tough it out. Time will tell if this new group can change our mentaility on a large scale, but I'm fairly confident they will, based on how we've seen them operate and evolve in just a few years. It's hard to imagine them wanting to abandon what they've created, and what they seem to be trying to accomplish. I think the provisions that RWJ put into the stadium lease and sale of the Bills allowed for an alligning of the stars that none of us could have imagined at the time, and those stars are still in the process of alligning at this moment. Whatever level of worry that I had about the Bills potentially leaving WNY at the time, which was small but existent, has been fully eradicated at this point. The Florio cheese is too old and moldy for me... Recession is probably an inevitble part of the cycle, and I expect it as well, but to what level is unknown. It could be like 2008/2009, it could be worse, or not as bad. But, it's probably inevitable at some point in the near future. Again, TV contracts are so big and should be enough to help weather the storm.

I thought the loan was granted basically upon agreement, and the ammortized repayment of the loan begins the league year prior to the openening of new stadium. I may have done a ton of research, but my interpretation of what I've read could be inaccurate...my apologies. I'm no lawyer.

1) the league cannot force the issue. 2) Bills games are not filled 100% by Buffalonians/WNYers

I've spent many hours studying this general topic for several years now, and every time a media outlet or Goodell makes a statement regarding the Bills and their stadium situation, my opinion never changes, and this PFT article is no different. Stadium loan money is basically "skimmed" off the top of total league revenue. Then, the remaining money is split between the owners and the players. That does affect the players' cut, so the issue brought up by Florio isn't new. It cannot surpass 1.5% of total revenue, but that funding does not come from the owners' pockets. Granted, they also miss out on that money, but it's intended use benefits them because it requires less out of pocket for stadium funds, as well as requirement of a private-public funding agreement. Stadium improvements help increase revenue for the league, therefore the players do benefit to an extent, but they may not be completely content with the current stipluations. You can bet that DeMaurice Smith and the NFLPA will have a hard stance during negotiations, and will likely push to increase the percentage of shared revenue that they receive. Right now, it's 48.5%, based on variables, and not to be below 47% in any given year. If they push for, say, 49%, and that's the absolute lowest they'll go for a deal to be done, the owners may lobby for less stadium funding to be allowed in order to strike a deal and help alleviate that blow to the owners' side (this would probably be a "down to the wire, crunch time" type of instance, but that's typically how a deal gets done. Someone has to break somewhere). Then again, the amount allowed under the current G-4 program is more than it was under the original G-3 program. Stadium funds dried up quickly under the G-3, and league revenue has increased considerably since 1999 when it was enacted (and even increased roughly $5 billion since 2011 when the current CBA was negotiated). Perhaps the amount allowed under the new CBA will provide more NFL money for stadiums. The Bills are (obviously) prime candidates for a G-4 stadium credit, given their stadium situation, compared to the other 31 teams' situations, so the owners would prefer to allocate as little money as possible to the Bills, and getting something done during the current CBA would do that, especially if the next CBA allows, say, $250-300 million for new stadium projects (or $300-350 million for renovations). There are always agendas behind the scenes, and the NFL is no different... This is why I've been saying for years now, that the "pressure" being placed on the Bills by Goodell (who represents the owners, not himself, so to speak) is based strictly on two things: 1) The fact that new stadiums help to increase league revenue, and 2) the uncertainty of the existance, or the provisions of the NFL's Resolution G-4 program as it pertains to a new CBA in 2021. "Fear mongering" was brought up in this thread...there's probably at least some validity to that IMO, mainly because most fans aren't fully informed, and in fact, probably know very little about all the fine details. They know the basics, and what they're told. Most don't do the research for hours upon hours to get to the bottom of things, and trust media sources as their main source of information. Really, articles like this that seem to "target" the Bills are done with intent. All they need to do is congure up a scenario where the Bills could possibly leave WNY, and run with it, because most people don't do their homework... These media outlets know how easily triggered Bills fans are when something negative is said about their team. Nothing sells like controversy, real or perceived, and that's exactly what Florio did in this instance. We see it here on this forum all the time; the threads that consist of the most posts/pages are typically the ones that are the most controversial, as opppsed to the threads that are simply factual, and thats been going on for years. Same thing on the old BBMB, and you can guarantee that sites like PFT had figured that out years ago. They know how to generate clicks. And on that note, @Ronin posted a link to an article that literally piggy-backed off of the PFT article (PFT was the source referenced in the article) and regurgitated the same message. That doesn't make the stadium credit issue (as Florio describes) "real"...In today's media, things grow legs, but for the wrong reasons that you may believe. That site knows how to generate clicks as well, and since they're not a "reputable" (...) site like PFT, they have to alter their method. Piggy-backing is all too common, and when 20 second rate sites piggy-back off of the same original source, suddenly the topic is perceived as being legit or true...too many sheep these days, not enough wolves. When stadium talk arises, many WNYers instantly refer to the great tax burden that they'll inherit from Erie County if the Pegulas don't pay 100%, but that really isn't the case. Taxes are typically applied to things that don't exactly affect locals, like hotel and car rental taxes. Restaurant taxes may increase in surrounding communities, but is a $2 increase to your dinner really going to burn a hole in your wallet? The Bills are the only NFL team in the state, and the team pays a hefty amount in taxes to the state each year. They won't want the Bills to leave either. But, of course, they are going to try and spend as little as possible, so we'll hear and read the posturing from the state. The Bills are going nowhere, unless the Pegulas say so, or sell the team. The other owners, nor the players, can have any meaningful say in the matter. If the Pegulas decided take the Bills out of WNY, they would have to sell the Sabres first, since they cannot own a pro franchise in two different cities (league rule). They would also likely have to consider selling off all of the business entities that they've invested millions in around the downtown Buffalo area, since the community would probably boycott them. Any talk about the Bills and their stadium issue by the league is nothing more than posturing, and in articles (until meaningful facts are released by the Pegulas), click bait. It's a polarizing topic, especially for Bills fans. But in comparison to the Bills previous ownership, the Pegulas seem to be taking an opposite approach. They're making stadium statements that seem to cater to Bills fans (we'll see how that turns out when the report is released and an announcement is made). Mr. Wilson would use that fear mongering approach in order to get financial support.

