Rochesterfan

I actually think since Sneaky Joe does the locked on Sabres podcast - that his 2 hours with Sal will have a nice mix of Bills and Sabres, but will be better than the instigators talk - which sometimes is terrible to listen to.

It is not even Mike’s take with Sal that bother me because I agree he balances it out. It is how in the middle suddenly he will flip to fantasy football topic when Sal is talking about Bills DBs or some other inane non-football question in the middle of the training camp report. If he wants to talk baseball or fantasy draft with Sal great - put it in a different segment. The fact that Sal gets a 15 minute training camp section in the afternoon and nearly always 10+ minutes is wasted with a super long winded question that has no point or a fantasy/betting question that is non Bills related or an instant trivia thing that takes up 2/3rd the segment. The Beane interview was facepalm worthy and it was to bad because Beane provided great insight into the cut down process and Mike just kept taking the interview off the rails.

Wish 3pm was to late - he really ruins the station listening to him talk to people like Sal. I wanted to hear training camp news and Mike just jabbers on and on. The interview he had with Beane was a 100% embarrassment. Asking Beane about do they bet on other teams cuts when their scouts go over that team. 🤦‍♂️

Hoping Sal’s show is as good as on victory Monday. Worried about the time that Sal has to be out at the stadium. Wish they put the instigators on at 10 and then 4 straight hours of Bills talk with Sal and OBL. We will see how this goes.

100% agree - the argument around Tyrod was never a question of his hard work, his desire to win, his leadership, his competitiveness, or his desire to start and lead a team. The issue with Tyrod was could he learn to throw with anticipation or was he going to continue to only throw to wide open receivers that have turned to face him. Many fans both on this board and others really only wanted the best for the Bills and the hope that Tyrod could bring that about. What we saw was that in a limited role on a team with a strong defense - that was possible, but we could only go so far. I feel for Tyrod because every place he has gone he has fought to get the starting role and things have conspired to hold him back (some of that being his own play), but he once again finds himself in a no win role on a team with their QB of the past and present stuck behind him and no real future. I hope for his sake he finds some wins on a bad roster because I think this might end up being his last rodeo.

I don’t think they expected Nate Becker to get any calls to join other PS. Much like when they bring guys in for tryouts - I would expect that if something significant happens to Sweeney - they could call someone up and Nate will be available to go to the PS and/or eventually land on the team - if that blocking role is needed. He already knows the playbook from multiple seasons, but is not a guy you are going to continue to put a lot of long term development into. He becomes one of those guys that gets future contracts and sticks around the Periphery and is available, but just can’t take the next step.

It is not an investment - Don’t pretend we are talking about an investment. Most public funds go to support money losing endeavors. And make up for the shortfalls. Whether it is zoos, museums, postal service, or the Bills. If you don’t get a rec center - let me explain - the town built and paid for a swimming, exercise, and weightlifting complex with local tax money, but I even as a resident do not get to use it. I have to buy a yearly membership to “join” - the membership dues don’t even cover the cost of the staff and management- so every year additional taxes go to cover the overage. It will never, ever pay for itself, but it is a nice community equity. As to your fundraising point - You know who else is constantly fundraising - the Bills and their foundations helping to make money for tons of needy charities, but in your world all will be fine because we take that 1.4 billion and give it to all of the needy charities, the schools, the libraries, etc and all is fine. Except that is not what will happen - that 1.4 billion will go to a tax break to help a company like Amazon or Walmart build a nice NYC headquarters that they say will bring X number of jobs, but those won’t materialize and wham everything here is the same minus the Bills. You know what would really tick you off though - if the Bills fund raised for themselves rather than for others, but that is essentially what you are asking. So In the end for you - don’t build the stadium and don’t complain when they leave. And most of all don’t complain when right after they leave - the city suddenly finds a way to build a 2.5 billion dollar stadium downtown to try and lure another team back. The same way St. Louis, Baltimore, Cleveland, Houston, and Oakland all did when they lost teams. The good thing is the Pegula’s, the state, and the county already understand and are working on a public/private mix that will cover the cost. It is going to be upsetting for some because in the end the majority will most likely be public and it is going to build a stadium in OP that is a public service for the people of Buffalo and the surrounding areas. It will not be built to ever see a profit and it will be supported by future public money for upgrades and renovations and it will belong to the county - so they will have to dispose of it in the future, but it will be happening.

