Peevo

Now that's thinking like a producer. What content can we do that isn't phone caller driven? The one thing I learned early on in radio is that the phone ringing is NO indication of how well your audience is reacting to anything. It's just one tool in many. Most listeners don't call radio shows. They want to listen. As for the John Murphy Show, it's paid programming. It's the slap-chop infomercial of Buffalo Sports media. Just know that it's state-run content, and you'll either be ok with it or not. I can't believe I'm saying this, but I actually sorta like Donald Jones. His questions are succinct, and to the point. Veterans struggle with that. And his stories of being on the road as a pro athlete are unique and offer an inside perspective on the game. Give me more content about how much of jerk Mario Williams was on the road. That's interesting. There's no happy answer to anything when it comes to people's choices in entertainment. You ask 5 people what makes a good sports show, and you'll get 5 different answers. You can't be everything to everyone all the time. All of this stuff is a big deal simply because the team has been bad for years and years, and we've all run out of things to actually talk about. So instead of the next coach, it's why is this show run by the team so bad, or why haven't they fired Russ Brandon yet, or why is Pegula not answering questions. We're all just shot. It's generational losing. It's changed me for the worse. I'm an extremely negative person prone to expecting bad results. And what happens with these teams, every time? They lose. It's a vicious cycle. Buffalo sports fans are literally in a long term abusive relationship.

I don't know how to stop the twitter snark that gushes out of people after 17 years of this stuff. It got rough during the tank years with the Sabres. It seems the internet is rife with snark, cynicism, negativity across any topic or medium. See: 2016 Presidential election. Our country has a long history of opinion media, dating back to the founding years of the republic. That is not going to change. Personally, I feel fans MUST separate their emotions when reading critical analysis of the team. I get it, you're fans. But they're not attacking YOU when they're attacking the football team. It's THE BILLS' FAULT for putting themselves in this situation. It's not "being negative." It's being correct. Don't take Sully or Bucky's take personally. The role of any media is to expose and tell the truth. It would be untruthful to represent the Bills as anything other than a failed organization, judging by their football performance, over the last 17 years. That is honest, accurate representation of the facts. Are they profitable? Yes. But the product is woefully inadequate. It would be irresponsible to print anything else. Before the season starts, I'd want to be CORRECT about the team's prospects, regardless of my desires for them to be better. So it would be smart to predict a 7-9, 8-8, 9-7 season. That's what Vegas had the Bills. Average. I'd rather be right.

I think in essence, it would create a "lesser" league. This could already be done via the current Conferences. One conference gets a shot to qualify for the Superbowl playoffs, while the other could have a tournament to decide who gets into the upper conference. It's ironic, as a leftist, that I'm creating essentially the haves and have nots of the NFL. In a way, this system already exists. What teams have an honest, realistic shot at the SuperBowl every year? 3? New England, Seattle, Dallas, Pittsburgh? So those teams would be the only ones consistently able to duke it out. The rest have to claw and scrape for the chance to get a chance. And yes, it would create a de facto minor league NFL. But isn't this already a thing? See: Cleveland, Buffalo, Jacksonville, LA, etc. Teams that have been consistently bad for years?

I realize this will likely never happen, but does anybody out there think NFL relegation/promotion, or divisional realignment is a good idea? The Bills, Dolphins, and Jets don't benefit from the NFL's parity system, because of the sheer dominance of New England over the last 15 seasons. Could there be a way that division winners, and division bottom feeders rotate different divisions opposite conferences? To make geographics easier, we could have the Bills say "relegate" to the NFC East, and swap with the lowest ranked team therein. I'm certainly open to a more "top down" relegation model, where effectively two NFL leagues are created, but this would just give the best teams a chance to win the Superbowl every year, with the bottom teams a chance to get back into the league that allows you to win. Teams wouldn't want to tank, cause you wouldn't want to relegate to the lesser "non SuperBowl" league. I know, this would fundamentally change the scope of the league, and old time rivalries would cease to exist. But is this such a bad thing? If you remember those "great AFL 60's Bills," you're most definitely on the outside looking in of the NFL's desired "core demo" in the 21st Century. I'm burnt out on the Dolphins, Jets and Patriots every year. The players themselves don't care about the "storied rivalries" of days past. They all come from the same three southern states anyway. Most players talk about their college rivalries than anything that happens in the pros. If the rivalries don't matter to the players, why not give the fans something fresh, something new? Plus, bad teams like the Bills can get out of a brutal schedule playing a dominant team like NE twice a year. Plus, NE needs a tougher division, so they don't auto-win 5-6 conference games a year, skewing the top of the AFC standings every season. The divisions need be seeded according to team competitive level, not necessarily history or geographics. I get it, this will never happen because it would be fun. But what say you, are you guys not just burnt out on NE kicking the Bills' teeth in every season?

