NoSaint
-
Posts
42,721 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Gallery
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by NoSaint
-
-
honestly theres not a lot in the way of options here. neither side is starting a new league. you are looking at either a new CBA being reached, or a court decision. how long that takes is anyones guess, and who ends up on top is uncertain, but odds are the owners get a little bit back, just a matter of how much.
there are ways they might be able to play without a final outcome being reached, but that would be same owners, same players, same rules.
there really isnt a nuclear option on the table anywhere. the most radical plays have already been made with the decert, and lockout.
-
the owners can end the lock out, release every player and reoffer them individual contracts. no "official union" to contend with. stage a tv event to redraft veterns. if they want to play they can, if not they don't have to. their choice. Blow it up and see how the players like the new nfl. and we the fan get football.
nope -- without the union you are looking at the draft, salary caps etc... as all being collusion. it would be a disaster.
-
There is no way the owners give up all those revenues!
literally, they are legally not allowed to play an nfl game with the owners lockout official. if they lifted the lockout they would have to play with the nflpa players, at the terms of the last cba or last offer... regardless, no substitute players are options. (i post that as a quick and dirty explanation for why this question is not relevant- there are many subtleties and it could change going forward but this is a good enough cliffnotes version of whats going on)
this is not players crossing a player drawn line in the sand. the owners have said you are not welcome to play if this is the deal we are playing under.
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??
Section 1. Union Security:
Every NFL player has the option of joining or not joining the NFLPA; provided, however, that as a condition of employment commencing with the execution of this Agreement and for the duration of this Agreement and wherever and whenever legal: (a) any active player who is or later becomes a member in good standing of the NFLPA must maintain his membership in good standing in the NFLPA; and (b) any active player (including a player in the future) who is not a member in good standing of the NFLPA must, on the 30th day following the beginning of his employment or the execution of this Agreement, whichever is later, pay, pursuant to Section 2 below or otherwise to the NFLPA, an annual service fee in the same amount as any initiation fee and annual dues required of members of the NFLPA.
-
"I also worry about building a 34 line based on penetration not gap control."
So you're wanting to pick a gap control player at #3? To me, that's a crazy thing to do. You can find gap guys in the later rounds if that's what you want. The #3 pick is supposed to be all about having a huge impact and playmaking ability, not gap control.
Players like Quinn, Fairley, Peterson, Green, Miller (though I'm not big on him), and even a guy like Newton. These are all #3 overall "impact" type players, not role players like a gap filler. Dareus is this year's Gerald McCoy, nice player but will never be an impact guy like Suh.
sorry? a guy that holds the point and sets the edge while making plays against two lineman, and is versatile enough for 2 schemes would not be a terrible 3 pick (now which one i just described probably depends which you like more), but yes - i understand your point. a guy that just stands in one place is not a great value at 3. I dont think there are any of those being discussed though. Both guys are premiere talents in this league potentially. One has a rep for the flashier plays in the backfield out of a 43, and one has experience as a 5 tech end in a 34(which coincidentally is what we need!). I think that they are far closer in value than fairley fans on this board like to admit. that is not to say that fairley is a bad talent or wont be wildly successful. I just think that some people have fairley a notch high, and dareus a shade low, and as the offseason goes on the "experts" will balance the guys out. ive been saying that since the week of the title game, and i think its proven to be an accurate assessment so far....
i also dont think that what our line needs is another KW penetrator. If we get a guy that can do that, and keep linebackers clean, it would give some nice versatility, but at some point, those linebackers need to not be taking on 300+ lbs lineman. at three you want a complete player for your scheme, and not just a penetrator either. so which has the best balance between the two sets of responsibility?
when you are looking at our talent, scheme, etc.... dareus might be a shade ahead, when you look at rareness of skillset fairley might be a shade ahead. im all for bpa, but i dont think the gap between them is huge, on a 34 line especially.
-
Go ask the quarterbacks in the SEC about that...LOL
I think he's very good but I'm not sure who the premiere guard or center he lined up against were. I also would say more then a handful of those qb hits cost his team yards.
I would be happy with him at 3, but like I said, theres no clear front runner in this draft. I also worry about building a 34 line based on penetration not gap control. Im not saying he or Kyle Williams can't hold the point but it certainly doesn't play to their skills that are special.
