Rochesterfan
-
Posts
4,584 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Gallery
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Rochesterfan
-
-
2 minutes ago, papazoid said:
PSL's are expected to raise $100-200 million
the cost over runs of the new stadium are already $300 mil and likely rising to as much as $600 mil or more
irregardless of the PSL success, that doesn't cover the significant cash he needs for the stadium cost over runs
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.
-
2
-
-
25 minutes ago, mrags said:
The biggest issue is we don’t know what the PSL costs are of the lower bowls with the “average joes”. For all we know it’s a 2-4k PSL and people have been getting all worked up over 15k PSLs for nothing.
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.
🤦♂️
3 minutes ago, Einstein said:
The Buffalo News reported that 1 of ever 4 Season Ticket Holders are choosing not to buy them at their PSL appointments. Some posters have theorized that a percentage of those people may end up purchasing in less-expensive sections than they currently sit so that number may be lower in time, which I think is a fair argument.
Where it gets tricky is whether we can actually trust this number. I don't have any evidence for this, but understanding how organizations think, my hypothesis is that this 25% number is actually a bit higher, and that the Bills are using corporate buys to bump that number (with the goal of creating scarcity). We have seen in other stadiums (Jets and Atlanta for example), that the teams have had to lower prices to sell all of the PSL's.
Whether this all lines up with the Bills internal KPI's is unknown, but I have my doubts on whether Pegula would be raising capital via the sale of a portion of the team if PSL's were selling like hot cakes. My hypothesis is that they were using the club seats as a benchmark for forecasting the remainder of the stadium and they are now realizing that the prices they will be able to charge for other areas will not be as high as they had hoped. Lower prices -> increase % of sold -> raise capital elsewhere.
So no evidence - yet you have stated it as fact in multiple threads.
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
-
15 hours ago, LeGOATski said:
I don't think they need to change anything. Keep it like pro football because that's what it is. It's not the arena league. Combined, this is the 3rd season for the USFL and 2nd for XFL. That's better than previous spring leagues, so they're figuring it out. They seem to have no trouble getting sponsors, the talent pool is better, and the game quality is better.
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.
-
Just now, papazoid said:
i suspect the renewal rate for club seat STH will be higher than 75% once they get their second chance meeting to secure tix in a less expensive area.
the renewal rate for the lower bowl is where things will get interesting. if PSL prices stay high, i see alot of STH giving up their seats. if the bills adjust on the fly and lower the PSL price to something more reasonable, then they will have better success.
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. -
26 minutes ago, papazoid said:
i keep seeing 62-63,000 seats with an additional 5,000 SRO (standing room only area)
i can't get confirmation on if all 63k seats will be STH ?.....it's on my list of questions when i go thru the "experience"...i'll get back to you late next year..lol
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 hours ago, Einstein said:
Get ready for:
”other teams do it too, therefore it is okay”
”ya want the team? deal with the prices”
”shut up and pay”
For what it’s worth, I agree with you. This whole timeshare style sales process is ridiculous.
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.
-
7
-
-
5 hours ago, Einstein said:
If your argument is that there is data that is not included in a model, then yes, i’d agree.
But for the data we have, the margin of error and confidence level provide measures of how much the sample results can vary from the true population parameter. In our calculations, even when accounting for a 95% confidence level, the sample size of 420 account holders exceeded the necessary size to achieve a margin of error of 5%. This means the estimate of 75% buying under the new pricing, even with variability in PSL costs and sections, is statistically reliable within the predefined margin of error.
Another problem is that you, like Kirby, assume a higher sales rate with lower priced tickets. I wouldn’t assume that. As I mentioned prior, price sensitivity and elasticity of demand. Lower income fans that often make up the less pricier areas of the stadium are generally more price-sensitive, meaning their demand for tickets is more elastic. This elasticity is due to their inability (and sometimes unwillingness) to purchase tickets with even a small increase in price, as the cost represents a larger portion of their discretionary spending.
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.
-
1
-
2
-
-
5 hours ago, Einstein said:
It’s not.