In spirit of the 17 year drought. Sing it, Rick! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_OZ8C3T4kPs

I think Sully's argument holds up. Rex is becoming a sympathetic figure as he consistently stands there and takes bullets from all sides while holding his temper in check. That makes him look good, especially considering the team is performing literally exactly at Vegas's expectations despite a long list of injuries and all the rest. I think he's frustrated with a lack of access, as is evident by all the examples set forth in the article. It makes Whaley look bad if he's unwilling to answer for the team's failures. Shouldn't the team address sourced leaks now 3 weeks running since the first "Rex is gonna get fired" story broke by a national reporter? The leaks make the whole organization look bad, and the management should deal with that. Not even a press release since the first leak is a bad sign. It makes them look culpable, guilty. Until Whaley addresses those concerns in a fair way not on "Western New York's sports leader," he's guilty as charged.

I think this is a symptom of a greater problem. The Bills will never say, but I'd bet good money Russ Brandon gave Doug Marrone the "out" clause in his deal at the tail end of the 2014 season. I'd bet good money he gave Tyrod the "play 50% of the snaps in 2015 and we void year 3 of your deal" clause in Tyrod's original contract signed just two summers ago. These are major, serious problems folks. They're just not team-friendly clauses. You gave an unproven, .500 college head coach an OUT clause in his contract? Doug, here's your deal, you want to coach an NFL team or not? That should be how this is done. Tyrod Taylor, "here's your deal, you want a chance to start in this league or not?" If his agent wouldn't sign with Buffalo unless this ridiculously damaging, seriously flawed idea was put into his contract language, if I'm Doug Whaley, I'm hanging up the phone and going elsewhere. No where, anywhere, should a team looking for unproven talent give this much away to the unproven talent. It's just not smart. No foresight. Protect yourself, Russ. If that clause never exists, Tyrod's gone after this year and it doesn't hurt the Bills's future. Or they keep him one more season and then figure it out. It gives them flexibility, leverage. I'm a pro labor guy, when dealing in reality. But pro sports is not reality, and the balance of power has swung far too much in the player's direction. Who ever decides these things needs not be employed at One Bills Drive anymore.

Again, I don't think too many people read my long form post above, but judge Brandon solely on his football decisions as GM from 2008-2009 and he deserves to get fired. Trading Jason Peters (who is STILL starting for Philly) less than a week before the season starts was a terrible idea. Signing Terrell Owens was a joke. Deciding to send one home game a year to Toronto was a terrible business AND football decision. The players themselves hated playing the game, with Eric Wood famously calling the series "a joke" on 97 Rock back in 2012. Hell, I'll even throw extending Dick Jauron's contract mid-2008 season into the mix. A hot start shouldn't have earned him the extension, and he was subsequently fired before the end of the next season. These are all measureable, concrete, examples of Russ Brandon's terrible football management. For these reasons alone, he deserves unemployment. But again, Bud Carpenter, Jim Overdorf, Scott Berchtold et al seem to never not have a job at One Bills Drive, so I don't expect that to change any time soon.