I don’t think much of it was knee jerk, but my 90% estimate im sure is a bit high. There is a good 5-6 week lead up to that title game and a lot of that talk was before the game – so obviously it couldn’t be influenced by it because it pre-dated it. After the game everyone did jump on his bandwagon though – but for good reason. Id like to have people get behind a draft pick after a GAME, rather than after a combine workout or pro day. IMO post combine is when Dareus over-took Fariley. I think that 99% of that is because Dareus weighed in at 320 and Fairly 290 something, because they were both equally impressive in the drills.
I think that if you realistically go back to November mocks you'd be hard pressed to find him higher than 7-8 and many in the teens. That said, it's a November mock so I'm not arguing he's the 14th best player - just that his stock bumped up a lot. That Georgia game left a foul taste in a lot of peoples mouths and he certainly wasn't in many top 5s at that point.
I also think you saw analysts starting to back dareus before the combine. I know a few high profile guys did in feb and made it much easier to discuss the two comparatively. It seemed the mood here changed early February - or atleast dareus was picking up momentum while fairly started to dip.
In the end I think they are pretty even with dareus maybe fitting our schemes better
-
NFLPA still exists as a "Trade Organization" and I'm pretty sure that by getting drafted you have previously signed papers saying that you are member of the NFLPA once drafted. The NFL is a regulated monopoly and the NFLPA is mandatory for all players so I think you have to sign up for membership as part of entering the draft.
So I think they would have to fill the rosters with replacement UDFA, and rookies could chose to scab and cross the picket lines like any player could choice to do, but I don't think its very likely. At least not in September, maybe as this theoretical season goes on more players would cross the line, but we have a long way until that happens.
Again, correct me if I'm wrong but the owners can not legally put on an NFL game with the paperwork they have filed. So regardless of a players status, unless NFL owners start a new league, it isn't happening.
-
Without the NFLPA, would these replacements even be considered scabs? The NFL would have no obligation to its former players since I assume at this point they are considered "at will" employees. The NFL would have games to put on TV thus keeping that important revenue fowling, even if they might have to offer partial rebates. I have to wonder if the owners don't have a similar plan in their back pockets?
PTR
At this point it not the players refusing to play, it's the owners refusing to open the doors. Means no games at all. Much different than 87.
-
We should be good. There are alot of other teams ahead of us for most likely to relocate. For a while I thought it was Jax, but looks like Minnesota moved into the lead. Stadium is a mess, and they are alot of nay sayers about building a new stadium for them. Also, I think San Diego is up there. The move would alienate their fan base alot less being pretty close to LA (something that will be taken into consideration), their stadium also sucks, and there is plenty of competition already in the Bay Area.
one thing i enjoy (and im not saying your post did this) is the fact that so many bills fans think that a move from SD to LA is just common sense, but buffalo to toronto is offensive. just something to think about.
-
I fell the exact same way. I rarely change my opinion on a player after the season is over, and at the end of alst season Id say 90% had Fairley as far and away better. I still feel that he is the better of the two, and I hope thats who we get. If he is gone, my second option is Dareus, so it is close, but Fairley is better.
to that effect - how much of that 90% was just knee jerk off the title game, with no actual familiarity with his film, lack of a body of work, or personality question marks. they saw three big plays and got real excited.
i would say among the people that saw a lot of college ball during the season, and last year the consensus was much more split. i know at times i had to toe the line to even broach the subject of liking dareus, because if i in any way suggested fairley wasnt perfect the discussion would devolve real fast. i had a strong feeling as everything played out they would get to about even, or even dareus SLIGHTLY ahead. fairley just had such a huge bump from the title game, that he was bound to settle back down to the rest of the pack once emotion dipped. i think in a 43 fairley is your man, and 34 dareus is the choice at the top. i dont see either going 1st, and 3 of the next 4 picks are 34 teams, so i wont be surprised if dareus is the first off the board. either could slide out of the top 5 easily though. we will see how visits go and how things start slotting when players come off the board.