But I do want to commend you for posting. It’s nice to see your name pop up next to a post, rather than just reacting to others thoughts. I’m sure you have a lot to offer the forum so I encourage you to post more often.
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.
-
1
-
1
-
-
3 hours ago, Einstein said:
Exactly right.
You should learn about predictive modeling. You don’t have to guess or use a hunch. We have maths to give us the answer on what is predictive.
The 1.6% is predictive. At a 95% confidence interval.
I am sorry, but this is 100% wrong and if you are truly a CEO/upper level leader - you should be ashamed.
The 1.6% is not predictive because the variability of the test subject - in this case the PSLs cost and section are going to vary as they move around the stadium. Therefore trying to use bull**** numbers as concrete values means very little. You also totally are ignoring the fact that the 25% that are declining will have a chance to purchase in a different section if they find that those PSLs are more agreeable.
So for example if they stay at a 75% renewal rate in this section - which is predictive. Going to the next area to sell - they now have 125% of the fans to offer tickets to rather than 100% and the 25% that declined earlier are now getting a price closer to their current cost. So if the predictive value of 75% holds - that would leave 25% of section 2 unsold and about 25% of the initial buyers to purchase those seats. So now group 2 sells closer to 90-95% sold or more.
Now you move to the third tier of pricing and you have the 100% of current holders, the 25% from the section 2 and all remaining people from the club seats vying for this section. So again if they get 75% of the initial group - you now have 30% vying for 25% of available seats. And this will continue and each subsequent area will have an abundance of current season ticket holders trying to pick up tickets because saying no to your current area does not lock you out.
Finally in the end if there are open seats - which will be limited - there are 10,000 people on a waiting list to begin to fill in the different sections. so what you end up with is limited open seats in the most expensive area - which as @Kirby Jackson said can be packaged to other clients for advertising or offered to businesses that had suites, but with fewer suites are priced out or even certain ticket vendors to have a supply on the secondary market, but as they move out of the club seats - more and more seats will be filled by current season ticket holders and people on the waiting list.
The predictive nature of your math begins to immediately fall apart because of the assumption built into it because a non renewal does not mean they can’t get tickets later - something a good CEO and leader would understand and something Kirby has tried to explain to you. You have no idea what the expectations were for renewal on this first set. They know that many of the “No’s” in the first pass become people happy to get a seat in a different section closer to their current rates and people from subsequent sections will also downgrade and thus the Bills decreased the capacity to cover that eventuality as some fans may be priced out or opt out.
Additionally- it would be very, very bad for the Bills - if they had 100% of people renewing because the new stadium is 16% smaller than the current stadium and if 100% tried to renew they would be overcapacity. They need about 25% renewal failure in each section to allow people to drop sections to different areas and not have a percentage of people that could not be moved due to all seats being sold. Basic math says they are probably right on their goal so far, but you be you and come up with a different formula that is just used in the wrong context.
🤦♂️
-
2
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, BADOLBILZ said:
Why would you do all that arguing over semantics?
It IS the norm for big business to gouge customers for whatever the market will bear.
It IS also the norm for big business to exploit and manipulate government........in ways ranging from skillfully avoiding taxes to benefiting directly from their application and WELL beyond.
Your are far too concerned with the tactics when it's all the same strategy.
If you are "not arguing against" PSL's..........why is the distinction of tactics so important to you?
The argument is because he does not want to accept the facts that this is business as usual across many sectors. That would reduce the fake outrage over nothing.
You can find examples across tons of business models - everyday things like Amazon, Costco, Sam’s Club, BJs, and places like Movie theaters, Barnes and Nobles, Gaming places and indoor kids bouncy centers.
Most companies - especially large places like Amazon - build facilities in communities on the back of tax breaks, salary tax cuts, and funding from small business groups that all come from the taxpayer. I mean look at all the hoops cut when Amazon even mentioned a Warehouse potentially getting built in NYS. Everyone was throwing taxpayer money just for a shot - including gifting them huge amounts of property that was state and county owned.
