DriveFor1Outta5

I'd say there is only one way I find a second team remotely acceptable. That would be if you are a Bills fan who relocated to another city with an NFL team who aren't an AFC East rival. I can understand sticking with the Bills while rooting for your new hometown team. Otherwise you are just a Bills fan. Don't try to kill the pain of being a Bills fan by latching onto a winner.

They'll probably exchange jerseys as well.

Same here. We seem to have the quietest coaching staff we've seen in a while. Obviously Rex took his bravado to amazing heights, but even previous coaches seemed to promise too much. McD just goes about his business. The current staff seems professional compared to some of their predecessors in Buffalo. I don't know that it will translate to success. I just like what I see so far.

I have one basic complaint about this issue. If college is going to be tuition free it needs to be tuition free for everyone, regardless of income. This would be a system that is no different than public K-12 school. Instead we created another system that breeds class warfare and resentment.

I'd care if the Sabres were there. Otherwise it interests me very little.

That's what I don't understand. The NFL is opposed to players associating with gambling to give us the impression of integrity. Historically the logic was that players might be influenced to throw games. No one wants that, and it could be a real possibility. The problem is that a stupid rule exists just to give things a good appearance. In reality players can hang around the casino/gambling element all they want, as long as they don't get paid. With a team moving to Vegas it will occur even more often. In reality there is nothing in place to prevent gambling from influencing the league. Only a stupid rule about getting paid by a casino that in reality does nothing to uphold the leagues integrity.

Buffalo probably isn't the best place for him. I'm not going to argue with that fact. I just get the feeling that if he goes to have a beer trouble won't be far behind regardless of the city. Chad needs to conquer his own demons before it can work anywhere. He would do fine in Buffalo if he were to stay away from places like nightclubs. To be successful he'll have to do the same wherever he goes.

The kid has a terrible Johnny Football like track record. I wouldn't risk anything to draft this guy as my future QB. The good news is that he's going to be a late round pick or UDFA. There is no risk involved. If the improbable occurs and Kelly becomes a great QB this franchise would never live it down. I think that makes him a guy this franchise can't afford to pass on.

I never made the argument that these players should have profited from the casino. They should have known better, and not broken the rules. I'm just stating my opinion that it is a rule which makes the league look hypocritical in my eyes. I'm sure I'm not the only one. Once again, I ask what harm is going to come from a player earning a paycheck from a casino? The impropriety arguement is exactly where I find the hypocrisy to be. How does a player doing a promotion for a casino increase the odds of impropriety? Any time an NFL player steps foot into a casino there is a chance the player to uses their clout to get in with the elites. It's not like NFL players are banned from going to casinos. With a team in Vegas you can be sure players are going to have interactions with some of the big names in gambling. Banning players from making promotional appearances does nothing to stop the possibility of impropriety. It's just a smoke screen.

Yes, but players post pics of themselves in Vegas and gambling on Twitter and Instagram all the time. Vegas casino owner Sheldon Adelson was also an initial investor for a Raiders stadium in Vegas before backing out. This makes the NFL look as legit as a three dollar bill imo.

Great point. That's why I'm often highly critical of the league. Their priorities always seem to be backwards.

I'm not making harder than it is. I just view the situation differently than you. That's fine, we can agree to disagree. The league is going to move a team to Vegas in a few years. I think that makes it very ironic and hypocritical to ban players from doing promotional events at casinos. Vegas was built on the back of casinos. It would be like banning players in NYC from appearing in ads for financial institutions. My opinion that the NFL likes to pretend that gambling doesn't exist stems from the ban on promotional appearances at casinos. Why else does this rule exist? The sole purpose of the rule is to give the league a dignified appearance. The league wants to give the appearance that they are not remotely influenced by gambling interests. It's simply an archaic outlook in a world with gambling everywhere that the league still clings to. An outlook that makes little sense with a team moving to Vegas. The players may have "agreed" to the rule, but when the league baragians with the players union compromises are made. As is the case with all negotiations both sides must agree to conditions that they don't necessarily agree with. It doesn't mean that the players as a whole agree with the rule. The players for the Las Vegas Raiders will be losing out on a good deal of money not being able to cash in on promotional appearances with casinos. As other posters pointed out the league should be concerned about player safety with the arm wrestling situation. Instead they are worried about the violation of the casino promotional appearance rule.

