Jump to content

Rochesterfan

Community Member
  • Posts

    4,591
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Profile Fields

  • Location
    Enjoy the JA experience 🏆

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

Rochesterfan's Achievements

Veteran

Veteran (6/8)

3.9k

Reputation

  1. Yeah - no kidding, but you stated that he had won 2 SB with Ben and that was incorrect. He did not win 2. So the first point was to correct the stuff you got wrong. If you had gotten your facts correct - I wouldn’t have had to even post, but you could not even count to 1 correctly. Of course every Bills fan wants a SB, but what defines a great HC. What makes Tomlin great and McDermott a flop - because as I look at the 2 they are very similar overall. McDermott has won a higher % of regular season games by a small margin 0.644 to 0.633 for their careers. McDermott has won at a better clip in the playoffs for their career - 0.455 to 0.440. Tomlin is praised as a defense coach who has won with both Offense and Defense in an Offensive heavy NFL yet the Bills are consistently top 5 in the NFL in both Offense (points and yards) and Defense (points and yards) - so obviously McDermott is also balanced. The difference is the 1 SB that Tomlin won in 2008 with a team that Bill Cower had won a SB with only a few years before - and that is a huge difference, but it is not like he has repeated that success since. In fact it has been 7 years - this will be year 8 - since he has even won a playoff game. Even legendary coaches like Andy Reid - now considered one of the best of all time - was on par with McDermott in his coaching stint in Philadelphia. McDermott has a better regular season win % than Reid in Philly (0.640 to 0.583). Reid had a slightly better win % in the playoffs (0.526 to 0.455). Neither had won a SB during that stint. Reid then goes to KC and wins at about the same clip as McDermott for his first 5 years and goes 1 - 4 in the playoffs so less of a post season win % than McDermott. Finally in his 7th year in KC and 21st year coaching overall he wins a SB and suddenly that propels them to a couple of more. So yes we want a SB win and yes we want a coach to lead us there, but if it was easy to do - Tomlin in 17 years would have more than 1 and it would not have taken Reid 21 years to figure it out. It takes great coaching, great players, lots of luck, lots of health, lots of depth, and sometimes it takes a bit of fate having someone knock out a team that beats you - like when both KC and Pittsburgh won - neither had to go through NE who had knocked them out during other playoff runs.
  2. 1st Tomlin has only 1 SB win not 2. 2nd Tomlin won in a year NE got beat by someone else. It would be no different than if Miami had knocked KC out - it opens up a path that was unavailable prior. 3rd - Yes the Bills are just as good as Pittsburgh - which is why the Bills have 1 of the 2 best records in the entire NFL over the McDermott/Josh time and the best point differential. McDermott is every bit as good as Tomlin over the last little bit. Mike Tomlin is a superb coach that in 17 years has won 1 SB and has an overall 8-10 record in the playoffs. He won the SB in a year the dynasty team was knocked out by another team and they had a bye as a #2 seed to rest - both advantages/luxuries the Bills have not had. Sean McDermott in 7 years has a better career regular season record (.640 to .633) and a better career playoff win % (.455 to .440) and has not benefited from the #2 team getting a bye as Tomlin did and has not had their arch nemesis knocked out early yet. I think Pittsburgh was smart to stick with Tomlin just as the Bills are smart to stick with McDermott. As long as the Josh and the players support McDermott and play and win for him - the Bills are in a great situation.
  3. Did you - really - because I went through the Von Miller signing thread and you were conspicuously absent in your dissent - 63 pages and your name did not show up in review or search. There was a lot of complaints by a couple of known trolls that seem to no longer post. So that brings me to the conclusion of either: 1) You decided to complain elsewhere and did not want to do it on this board (or are hindsight complaining). or 2) You used to post more frequently under a different name/avatar and now are trying to reconcile the change. I am sorry if you can provide some proof, but I did not see it any of the Von threads and it would really track if you had a alternate name that that was complaining.
  4. I think it shows what a Sabres atmosphere could be like if they were good again. It used to rock like that when the Sabres went to the finals - the lack of any kind of winning has killed the vibe. Bandits games are amazing. Being in Rochester - I enjoy the Knighthawks, but love the Bandits. I am so thrilled for Banditland. Congrats Buffalo 🦬!!! That was amazing - I rewound that play like 10 times during the broadcast - just unbelievable.