Then the consumer - be it an Amazon subscriber or a Costco member - pays a fee typically yearly for the right to purchase items from these shops - with limited return or discounts.
There are gas stations that were built and received large payroll breaks - especially during Covid - to maintain employment levels and they have monthly and annual fees. You still pay for gas, but get a 20 cent decrease compared to a non member.
There are tons of city/state owned Golf courses that were purchased with tax payer money, you still need a membership to guarantee tee times and you still need to pay for your round.
The model is all over - not just the NFL or European Football - they use different terms and in some cases slightly different tweaks, but it is not new nor exclusive to this situation.
The membership and pay model is common and most new construction be it a bar, a restaurant, a bookstore, a gas station, a football stadium, a event center - all get funding or reduced taxes, payroll breaks for a certain time, low cost or free loans from the city/state, etc. the funding is not as open as the funding provided to the Bills, but there is money from the taxpayers involved in most builds.
There are plenty of reasons to be angry, but the misplaced anger and the anger over perceived slights is just so overwhelming in this thread. The Bills could have done a better job, but at this point we know next to nothing and people are making up things to create anger. @Kirby Jackson has talked and given insight from actually going through this process as an insider/employee and people try to argue minor semantics. I will wait for my section to be called before I worry if my PSL is going to be $500, $1000, or $10,000 or anyplace in between. My outrage can wait until there is actually something to be upset about.
-
1
-
2
-
2
-
-
1 hour ago, djp14150 said:
The defensive holding penalty stopped the c
Clock with under 5 min to go.
this is a rule change needed.
a team could strategize when trying to come back and preserve time outs by doing penalties like in this situation.
The team could choose, take the penalty and stop clock or let clock run. Since 1st was made without the penalty.
Although I do not disagree that a timeout or runoff makes sense - the actual architecture of this occurring is a very small and limited example. Literally the only time it has a slight impact is on a play like in the Bills game where the foul occurred and the Bills got the first down anyway with a lead and the ball. All other cases it is a huge negative to commit the foul.
If Wilkins makes the tackle short - the penalty gives an automatic first down. If a defense jumps Offside to stop the clock the offense gets 5 yards and the down over. You could do that once, but a second time is a first down. A personal foul is 15 yards and a first down. All stopping the clock, but providing yards and downs that the defense is trying to stop.
My guess is like the Belichick punt issue of a few years ago - it occurs so infrequently that it has gone unnoticed and it will get presented in the off season for review. It is not like Miami did it on purpose to gain the advantage because it could have cost them dearly if they had stopped Josh short. It was a bad play on their part that happened in this case to provide a small amount of help.
-
45 minutes ago, GunnerBill said:
Because Superbowl is 4 weeks before free agency opens. That isn't enough time to interview, shortlist and hire a coach. Then hire a staff. Then assess the entire roster. Then try and extend our own FAs. Then try and assess the FA market and work out who you want to target. You would have to put FA back at LEAST two weeks. Then you probably need to move the draft back into mid-May. The one year we went to early May the feeling was it squeezed rookie mini-camps and ate into the one month of true break that coaches and personnel guys get mid-June to mid-July.
The schedule doesn't work unless the league is willing to lose something totally. If it agreed to totally lose pre-season you could fit it all in and move camp back to start of August. But they are not going to do that.
In addition, you have the college schedule to consider. If teams want to interview and hire a college coach as a HC or coordinator and you push the NFL hire window until mid February - you screw your college recruiting windows and transfer portal windows and then national signing day.
All for a stupid request to keep a coach from doing a couple of hour interview during the playoffs that has never shown to be a huge deal and they already have rules around the process.
Could they do it - sure with lots of other manipulation and issues and for almost no reward or reason.
-
1
-
-
2 hours ago, JohnNord said:
The part about Teller is a lot of hindsight. They traded him because he was a 5th round pick that had value and couldn’t beat out Quinton Spain. He probably wasn’t going to make the team and they likely couldn’t keep him on the PS, so they made the deal. That’s it
Clearly they should have been more patient with him, but he was not the same player he was turned out to be in Cleveland. He wasn’t… that happens.