Years ago, there was a well sourced, well written piece about this very problem in the Buffalo News during the early days of the Doug Marrone era. How was it acceptable for an NFL Head Coach, and GM to not have control over who they want to run their athletic training department? If Marrone wanted Bud Carpenter gone, how on earth does "the business guy" have a say in that decision? This, above all other problems the Bills have, in my opinion is the biggest problem to the team's 21st century growth. And yes, I know Jeff Littmann is no longer employed by the team. But every one else named a "lifer" in said piece from 2014 remains. If you've been employed by the Bills since 1985, you need to go. Now. The Pegulas can easily hire the top MBA/sports business graduate from wherever school to run their business at a 3rd if not a 4th of the salary Russ earns. Same for their jerky, and difficult to deal with PR staff, at the top of the heap is Scott Berchtold who has a very negative reputation among respected media members in this market. What exactly does Jim Overdorf do by the way? You can hire an analytics guru, some whiz kid MIT Stats masters degree, to run excel and make better salary cap decisions than they currently make. At the very least it would be some relief for a very cynical, burnt out fan base who await the yearly Russ Brandon buzz word postmortem speech on WGR. "Continuity," "Inventory," "Market size," "Synergy," "OneBuffalo" "Injuries." The man is a suit-wearing, corporate, smiley, glad-handing, sycophantic, soulless, buzz-word, market-researched, spineless sell out. The dude represents everything wrong with professional sports business culture. Somehow, after 20 years, he is completely absolved of any responsibility, and GETS PROMOTED. How typical. The team recognizes him as a GM from 2008-2009. His football decisions alone deserve him a place on the heap of fired Bills employees. He's directly responsible for the Bills in Toronto series, and subsequent extension of said series, arguably his greatest failure. He drafted Aaron Maybin. Traded their starting LT to the Eagles a week before the 2009 season started. Signed Terrell Owens in one of the cheapest, hollowest publicity stunts from a team that's made several dubious free agent signings. These are just moves from 2 seasons under his watch as official GM. I can keep going.

What I find particularly dangerous about "The John Murphy Show" is that it is, in fact, paid programming by the Bills. Not only do they own the content, they produce it from their own studio at One Bills Drive. Yet, in my opinion, Entercom and WGR 550 do a VERY poor job of distinguishing that very important fact from its listeners. "Buffalo Bills Radio" is literally an infomercial passing itself off as objective programming. That is dangerous in an already bitter, divisive media climate, even in sports media. It's "sponsored content" or whatever buzz-worthy slick Russ Brandon-approved marketing term you want to use. It's state run media at it's worst, and it is deliberately hidden from it's audience. If you remember, the producer at WGR control used to do the sports updates at :00 and :30, but now John does them himself. Why? Because that producer, who does more work than anyone else, and gets paid minimum wage without the possibility of a raise or full time air shift, is not a Pegula Sports and Entertainment employee. Therefore, the Bills cannot completely control the message, and it's possible there'd be a conflict that PSE simply can't have. Ever notice how Murphy will never lead with hockey or the Sabres, even if it's a game night, even when Jack Eichel gets a serious injury and dominates the hockey headlines throughout the NHL? If whoever writes the copy for those updates did it right, he'd lead with the Sabres. It's sort of like 97 Rock starting to admit the 90's happened 26 years ago. It's reality. Stop ignoring it and giving your audience zero credit. And yes, I know PSE owns both franchises. But the Bills are still king, in terms of national relevance and profit margin for sure. Fans can choose to consume whatever coverage they want. But this team has been bad for a generation. It's an unacceptably long time, with which it is physiologically possible to have been born, and then have a child, all within the 17 year playoff drought. It's mathematically possible that 2 generations of people are alive on this planet never having experienced a Bills playoff game. Honesty, accountability, and accuracy are paramount when covering a team that takes public money hand over fist, and fails to produce results.