I totally disagree and I think the issue is you look at it as giving the Pegula’s the money and I don’t. I look at it as subsidizing every person that attends every game for the life of the stadium. Just like the zoo, museums, libraries, etc. are funded by public equity for the enjoyment of the community- so to is the stadium funded by public equity for the enjoyment of the fans. The public portion paid for via taxes, fees, hotel surcharges, etc - all go to fund the building of what essentially becomes a county owned req center that is used by 60 - 70,000 and much like the town built req center in our community - it charges a yearly membership fee. That membership fee is what goes to the Pegula’s and by the public providing funding - they are able to keep the cost down. There is no rule on what teams have to charge - so if the Pegula’s wanted to increase profit - there was nothing stopping them from raising ticket prices to league medium and pocketing the extra. They have not shown the interest in doing that and screwing the fan base up to this point. They have kept the price point low and basically have said that to maintain that price point that the fans want - we need a significant amount of public funding. The Pegula’s have maintained all along that there must be a public and private mix of funding. The 100% bull was all shown to be part of poor reporting as was the garbage about Austin Tx. In the end, where the split ends up - is what will decide the future price point for tickets - the more public money - the lower the tickets and PSLs. It is really pretty simple.

I don’t know as I was not in practice, but Sal who was in practice said he looked really good as a blocker and he catches everything. Sal seemed to think he had the best hands of the TE group even with Hollister on the roster. He just lacked that athleticism that Knox and Hollister had. I believe he said that Sweeney was not as good a blocker as Lee Smith, but was a better Athlete and could be better in the red zone. Maybe I am wrong, but the way I interpreted it was Sweeney made this team for short yardage and goal line situations - so to me I thought that meant in spring and early practice and in his limited time in TC - playing when Hollister was out - he made an impression that he could handle that role and when he was out - Hollister and Knox couldn’t. I believe the competition in camp was Knox v Hollister and Sweeney v Becker and the winner of those 2 competitions had a spot. Then The loser of the competition was in a numbers game for a spot on the roster. I am pretty sure Morris was earmarked for the PS as a future athletic TE - I actually was sort of surprised Becker also did not slid in, but with Hollister and then Warring - I think they assumed Becker could just stick around outside the squad. As an FYI - Of all the media guys watching the practice - I tend to trust Sal the most - so I seek out as much of his stuff both in the morning and evening and now he has a new show starting daily. He doesn’t have ever inside scoop, but he actually has some good thoughts about roster building and why certain guys make it or certain guys get released.

They ran that a lot, but used a variety of TEs. They used Knox, Smith, Kroft, Bates got used, and they used Gilliam early in the season for a TD catch. They ran a ton of formations - including bringing McKenzie into the backfield as an RB and moving an actual RB out to WR. I think the difference is they will expect Gilliam, Sweeney, a RB (most likely Moss) with a bigger WR like Kumerow and/or Davis to force the defense to commit to more run stopping front because Sweeney is a better in-line blocker than Knox and Hollister were and Gilliam can be a TE, FB, or even the lone RB if you split Moss out wide. The size and blocking were not available a bunch last year and this then gives the Bills different options. I honestly believe that Sweeney was on this roster because of his blocking as a “Lee Smith” replacement. I think Hollister and Knox were competing for TE #1. Knox won TE #1 - Sweeney was TE #3 (Blocking) - Gilliam was special teams and his position flexibility - so Hollister was slotted into TE#2. When Stevenson played well enough that they could not cut him and the DE group played well enough to keep everyone - numbers started getting tight. I think the final decision was when Phillips was injured. He should be back for week 1, but I think the FO felt they needed Butler - just in case Phillips was unable to go and that additional DL player put TE#2 outside the bubble. I really think Hollister was just edged out and based upon the things Beane said, I really think they would of loved to keep Hollister, but it just didn’t work out with the numbers. They made a decision in the short term for some early season DL protection and it cost them TE#2.