If you are going to fault Beane and McDermott’s drafting, it should be how they have prioritized defense over offense and have been largely unsuccessful.
Agreed and Teller has thrived in a run first - heavy run offense - which the Bills would not have been.
Teller still struggles when the Browns are forced to throw and teams don’t respect the run.
His pass blocking is not great and although he might be a slight improvement here - I doubt he is anywhere near the same player on a pass heavy - pass first team.
-
On 2/11/2023 at 9:09 AM, Einstein said:
Is he though? Based on what? Just because the coaches wouldn't give him an opportunity?
Look at what he did when he got an opportunity...
Hodgins: 0.3 receptions, 2.5 yards per snap
Diggs: 0.1 receptions, 1.7 yards per snap
Davis: 0.05 receptions, 0.9 yard per snap
McKenzie: 0.07 receptions, 0.9 yard per snap
Per snap in Buffalo (opportunity), Hodgins outperformed EVERY RECEIVER (at the least the top 4) on the team!What more did he need to do in order to receive a greater opportunity? When given a very limited chance, he performed. So how can we say he is an average WR? Based on what exactly?
------
Edited to add: if you include his Giants statistics per snap, his numbers go down a bit with a much larger snap count, but it STILL outperforms all but Diggs on a per-snap basis.
I mean I am pretty sure I heard on ESPN - they were debating who is the best WR and go well you know:
Justin Jefferson with only 0.11 receptions per snap and 1.69 yards per snap
Diggs with 0.1 receptions per snap and 1.7 yards per snap
Nope it must be Hodgins when he played with the Bills on his 16 snaps - he doubled and tripled those guys. It does mean anything when he moved to the Giants and actually got snaps that those numbers became 2nd and 3rd tier.
🤦♂️
-
On 2/11/2023 at 9:09 AM, Einstein said:
Is he though? Based on what? Just because the coaches wouldn't give him an opportunity?
Look at what he did when he got an opportunity...
Hodgins: 0.3 receptions, 2.5 yards per snap
Diggs: 0.1 receptions, 1.7 yards per snap
Davis: 0.05 receptions, 0.9 yard per snap
McKenzie: 0.07 receptions, 0.9 yard per snap
Per snap in Buffalo (opportunity), Hodgins outperformed EVERY RECEIVER (at the least the top 4) on the team!What more did he need to do in order to receive a greater opportunity? When given a very limited chance, he performed. So how can we say he is an average WR? Based on what exactly?
------
Edited to add: if you include his Giants statistics per snap, his numbers go down a bit with a much larger snap count, but it STILL outperforms all but Diggs on a per-snap basis.On 2/11/2023 at 9:24 AM, Einstein said:See my post above.
He had more receptions and more yards per snap (opportunity) than every WR on the Bills (when with the Bills). If you include his Giants time, he has more receptions and more yards per reception than every WR on the Bills except Diggs.
Holy crap this is the stupidest thing I think you have ever posted - here let’s compare a guy with only a few limited snaps (16) versus starters because every official WR ranking is based on yards or catches per snap.
How did he look when he got more playing time with the Giants.
In 8 games he got 33 catches on 417 offensive snaps and a paltry 350 yards on those snaps compared to Diggs who had 108 catches on 836 snaps and over 1400 yards.
That means once he got playing time he fell to:
0.07 receptions per snap and 0.8 yards per snap - oh look the same as all the guys you mention once you get some numbers.
if you convert Hodgins NYG numbers to a full year comparable to other players catching the ball - he is ranked 40-50th in receptions and 50-60th in yards and over 70th in yards per reception as a #1 WR on the team. He put up #2 or #3 type numbers as the primary target and terrible numbers in Yards per reception and yards after catch.
Hodgins is the very definition of average and is a terrible fit in the Bills offense because with a lack of speed on the outside he brings nothing. As a legitimate 4th or 5th WR - you need special teams play and even on the Giants he got 0 ST snaps.