  5. The KC trade - they got pick 95 for their later 4th round pick.
  6. After the trades - they have 2 2nds, a 3rd, and a 4th - plus a bunch of 5ths - 7ths.
  7. The idea seems fine, but who is SF so enamored with that they have to move up 3 spots and give us another top 100 pick? I would assume based upon the team and the draft that they would be moving up for a WR - so I am not sure that works in our favor. I also am not sure that Atl would really want to drop back 50+ picks for a 3rd next year when they have a veteran QB they acquired and are not in build mode, but in win now mode. My guess is that if we move back from 28 - you are acquiring a 2nd round pick from a team wanting a QB with a 5th year option and that would most likely mean dropping back a bit and watching several teams pick up the higher ranking WRs. We will see - I am not going to hold my breath that the Bills get 4 top 100 picks. I am much more inclined to believe the Bills will move up slightly from 28 to get a WR and move up slightly from 60 to get their player there and then use some additional picks to get a third rounder as their top 3 picks.
  8. And for people complaining about how much NYS covered at 1.4 billion it was 60%, but current costs show it to be running close to 1.7 Billion or a nice 50/50 mix. The final cost is going to end up probably over 2 Billion when done and the Pegula’s covering 60% and over 1 Billion of their own money. The stadium is going to cost them nearly as much as the team did and the PSLs are only covering the initial fraction. This most likely has nothing to do with the PSLs and everything to do with future plans and lack of buyers for other pieces like Sabres, Bandits, Rochester teams and the lack of health of poor Kim - all playing into some decisions that need to be planned for.
  9. And then you have people all worked up over something they don’t know and a certain poster that then makes up things like the PSLs are not selling and spreads the manure across multiple threads with no proof. He is the equivalent of the fake Mahomes interception thread. If you make up something and post it - it must be true. 🤦‍♂️ So no evidence - yet you have stated it as fact in multiple threads.
  10. You are absolutely correct that they don’t need to change anything, but I disagree with the they are figuring it out part. The only reason the XFL and the USFL survived the first and second years is that TV providers (Fox, NBC, and ESPN) are part of the groups and are providing coverage for the leagues at little to no cost compared to the past leagues. The USFL saw a healthy drop in viewers from year 1 to year 2 and had average ratings of 600,000 lower than the XFL last year. The XFL last year averaged around 650,000 viewers, but week 1 was between 1.3 - 1:4 million for an average. The UFL was formed because both the USFL and XFL saw that they were failing and needed to pool resources and hopefully get a better pool of players by combing the 2 leagues. Week 1 for the UFL was an average of 1 million viewers - which is well down from what both the XFL and USFL did for week 1 last year. They seem to be hoping that the decrease is due to March madness, but if as in past seasons, they hemorrhage viewers weekly - the average for the UFL will be below 600,000 viewers on a weekly basis by seasons end. I expect the UFL will survive another year and may continue solely due to the networks having a stake in the league, but they have to be worried that the viewership for week 1 was down so much compared to last year and that the typical trend is a loss of viewers week to week until the championship game which draws back a % of viewers. They really need to see the fan base stabilize. The unfortunate thing is that it shows that the XFL and USFL were probably watched by the same pool of NFL fans as their ratings were very similar and the UFL is pulling a percentage of those fans, but it is not bringing in newer fans.
  11. Agreed, but you may also see a nice percentage of former club seat holders saying the clubs were to expensive, but the lower bowl is more in line with my thoughts and price range and the new amenities make those seats worth it - so they move down a group and that continues as we expand the stadium.
  12. it will not be 63,000 STH. The percentage will be most likely be similar with no more than 56-57,000 STH - most likely capped at or below 54,000 or so. They will need a % for the other team and the NFL, they need an internal group of seats for groups/ charities as they provide that as part of the overall county agreement, they tend to have some seats for the halftime group - be it kids flag football teams or a band or color guards/troops. They will also want a contingency of tickets in the club areas to offer out to stadium sponsors to provide out each game - especially with fewer actual boxes for these groups. There will most likely be about 10,000 fewer STH in the new stadium - which is why the renewal rate of 75% is so important because if the renewal rate pushes up closer to 85-90% they have more renewals than seats for them once everyone gets a chance to pick seats.