Sorry the 2000 was related to a family of four - which was why it was in parentheses. Yes it is almost like the government is asked to cover the costs of a ton of things that no longer fit. Tons of industry and business and wealthy stakeholders get tons of handouts and this is just another one. Companies all over get huge tax breaks to “create jobs”, but if those jobs never develop - they get additional tax breaks because they lost money. Can you go have a picnic in the Zoo at no charge - they get tons of public funding and you have to pay to attend their service and it is a much smaller group that uses and enjoys the service. How about the Buffalo Museum of Science - are you allowed to just walk in there at no charge when ever you want? I know - the post office - you can mail all your letters for free and borrow a truck (ala Neumann) to transport stuff when you want. How about your local school - can you just walk in and have a seat during lunch and get some food with the kids - you pay your taxes - you are entitled to free food right? Nope - all of those things provide a service and rely on yearly subsidies/taxes to remain open, but you still have to pay to use them - just like the stadium. Maybe all of those things and libraries and adult rec centers etc. are all things that make no economic sense and should be eliminated based on your second paragraph, but they provide a sense community to many people - the cost point is different and the stakes much higher for something’s over others.

Yes it is a subsidy, but not to the owners - to the fans. It allows ticket prices to be significantly less and actually make it affordable. You would need to add over $50 per ticket per game (or $2,000 for a family of four) to every ticket holder just to try and cover the stadium cost. Then every 5-10 years add in renovations and it goes up to $75-$100 per ticket. With that you factor in other increased costs and basically you price the fans out of going and it becomes more Corporate event - see Dallas games. That is the people you are subsidizing - the money is coming from there. Libraries and roads are far from free - without public subsidies they could not exist. They provide services to limited groups of people, but the money comes from public money donated by all. The same goes for schools - you have to pay school tax - even if you do not have any children - you are subsidizing other people to attend school. Just as many people get something out of having the Bills remain in Buffalo as utilize the museums and libraries that get huge amounts of public money. Is it worth it? That is for you to decide - for me it is not a question. The Bills staying in Buffalo means a ton to me and I think it is worth every penny to keep them here. As I said - I would be fine if they wanted to put 2.5 Billion in public funds and make a domed downtown stadium with new infrastructure for the city, but 1 billion in OP is fine also. You last point is just ignorant. The ticket prices will be set to maximize profit, but if the Pegula’s pay for the stadium privately - then they also need to recoup that money. It was discussed a bunch previously that fees and significant PSLs would be needed to cover the cost and with the current stadium client - the cost would price out huge groups of fans. Spreading the billion dollars across NYS allows ticket prices to remain affordable. Again the other piece you never address is why if this is such a loser idea to mix public and private funding - why to every city that loses a team turn right around and suddenly find a way to 100% public fund a stadium to lure the next team. All of these cities must find something redeeming about having NFL football in the community. They all clamor to find funds once they call the bluff and the team moves. So I am not worried - the county and state are going to come together - they will cover 60-70% of the cost. The Bills and the NFL will pick up 30-40% - the stadium will be smaller and the tickets slight higher to recoup their payment and the Bills will be local for another 30-40 years.