I think it's simply a function of you like what you like. Radio is in a constant battle between does content drive the listener or do listeners drive the content? Every poster on this board is a "die hard Bills fan," or "first time caller, long time listener" or "season ticket holder for x amount of years" to somehow quantify how their fandom is more real, tangible or valuable than any other and in reality this is a false equilivization. First of all, no one cares, and WGR and Entercom management are not gonna up and reconfigure their entire station for the complaints of .000001 % of their listening audience. If anything, the only thing their management and corporate concerns are selling air time, Arbitron ratings and website hits and content numbers. THAT's what matters in commercial radio, folks. Selling airtime and making money. WGR was number #1 Men 25-54 fall 2012, which is the king of male demos in this town. Bar none. Had a strong overall book in Spring 2013. Advertisers care about ratings, and WGR gets great ratings, no matter how many Bills topics their hosts do in May. May, ya know, when hockey and basketball are in playoffs and NFL athletes are in "Organized Team Activities," or as any other sport would call it, PRACTICE. The NFL is arguably the most pretentious of sports leagues but that's another conversation for another day. And lastly. The John Murphy Show is PAID PROGRAMMING. It's the same as any infomercial you'll catch at 3 am on tv. The Bills run their own radio show, sell their own show, and create all the content. It's state run media, and don't let any "die hard, season ticket holding" fan tell you any different. Listen with an honest skepticism. Do you really care about what book some no name DB on that "great 1972 Bills team" wrote? Of course you don't. John Murphy pre tapes nearly every segment on the show, and rarely does his show live for 2 hours from the cushy confines of One Bills Drive. Now, nearly every broadcaster these days pre tapes interviews, but good lord when I first heard the sports anchor say "this is Buffalo Bills radio" i nearly spit out my coffee in the car. WGR was the voice of criticism, skepticism and honest doubt about sports and the Bills in general in this town. It's a joke that they mail in 20/20's on Murphys show, and that they wont even a) legally identify their own station during his show, and b) operate under the same rules the rest of their programming, including Hockey Hotline does on a daily basis. Does anybody remember when WGR had Brad Riter on nights and it was arguably the best talk radio in this town, period? And no, this is not Brad Riter who wrote this post.

I think that's true to a point. Thousands of years ago the Romans sicked animals and humans against each other to the death for sport. With people getting crippled and permanently brain damaged on the football field, in the UFC cage, how much has REALLY changed? We've always loved violence. It's as American as apple pie and racism. But your point rings true. By and large, its the extremist on BOTH sides of the spectrum speaking the loudest, and thus get heard the most. It's sad that if you happen to think we spend too much money on foreign wars you're a "liberal kitty." Or if you want to cut back on entitlement spending you're a "facist racist who hates the plight of the poor." The truth lies in the middle. But it doesn't make for good talk radio or cable tv. Everything is in absolutes with the talking heads. It's not fair. You really think Barack Obama wasn't born on US soil? You really think Bush wanted to destroy our country? Why can't we give any of these people any credit? I know, I know, I'm a "!@#$ing idiot." I forgot.

I don't know what you guys read but I thought that article was completely fair. Everything about it was about Republican oversight of government agencies. Maybe I'm retarded, which is entirely possible, but I fail to see any bias one way or another in this. "Republicans need to make sure they bring forward solutions, even though it may be difficult to get them accomplished," Rep.-elect Kristi Noem, R-S.D., said in an interview. She said the lesson from the November election is, "The American people will replace people if they're no longer in touch or listening." Noem benefited from that view, defeating Democratic Rep. Stephanie Herseth Sandlin. Noem has risen to the forefront of the freshman class; she was chosen to serve in the GOP leadership. In the Senate, there's a chance the Democrats will replace Republicans as the party of "no," assuming the House GOP passes much of its agenda. Democrats will control the Senate 51-47 with two independents, and only need 41 votes to block initiatives that arrive from the House." Ok? Whats the problem with that? "Among the reasons that the Republican agenda will likely have a bigger impact on the next election than on the day-to-day lives of most Americans are: _Much of the government spending has been politically untouchable. About 60 percent goes for entitlement programs, including Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security. The nation also is paying for wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and major reconstruction projects in those countries. Both parties have considered it politically foolish to mess with Medicare and Social Security. Also, Republicans don't have a clean record as budget cutters. "Spending restraint on the Republican side is a theory yet to be proven," said Robert Bixby, executive director of the budget-watching Concord Coalition. He noted that Democratic President Bill Clinton's budget surplus turned into deficit under Republican George W. Bush. _Obama may be more willing to compromise with Republicans than in his first two years, but he will fight repealing the health care law. Senate Democrats will almost certainly stop major revisions. If for some reason they don't, Obama will use his veto to stop them. _Republican attempts to overturn regulations on issues such as global warming also could falter in the Senate. When the EPA announced just before Christmas that it planned to set greenhouse gas emissions standards for power plants and oil refineries, Upton said, "We will not allow the administration to regulate what they have been unable to legislate." Senate Democrats may have a different view." Yeah, that makes sense too. Someone needs to use examples and demonstrate to us lesser folks how this actually has a liberal slant to it.