ive said it quite a few times but i would say that this draft has no clear top 5 but about 15 guys that would fit into that 5-10 range any given year. with so many being so tightly grouped, and no clear picks at the sexy positions of QB, or LT... if a team passes at a guy at 2-3 he could slide to 10 really quickly, and if somebody decides a guy fits their system i think they will be willing to reach a little further then normal as the gap between 2 and 8 is smaller then normal.
it wouldnt be jaw dropping to see 2 qbs, and dareus in the top 3 picks and if thats the case you are looking at bowers, fairley, green, peterson -- all sure thing #1 best player in the draft guys at some point this offseason slipping to atleast number 7 assuming they are the next 4 off the board. slide in guys like von miller, quinn and suddenly one of those guys could slide to 9. where as most years you see small groupings of 3-4 guys that may shuffle between each other but you know who the top 3 are, who 4-7 are roughly even if you cant put them in order, again the same for 8-12 but this year it it appears this year is just one big group of about 10. right now fairley could go 1 or 8 just as easily. itll make for an interesting draft i think.
-
nope - no games can happen under the current lockout. its not that players are refusing to play, its that owners are refusing to let them.
that said, i mean that with no slant or negativity towards either side, just a stark difference in "crossing the line" when the line is being drawn by the owners not the players.
and all that said, this could change dramatically as days go by. its a very fluid situation.
-
Am I the only one who enjoyed the replacement games in 1987? OK, the games were about as well played as high school football, but I like high school football! I still remember the Giants-Bills game in Buffalo - the game where Lawrence Taylor crossed the picket line to play. It was a fun game - was it Todd Schlopy who kicked the winning field goal for Buffalo? Or how about the Monday Night game where Bill Walsh had his replacement quarterback run the option for the 49ers, and all Bill Parcells could do was laugh. Who would have thought that 20 years later the wildcat would be so popular?
I've read that during the last CBA, both sides agreed that they wouldn't use replacement players. But now that there is no union, isn't that agreement out the window?
I'm sure I'm in the minority here, but I'm a fan of the city, the team colors, and the logo. As long as the players wearing Buffalo's uniform get them to the playoffs, I'm OK with that...
An ironic twist of fate- by acquiring free agency the players have hurt personal relationships to their fans. In 3 years most teams turn over 90% of their rosters anyway- atleast it seems. It forces you to be a fan of the city more then the men in the uniforms.
I know I'd still watch.
-
Unless you are a contender, week 1 matters little. If you are a contender you don't have glaring holes. Either way you should be drafting for a year or two out ideally. Any contribution before should be considered lagniappe. That's why drafting for need and not BPA is silly for most cases. 2 years from now, between injuries and free agency, you don't know much about your needs. Take your guy - regardless of position this year. The one exception being immature guys that'll get into trouble left alone for a summer ala lynch. That said, you avoid that when possible anyway.
-
Laughing out loud. Love that you care so much about what I think. Maybe you should boycott this site so you don't have to read my posts. Oh wait, that's right, my posts aren't affecting your life at all. I love how people react to something they don't agree with. That's why I do it.
It's not that I disagree with the idea of an economic boycott of something you feel strongly about.... It's just that's not what you are describing or remotely able to accomplish with the strategy you describe. You are simply making a moral stand. If its that important to you, more power to you. There's just a laundry list of reasons that your plan isn't very effective ultimately. First and foremost being the reaction that is clearly solicited. If it's hard to get people on board for the idea, it's even more unlikely to get people to follow through. It's far easier to organize a merchandise or concession boycott if you are determined to follow through. Things that are tangible in the immediate. If jersey sales dipped 30% this march/April vs last year, that's a much larger message than people that aren't on monitored tvs changing the channel in September... Even boycotting something like the draft is more likely to accomplish because people are not as tied to viewing the product as they are viewing the game. Hell, like I've said time and again- organize viewing parties nationally and you are far more likely to impact ratings if that's your goal. Again though, it's clear that I am to stupid to understand either economics, or psychology.....
And with words like "punishment" in previous posts, I see why people get the impression you are angry. you even explicitly referenced that they had taken something away from you. what that is, none of us seem to understand.