Except that is BS. They took the bluff and lost. They decided public money could be used elsewhere, but SD soon found out that meant more of their public funding left the area to support things in LA where their team went. They did not suddenly have some huge influx in cash - the money followed the team and they are no better off. Oakland is starting to see the same thing with money heading toward SF and San Jose to support infrastructure and stadium builds in that area. Now SD has already started internal discussions that if they can get another team where would a stadium go. They have started politically looking at how and where they can publicly finance a build for a baseball/football complex and bring the NFL back. They lost and now realize it was a loss to the community. St. Louis for years has been fighting the fight - they had the Cardinals and didn’t pony up the money - lost the Cardinals to Arizona. Then spent huge money and effort to lure the Rams - the city got raped to get that team. Then in a flash - they are gone and once again they are looking at ways to rebuild and get a new team. Baltimore/Cleveland/LA - same story over and over - the cities plays hardball or drag their feet and franchises do what they have to do - Iconic Franchises - Baltimore Colts - Original Cleveland Browns - original NFL franchises pack up in the dead of night and bang gone. But to you that is a good thing - those cities should have a glut of public money for projects, but it doesn’t work that way - suddenly the city lacks an identity and very shortly they are 100% publicly financing a new stadium. The dumbest argument for not building the stadium is the “it won’t pay for itself” and “it doesn’t create the economic impact to counter the cost”. That is just asinine. Of course it won’t pay for itself or create the impact to cover the cost - that is why public money is needed. If they made a huge profit - then privately people would finance it and suck off the profit. Do libraries and museums make a profit? Nope - they suck huge amounts of public funds every year to cover costs, upgrades, projects. Roads are needed, but they bring in no money, but we spend tons of money on roads. The list is endless on what our public money goes to and almost all of it is money lost. In this case it is money lost to keep an identity for the area and I am ok with that. The final piece is if we tried to ask the users to pay only and you want to understand the impact on who attends - you are looking at adding about $100 in fees a ticket or about $1000 per seat pear season to pay off the initial build and interest in 20 years. Plus as we already know - being open air - upgrades and new features will need to be added within the first 10 years and every 10 years afterwards. So a season ticket holder of 4 seats will suddenly have to pay a new PSL, higher seat prices, and over $4000 in fees each year - so suddenly it costs a ticket holder about $12,000 or more each year and for club type seats 25 - 30,000 or more per season. Have fun with that.

Why should they step up and tell you anything? Look around the league - there are several privately financed stadiums and to recoup the cost you have huge PSLs and massive ticket prices and regular fans no longer attend and the games become corporate in nature. See Dallas. There are other stadiums - like what the Pegula’s want - with a public/private mix that has helped maintain ticket prices and fan support. See Pittsburgh The issue is what are you willing to spend and if you look at the earlier part of this - most people don’t or can’t have a big ticket increase and so what should happen - The Pegula’s like everyone else want to make money to keep the teams active - so the cost is the cost. People ar paying eithe way - the question is how many people do you want to spread that cost out to. You tax money already pays for multiple new stadiums in and around NYC - multiple new Baseball, basketball, hockey and football. Your tax money goes to providing tax breaks to many businesses owned by billionaires. You have an option, you just don’t like it. Pony up and have a mix of public or private funding or become the next Oakland/SD. I am still hopeful for a mostly public funded stadium because I believe that gives us the best chance at a similar game day experience. I know it won’t ever recoup the cost, but I am willing to eat that cost for something that makes my life better rather than seeing that money flow elsewhere to be spent on things that do not benefit me at all.

Your a great fan it will just be of another team. Enjoy 🤦‍♂️

Why would they change the rules - the team needs a new stadium, the league wants a new stadium, the owner is working on getting a deal done and you are driving them out with a completely stupid logic. Good God - I thought the fan base was smarter than this. 🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️

Even if you had the price the league doesn’t allow it - so your sorry plan moves the team out - hello Buffalo with no sports. Good For You! 👏👏👏👏👏🤦‍♂️

There are dozens of studies that look at financial impacts, but they ignore huge swaths of impact on the economy. They look at the relative economic impact without things like lost jobs and taxes of the players and owners, the subset of people that are impacted like all of the merchandise in stores that are sold and shipped and the sales tax on that. The change in the attitude of the community and the impact on social services needed and loss of donations. So yes it is well known that a stadium by itself will not pay for itself, but the added benefits of the stadium and the team have huge benefits to the community and that becomes both financial and community wide benefits. You are correct ticket pricing is going to change - the difference is if it is a publicly financed project and the cost is picked up across millions of people - individual cost is lessened and the money to cover the stadium cost does not need to be picked up by the owner and passed on to each visitor. If it is privately financed - that cost is then spread across just the 60,000 fans and hits them every visit. Ask the fans in any of these newer stadiums about things like PSLs and what it costs to actually attend games in LA or NY or even NE. NE fans were thrilled that Kraft was building a privately funded stadium and wasn’t going to have PSLs everyplace. Now if you read about it - most fans have been priced out and it has become a corporate venue where people are less concerned about the game and more about the vibe. It has been a huge complaint. The Pegula’s in doing their fan survey already have an idea of certain price points and the only way to get there is a healthy mix. As to you final point - of course there are millions of investment opportunities that provide better return, but the chances of Buffalo getting those are slim to non. You can easily say let’s not write Terry a check and 100% the Bills leave and what do you gain. Does Buffalo get the 1 Billion dollars freed up to do something with? Does Buffalo lose an identity and become another also-ran small city? Does Buffalo suddenly lose 53 millionaires that buy houses, pay taxes, buy vehicles, throw huge parties and become a fabric of the community. How much is that worth? Your point about infrastructure is why to me the best thing the county and state could do is say - we want this thing built downtown and we want the infrastructure built up around it and we will cover the costs and it is going to be used to drive much needed infrastructure and change. Will it make money - nope, but can it be used to get things that are badly needed and ignored no - yes it can. Overall - in the end - it is going to be a mix with a huge amount publicly financed and it will get done and that is a good thing.

