simpleman

Then we will finally be happy Bills fans for the first time in a long time. I don't think there are too many fans out there that don't like good news. Like last year when Kiko turned out to be a unexpected gem. The board embraced his success.

With all this talk of Toronto, I think everyone is forgetting the mammoth financial risk the NFL could be taking by forgetting the political backlash that could result if the team is moved out of the U.S. Patriotism and pragmatism over losing a U.S. team to another country could result in congress removing the numerous special legal exemptions and tax preferences that the U.S. has granted the NFL owners. We are talking billions of dollars in real loses over the years for the various team owners. Moving the team to somewhere else in the U.S. would not have any major national political risks, but a move to Canada could have potentially severe financial and business consequences for all NFL owners. The trust and the NFL would have to take that into account somehow in valuing the approval of the sale.

I am not against going fast paced. But I do believe a team has to get it right at slow speed first and keep increasing the speed until they get too fast and start slipping up and not executing it right. You can't start out going high speed. You need to work at the basics slower till you consistently get it right at that speed, then incrementally increase it to a faster level till your team reaches its "ceiling speed". There are no shortcuts.The Colts with Manning, the Bills with Kelly had the QB, the O line, the RBs,TE, WRs capable of going at top speed, and it worked. A hurry- up does not make bad offense better, it makes it even worse. The hurry-up makes a good offense better. But you have to work at, practice being, and become good first before you begin to speed it up. Last year was a nightmare because the team took shortcuts and didn't get good first. If Hackett continues to try to take short cuts, bad things will happen. There are no short cuts in life or on the football field.Bad things happen. Even shortcuts that work on the field still cause bad things to happen in life, re "roids".

Exactly, he is what he is. His ceiling is an excellent backup QB. No shame in being that, few in the world can qualify as being an excellent backup QB, there is a role and a need for them. Some QBs are just not starting QB material. It is team management that does not use him the way his talents dictate

You really don't get it? Considering the fact that EJ seems to be "developing" into a very questionable pick as a Franchise QB savior, it helps us to say "Well, it could be worse", we thought the Bills were going to pick Nassib instead of EJ.

A quote from the article "Nassib’s problems stem mostly from his skittishness in the pocket. He has good size at 6-feet-2, 225 pounds, and a cannon arm, but anything resembling a strong rush often seems to result in happy feet, a short-armed throw or a poor decision." What past Bill's QB could this describe after he took a bad hit in a game?

Thanks for the link, maybe they are not popular because they are $320 with absolutely no discounts under any conditions (pre season, unpopular games). Maybe enclosed seating with a price somewhere between the most expensive seats like these and regular seating prices with a few less frills might be more popular with the right marketing. Somewhere that sweet spot exists where (upscale, not rich) fans will pay for the amenities provided. The goal of the team should be to find the right combinations of amenities and price somewhere between the cheap seats and the absolute highest price seats. Of course it doesn't help that the view of the field sucks from there as well. Does anyone know of any open air stadiums that have enclosed areas for upscale but not rich fans that are actually popular with fans?

I'm not an engineer, but I think comparing concrete stress in a stadium that is only filled 8 times a year, and is not even used in the times of weather extremes is not a valid comparison to a bridge subject to constant regular violent vibrations in the winter and summer by heavy cargo trucks and cars and is drenched in salt during the winter.

It's easy to mock the efforts of the Jags to turn poor seats that don't sell into an area that generates a profit for the team. They are at least trying instead of going for the cheap laugh. It is tougher to actually contribute a positive idea on how to make the Bills a more profitable team.

I have said this before, as part of the renovation of the stadium two glassed in areas could be built with amenities like the Jaguars are doing. Nice seats, food and drink included. Nice video screens, wifi etc. PSL could be sold for the new area. Those that want a more modern "civilized" game day experience could be out of the elements and still share a different game day experience with other kindred souls. The Bills do not need over 70,000 seats, so the loss of seats could be more than made up in the premium upscale seat income. The way the Jaguars are doing it. Obviously the theme would not be summer beach activities like the Jags, but a different unique "Buffalo" version. It is no longer how many seats can you pack in a stadium, but how much income per game attendee can you generate. More seats no longer = more profit. And of course how much income you can make that you don't have to share with the other teams.

If we all accept the fact that the new owner will be looking at the team as an investment and as a business, the term ROI is critical. Yes, there is an ego element to owning an NFL franchise, but the business side will still be the primary motivator in most decisions. If a roof is required to elevate the game or required by the league or the fans for their comfort, then the roof may make sense. But the ROI on a roof for non game purposes is absolutely a horrible investment. History and facts show that non game day facility investments are bad business. As Kirby mentioned, any investments around a stadium that are not about the game day activity (only 8 days a year) should be considered separate business ventures, which will sink or swim based on the quality of the business plan for the other 350+ days a year.

A smart businessman would not count on income from non football sources from a stadium venue. If an owner counts on income, it should only be from football related sources. Naming rights, concessions, upgraded paid amenity income, parking, psls, tickets,TV revenue,endorsements, team gear sales and NFL revenue sharing. For a team owner, a stadium is not a viable revenue source outside of the game of football itself. Any costly added frills in stadium construction should be for increasing revenue from the games, either from fans attending the games, or from those watching the game through the media. Spending on stadium features outside of that is simply bad business and a bad business investment.

Thank you for the research, I immediately thought, I wonder what the figures are at the other stadiums nationwide when i saw that 100+ event figure

I was referring to JaMarcus Russell. 21–4 as a starter in college, 7–18 in the NFL. MVP in the Sugar Bowl. Drafted 1st . Potential means nothing till it is proven on the field in the real season. Even the pre-season means little, look at all the players on the Bills who were pre-season studs, but never showed up in the real season. I hope Watkins works out, but he is no savior to me until he proves it on the field in the real season. Players such as Spikes have at least shown they can prove it on the field, at this point Watkins is just a happy fantasy till he has proven it.

