Rochesterfan

I think they were when you had Mahomes passing the ball and he could hit Hill or Kelce all over the field. Tua has not shown that - so teams are going (or should be) playing tighter with less fear of going over the top. I think Hill and Waddle are going to nickle and dime teams and be tough to stop, but that doesn’t scare me as an offense. Especially since Tua has struggled with quick short passes. Hill was a threat because he could beat you 60 yards down field or break off the route at 5 yards and be open. We will see, but Hill in a SF style offense with lots of short passes - is not a scary offense. It becomes a very precise offense that will struggle over time.

They are set up for a QB next off season, but they have an aging Hill right now. So you figure Tua’s not the guy after this year, then you trade up a ton of picks because they will end up middle part of the AFC - so you are trying to get from 20 to top 5 with a ton of ammo. In the mean time - Hill is 29 this year and has had trouble staying healthy. 30 next year with maybe a new rookie QB and 31 by the time the new QB has some experience - where is his speed at that point? Miami trading for Hill with Tua was a huge mistake to me - as the style doesn’t fit what Tua can do and his age means a young QB doesn’t fit the profile. It was grab a name guy and let’s see what we can do because we have not won and our former coach is talking about us paying to lose. Reeks of desperation.

Actually this is not quite true. The Bills will get the biggest outlay of cash, but The Bills did not get a tax break on the stadium. On the other hand - Yankee stadium was funded with 670 thousand dollars by the Yankees and about 1.2 billion in Public funding covering land, tax breaks, and actual funding. In addition, the tax breaks on the stadium and the land continue as part of the deal and it is estimated that between 5 and 10 billion more in taxes will not be paid by the Yankees over the life of the deal. When Yankee stadium was built there was minor outcry and it cost the Tax Payers significantly more and continues to cost more every year. The Barclays center in NYC was built and financed through public bonds for over 500 million dollars as tax exempt. Plus it required another 200 million to connect it to the subway line, use of eminent domain to take property, court battles, design and redesign costs, but somehow it gets built. It is still draining the taxpayers pocket, but again those funds got pushed through. Citi Field was 800 million with the state picking up 615 million in funding and tax breaks. Heck even Madison Square Garden was given a massive tax break starting in 1982 that right now saves them about 42 million annually in land tax. That means that single tax break has cost more than the Bills will get in this deal, but yet people certain people are complaining about the Bills. The Cost of the new Jets and Giants stadium is another huge tax shell game. The land in a prominent area was basically given away and the tax breaks they receive are enormous. The tax breaks alone will cover the funding the owners spent to build the stadium. It is stupid and it will pass and it will be just fine and in 5 years when complete- everyone will move on to something else.

I agree - I also think this will be a very deep UDFA class with all of the extra talent in the draft pool. I would be fine moving some depth players and mid/later picks to get a few earlier picks. Give me 4 higher picks and retain 1 later for a position like punter in the 6th or 7th and then fill in with post draft cuts and UDFAs. We lost 2 picks last year from our PS that were depth choices for this year. If we make 7 or 8 picks - more than likely it happens again as the roster is already deep.

Ahh - so you think they are trading Moss to move back to early round 2 for Hall. Got it. 😂

How would that work - Agents are capped at significantly less than 5% based on NFL/NFLPA rules. He might save 1% maybe doing this - which is potentially 2 million dollars on a 200 million dollar deal. He risks losing more by having a small loophole with a lawyer that missed something because he does not deal with the Salary Cap and NFL lawyers. I have no issue with him doing it, but the reality is the Agents make a lot, but if you are a top end talent - they also spend a lot of time massaging the deal to benefit you as a player because that benefits them as an agent.

It was very interesting listening to the team on the Fan here in Rochester - it was some feed with a round table with Jason LaCanfora and a few other insiders - maybe Rapport was on it. They said it was never a big deal because most contracts it was 1-2 years of guaranteed money in the past. The owners were putting 15-20 million away over 2 years and therefore only losing a small amount of interest. Now the contracts (especially after Watson) are becoming closer to 100% guaranteed and 6-7 years - therefore a guy like Mike Brown not only has to be willing and able to put 230-250 million in an escrow - he can’t touch, access, or get the interest on that money - meaning the owners are then losing out on huge money over the course of 7 years just with interest- let alone investing it someplace. But I totally agree - I don’t see how Brown in Cincinnati can do a contract like that, but they are going to have to figure things out.