One of my favorite sayings is "stats never lie, but they never tell the whole truth either"...it's pretty easy to point out an agenda driven statement or viewpoint, be it in sports, politics, etc., so long as you're aware and looking for them. This forum is proof. People do it all the time to make a point, and aware people call them out for it. Way to take a simple, rather well known sports phrase and turn it into a long, offseason filler article, Mr. Berry! ?

I see it as 2nd former **Patriot charged with murder. And he didn't get his gf an attorney. Looks like he's going to deny and place blame on her. I hate jumping to conclusions, and everyone is entitled to due process, but this looks pretty cut and dry. If he/she/they are to blame, I wish bad things upon them.

Beebe was on WGR this afternoon. May have been Tasker or Brownie. The Lett play came up. I'm sure Beebe was exaggerating a bit, but he said it's something people bring up every day and he still receives fan mail regarding that play. Mostly Bills fans, I'm sure, if not all.

By definition, Tyree is a legend. We all know his name, and instantly think of that miraculous catch in the Super Bowl. Well known...that's "legend". So to call Beebe a Bills legend isn't really all that crazy really. We all know who he is, and of course he's sononomous with the Lett play.

How many NFL head coaches would have put their job on the line by letting the QB call the plays? You're an egg head Why? Because the Bills offense was on the field for a whopping 19 minutes, due in large part to the defensive game plan of the Giants.

Yep, I've only been to 3 games, so I'm out... But I'll read through for a trip down memory lane. That Bills/Raiders game in '94 was actually a really good game.

Players predicting a championship is the kiss of death. Two Melvins predicting it, even better. Call it "getting Melvined" from now on. Never mess with Death!

A favorite line of mine is "Stats never lie, but they rarely tell the whole truth".