You are completely principled on this - so as the people of SD, LA, Oakland, Cleveland, Baltimore, and St. Louis for example - how great it was to call the bluff. Those cities all called the bluff and lost their teams - did that help and improve the local economy? Did those cities all suddenly become wealthy because they didn’t subsidize a stadium? Nope all of those cities except SD so far - went out and subsidized a stadium very shortly after and then aggressively went out to pay through the nose to get a new team back. A majority of the time now in a 100% public financed stadium to lure teams back. So you can be fully principled and say no public funds and then drop your drawers and bend over when they leave ala St.Louis, Cleveland, Baltimore, and LA. Or you can have a stadium sitting there and no team so it is just a waste and reminder - ala SD and Oakland the second time (both of which are trying to figure out if they can get new teams to return and what it will take). Or you can work with the team, county, and state to come up with a public/private mix and get things taken care of and maintain the team and still maintain the current fan mix. The final thing is you can pray they want to do a 100% private and the Pegula’s own the stadium, but then you better be prepared not to attend any more. Anything greater than about 30% paid by the owners will come with pricing out the majority of fans - see the NY teams, Dallas, and Boston. They make back the money and true fans no longer can afford to attend. So for me - I hope the stadium is nearly 100% financed by the public because even though it will never return the money - the team and the experience are more important in the end.

Agreed - and I would expect a lot of what I am calling a Hybrid 12 player grouping near the goal line. 1 RB, Gilliam as a TE/shift FB (hence the hybrid), and 1TE with Sweeney. I think then you bring in Kumerow or Davis as the #2 WR to give a big body/blocker. I think this player grouping allows for a ton of variation for a talented play caller like Dabol with RB runs, shifting Gilliam into the backfield - you have quick handoffs to him, you can use him to help gain an edge and run pitchouts to the RB - heck you can even do the Kelce play where they toss Gilliam the ball so it is a forward pass and let him crash into the line. You could fake a pitch to the weak side and have Josh follow Gilliam as a lead blocker. You could fake the run and have the #2 WR on a crossing route and the TE sliding out to the back corner and Gilliam just busting forward and turning around past the goal line to hold LBs and the RB sprinting out into the flat. Or you can reverse that and have the TE run across and the WR block down and then pivot to the corner. There are just a ton of plays with that player group and utilizing different formations and I think it starts with a better blocking TE like Sweeney and a jackknife of a player in Gilliam. My guess is Daboll and the offensive staff discussed player grouping a lot and this type of play is not in Hollister’s wheel house. It is also not in Knox’s wheel house - which is why I don’t think it came down to Sweeney versus Hollister. I think it was Knox versus Hollister once the WRs and DL showed out and Knox has looked really good. Once Knox got the starting job - then it fell to who else do we keep and what positions and Hollister backing up Knox could more easily be replaced by a WR than losing Stevenson/Kumerow or Addison/Obada. It stinks, but I get it.

I am not sure I believe the bolder bit. Just based upon Beane’s comments alone - I think they would of loved to have him on the PS and it was very close to getting on the 53. I think based upon what Beane said in his news conference and on WGR about how he handles cuts - that he and Hollister and probably Hollister agent had a discussion and they decided that he had opportunities to make someone else’s 53 and they gave their blessing to pursue that. Beane quite candidly stated he thought he would sign on someone else’s roster and that the door here was not closed and that he could be brought back, but I think the agent was already working on landing places. Beane seems well respected by agents for his honesty and openness as was seen when he talked about how they signed Mitch and the discussion Beane and Mitch’s agent had - so it would not surprise me if Beane had a similar discussion and that was why Hollister was an early cut and my guess is that just increases the respect these agents have for Beane.