After the Giants traded their #1 WR to KC and their other WR in Slayton was hurt - they needed to sign and then play Hodgins and like Robert Foster his rookie year - when that is all you have - you make due. Once the Giants get another WR threat on the outside - Hodgins falls back into his 3/4th outside role and with a lack of speed and special team abilities he will begin to drop back to unknown territory.
-
17 hours ago, Virgil said:
While I know that McD was never leaving as our HC, nor am I calling for it, I still think about the rift between him and McD in the final year.
With Dorsey's alleged struggles, and our inability to find a solid WR2 on the team, the Hodgins thing bothers me more. We weren't so flush with talent that cracking our depth chart was hard. Hell, we brought back Beasley and Smoke. So how did we miss on the opportunity that Hodgins was so badly?
I don't know, maybe I'm just bitter.
16 hours ago, Virgil said:
Don’t bring up Teller, it’s still too soon. However, Beane has openly admitted to messing that one up
Not in the least - Daboll deserved his chance and we will see how it goes moving forward. Fans here did nothing but criticize Daboll for play calling and then suddenly love it when it was someplace else. The truth is teams starting figuring him out late in the season and the Giants outperformed expectations early and then maxed out luck and talent much like 2019 and 2020 with the Bills.
Hodgins is an average WR on a team with no WR talent. If he remained on the Bills - he was still no more than a #6 WR that struggled to get open. Most games with the Giants he was completely invisible getting a couple of catches. He did seem to show up versus Minnesota for them, but other than that he was a nothing.
It is ok to bring up Teller - much like Hodgins - he left Buffalo and fell into a great situation for him. His first year in Cleveland- Teller was bad - to the point most fans thought he was getting cut - much like his struggles in Buffalo. Then they brought in an OL coach and OC that fit him and he excelled. That was not happening in Buffalo because no matter the Bills were going to be a pass first team and even as an all pro - Teller is barely average in pass protection- especially late in games when teams can pin their ears back and are not worried about the run.
Be happy for the players - neither was going to do anything in Buffalo. It is ok for people to find a scheme and become a better player. It is ok for a player low on the depth chart to go to a bad team and be higher up and get a chance - be happy and “LET IT GO”.
There is nothing wrong with that.
-
24 minutes ago, bobobonators said:
Im on the fence about it. Yeh the final second is mostly inactivity but the process of the QB reading the defense and setting protection which lead to that final second of inactivity is the important part. Give someone like Mahomes or Allen an extra second to read the defense and that could make a difference.
that being said the idea of a shot clock buzzer going off does seem nauseating. But with technology there is for sure a very easy solution out there.
Yet QBs like Mahomes and Allen - rarely take the play clock down - they try to get the defense in confused states rather than take it down to zero.
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, Utah John said:
The NFL has this strange procedure for calling delay of game penalties when the play clock expires. Sometimes it seems a QB will have a full extra second, but not always.
With all the high-resolution technology available for almost everything else, why use this subjective approach? When the play clock expires, sound a horn (like in basketball) and have lights on the sidelines go on, so no one can mistake when the snap is late. This seems like a very easy, and fair, way to go.
Sorry - I just don’t care that much and I think it is a terrible idea for football.
In basketball it is super annoying when the player clearly shoots the ball and the backboard lights up and a horn goes off for absolutely no reason.
Football - that would be 10x worse. They snap the ball and the horn sounds and someone stops or the scoreboard flashes and causes a momentary distraction.
the NFL could do a million things - they just don’t care as it does not give a team a true advantage.
They decided on a legitimate way and they recognize that the start timing is not 100% consistent - so like certain motion penalties- they provide a little leeway to ensure teams get the plays off rather than stopping and adding penalties.
If the NFL wants to really make it a non issue - stop allowing the networks to show the play clock.
-
1
-
-
9 hours ago, bills6969 said:
Would you rather wrestle an alligator or listen to Colinsworth call a Chiefs game
Give me the Alligator every time.
Both may result in death, but the slow painful death of listening to Collinsworth is like an evil torture.
