DaggersEOD
-
Posts
597 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Gallery
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by DaggersEOD
-
-
I have to agree that the constant politics in your face is a huge turnoff. I guess they just can't help themselves.
SJWs are this generation's Bible Thumper. And just as much fun to talk to...and have mixed in with your sports.
I miss the Boomer/NFL Countdown days. I would look forward to that show all day!
If they got back to their roots, I would probably come back. While all the different league specific channels (NFL Network, MLB Network, etc) are good, ESPN was really the only place you can go to get a little something from everywhere. I would actually get a little interested in other sports from their highlights, something that wouldn't have happened without Sportscenter. And I think there is still a market for something like that.
They just need to get away from the "stars", return to growing non-athlete reporting talent, stop producing shows like they're tabloids and get rid of the non-sports talk. Is that asking too much??
-
2
-
1
-
-
2 hours ago, Ramza86 said:
I agree with this until a team that has a good composition that favors the poor elements.
A team like the titans could come in here on a bad weather day and take advantage of the poor weather.
I guess what I'm saying is that JA DOES take advantage of poor weather. Just because someone else can ALSO do it, doesn't mean the advantage isn't real IMO.
-
Finally a Vote that doesn't make me feel gross...
GO BILLS!!!!
-
1
-
-
11 minutes ago, SF Bills Fan said:
At the half yesterday Gonzalez and Strahan were praising Josh Allen and Bradshaw just stared down at the desk silently.
I think he was just sleeping off his morning "hair of the dog".
The shakes look really bad on TV lol
-
1
-
1
-
-
I can see why we’d want a dome. With JA slinging the rock like he is, we want to provide him with a perfect environment to really maximize his capabilities. It makes sense, but only if we look exclusively on the “O” side of the ball.
While JA MAY complete a lower % of passes in an open stadium, I think his Comp % will be higher than the opposing QB in the same environment due to his physical capabilities.
So, IMO having an open stadium is a net benefit to the Bills if you take all three phases of the game into account.
-
It wasn’t until I saw the victory formation.
What a fun game to watch!
-
-
10 hours ago, nedboy7 said:
Google it. There are articles about it.Yup 3 students.
-
1
-
-
12 minutes ago, C.Biscuit97 said:
So this is where fans have a disconnect. The Bills and this regime have raised the bar. The expectations should be higher. Last Sunday, it was a win but it was a disappointing win. It would have be nice to destroy a banged up and bad NE team. But they did win and know have a chance to beat a legit good team (with a very suspect defense).
That said, if we did lose a guy 38-35, I actually would feel better about it than the NE game. But I’m a weirdo.
How about we put together an entire season of success before we start arbitrarily raising the bar.
Raising the bar mid season sounds an awful lot like moving the goal posts.
My 2020 goals were (are) to win the division and win AT LEAST one playoff game. How we get there is literally irrelevant IMO
-
5
-
-
I think that if we had a solid DL, Milano wouldn’t have to take on as many lineman and have a greater chance of staying healthy.
IMO, fixing the DL would also help keep Milano on the field. It all starts in the trenches and our trenches always seem to start with the LBs.
-
On 10/22/2020 at 9:27 AM, Hapless Bills Fan said:
Fair question and actually reasonable analogy.
I would say fans in the stands (or not) can very directly impact the quality of play on the field at gametime thus the parity of competition across the league.
Some have actually proposed that franchises in states with income tax should have their salary cap adjusted to account for this, and struck me as a reasonable change. But as it stands, certainly there can be seen to be a disadvantage in attracting and paying for premium FA who have their choice of teams, so the competitive disadvantage is probably real. But of course other factors enter into those FA decisions as well (quality of the team, coaching, facilities, location). And it doesn't affect where players on their rookie contract, players claimed on waivers, or UDFA just trying to make a team wind up. So the effect on competitive advantage is more distant and less direct.
