Ed_Formerly_of_Roch

Probably the way that's prevented is your DTV box has an ethernet connection as would your computer/playstation. I'm no network genius but I'd imagine it would be easy for them to verify that both IP addresses are coming from same router?? Now I believe you can pay cable for a dedicated IP address and for a second one if you don't wish to go through a router. Maybe then with two IP addresses could get around it. Of course the cost for two dedicated IP addresses may be more than paying the $350 per year for ST to Go I had the online streaming last year, they asked me three questions via an online form Do you currently have DTV? Can you get DTV at your current address? 3rd one I believe was?? Have you ever had DTV at the current address? Now the first one is easy for them to verify, plus if you have DTV you may as well go direct through them as I'd imagine it's cheaper as more wheeling and dealing. 2nd and 3rd are almost the same thing difference being the 3rd one could also look at prior home owners at that same address. If someone 5 years ago had DTV at that address, then obviously you can get it. 2nd question on it's own would be hard to verify without them sending someone to physically check. I think they have to ask these questions, maybe verify against a database no prior account at that address, as long as the answer is no, they are happy to take your money. Really don't see who this hurts much other than local affiliates as you're not watching the game on local channel and there are maybe a couple of local commercials each half that you're now missing. DTV still gets some money from subscribers as opposed to otherwise people watching illegal downloads, hence DTV gets nothing from them. You'd still keep cable as opposed to going to DTV and cable loses your business completely. NFL I'd imagine gets mone yfor each ST account whether it be via DTV or ST to Go. Other than maybe local station who loses on this??

Totally agree! You can't keep giving up on draft picks early on and then go with someone else. In the limited time Bell has played, he's shown a huge improvement. Will it continue or has he hit the wall?? No one knows but from what we've seen I'd think he could improve more. Will he be a pro-bowl caliper player, may not, but you don't need 5 all rpo linemen on the team either. If Bell were to become the weak link on the line, we'd be in great shape as that means the other four spots are real strong. In spite of everything going on with AL, I stil lthink we're in pretty good shape inside. The other problem I have with this thread is who were all these players the Bills should have signed eariler?? Clabo we tried, didn't work, would offering more money helped, maybe? But it also may be felt that there isn't that much differnce betwen Pears and Clabo to justify the extra $$. The offenseive line was not the weak point of the team last year, the D was. We have the same core players back all with one more year experience. Barring injuries, I think the line can be effective.

Nothing new as they had this last year via a computer.

You can also get Sunday Ticket to Go with just and Internet connect, agai nfor same price. Has anyone had any experience as to whether they are willing to deal on ST toGo? It would seem to be more of a captive audiance, less reason for them to wheel and deal??

I'd recommend the Canadian Ballet.

One of the comments I've heard from more than once source, early on all the teams will look better on D than offense, maybe for the first month or so not surprising to hear.

Yes, that outside or RT, they weren't all that bad last year, and now have another year under their belt for the interior guys. Bell could work all off-season on getting stonger which he couldn't do last year. They also picked up two on waivers Ubrik and Pears who could be the last two starters.Moving Woods to center tells me the Bill's feel they are better with him and Ubrik starting than Woods at Guard and Hang at center. And Hang was far from terrible, would consider him average. So that is now an upgrade to some extent. As long as they don't get hurt, I think they will be fine on their line.

Maybin is somewhere between 8 and 10th on the depth chart. There's many questions as to whether he'll even make the team depending on how many LB's they keep. So unless Roth is better than the 7 ahead of him all you're doing is replacing Maybin with someone else you'd then cut.

Actually they are doing a great job, threads like this prove how many people are listening. The more threads that appear about WGR, the more thye can keep doing what they are doing. You want to change things, if everyone on this board never mentioned them again, then things may change. as long as threads keep popping up, they are getting air time!

That's the problem the Bills have is signing too many busts. I'd be willing to bet if you really took a close look at every other team in the league, the percent of busts the Bills have isn't much different than most teams. The problem is a team like Dallas, Washington, etc can afford busts and can cut their losses easier and move on and somehow replace the mistake. Often the replacement is another mistake, that's why Washington while always making big moves, never seem to work out. The Bills front office needs to do better than most for s couple reasons, firs tit won't be as big a deal when people do leave, plus if the team is playing better, players may not be as quick to leave, and will be easier to attract others if they are winning more. PS I'm not ready to place Spiller in this group yet either of busts.