-
1
-
-
20 minutes ago, Johnny Hammersticks said:
I had to turn the volume down last night during the Collinsworth tongue bath of Patrick Mahomes. It was absolutely obnoxious, and honestly, I don’t know why they let him call Chiefs games anymore (or any other games).
What would you rather do than listen to one more game called by Collinsworth?
I’ll start. I’d rather listen to Lil’ Wayne cover the Pink Floyd Dark Side of the Moon album on repeat for 72 hours straight whilst sticking sewing needles in my junk.
I wouldn’t do anything more than what I do every time CC calls a game - I shut off the sound.
He is one of the worst announcers to listen to in terms of how he talks about players and his favoritism.
Therefore; we no longer listen at all to the broadcast and it is significantly better that way.
He really needs to learn to shut up - give a touch of insight and let the Play by play caller drive the game.
-
1
-
-
17 hours ago, Don Otreply said:
They come out of the woodwork, that’s the home of all detractors, me, I just think a couple of minor changes would make the offense all the better, ie; taking a small number of open shorter outlet passes to move the chains instead of punting, but that’s likely just me…,
GO BILLS!!!
Is that on Dorsey though?
There are open options on all three levels - Josh decides where to put the ball.
Josh chose one on one 40 yard passes versus wide open quick dump offs.
They set up an RPO and a large majority of the time Josh pulls the ball and tries to fit a pass in. He is a hugely aggressive player and no OC will change that. He gets better and worse with coaching, but the aggressiveness that we love is there.
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, Straight Hucklebuck said:
Listened to a Ravens insider last week, and Roman was not liked in Baltimore.
The consensus was he can design an outstanding run game, but never could do much with the pass. He described as a high-school level simplistic.
DeCosta is the long-time FO member there, so I would expect them to start investing more in pass catchers.
Unless they get a QB that can pass outside the numbers - I don’t think it matters how much they invest in pass catchers.
I think they have seen exactly what they have in Lamar and they invested correctly - big time TEs and guys to the middle of the field.
Long term unless they are moving on - this is a bad decision for the future of the team.
-
1
-
-
On 1/16/2023 at 3:59 PM, The Red King said:
I started a post awhile back asking why we couldn't use a chip to determine where the ball is/was. Apparently they can do this, determining the Ravens QB was 0.5 yards short of the goal line.
As was stated in your other thread - they have had a chip in the ball for years. The reason it is an issue is syncing everything up and determine in a pile when the ball was down.
They also struggle with the Ball direction since it is not a sphere - the length of the ball is different depending on the angle - so all testing is in play, but nothing exact.
Every player and the foot balls are all chipped allowing tons of data to be used, but the only time it can really provide data is if the RB or QB in Huntley’s case are never down and no whistle blows. In that case they could get a fairly good idea of exactly how far the ball moved, but it still is not 100% accurate at this time, but provides realities data to confirm with visual images.
-
1
-
-
2 hours ago, Back2Buff said:
The amount of commercials and the length of commercial breaks is so ridiculous at this point, it has killed the game. An NFL game should never be 4 hours. You are talking about 1 hour of clock time, and maybe 11 mins of actual game play.
The NFL knows there will be breaks for injuries and reviews, they should not be taking 5 mins commercials after a 1 min drive. Over and over again, 1 min will come off the clock, and after a punt, there is 5 mins of commercials.
I rarely watch prime time NFL games because I hate all the stoppages. On Sundays they have red zone and you pretty much avoid this nonsense.
It has become a chore to watch the Bills play exclusively, and at some point, it's just too boring to continue.
At least you have players making over 40 million a year. Props to the NFL for continuing to increase the cash flow, while selling a worse product.
The length of the game yesterday was not on the NFL - it was on the ***** QB play of the Dolphins. He had 27 incompletions and then with the clock not moving - they still took the play clock down to zero almost every play.
If you watched other games like the Giants game where they completed most passes and ran efficiently- the game was under 3 hours.
How do the Bills add 2 top 100 picks this draft in order to fill the team's needs?
in The Stadium Wall
Posted
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.