As a fan of a team in the highest taxed state, I also hate it when we're competing against the Fins for talent against zero income taxes. Completely agree with that point. It sucks but it's still something that has been tolerated for as long as there has been an NFL (Ok, I wasn't around that long so I may be assuming lol)
That said, these teams have proven to not be static. Many teams have moved throughout the history of the NFL and others were created. A MAJOR decision factor must include taxes and business climate. States/governments are businesses too (for those who don't get into local politics) who's #1 job is attracting residents and businesses.
I don't know if it's wise to disturb the current set up. I mean, why just stop at 0% income and Not 0% income. Should all states and teams have a sliding scale of cap as it relates to the various income taxes? What taxes should be included and how would they be weighted? Is income tax more important than sales/property taxes (which are usually a lot higher in no income tax states)?
Once you try to meld professional sports with political/tax climate, you're opening yourself up to a TON of risks downstream.
So this as well as the stadium attendance should be left to the locals not the NFL IMO.
-
9 hours ago, Rc2catch said:
Leave the states and government out of it. This should be a league issue.
The league should be the ones saying either all teams have fans or NO teams have fans.
These owners are all in the same boat, they’re all losing profits from ticket sales. I 100% think it’s a competitive advantage. I 100% think it has effects on players.
The league should of jumped in right from the start and said we are all in this together. All or nothing.
It’s too late now to change things as they are already dealing with enough. Just not sure how some owners signed off on thisSee I’m of the opposite mind. Instead of defaulting to the lowest common denominator we should be aiming for the eventual goal, normal stadium attendance.
If stadiums continue to increase attendance, it’s progress. Limiting or adding new restrictions on attendance is regression.
The NFL should allow the maximum amount of fans per the local directive.
They don’t handicap franchises with no state income tax, how is this different?
-
50 minutes ago, FireChans said:
It’s not close. One team has an MVP QB who has won a Super Bowl already. One team does not.
While Mahomes already won the MVP, JA is proving he’s of the same caliber by being in the MVP conversation this year.
The Super Bowl is a Team Accomplishment IMO and while Mahomes certainly had a lot to do with that, I think it’s only a side bar to this conversation.
I think they both possess a dominant talent and by the end of this year, may also possess similar accolades.
While (per the pole so far) most fans still value Mahomes more (for good reason) I also don’t think those same fans can honestly say the gap hasn’t shrunk dramatically this year.
-
I don’t the think Mahomes would have had the same success here that he enjoyed in KC.
I DO know that JA is having success here so that plus Tre? Maybe not the case last year, but this year I think it’s getting close and closer to a draw.
-
3
-
-
17 hours ago, Rubes said:
Our defense was clearly weakened by the losses of Edmunds and Milano. Those two are essential and we don't have backups that can do what they do. We had no answer to Fitz (Fitz!) and the Dolphins attack, although at least part of that was probably due to heat and exhaustion. Nevertheless, we need those two back badly.
Not this week, though. I don't expect to see either of them on the field against the Rams. It's possible Edmunds dresses, but I don't expect to see him play unless needed. Why?
- Non-conference game, doesn't mean much (despite old prior threads)
- Still in first place even if we lose
- Still undefeated in the division and conference even if we lose
- Brutal stretch of 5 consecutive AFC games coming up after (Raiders, Titans, Chiefs, Jets, Patriots)
- Need them as healthy as possible for those five games, the AFC is at stake
Unless they're both near 100%, give them time to rest and heal up. We're gonna need them much more in a couple of weeks.
I see what you’re saying but at the end of the year, we’re always counting wins/games/common opponents/etc trying to either get into the playoffs or to get a better seed.
I just don’t think we have the luxury of NOT going 100% for any game.
If they’re available, they play IMO
-
Shaw, been an avid reader of yours since the BBMB.
There were some dark and dreary Monday's the last couple decades. The only bright spot was your Rockpile Reviews.
ALWAYS a must read.
Great write up as always Shaw.
-
3 hours ago, Simon said:
About :30 into that clip, when JA and JB are celebrating.
Do those two little scamps share a toke and a shot ? - )
You think they call him "smoke" because he's fast?
-
1
-
-
22 hours ago, MAJBobby said:
Maybe read the thread and see what the Vets are saying
If you are a vet, you know better than to say you speak for all of them.