My questions is geared towards those who have Sunday Ticket to Go without the full Sunday Ticket. Sticktly the online package. My guess is there's little incentive for them to discount it

Clearly this article is written by someone with the mindset of I heard of him, so he must be great. Poz was a decent player, would have liked to seen him re-sign. But the world isn't ending becasue he went elsewhere, and will be surprised if there's ittle difference with or without him. "Leaves a gapoing hole?? " Yeah created by him!

What about Sunday Ticket to Go? Anyone get a discount on that as a stand alone subscription?

Did you mean like this week? The way the rules were written last year, the Bill's couldn't have extended Poz as with the uncapped year there was some rule which limited the increase a player could be given. Since he wasn't a 1st rounder, the increase was very small, too small for him to ever agree to. So the Bill's were forced (as I'm sure many other teams were) to wait with attempting to sign him until a new CBA was in place.

I'm no tax expert, but estate tax only comes into play when the person dies. RW didn't die so he couldn't take advantage of the 2010 no limit. On the other hand selling a share, he would end up paying tax on the 30% sale now, so would it be worth it?? RW doesn't know what future estate or capital gains tax laws will be so would it be worthwhile selling a share and paying the taxes now based on something that is unknown as to what the tax implications will be in the future?

I also had this web based service last year and agree with it being over priced and no deals available either. I also experienced the "Service not available" a few times. Quality wasn't great though it seemed to improve towards year end so am hoping it was sign of working kinks out. I probably will order agai nas it beats messing aorundd wit hal lthe links that work for 20 minutes, then get cut off by NFL! For me it's worth it to avaoid the hassles.

Publications like to write about Romo, and Brees. The Bills and Fitz don't make the press.

Assuming the lockout lasts until say July, I think losing that much would pretty much eliminate any chance of any rookie QB's starting this year from week #1 , even Newton. I also think it will also hurt any player from looking like a typical 2nd year player in 2012. He'll be betterthan rookie, but not as seasoned as much as most 2nd year QB's tend to look. Granted a hard thing to quantify as there are huge differences between how well 2nd year QB's look anyway from team to team. But everyone will be hurt by it, how much will vary by player.

And I'm sure the only reason you're not working full time for an NFL team as gm or chief scout is you don't want to end up get some high salary and be in a high tax bracket. It's amazing how many people here think they know more than people who do this for a living full time. I can maybe to some level accept people debating 1st or 2nd round picks as there's enough written about these guys to form opinions on them without really analyzing any hard data, you just read other peoples comments and form your own opinion. (and call yourself an expert, hell it works for Mel Kyper) But anyone on this board who thinks they know more than professionals about 6th and 7th round picks is nothing other than delusional and really needs people to tell them how smart they are.

That was only to move from #4 to #1, granted the 3rd overall pick isn't wort has much as the #1 overall, but likely need a couple more picks thrown in. Or the Bills could take the deal as they want the extra picks even if not getting good draft chart value. Supposedly it's a down draft which would mean other teams would offer less t omove up.

Let's add to it that even if the Bills want to make that trade, unless there's a CBA in place by the date of the draft, you can't trade players, so you're out of luck.

Can it be mandatory?? North Carolina for example is a "Right to Work State" menaing you can't be forced to join a union even one exists where you work. I believe there are other similar states. So how would that work??

And how do you know that Brandt and others in similar positions aren't somehow being financially rewarded for talking up certain players?? Wouldn't at all surprise me to see these guys get some type of thank you, maybe not cash, but maybe a cruse or something?? Every year there's someone who prior to the draft is being talked way up, but then falls way down in the actual draft. So apparently the GM's are much less impressed with these guys. Can't recall any of these guys becoming sensations either that the GM's didn't expect so seems to me the GM's have a better hanlde on things.

Mel Kiper says he will go #3, that settles all debate. We must select him now, because Mel can not be wrong. Though I did hear Mel now admit his "stock" is falling.

I read his column today which states the Bills can't afford to pass on Newton. I realize he's a columnists whose main purpose is to stir things up. From everything being stated, I'd be surprised if the Bills were to select Newton, partically now that thngs out of the combine stated his "stock" dropped which makes me wonder if Sully wrote this article now, this way if the Bil's don't pick Newton, this topic is worth 2 or 3 more columns ripping the Bill's Three or four years from now if it turns out Newton is a great, Sully can write more articles, if he's a flop, no one will remember Sull'y article anyway. So it basically is a can't lose situation for Sully to be in. Again, I understand that's his job, to write the opposite of what happns to stir things up.