Ed_Formerly_of_Roch

Is kind of surprising that Knox hasn't yet cleared the Covid list unless he's still suffering the effects of the concussion so a convenient way to keep him off the active roster until then. Since he was positive already, just keep him there a little longer or he is still in a positive state?

Agree I've been wondering about some of these things too. The one that I think may more stick is the 3 week IR return.

Hmmm... interesting. But will the NFL just shuffle the deck and again go with someone else exclusively so can charge whatever they want like Apple TV. Or will there be competing packages? Will the NFL decide to go on their own. Much more work and more costs to distribute, but keep all the profits too. Maybe a unique way would be to give ST to someone like Apple, but then allow say Amazon to sell 32 packages of individual teams only. Maybe it costs half of the full amount, but would stop ST from getting to high in price as then people could switch. Or like ESPN, it's available thru Hulu, Sling, You Tube, etc.

But this was against NE and Belichick. I'll bet even after looking at the All-22 you may think that was simple, Allen just didn't read it correctly, he waited too long. But knowing it was NE, there likely were things going on that were better disguised than when facing other teams and while viewing the tape may not be obvious, to Allens eyes, thinks may have looked different at least on some drop backs.

Well if those are the numbers then you're likely correct, didn't think it was so one sided for ST, they could likely make money as a stand alone. Could be something in the existing contract prohibits them from doing this now, so they need to wait for a new one. Will likely find out soon enough if ATT keeps it or not. Does make you wonder if ATT did look at it long term when purchasing DTV, did they buy it strictly for 2022 when the existing contract expires and they will then offer and bid for a stand alone. And will they again out bid everyone and then sell off DTV?

Yes they do have a stand alone product, but would you pay over $1000 for a stand alone? The problem is if they offered a stand alone, likely 1/2 their subscribers would dump DTV and they'd be losing probably at least $100 to $200 per person per month, easily over $1000 per year per account. Doubt they can charge that much to make up for it AND keep DTV up and running. They probably could make money on it if they shut down DTV and just sold ST

So about 5 or 6 years ago, think it was the first year DTV offered the stand alone, I still had cable at the time. Went to the DTV website and filled out a form, they asked: 1) Do you currently have DTV 2) Can you get DTV at your location 3) Have you ever had DTV at this location I answered NO to all (which was a half truth) and did get the stand alone streaming. At that point really wasn't all that good, feature wise was more limited, no multi game view, etc. A year or two later went with DTV and ST for maybe 4 to 5 years, but discounts were harder every year to get. Got to point all credits expired, they'd give me like a total of $10 in new credits so I dumped them. 3 weeks later they offered me like $60 off to return. If they had even given me half that amount I'd never have left. But by then had bought a TIVO DVR and antenna so wasn't going back. I now live in a new house so there never has been DTV at this location but really haven't even bothered to try calling, gave up on them.

I completely agree with your first paragraph, the one problem I have with DTV is that they won't offer it as a stand alone to EVERYONE. To get ST with DTV is costing close to $1500 to $2000 a year. I'd pay $400 for a stand alone streaming package, but they won't sell it to me. And before someone tells me they do offer it as a stand alone, it appears to be extremely limited addresses that can get it. I put in my new address in a new development which isn't even on some maps, so there was never DTV here prior. I then tried the address of more than one nursing home and assisted living housing my mother was in and they also were not eligible addresses according to them so I have no idea who/where might be eligible

I don't understand why people think the NFL should have opened things up in particular in 2014. If you were selling something and someone offered you $100 for the item and someone else offered your $300, which would you take? From what I recall DTV offered the NFL crazy amounts as they knew without ST, DTV would go down the tubes. The NFL and DTV signed the contract so both are part of the lawsuit, but it's DTV who is on the hook to lose exclusivity in the deal. The NFL is just looking for whomever will pay them the most money Having said that there are a number of things that changed since the last contract extension in 2014 From the DTV side they were bought out by ATT and ATT seems to be much tighter with things. I had DTV and ST for a number of years and once they were bought out, the discounts were much harder to come by. Wouldn't shock me to know that DTV was/is losing money these days with ST. So I think next year when the contract is up for renewal, I don't think ATT will bid more than they are able to make money from. There also is much more streaming content today then there was in 2014 when the last contract was signed both legal and illegal and all the illegal streams makes it tougher for DTV to gain subscribers, then add on all the cord cutting. In 2014 streaming was not nearly as widespread and the quality wasn't often that great either. So while I understand why the NFL signed the contract with DTV and their goal is to make the most money, I don't think there will be a renewal with DTV next year as likely the money offered from them will be lower and today streaming is the way to go and the league knows that too. And will root for DTV to lose the lawsuit so things are opened up more. Personally I'd be willing to pay $300 to $400 for ST as a stand alone streaming package, but not when you add another $100 a month for things I'm now watching via an antenna or through other cheaper means

Add to that teams tended to all "keep their own" this August

Couple that with Beane not knowing there's be no off season mini camp, no pre-season and a somewhat limited training camp. The team has 4 new D lineman this year, plus H Phillips who missed most of last year. While the team overall had few personal changes and brought back most starters, the one position group this was not the case for was the D line so think that may be part of the issue with the line play in particular since the scheme is we don't have a superstar, but we'll overwhelm you with rolling in fresh subs which for the most part worked last year. But with as many changes this year, hasn't been working. It does make me wonder if Beane knew what he knows now back in March with the off season restrictions and Star opting out, would he have instead resigned both Phillips and Lawson basically brought the band back.