  13. I really can not figure out what your deal is. You argue this is bad, but admit the stadium and PSLs will sell out. You argue that it is a bad investment, and then admit no one is talking about using it as an investment - including the team. You argue about Stockholm Syndrome and admit it has been used across the league and successfully for the team. You complain about the 75% announced rate of renewal and say that is a sign of failure - when the reality is with a stadium that is only 80% in size and a large waiting list and no pricing outside of clubs - it seems they are most likely right where they want to be. You complain about the “timeshare” aspect and how horrible the approach is - when you admit to not having seasons and not having been to the presentation and the couple of people with experience have said it was no/low pressure and they got lots of information and could take info to their lawyers and will have an opportunity if they pass up club seats to move elsewhere. You complain about the resale value of the PSLs (that you do not and won’t own), but that in reading articles - lots of people have found sales in certain sections (end zones, inside the 20’s, upper decks’s) that were lower PSL areas to not lose their value and that is the areas that PSL vendors go after because they can make profits on tickets with individual game tickets and then profit when something positive happens - like the trade for Rodgers in NY last year. You quote numbers of 25-40% resale after several years - fine, but how different is that from a 5 year old car that you spent $50,000 on and put 120000 miles on. Basically what I see is that you are just in this thread to argue. You spit out a bunch of garbage and then admit the Bills are doing exactly what others have done and that the stadium will sell out and you are not a part of the buyers. Ok - we get it - you want to argue against reality and you like everyone else don’t like PSLs - the rest is you just pissing into a windstorm and wondering why you are getting wet.
  14. You are correct for the data we have there is a margin of error and it is correct - if nothing changes - yes we could expect the same 75% across the new stadium - which may or may not happen. This is like using 1930’s life expectancy models in 2024 and expecting the predictive model to be accurate. The problem is as you move to other sections the variables change significantly as I stated. 1) First the PSL cost are expected to drop dramatically based upon the original survey reports. If based upon the first section the PSL cost is about double what came from the survey - then the PSL cost in end zone and upper deck areas will be $1000 - 2000 or more per seat. 2) The pool of people changes as you move around sections - The end zones with lower PSL may see a similar 75% renewal rate, but with the extra people available 100% of the seats will be purchased by STH. 3) There is an additional pool outside the normal pool of people - if they decide to purchase tickets at a similar 75% rate (which they will not) - that creates a pool of 7500 additional new season ticket holders. The predictive model works great when the variables do not change, but until you know the impact of the variables in each area - your data is faulty. It is why insurance companies group people by age and sex - the variables change the data. In addition - as I stated 75% may still be higher than they expected for the new stadium - we do not know the expectations or goals. With a decrease of 16% in size and a waiting list of about 15% of capacity - if everyone purchased at only 75% you have 57,000 season ticket holders in a 61,000 seat stadium and that is 100% without any of the 25% changing sections or moving down. That is to many people. The Legends team are 100% hoping in the cheaper areas - the renewal rate drops - opening up more seats for the 25% of more well off STH from the club seats to move to those areas. The goal is to drive a percentage of the STH population that eat and drink 100% in the parking lot and spend nothing in the stadium away - to replace them with with people that will spend additional money in the stadium increasing their revenue. They are not worried about selling the season tickets in the new stadium - the 75% rate has already shown with super high pricing that they should be able to hit 100% of their goal as those club holders move out to less expensive areas.
  15. I am very sorry, but as I have said before - I am only going to post when there is real information that is being glossed over or missed. I do not need to add the exact same info to an argument when someone is wrong because one additional person saying the same thing will not change anyone mind. With nothing to add - more people would be advised to just use both positive and negative reactions rather than just spewing incorrect information.
×
×
  • Create New...