It was interesting as I listened to guys from the Owners meeting talking about QB contracts and LJ. Basically - the premise is that according to the CBA any guaranteed money in the contract has to be placed immediately in an escrow account and is not available to the owner after that point. It prevents an owner from going bankrupt and the NFL being on the hook for the money. In talking with Baltimore owners and front office - the reporter basically came out and said they did not want to tie that much money into an escrow account to have the huge guaranteed money like Watson. He is fine doing a big contract, but wants only a fraction 25% or less guaranteed. The reporters were saying they expect this to be a Kirk Cousins style showdown where they franchise tag him at least twice and then look to trade him rather than tie upwards of 230 million into an escrow. It bears watching because they said they got similar vibes from Arizona and Cincinnati ownership with the guaranteed money. They expect at least 2 of these 3 franchises will end up franchising and trading their QB to avoid the 100% guaranteed contract.

How about drag in your own beer in homage to those great days.😂

I think you forgot the “U”. Whou? Andy or Darren Daulton - former Phillie - of course

So the question becomes quite simply if you take the Ball and Allen leads us to a TD - are you kicking the XP or going for 2. Because if you take the ball and are assuming both teams are going to score - I can assure you Reid would be going for 2 on his terms to keep the ball from Allen on the sudden death round.

So you think a coach that just watched a team drive down the field to score on your defense and then you matched - you now know that it will go to sudden death and you may never touch the ball and you think the majority of coaches go for the tie. No way - this is not the 70’s - we saw it play out a bunch during the season - many teams even in the regular season went for 2 and the win. In addition- several teams passed on tying FGs to try and score TDs to win games. I think there would be a rare coach that might try to tie, but I think the majority go for the win.

None of those are guaranteed to happen. You could go first and fumble the kickoff and lose before your offense ever gets out and that is a viable outcome. The point being - if you take the ball first because you want the ball first in Sudden Death - you are already looking past the first 2 drives and are assuming you will still be tied - so you can then get the ball to win. The reality is whoever gets the ball first can do any number of things from punting, getting stopped on downs, turnovers, safety, field goals, TDs, and TDs with 2 point conversion. The 2nd team has the exact same ability to do all same things, but with an advantage - they know exactly what they need to do to win. That does not mean they can do it, but they know exactly what must be done. Essentially after team 1 goes and does whatever they are going to do - it almost immediately becomes sudden death because if you kicked a field goal - the other team knows a TD wins. You score a TD and kick the XP - they know to avoid the third possession- go for two - I will win or lose right then. Why would I want another team to dictate what I am doing - I don’t want them to dictate - I want to know what I have to do to win the game. Team 2 could could just as easily stop team 1 - the difference is the 4th downs. Team one faces a 4th and 4 at the 30 yard line on the opening drive - do they kick the FG or do they go for it. Most likely they are kicking the FG to get the score. Team 2 faces the same decision 4th and 4 at the 30 yard line after holding the other team to a FG - what decision do you make? Because they know team 1 then can win with any score - I think teams are more likely to go for it and win or lose that way. Think of the Bills going for the win in Tennessee rather than tying the game. It might not always work, but if I am a coach - I want that option of playing a drive to win at the end.

Have you read the thread or is losing the war causing to much strife? It would of cost just under 4 million about 250-400,000 less, but he would be a FA next year with 20+ games of film. If nothing changed from this year and he was adequate - Mark Glowinski or Conner Williams level - young FA guard switching teams - he would get 6-7 million AAV So you would lose 400,000 for this year, but have to factor in 3 years 18 million (Glowinski contract) - so he would cost 4 years 22 million approximately if we used the 2nd round tender - plus highly likely we lose him after the year and must replace both starting guards. So over the life of this current contract we will most likely save about 6 million dollars and he is locked in.

No what is said is the only way for team #1 to guarantee a 3rd possession is if team 1 scores a TD and a 2 pt conversion. All of the others ways would give a 3rd possession correct and have been mentioned previously, but non are guaranteed. The difference being if Team 1 performs any of the first 4 options - team 2 has a chance to finish the game and outright win or lose without ever getting to sudden death. That does not mean they will, but they have that ability. There is absolutely nothing Team #1 can do that wins the game on the 1st possession. Team 2 will always get the ball and have a chance to win or tie the game.