Interesting if you look at the odds all year, the Bills have won the games they were favored in and lost the games they were the underdog, so apparently they are about as good as most think they are. in 3 of their wins they were dead even on the spread too and the other three they slightly beat the spread.

The podcast may have stolen that from an article I read earlier. Not only do they have Houston #1, but also their 2nd round. Thought they may even have an extra 2022 pick too. So they have many picks that they could trade to move up assuming they can find a partner. But like Buffalo two years ago, they are winning too much to have a real good pick so will see how it works out.

If he felt this was the year for us to win it all, he might be more willing to make more moves. But we're still likely a year away. While much can change in a year, next season playing both the NFC and AFC south which don't look too bad other than Tenn and the two old B&B guys. Think it was harder this year to find buyers due to all the roster restrictions added. Teams more stuck with their own.

Agree. Don't understand why lineman aren't taught to automatically jump. I suppose the risk is if they move too late and the D lineman is already back, or they think the guy jumped, but he didn't go far enough or the ref didn't see it. But overall agree jump up and down. Maybe it's one of these things that's much easier to see from up high on TV than when you're in the trenches, so that's why they don't do it more often.

Agree if you can get someone from the outside, fine. But within the roster they have right now, he still may be there best option if not their only option.

Hard to take someone seriously when you mention Joseph a six round pick. By year 3 only about 35% of six rounders are even still in the league. You do remember Phillips was out last year with an ACL? The LB group excluding Alexander who retired is the same as what finished 2nd was it overalll last year on defense?? One of the things that I thought was going to help the Bills this year was they brought back 18 1/2 starters from last year. only changes were Diggs, Lorax and give them a 1/2 for Lawson and J Phillips as they weren't starters, but they did play a lot. Overall they didn't sign that many FA, but many they did sign were all concentrated within one position group and they did change alot on the def line depth wise and that was before they lost Star. They have 4 new players from last year plus Phillips who barely played last year. Without any off season workouts, then no normal training camp and pre-season think it's made it hard for them to jell. It may take awhile. I do wonder in hindsight if Beane knew how the off-season was going to go, would he have instead tried to re-sign Lawson and/or Phillips mainly for continuity. Though likely every GM would say the same.

Certainly would agree in both the Raiders and Jets game, they out played the Raiders/Jets, but game went down to the end. and almost lost First half the Bills controlled things pretty well, though the Pats D stopped the Bills. 2nd half to me it seemed Pats outplayed Buffalo. Cam either threw it into the dirt or had made some very good passes. Was one extreme or the other it seemed.

So if you put him on IR will the team be better with whomever replaces him? LB is probably the position we are thinnest at to start with. Likely it's one of these injures where he's been told playing with it won't make it worse, but won't get better until he has surgery at season end.

Out coached by the greatest coach of all times and still won. I'll take that! Not sure either that you can say the Pats had no right to win. They ran more plays, more total offensive yards, very close on time of possession and 1st down. Both teams had key players out.

#1 Almost seemed like Dabolls plan today was we are going to prove we can run it and just keep running which for the most part worked. But do think a few more 1st down passes would have helped some. #2 There was one run by Moss outside to the left, thought he'd be better staying towards the middle, no idea though if that was the call to go wide or he bounced it out. #3 Feleciano was a huge difference. If Morse is out next week, wonder if we'd be better with Bates at center and put Feleciano at his normal position? #4 Wow, first time I actually recognized the lyrics! #8 Allen took what they gave him. #9 Do wonder if Belichicks kids will cause dissension within the coaching ranks and even the players. Kids of reminds me of the Chris Polian situation.

Think the A is way to high, around B sound better. The int wasn't really on him and wind was bad. They also ran maybe too much so put Allen back there passing when everyone knew he was passing which doesn't help. Almost seemed like the game plan today was "we are going to show that we can run the ball today no matter what" Which to their credit, they did. On the other hand a a D+ for last week sounds way too low, 300 yards, a hair under 70% completion, no int's and nine drives within scoring position. Yes no TD's but many of those weren't his fault. Was it his fault that Davis didn't line up right on the line or the O line holding that pushed them way back. Don't recall some of the other drives anymore, but was much better than a D+ performance IMO.

Read an article today that claimed the reason the Fish changed to Tua was because they have two 1st and 2nd round picks both this year and next. So they are the team that could trade up as high as needed all the way to #1 overall as they have the most draft capitol in the league. Therefore they want to play Tua now to determine if he's the answer or do they need to get a better QB in the upcoming draft. Granted they need a trade partner but in theory they could move up more than anyone else. If a team like the Bengals ended up with the overall 1st, could see them trading the pick or Borrow.

Think thats the one position we need more than any to help with stopping the run.

Yup out coached by likely the best coach of all time and still won the game!