First, let me just say that there's nothing wrong with constructive criticism. I say that because you an SoTier are being called out as simply being negative Nancys, but personally I understand your thought processes. This time of year generally consists of two types of louder fans: the overly optimistic, and the overly pessimistic. There are several reasons for people to be classified as such, years of torment, for example, by our favorite team can lead to some people being more pessimistic than others, sometimes illogocally, sometimes rightfully so. BUT, too often, many of these fans are so far away from the fence that it makes conversating with them pointless. Their minds are made up, and if you challenge their thoughts and opinions, they instantly resoet to defense tactics and you're simply considered an idiot. That's why I hadn't posted here since the end of the season until recently (it's hard to stay away from the madness here ? for too long). As to your post, I don't have the time to properly respond to every detail right now. My post about the plan the FO has with this team may not be an ideal approach to everyone, but when planning an attack (plan), you have to first consider the state of the team and the roster at the time. To me, this was always going to be a "slow" build, quite different to what we saw with Whaley and some rather inflated contracts. Your preference for how the team should have been built may not necessarily be "wrong", but IMO, didn't quite reflect the state of the team at the time. That, and there's some hindsight involved there. I think most people were ok with Jones in the 2nd at the time, based on his track record (all-time NCAA reception record, single season NCAA recption record). Ju-ju may have been a better prospect (I didn't know enough about him or Jones at the time to have an honest opinion), and he may have had a better career than Jones so far, but there's variables to consider there that play into that hindsight. If Jones had Big Ben and Ju-ju had Tyrod, perhaps hindsight would give a different view. Same with Mahomes as Bills QB. Granted, its probably easier to say that Mahomes would have ended up being pretty good in Buffalo, but he wouldn't have had Hunt, Hill, Kelce as his weapons, no Reed as HC, so his performance last season as Bills QB would have paled in comparison to what he did in KC. I will say that I can appreciate your thought process, regardless of whether I agree or not. I like details behind reason, and not just a generic "here's what I think, and I'm right" post. But like I said, your posts seem to contain a good amount of hindsight and future telling. One thing is true, though: we all want this plan to work out. Also, I think you're selling Hughes short. He was a premiere pass rusher last season, just didn't collect the sacks as much. As far as pass rush productivity goes, I believe he was #1 or 2 in the league last year, and I believe Oliver will help Hughes collect more sacks as a penetrating and disruptive 3 tech, provided there's not a significant drop in Hughes' play. Murphy is finally healthy entering the season, so perhaps he'll play a bit better this year as well. Next year, I fully expect the Bills to address O-line and WR early and often in the draft. Free agency, for the most part, seems to be about improving while adding insurance to the roster, in the event that the draft chips don't fall ideally for the Bills. We shall see.

You speak as if you have looked into the future and you're awaiting an eventual tear down. Pegulas suck, McBeane sucks, Allen sucks, Oliver sucks (what are you even talking about with double teams? He beat plenty of them...), Zay sucks (2nd round pick btw, not a 1st), Beasley...Brown meh, Drew Lock is a stud! Should have just reached for need at O-line and WR regardless of who's on the board... Why does there have to be a "big hurrah" every year in free agency? The Bills just needed to get better, which I believe they have done. Sure, the Star deal was a bit of a head scratcher, but IMO he was brought in for his knowledge of the defense and because he fits the culture being built by McDermott. And he fit a need in this defense and actually had a pretty good year IMO. I get the idea that a lot of people have already come to the opposite conclusion as you, and have proclaimed all FA signings and draft picks as wins, and that Allen is God, but you seem to be at fault in the same manner, just in a pessimistic narrative instead of optimistic. A more accurate and true (not assumptions) depiction of this team wouldn't sound as negative as what you've provided. You used the Jets game to try and prove a point about Allen, yet your assessment of what you saw was flawed and biased going in, and it showed clearly in your dissection. Truth is, no one knows how this all plays out. You seem to think the Bills are doing all the wrong things and that it WILL NOT work out. On the other hand, there's a much larger contingency of people that seem to think the opposite and are at least excited to wait and see if things do come to fruition, and I'm not talking about the typical kool aide drinkers. I'm talking about people that use facts and truth to try and form an honest opinion. This staff has made some mistakes, and some moves that may or may not end up being mistakes, but raise an eyebrow at the time (trading away the Mahomes pick, for example). But a lot of these questions take years to answer. I'm content enough, based on how this team is being operated and forming into shape, to let it all play out. To each his own, I guess.

I'm of the belief that, if you don't find a QB, drafting well and signing top tier FAs (to typically inflated contracts, especially for Buffalo) is moot because many of those players will leave town as soon as their deals are up, because without a true, winning QB, the team will be losing more than winning, and turning over coaching staffs... That's spinning your wheels, and it's exactly what we've seem from the Bills for years. Finding a franchise QB is much more difficult than filling the roster via draft and FA. Having that QB also makes your team more attractive, which can have a positive effect on FA costs. To me the plan seems pretty clear. The Bills are going to build their core roster via the draft and get younger (with cheaper rookie contracts), fill spots in FA with mainly bargain type deals, hope their QB works out, then fill remaining skill positions to put them over the top (that is when I want and expect the Bills to pursue a big FA, it may be a bit cheaper comparatively speaking). All the while focusing on retaining their best players at the most important positions