-
It’s actually not illegal to discriminate based on political views depending on state laws. There is no federal law saying you can’t. Religion, age, sex, race all covered but political affiliation is usually not.
Most people assume you can’t but in a lot of cases, you can. Oddly enough though it’s usually left refusing right and not the other way around.
-
3 hours ago, Thurman#1 said:
If the Giants want Barkley, they'll be willing to trade back to #4 or possibly even #5. Which would make it pretty likely we could get to #2 with two trades.
And the Giants could just as easily be targeting DE Chubb rather than RB Barkley. Or one of the two.
It's not a crap shoot whatsoever. It's a play on the odds. If you get a QB with the top pick, your odds of success in getting a franchise QB are somewhere around 70%. Get one with the #2 - #5 pick your odds are still above 50% you get a franchise guy (just based on what's happened since 2000). Below that, your odds drop. The farther down you go, the lower the odds. That's not a crap shoot.
Getting a franchise QB is huge, the single biggest piece piece of the puzzle. It doesn't guarantee team success, as guys like Rivers and Archie Manning show. But without a franchise QB your odds of winning a Super Bowl are absolutely miniscule.
So what do you do? You maximize the odds of getting a franchise QB. And you do that by getting a high pick in the draft, at least if you don't manage to get Cousins or Brees in FA.
Yeah, if you can't do that, you keep trying further down anyway. But you give up a lot - an absolute ton - to trade up into the purer air at higher altitudes to maximize your chances.
It ain't a coincidence we hear that Beane is "trying like hell" to trade up. The Jets trading up to #3 put us under huge pressure.
I read this and sometime I think people confuse “Cause” with “Effect”.
It seems like some feel that the high pick will “cause” the “effect” of a great QB selection. But it’s the quality of the player that “causes” the “effect” of a high pick.
Like a person who sees happy people at a party and assumes the party is the “cause” of the happiness. They get confused when they are still
unhappy even when they throw their own party. The party was the “effect” of happy people but was not the “cause” of it so assuming that throwing a party will make you happy is foolish.
Just becuase we use a very high draft pick on a guy, it doesn’t change the quality of the player. He must be the “cause” and worth the high pick to have the “effect” of being a good QB.
Its seems that some think that using a high pick on a QB causes them to have a higher success rate. But it’s not the pick, it’s the person who makes the pick successful.
-
On 11/10/2017 at 12:58 PM, SoTier said:
Your arguments, I suppose, are from the talking points made by your KKK chapter. Bigots who want to justify racism always find a way.
FYI, since there are about 3 times more non-Hispanic whites in the US than there are blacks, the police should be killing 3 times as many whites as blacks in order for your numbers to represent anything but racist propaganda.
Didn’t take too long to get to kill whitey now did it.
-
4 hours ago, GETTOTHE50 said:
Absolutely. Id even be willing to take away the tv scoreboard. I just want to see the field and stadium. Is that so much to ask?
To me the worst part is after a play they zoom in on a random player/coach’s face so we can witness their reaction or emotion.
WHO CARES!
I want to see the field. The personnel changes. Formations (not 1 sec before the ball is snapped). Defensive communications and don’t get me started on the “follow the ball” camera. Yeah it’s good to see the action but they zoom in so much that tacklers literally appear out of thin air (off camera obviously) and you get no idea of where the play is on the field and the actions of players trying to get to the play.
It’s like they are so focused on the “drama” and the “emotion” that the actual game takes a back seat. As a fan I don’t care how a player/coach feels. I just want to enjoy the game.
/Rant Over
-
I wonder if white guys on the internet could stop telling us how black people think.
Probably right after Black People stop telling white people what they really mean when they say something.
-
I have my own business - If my employees knelt quietly for 45 seconds before they started their shift, I really wouldn't give a crap.
Would you give a crap if by them doing it they were insulting your customers and losing you business?
Can someone explain the Josh Allen hate from Bomani Jones and Dominique Foxworth??
in The Stadium Wall Archives
Posted
Pretty sure Rush Limbaugh did that with Donovan McNab. Fired on the spot.
Here's me holding my breath....