Not saying Watkins might not be what you wish him to be, but he has not played a single down in the NFL real season. A little early to call him the most gifted offensive player that Buffalo ever had. QB JR might have had similar said about him not that many years ago. Ask me after he has played a full season with the Bills. A lot of players had great potential from college ball, but it did not translate into NFL success. Ask all the top 10 picks in the draft in the past 50 years how reliably that great potential translates.

If EJ's ceiling is equal to Dalton's, I would be happy for a season or two. Dalton is not a Super Bowl QB, but he is good enough to give the team a real shot at the playoffs every year. I would want the Bills to be seriously looking for a Franchise QB in every draft while putting all the pieces in place around the QB. The Bills are still a few years away from building a Super Bowl caliber team, but having a team that could make the post season exciting while they finished putting all those pieces together would be sweet. Even with a Franchise QB, the Bills at this point are still not a Super Bowl caliber team. Maybe the pieces are here already with the current rookies, but even then those other rookies need the time to mature into their true potential.A Super Bowl team is not built in a single season anymore with the Cap. I'd be happy with a "Daltonesqe" type EJ in the mean-time as long as the Bills were still aggressively searching to find their real Franchise QB, and not settling for a "Dalton".

I am not an engineer or an architect. I wonder that if the problem is with the deterioration of the upper decks, could there could be a three or 4 year plan where the decks could be replaced one at a time over a few seasons during the off season without relocation of games? You have from April to September for construction and January to April for demolition. Couldn't the reconstruction of the upper decks already include the structural support for a roof to be added later, if they wanted to after the reconstruction portion was done? We realistically don't need more than 65,000 + seats. Maybe the replacement could include less seats and more suites and even enclosed sections for fans who are willing to pay a premium for them (possibly with PSL income for them). The team owner could generate more income with less actual bodies by upgrading those upscale facilities with better food, drink and other premium amenities rather than going after the typical lower income fans. There must be some way to "upgrade" your fan base to higher income levels, not just to the very high end of the really expensive luxury suites and boxes of old, but a median step up. While WNY may be lacking in Fortune 500 corporate buyers and ultra rich, there are still a lot of well off individuals like doctors and others that could afford a new median type of amenity upgrade.

I added the word structural to the title, since like other threads about a stadium, the conversation always devolves into a discussion about promoting the revitalization of a specific area around the stadium. This thread is suppose to be about what is wrong with the stadium itself, not about the stadium becoming an economic stimulus for a particular location. I have heard only two serious issues about the stadium in the thread. The fact that the concourses are too narrow, and that the upper decks are soon going to require major structural renovations due to age related deterioration. Someone also mentioned the desire that the stadium have a retractable roof, but it sounds more like a desire than a need. Does anyone have a link to an article that tells exactly what the NFL requirements are for a football stadium, and why the stadium will not be able to meet the standards of those requirements now or in the next decade?

The commissioner talks about a new stadium, fans talk about a new stadium, politicians talk about a new stadium. Do we really need one? What are the reasons the current stadium can't be renovated or retrofitted to meet the football needs of the new owner? If it can't be, is there space available for a new one to be rebuilt adjacent to the current stadium, and the current one ultimately torn down to provide space for parking or other needed facilities? Between the stadium site and the adjacent CC isn't there enough room? The infrastructure is already there and seems decent.

Do you even have a basic understanding of geography outside of the city limits? NF is actually further than OP when driving fo there from the area of the region to the east. Mileage using existing interstate infrastructure, which a majority of fans will use to attend games. Not to mention travel facility infrastructure from the I90 to NF faces significant facility weaknesses to handle bursts of traffic pre and post game. (commonly called potential traffic nightmares) From Downtown Rochester and points east distances. 86.5 miles NF 80 miles OP 70 miles to outer harbor Buffalo A NF location has Zero advantages to Central NY fans, in fact it is a negative. Outside any potential of Canadian fans, the NF location has zero positive impact on regionalization.

I question your logic. Do you really think someone from Rochester, or Central NY, the Southern Tier, or elsewhere outside of Buffalo/Niagara Falls are more likely to drive all the way to the Border to see a game? Or that many more Canadians will come to the games if it closer to the border? The problem is crossing the border, not the short drive to OP after dealing with crossing the border headaches . Access is not an issue with OP. It is just the people in Buffalo/Niagara Falls that want the stadium in THEIR city, not the fans you are looking for in regionalization.

I could care less about economically boosting the City Of Buffalo. A stadium is for playing football. If the Ralph can be modified to make it acceptable to the league and the new owner so they keep the team in WNY, that is all that football fans should care about, not about enriching some special interest population segment of the area. It is not about being a gravy train to boost a certain segment of WNY at the expense of the rest of the area. A stadium should be built for football, not a bunch of schemers looking for another batch of taxpayer money to milk.

What a country. Any psycho criminal incarcerted in prison for rape can file a lawsuit in court harassing a public figure.

Thanks to the original poster. It made me think about Qbs a little differently. Rather than who is the best QB playing today, it was who would be the best QB to select for the long run as well as winning today. My answer to the regular question of which QB is the best QB playing today would be very different from my answers of Rodgers & Luck in this question.

Exactly my thoughts. It was between Luck and Rodgers, Rodgers is above Luck in skill. But I chose Luck because he is younger, and still heading up the hill to his peak. The and "beyond" removes the older choices who are the best there is now, but are only a year or two removed from retirement.