This exactly - The way Beane talked him at the press conference and the things Beane said on WGR about the cut process - I strongly believe the Bills like Hollister and wanted to put him on the PS, but in discussion with the player and the agent decided he was probably good enough for someone else’s 53 and as a sign of respect - they agreed to cut him early and let him pursue that. I am pretty sure that is where the comment came from by Beane that we are not closing the door and if a spot opens he would be welcomed back. I think most of us (me included) thought that he would be a quick re-sign to the practice squad, but I think that is part of what makes this a good front office - I think they worked with the player and let him go after a 53 and had a backup plan to bring in another player as needed.

I will say the other piece that I think worked against Hollister was Reggie Gilliam becoming a multi position NFL level player. Where I expected Hollister to have a big advantage on the Bills was in an H-Back role - picking up blitzes and then sliding out to become an outlet. He seemed to do that well in Seattle and I thought that was a spot Knox struggled last year. I think Gilliam showed he could become the Bills version of Kittle lite in the backfield. He can protect, he can slip out for catches, he can run that Kelce style TE/H back shovel pass near the goal line, and he can run the ball on occasion. I think the Bills looked at it as we have Gilliam and Sweeney near the goal line and Knox in the middle of the field - what role does Hollister bring other than back-up to these spots and is that worth a roster spot over Kumerow/Stevenson or Addison/Obada?

Maybe people are embellishing what people are saying because of things like your original statement. Keeping Sweeney over Hollister is going to “hurt the team” and “fans will be right”. Basically the last 2 years the #2 TE has been targeted 14 and 16 times in total with a catch rate of 45% and 75%. I am not sure that Hollister or Sweeney in that role truly “hurts the team”. I also think that where the Bills will utilize the #2 TE most is around the goal line as a blocker sneak out TE - think Lee Smith and that is where Kroft got several of his catches. If the Bills think Sweeney is the better in-line blocker and he has pretty much continued through this camp catching everything thrown his way per Sal (Sal stated he thought Sweeney had the best hands of all the TEs and it wasn’t close) then Sweeney was kept for a specific reason - a role Hollister could not fill. Hollister and Knox in the end were competing for other TE position because of the numbers - so I don’t look at it as Sweeney over Hollister because I think Sweeney fills a specific role that Knox and Hollister can’t. I look at it as Knox over Hollister and that may be a mistake - it may not - but those 2 play a similar role and based upon the Media watching practice - Sal (and the coach and GM) said that Knox has looked real good and they like what they see. Honestly based on Beane’s comments - I think they liked Hollister, but preferred Knox’s upside and his work ethic. I think (and it is just my opinion) the Bill’s would of liked to get him on the PS, but in discussion (sort of like Cam Newton) - Hollister felt he could make another teams starting 53 (and maybe Beane even suggested to him to go ahead and try) and therefore they agreed not to go the PS route. Beane did say it was available and not to rule him coming back - so to me it read like - the Bill’s decided on Knox over Hollister and then working with the player and agent decided to let him pursue other options and left the door open if things don’t work out we would love to have you back. My final guess is in the end because Jacksonville has a rookie QB and an offense that uses TEs - Hollister will get more opportunity there than the TEs here. The WR room here is too good and too well stocked for a back up TE to see the field enough to be a difference maker. Where it might hurt is if Knox reverts back and is unreliable- then Knox over Hollister was a mistake. Sweeney was most likely the right call as he was the only true in-line blocker of the 3 and fills the role in the red zone to run those look like I am blocking and slip out roles.

I would agree, but owning the Sabres is his life long dream - so I doubt he sells them anytime soon. The state keeps finding ways to build new arenas all over NYC for hockey, basketball, football, and baseball. My guess is they will come up with the funding at some point for the Sabres, but they absolutely have to turn it around first. At some point Hockey is also going to have to have another come to Jesus moment because once again Cost is outstripping revenue for many teams as the cap goes up - even after huge loses.