CA OC Bills Fan

The article I read said they had him on the scout team at safety but he wasn't allowed to run or make contact so I'm not really sure what the "playing safety" part even means. I also had read (sorry if already stated but I only read the first two pages and the last few posts) that he was told feel free to stay home the rest of the season. The Giants wanted to play him and he wanted to play but the risk of injury guarantees kicking in wouldn't allow for that. They tried to have him waive the injury guarantees, his agent negotiated with the Giants but couldn't come to an agreement. He was willing to waive part but not the entire injury guarantee. It didn't give any indication of how much he was willing to waive.

Thanks for adding the person's name Happy, although I posted the comment, I didn't care enough to go back and listen for his name. I'd say I enjoyed the podcast and listening to his thoughts in general (as a recap, I had mentioned he was on the Shout podcast the other day). The last question he was asked was about contract extensions for Benford and Bernard and he wasn't that positive about either. Bernard he said is very tricky because he isn't good against the run and I don't agree with this either. To be honest, when I heard his response to this question, it made me reconsider if I put any credence to anything he said, those comments made me think he was a typical national media person who doesn't have time to analyze the Bills specifically. Maybe a bit harsh on my part.

This morning I listened to the Shout podcast. They had someone from The Athletic on for most of the show. One of the last questions was asking about resigning players. The guy wasn't that high on either Benford or Bernard. He wasn't negative, but for Benford he was basically saying it's all McD. and for Bernard it was that he's not very good against the run. I don't agree with either of these statements (although I do agree that McD. absolutely gets the most out of the secondary), just wanted to share an outside media person's take.

I think it's 3. NE and Jets would be 10 -7 if one of them won out. NE would have the tie breaker over the Bills on that case. No chance to clinch next week.

Years ago a Skankees fan did this against (I think) the Orioles. Obviously not a WS and likely not a playoff game, but he reached over the fence and caught the ball just as it was about to be caught. The umpires called it a HR. I don't remember if it was obvious if it would have landed in the field of play or as a HR if they didn't do that and if the outfielder didn't catch it. The fan was celebrated in NY as this gave the Skanks an important win. Pretty sure MLB changed the rule after that.

It depends on when he was put on IR. The new rule this year is that they can be put on IR the last day of cuts with a designated to return designation. It immediately counts as one of the 7 even if they don't activate. I think Evans was one of them but really not so sure I'm correct on that. Milano absolutely was. I remember that this was something Joe Marino said on one of his podcasts just before cut down day. If they do this with Milano then they expect him to return at some point this season. If they had put him on IR after final cuts then you are correct, he doesn't count as one of the 7 if they don't activate him.

I was listening to One Bills Live today, Tasker and Brown. And no, I don't really think much of Tasker's analysis most of the time but I think I agree with him on this one. He was saying nothing wrong with the strategy, don't allow the easy pass to get in field goal range. Hail Mary's are a very low percentage play even with the QB having plenty of time and even though Rogers has a great history with them, it's really not about the QB so long as they have the arm strength to get it to the end zone. It's about defenders knowing they need to bat it down. He also said that's not coaching, everyone who has ever played or watched football knows that. The one point I'd make is that coaches need to REMIND the players before the play to do that, maybe even threaten a fine if they intercept although probably the union would protest that (I remember hearing a player a few years back, maybe it was Hyde saying of course he'll go for the interception if he thinks he can get it instead of knocking it down). Reminds me of the clip a few years back of Marty Schottenheimer telling the Chargers defense that they should strip the ball and then fall on it, don't try to advance it. Immediately the D strips the ball, picks it up, has it stripped from him, the Chargers lose as they only needed to get the ball and let time expire, Marty's fired.

Congratulations Alpha! I've been to Busby's (for the Houston playoff game a few years ago). It was awesome! I go to a bar in Huntington Beach, Eat at Joe's. Nowhere near as good as Busby's but a much shorter drive for me (I live in Mission Viejo). The only issue is you obviously planned very poorly, having your son born during a game! My son was due during opening weekend in 2001. My wife was totally ok with having him a week early to avoid any conflict. Of course, it helps that we knew she needed a C-section after our daughter was born in 1998 so we could plan the date to make it convenient instead of having to rush to the hospital at an inconvenient time or day.

So, Johnson met with Rogers yesterday and fired Saleh today. Does that mean Rogers asked for the firing or Johnson wanted to give him a heads up? Or, did Johnson tell Rogers that Hackett was about to be let go and that's when Rogers insisted Saleh had to go? https://www.foxnews.com/sports/jets-owner-woody-johnson-says-he-fired-robert-saleh-one-day-after-meeting-aaron-rodgers

Although I see no chance that the Cook one would have been overturned, I said to the group I was watching with the same thing DMA034 was saying. I'm going by memory, but there was around 3:30 left in the 4th quarter, meaning we had around 90 seconds to use our challenges. We had used 0 challenges up until then. McD. called timeout. I understand what you're saying but to think we were going to want to use another two challenges in the next 90 seconds seems so unlikely that I thought, "why not challenge?" We'd still be left with two timeouts and we'd have one more challenge in case something did come up in the next 90 seconds.

Because I was texting my account agent about virtual vs. waiting until November 4, he called to discuss. I was driving and wasn't ready when he gave me prices. But the PSL for my equivalent area (section 132 row 35) was $8000 something, maybe he said $8600 or $8900, with ticket price $2000 something. I'd expect section 135 to be similar or a bit more.

Just got texted yesterday that I'll get the email in the morning to schedule my appointment. Since I'm in CA and I'm not going to the Titans game, I won't be in Buffalo until the Fish game. I was planning on scheduling for the day after the game. My agent said I shouldn't wait and should do a remote appointment as they have 30 appointments per day. Any opinions from those that have had either? I'm leaning towards waiting for the in person experience. I kind of doubt I'll end up getting seats in the new stadium anyway. I have great seats now, section 132 row 35. From what I've been reading here those will be club seats in the new stadium, if I were to keep seasons, I probably would move back to maybe the 300 level.

Maybe there's something I don't understand here, but I don't see how Von taking a very large pay cut is a "terrible decision" by the Bills. As I recall, there was a very large cap hit to cutting him, enough so that it was very unlikely, almost impossible (I would have said that about trading Diggs too, so there's that). He could make up all of that money if he hits sack incentives, I think it maxes out at 15 sacks this year? Hitting that number ultimately would be great for the Bills and for him. With him now suspended for four games, it's even more unlikely that he has any chance of hitting that number of sacks.

I don't remember him finely at all Kirby. I just don't put ruining one game that we likely were going to lose no matter what and didn't keep us from going to the playoffs in the same light as ruining our best season in quite a while (1976).

I did and I'd take Peterman every day over Marangi. In 1976, Ferguson was leading all NFL QBs in most categories before he had a season ending injury in game 7. Marangi came in and completed 35% of his passes the rest of the season, an all time record low. Yes, his TD to int ratio was far better than Peterman (7 TD/16 int). And, Marangi had the NFL's leading rusher again that season, OJ Simpson. He ruined what should have been a great season.