It's sad and unfortunate we've come this far in professional sports. The head coach is the head coach. He has the power to decide who plays and who doesn't. Now, of course Favre has immense implied power, and is one of the NFL's biggest names. It's lame that the stars dictate the narrative, but that's how it works. Like the Devils head man benching Kovalchuk, I respect the move, but I think we're in a bad place that MacLean is looked at as an idiot for wanting to hold all of his players to the same standard. Any other business, the boss is the boss. The employees can't just set the terms and expect to keep their jobs. How this has switched so heavily in pro sports is unsettling. Why have coaches if they have no power over the over paid players anymore?

Sorry but I strongly doubt that. Entercom's paid programming rates are very high. You have to make a 13 week down payment before you can even get credit with the company. You're looking at $6,000 to just get in the door. And that's at a smaller station like WWKB that might have the time to sell. WGR has only a few paid programs, and its all extremely early in the morning on Saturday and Sunday. If you're looking to podcast, or some online streaming, look into Shoutcast or UStream. Its free or pay service is pretty affordable. There's a ton of options out there if you want to look into online broadcasting, it's a great way to learn. Build an audience, a cadence. People think broadcasting is as simple as sitting in front of a microphone. It's really not. It takes work. A lot of practice. I've been working at WRUB.org for almost 3 years and I still listen to my airchecks and recognize where I can improve. Is it brain surgery? No. But if you really think you can do a better job, apply to the 3 commercial radio companies (Entercom, Regent, Citadel) we have here and see what they say.

Thats an interesting observation. The blackout rule, if it already shouldn't be completely abolished should at least be revised. It's an unfair metric to require all the seats in the stands to be sold out if all NFL stadiums aren't at the same standard. While our prices are cheapest, yes, 73,000 seats can be sometimes 10,000 more seats than the newer stadiums being built. Why not have a blackout apply if the stadium isn't sold out to the minimum number of an NFL stadium's capacity? I'm not sure which one that is, but if, as example, the smallest NFL stadium seats 60,000 people, make that a floor for all NFL teams. Seems to me to be the most fair. I'm pretty sure the Bills still got about 63,000 people to the Jax game. What say you?

atdhe.net is a wonderful thing

I'm in the very small minority that actually thinks we might have been better off with Donahoe than without him. I know this sounds crazy, but he is the last executive to field a winning team. Hell, even a .500 team. He's the last executive to field a top 10 unit of any significance. I believe the Bills defense was 3rd overall in 2003 and 2nd overall in 2004, I could be wrong, but I know they were very high. How about his ability to find undrafted talent? Jason Peters is the last Bill to be voted to the Pro Bowl. Jabari Greer is a great cover corner for the Saints. His first couple drafts weren't bad either: Nate Clements, Aaron Schobel, Travis Henry, and Jonas Jennings all were taken in the same draft, and all were very productive for the Bills. Yes, he had his notoriously bad misses - Mike Williams, Losman, Bledsoe, McGahee, but I believe he felt the pressure to win was so great he never truly set out a plan to rebuild a team from the ground up. That may have been his biggest flaw. Its strange how he could find talent in later rounds but reach so bad in the earlier, and supposedly easier rounds. My buddy read a book about building an NFL franchise, and Donahoe is quoted a lot in it. He took over a team that had devoted 30 million dollars to players that weren't even on the team anymore. I'm no CPA, but that's some terrible bookkeeping by the previous administration.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keeling_curve Since people post links to the wiki about the Laffer Curve, I figured its ok.

The argument about taking negative Bills/Sabres articles personally has raged on this board for weeks. I know people dont like hearing negative things, but I think Harrington makes a very fair point. They farmed out the the so called "biggest" team rivalry game to TORONTO. I barely remember the Marino/Kelly games. Even the playoff game in 1998 is fuzzy, I was 11 at the time. Are we gonna have News burning parties like they did when they ran the story about how a majority of the City Grill shooting victims had criminal records? The News should never have apologized for that. It's a relevant story that was important, and based in fact. I'm sure it wasn't what the families' suffering wanted to hear, but it doesn't make it less true. While I concede that the comparison is a bit apples/oranges, considering that News story was fact based, and Harrington's column is opinion, but I think you guys get the point.