-
I am not the least bit angry. And by the way, your arguments don't hold water at all. TV viewers have all the power when it comes to ratings and advertising revenues. If nobody watches, then advertisers will not pay the rates that the NFL is used to and believe me the league owners will feel the pain. If the league doesn't get the money from the networks in the next contract that they are used to, then the players will be affected as well. And in most markets, you can buy single game tickets to almost every game at some point during the pre-season or season, so please don't tell me about wasting tickets that are already paid for. I am proposing that we as fans, who do, by the way hold all the economic power to shut this league down, let both parties know that we are the ones that pay the bills. If we do this, both parties will think twice about ever having another work stoppage. It is a very simple concept and a very powerful one. If you are not on board, then go ahead and feed the beast, it's your right. I for one, won't be watching this bunch of greedy individuals any more. I have a family and I enjoy lots of other interests besides NFL football.
You do realize it is very likely that your tv isnt used in ratings calculations? And if it is, you could have the same effect going to the local sports bar for the game?
"There are only 25,000 total American households that participate in the Nielsen daily metered system. The number of U.S. television households as of 2009 is 114,500,000.[12] As a result, the total number of Nielsen homes only amounts to 0.02183% of the total American television households, meaning that 99.97817% of American households have no input at all into what is actually being watched."
-
"The average fan punishes themselves by not using tickets that are mostly paid for - by turning off games to hurt ratings they have no effect on." I'm crying BS on this one. Noone suggested fans not use tickets that are already paid for. And fans have a huge impact on TV ratings. And if you don't understand that, then you are a fool and further discussion is pointless. And yes, it is my right to respond to whomever I choose to and ignore whomever I choose to. If you don't like that, then I'm sorry for you. And once again, another idiot fails to understand what I am proposing. If you don't think the current situation is pathetic and deserving of economic retaliation, then once again, I am sorry for you. It has nothing to do with my personal life. I don't like the way a company is being run and I am proposing consumers not patronize their product to let them know we disapprove. Simple as that. If you don't agree, fine, then that is your right, do your thing and I will do mine and encourage others to follow.
As a matter of fact, no it wouldn't. Damned is the proper way to spell the word and to use it in this context. And just for the record, I love football. I just don't find it so essential in my life that I can't live without it. I don't believe in what the players and owners are doing and I propose we as fans use our economic might and let them know we dont' approve. Again, I have no grudge against anyone who disagrees. If you want to continue to be ignored and taken for granted, then fine, do your thing. But just think of the power we as fans have. If no one went to the games, and no one watched on TV, the networks, the owners and the league would lose millions and you can bet there would never again be a work stoppage. They would stop taking you for granted and ensure that the product that you love is never again put in jeopardy.
+1
You mean a renegotiation of a deal? Unless you are glued to the tv for every detail, it really doesn't effect any of us, or the product on the field yet.
Now for the nuts and bolts of your argument- I live in a market with a 60,000 person waitlist for season tickets, with more than a 99% renewal rate already this year. Boycotting games amounts to abandoning paid for tickets. Next up, my tv isn't monitored by neilsen for ratings. Turning it off has no effect.
Next - even if you did find a way to touch the bottom line or make a statement - you know with examples I've given like boycotting jerseys.... Do you think either side is going to say "wow WE really screwed this up" - nope. It's going to be "wow, THEY really screwed this up."
Instead of just being angry, you can take a deep breathe and realize the only people you are hurting with this plan are people that enjoy watching the game (ie yourself). Me not tuning in will literally have no effect on anyone but me. but alas, I guess we are all too stupid to understand.
-
"NFL owners walked away from the negotiating table Wednesday when the NFL Players Association proposed to take an average of 50 percent of all revenue generated by the league, according to player sources."
BillsVet, The above quote was taken from an ESPN written story. I didn't include the link because the story was very long.
The above quote shows that you have your facts in reverse. The players offered to take 50% of the revenue without any cut outs of revenue before taking a 59% cut. The owners said absolutely not and walked out.
As I stated to another poster having a different perspective on this topic is understandable. However, in order to have a productive and respectful discussion it is important to get the facts correct. I'm not making this point to be personaly critical. You are one of the better posters on this board. But your version of what was offered and what was rejected was upside down and inaccurate.