Actually the county executive talked about this. The Pegula’s will be responsible for cost overruns if it is related to changes and updates they want with the stadium. If the state or county wants additional changes or things overrun because of their decisions/delay - they will have a contingency fund to pay those overruns. The idea is most overruns should be of a nature the Pegula’s will pay, but not all overruns will fall to them.

I did not bold it - you did when you quoted me.

I look at it exactly the opposite way. Team 1 has little control because they have no way of knowing what team 2 will do. They are trying to score, but then have to decide on going for 2. No matter what they do - they can not win on that first drive - only dictate what team #2 needs to do to win. Team 2 knows exactly what they have to do to win when they get the ball. Did team 1 punt or kick a FG? Did they score and kick and XP or get stopped at the 45 yard line? Did they get a TD and make a 2 pt or miss the 2 point conversion? Team 2 knows exactly what they have to do to win and prevent team 1 from getting the ball back. Literally the only way team 1 is guaranteed to get the 3rd possession is a TD and 2 pt on the first drive - even then they don’t win - they only guaranteed a shot with the 3 possession. The 2nd team gets the ball and in most instances has a shot to win the game on their possession.

They still can’t win on that first possession. If they score and succeed at 2 - the other team can still tie. Then the sudden death occurs. There is absolutely no way the team that has the ball first can win on that first possession. The other team will always get the ball. The second team that has the ball is the only one that can outright win, outright lose, or force another tie on their possession. After that it is sudden death and the advantage typically goes to the first team with the ball.

These decisions have been coming more and more already. Baltimore lost 2 games trying for 2 to avoid OT. The Bills went for the TD and the win in Tennessee. The Chargers, the Colts, and the Eagles have all been going for more 4th downs at different and unique places on the field. Pittsburgh has been going for 2 points early in many games trying to get an advantage. The analytics are pushing more 2 point attempts and more 4th down attempts every year. This change is going to push that further I would expect as it will add more data points to the pool.

Or it is an old school defensive struggle and you kick off and pin them deep and try to get field position and kick a FG to win on the second possession. I agree there are a lot of things that can go into the decision and having the ball third is a big advantage, but only if it goes to 3 possessions. If you are in the second position - you have opportunities to control whether there is a 3rd possession. I think it opens up a lot of options and I can not wait to see what analytics come from this.

I am not stating it as fact - it Is what I believe that playoff coaches will decide when the game is on the line and I think the numbers grow every year as teams do more and more analytical work showing how your win percentage alters based on 1 play. If you are the second team in a playoff game and the first team went down scored a TD and kicked the XP and you just matched that and scored a TD - why on earth would any coach just kick to XP in that situation and let it go to sudden death with the other team getting the ball? A 2 point conversion is just below 50% for every team, but tends to run slightly higher than 50% for playoff teams. Therefore, going for 2 would give you better odds of winning outright over losing outright. I believe coaches can justify that decision, but will be rightly questioned if they just kick the XP and let the other team have the ball with a shot to win. Regular season might be different, but playoffs - I can’t see a coach not going for the win, but I am sure there is one old school coach that would play for the tie.

I agree, but I think it applies to a huge % of teams - not just the Bills. Most teams want to control their own destiny and most teams feel they control things when they have the ball. Therefore to me if I want to control my destiny - I want the ball second with everything on the line and I know exactly what I need to do to win this game. Even if I am a defensive minded guy - I want the opportunity to stop them and know a FG wins. I want the pressure and the knowledge every time.

That was the word that made me think it would not be heating at the individual seats, but something like those warming lamps on the ceiling in the more enclosed concourse. He specifically said each seating area would have temperature control features available. When I first heard things - I was thinking something like seat warmers or the heat lamps in the stadium, but my guess is their plan would be for warmers to be in the concourse and give people a place to warm up out of the weather. It is only a guess, but he used some very specific wording versus how the question was asked.

This is 100% true if you assume the game goes to sudden death. The problem is I think most teams would avoid sudden death. The only times I see sudden death happening is: 1) 1st team doesn’t score and the second team doesn’t score either - rare, but could happen with 2 defensive teams or weather. 2) 1st team kicks a FG and the second team is stuck in a 4th and long and has to kick the FG. (I believe many teams will go for it on 4th and short to try and win outright). 3) 1st team scores a TD and a 2 pt conversion - then the best the other team can do is tie. I think in playoff football - a third possession would be rare, but then you are right and getting the ball 3rd would be huge. For me - I want the ball 2nd with all of the data to determine what I need to win and I’ll go from there.