Man, this is really, really good. This paragraph describes exactly my problems with the "mainstream" conservative right. I couldn't have said it better: "Notwithstanding the return of libertarian rhetoric, the right today is a fundamentally illiberal and authoritarian movement. It endorses the systematic use of torture. It defends unchecked presidential power over matters of national security. It excuses massive violations of Americans’ civil liberties committed in the name of fighting terrorism. It supports bloated military budgets, preventive war, and open-ended, nation-building occupations. It calls for repressive immigration policies. Far from being anti-statist, it glorifies and romanticizes the agencies of government coercion: the police and the military. It opposes abortion rights. It opposes marriage equality. It panders to creationism. It routinely questions the patriotism of its opponents. It traffics in outlandish conspiracy theories. If you’re serious about individual freedom and limited government, you cannot stand with this movement." The neo-conservative movement needs to fail.

A Master's degree in Economics, History, or Political Science I do not have, but I have an honest question about the effectiveness of infrastructure spending/repair. The WPA and other public works programs essentially built our entire current functioning infrastructure we still use today. With the exception of the Interstate highway (50s) and obviously internet infrastructure (arpanet of the 1970's), we're still using, especially here in old ass Buffalo, the same hospitals, schools, roads, bridges and sewer systems, and power grid erected in the 1930's and before. The NYC subway was finished in the 1930's. My high school was finished in 1939 and still going strong. That thing is so well made its ridiculous. When at Kenmore West in 2002 the kitchen and cafeteria burnt to the ground, they had to use dynamite to blow up the wall because a wrecking ball simply bounced off it. A huge wrecking ball couldn't take the wall down. My point is that this stuff has a shelf life. I've read parts of the northeast's sewer system is over 150 years old. Don't you think it's time for an upgrade? What's wrong with that? Put people to work and literally rebuild our country. Stuff breaks. We could use new bridges, new roads, new hospitals, a new power grid. Call me a liberal weirdo but isn't that really what our taxes should be spent on, our infrastructure? Is there ANY candidate on either aisle talking about how our power grid is almost maxed out, how we're steadily running out of IP addresses, our crumbling highway system?

You had to know the second that this was posted that the slew of "Clayton stinks, he's an idiot, how does he have a job" posts would come out. So I guess he can be added to the list of "terrible professionals that write about sports or talk on the radio or talk on the tv about sports" because he made an honest, critical and reasonable assessment of the 32 starting quarterbacks in the league. Where are we at now? Tim Graham John Clayton Jerry Sullivan Bob Dicesare ALL NFL Network employees ALL ESPN employees Colin Cowherd Jim Rome Mike Schopp Chris "Bulldog" Parker Howard Simon Jeremy White Paul Hamilton Brad Riter Mark Gaughan Allen Wilson Peter King Dr. Z from SI Gregg Easterbrook Rick Reilly Jim Kelley John Vogl John Wawrow Did I miss anyone?

Sullivan is not paid to cover the team. That's Mark Gaughan and Allen Wilson's job. And no, I don't think you can get the same level of analysis on this board that you can through a learned writer because, simply, professional writing is hard. Active voicing, keeping it simple. It's not as easy as you'd think, and I'm not a journalism student. And let's be honest, not everybody on here has to follow the AP style guide to make their point, but I'd rather read something that Mark Gaughan wrote than "GoBillzz5708143omglolz" did. Sorry. Sullivan is paid to write opinions. That's what a columnist does. He writes about the Bills and the Sabres. He also writes personal interest stories that I don't even read because I really don't care about the women's UB rowing coach who overcame tragedy and found success. Sorry, I really don't care. It's not his fault the two pro teams in this town have been pretty bad to downright awful for almost 10 years running. There are honest questions to be made about both organizations' leadership/ownership structures. Why do we as fans gets so defensive about that? WE don't own the teams, or run them, or decide on their players or coaches. It's not some personal attack at us, the fan, so why do so many get so angry? He's paid to write his opinion, and almost always, its a valid, informed, skeptical one. Call him out when he's wrong about something, like I did referencing the 2007 draft as "the first post-Donahoe." That's incorrect. But it seems we take his negative columns about the Bills personally. I think that's really stupid. That is all.

I'm a big Sullivan fan, he's a great writer. But, I must take him to task on this "But Ralph Wilson was heavily involved in that draft (the first post-Tom Donahoe) and wanted a running back." That's just simply factually incorrect. 2006 was the first draft post Tom Donahoe. Nit picky, but that seems like an obvious oversight, his editor should have caught that too.