You do realize that "cut" would end up be the same or more money any given year? De smith really tried the bridge the gap with that one.
-
The players have been getting a progressively larger share of the pie. One of the reasons for that is because, as someone pointed out earlier in this thread, neither the players nor the owners of many big market teams really like the idea of a salary cap. The owners of high revenue teams want to be able to outspend their low revenue counterparts!
The fact that the owners weren't united with each other in the past is why things got as out of hand as they have, and is why the players have gotten too big for their britches. In a down economy with bills coming due, the owners have clearly realized they messed up during the last CBA, and that it's time to reclaim some of the ground they surrendered. It's necessary for the owners to do exactly that, but it's not going to be a quick or painless process.
Honestly one of the best posts I've seen on the subject.
-
Funny how those businesses seem to survive in non NFL cities. No doubt that game days give them a boost, but maybe they need to think of other ways to attract customers instead of depending on the Bills to do it for them.
+1
It's amazing how you cherry pick points to respond to. And even in doing so totally neglect formulating practical answers. Yes, in an ideal world you only hit the NFL pocketbooks. In the real world, not so. Also, I believe every league including the NFL has seen the revenue dip after a lockout and it hasnt stopped them from happening again and again. The owners would blame the players and the players blame the owners. They would all be gainfully employed and then some, and everyone from ticket sales reps, scouts, vendors, that are living paycheck to paycheck get put through the ringer. The average fan punishes themselves by not using tickets that are mostly paid for - by turning off games to hurt ratings they have no effect on. Your better off telling people that they should go to the local sports bar and pump money into the local community while enjoying the games, camaraderie and quite frankly still not effecting the ratings or tv revenue unless they are neilsen homes.
boycott jerseys if you want something that can be immediate, tangible and doesn't take away from your own enjoyment of the game. Still hurts employees in those factories but that's unavoidable In a boycott - atleast it's minimized.
Your entire premise is sour grapes and poorly thought out.
Through this all you haven't addressed how this remotely effects your life at this point though. What exactly are you seeking vengeance for? Not a single practice has been missed, yet alone game. Is the delay to FA hitting you especially hard?
-
I've got some ambient and some cheesy Marvin Gaye style stuff, but the latter makes me feel like I'm starring in a spoof comedy and the joke's on me. Any suggestions?
What are you normally into?
-
I actually agree, I think this would be a great idea and send a strong message to sports in general particularly the next time something like this comes around. Unfortunately, I don't think too many people would go along with it.
Hasn't this happened in every sport- including football? Lesson not particularly learned. Why would this time be different? Ratings will dip a tiny bit, revenue a little but overall- it'll happen again and again.
-
Listen brother, if you want to continue lining their pockets, I say go for it. Oh by the way, it does affect you. You just don't understand how it does and I'm tired of explaining it. Some people will agree with me and some won't. I really don't care either way. I'm suggesting we punish both parties for a work stoppage that could have been avoided and show them they need to appreciate the people who pay the bills and that's us.
Other then a delay in FA what is the effect you have felt?
Even if anyone could remotely execute this, do you doubt each side would blame the other?
What say you to the fact that my seasons are paid for, as are tv contracts, and I don't have any effect on ratings?
Come on Phil, think about this a little.
Even ignoring Toronto, you are talking about 10 days (including preseason) out of a 365 day year, or 2.74% of possible business days. You are trying to tell me businesses (and I am talking about businesses that decide peoples livelihoods, not someone allowing people to park on their lawns) need these extra 10 days or they will not "survive". You are being a tad over dramatic, don't you think?
I'm not saying anyone should boycott, not boycott, go to the games, or not go to the games. It's (for the most part) a free country. But this local businesses going under angle is a bit much.
I'm guessing on those ten days some of the local vendors make more than they do in an average month. Those are pretty huge bumps to an average business. Even local tourism numbers during game weekends. Big money.
-
Despite The NFL lockout Drayton Florence took it upon himself to call others such as Stevie Johnson & Fitz to do some practice away from One Bills Drive . Even though the guy is a possible free agent this year . Given that kind of leadership i would think he should be given a long hard look at resigning him , we need leadership like that on this team .
You know if the guy is willing with all that is going on to be the first to put it out there & circle the wagons as only Bills players can do , you know he'll put it all on the field week after week . Plus be a great example to the rookies & second year players!! Maybe Donte should take notes !!
Cudo's to you Drayton
Go Bills !!!!!!
This isn't unique, FA Heath Evans is doing the same in new orleans, and I'm guessing many around the league are doing the same. It's easy good will for a guy seeking a pay day.
-
The problem I can't get around though in the fan argument is that it's not the players that are expendable. You make it sound like you would shell out hundreds of dollars a year to watch some 4th stringers start rather than Brady, Manning, etc. That's simply not true. The owners are the expendable ones...there are plenty of billionaires who have nothing better to do with their money than buy a football team...couple that with the fact that a franchise in the NFL runs successfully as a public stock option and I'd say it's the owners with a bloated sense of their worth in the process.
I'd have to guess there are more guys that run a 4.4 than there are billionaires ready to buy an NFL franchise.
And plenty of people spend hundreds to see those 4th stringers in the SEC, pac10, etc... Not to mention you would get a whole new crop of Kurt warners, Fred jacksons.... You lose fans but many would still watch. I would.
If we have a full season, the fans will be there, but if we have a shortened season I think a lot of fans will abandon ship for 2011. I purchase the Sunday ticket every year for one reason only...my beloved Bills. I have been a fan for half a century. I will not make the purchase this year to watch scab games...& I am not too enthused about watching other scab games either... even if they're free. If we have a shortened season, it's just not the same & I would probably only tune in for the playoffs.
Unfortunately- season tix are bought and paid for. Stadiums will be full in large markets. This hurts buffalo more than almost any other team.
-
Again, you obviously are too stupid. A portion of your cable bill goes to the NFL, both players and owners. By not watching, ratings go down, which costs the network millions in advertising revenues. If the networks aren't making money, then they can't pay the NFL big money for the TV contract. If the league doesn't have the money, then they can't pay the players. You do have the power to hurt both the league and the players financially and the very fact that I have to explain it to you means that both you and the others are too stupid to understand the financial power that you possess. It has nothing to do with disagreeing with my opinion. That is your right and I spent 23 years defending it. If fans do not let players and owners know that we sign the checks, then they will always take us for granted and treat us like dirt. I can not believe the ignorance that people on this board display every single day. It makes me laugh. And yes I do value my own opinion, just as I value yours if it has any logic to it. Yours didn't and neither did any of the others. Mine on the other hand is well founded and makes good financial sense.
correct me if im wrong, but if im not on a monitored TV, i have no effect on the ratings of a TV show personally.
in this case boycotting merchandise in general, and concessions at the game would make far more sense then anything you have proposed (still enjoy the game since every avenue youve mentioned is already bought and paid for, and would just punish fans), and as someone else pointed out, this would still hurt tens of thousands of everyday americans immensely to get even with a handful of people that will barely notice even if you somehow, by some miracle get even a small percentage of fans on board.
Peterson to visit Bills
in The Stadium Wall Archives
Posted
I think the poster was saying much like mckelvin he got the label shutdown corner by scoring on kick returns. It's easy to forget giving up catches while your watching highlights of him scoring. Against better teams he was a little uneven in his play- I don't have the numbers in front of me but he gave up like 90 yards and a td to Julio jones, gave up like 8 catches in the bowl game, mallet threw for close to 350 against lsu....
Against the big boys he wasn't a shutdown corner, but he did make plays. I think anyone that expects shutdown revis style play is mistaken. He kind of like your reference to cromartie will use his big frame and speed to make plays and picks but he's not the crazy technician with no wasted steps and balls never going his way.
I think like mckelvin he might be overdrafted (or slide further then expected) because of much of his hype coming from the return game and what he does with the ball in his hands. Quite frankly at 3 I'd rather a guy that seals off his side of the field than a guy that plays well with the ball in his hands.
Like I said in the shoutbox, i live in new Orleans and work with several former lsu players, family of current players, and have seen almost every game he's played. I'm not some schmuck who saw a pp7 for heisman clip on YouTube. He's a real good player but top ten talent and far and away number one pick are not the same thing. Some team will be happy to get him early but I promise you we would regret it at 3.