I continually see this narrative posted on the board. There is no question that he got into trouble here. I'm not even going doubt that it might have been time for a fresh start. I'm just not certain that he "hated" Buffalo and that was the reason for his struggles. Where is the proof? Did he make statements that I missed at some point? I don't mean this sarcastically. I'm just curious.

No actually I don't. If something's not illegal and the league allows you to do it, why can't you do promotional engagements for them? The league wants to act like gambling doesn't exist, yet they put a team in Vegas. You are correct, players have been hanging out in Vegas for years. How would a promotional appearance change anything. What would it harm?

Correct, but the other casinos in NFL cities don't offer sports betting. That's the white elephant in the room that the league has historically worried about. Why does the league care if a guy goes out and plays blackjack? They shouldn't and they don't. The league is flawed in the fact that they seem to think we live in the 60's. I understand that sports betting exists online. You don't need to hang out in Vegas to get involved with shady characters to get wrapped up in sports betting. It can happen anywhere. However, if the league bans any promotional appearances for athletes with casinos than the league has no business in being in Vegas. Vegas was built on the backs of the casinos. If there were never casinos in Vegas there wouldn't be an NFL team moving to Vegas. Secondly NFL players commonly make promotional appearances for the hot spots in their city. In Vegas all of the hottest spots are affiliated with casinos. The casinos in cities like Detroit and Buffalo can't be remotely compared with the glitz and glamor of Vegas. Bills players probably aren't wishing they were allowed to do promotions for our local casinos. It's not somewhere they likely hang out all the time. Vegas will be a different story. NFL players are going to be flooding the VIP rooms and the pool parties. You don't get that in Detroit or Buffalo. If you're not going to allow players to be associated with casinos, don't move a team to Vegas. Personally I have no problem with players making promotional appearances for casinos. The NFL doesn't agree with me. So don't move a team to Vegas. It just looks stupid.

Thanks for reminding me of that debacle. People on this forum often love to pick on the Browns. The irony is that our franchise have had some of their all time low points occur against the Browns.

Well, it's not like any players are going to be spending time at the casinos. I'm sure all the exclusive clubs and VIP pools will scare them away.

I'm not sure that I understand what you're saying?

Good question. I'd be curious to know the answer to this. You gotta love the good ole NFL though. No "promotional appearances" at casinos allowed, but we'll move a team to Vegas.

I agree, a move to somewhere like Batavia wouldn't impact who attends the game. This is exactly why it will never happen, and why doesn't make sense. Pegula has already gone all in a downtown Buffalo. If the team were to ever leave Orchard Park it's going to be downtown. It would be the move that's in the best interest of their own business ventures. As far as the thruway is concerned, those two lanes can get jammed up pretty quickly.

Good post. The thruway could use a third lane between Rochester and Buffalo. When I went to the Stones concert a couple of summers ago the thruway was a disaster. The combination of an event at the Ralph and a concert at Darien Lake that evening had traffic at a standstill. I'm sure that traffic to and from Batavia on game days wouldn't be much better. This is why the Rochester fan argument doesn't make much sense either. Attending a game consumes your entire Sunday. Any Rochesterian who isn't going to a Bills game because OP is "too far" isn't a very dedicated fan imo. I don't see a stadium in Batavia brining in thousands of more fans. Besides this franchise has been selling out the stadium every week already. The dedicated Rochester fans will show up regardless. The second group of people in Rochester will stay at home rooting on the Giants,Steelers,Cowboys etc. The third group will drive from Rochester when the Bills become cool again, that means winning. There are a lot of Bills fans in Rochester, but Buffalo is the only area that is one hundred percent uncontested Bills country. Any reasonable Bills fan in Rochester should know this, and therefore be willing to make the drive. Besides people from Rochester have always had to drive to Buffalo for most major events.

I totally understand where you are coming from. This is definitely not the way things are supposed work. However, the cynic in me sadly thinks there is a similar story for almost every public project of all time. Especially in New York. Nothing ever goes scandal free. Whenever a new stadium is build there will probably be equal amounts of shadiness taking place behind the scenes.

At least Orchard Park is a suburb of Buffalo. Batavia is a suburb of corn fields.

Any reasonable would ageee with you, as I do. I just think that these teams need to stop the money grabs from taxpayers as well. From a philosophical standpoint Mark Davis and many other NFL owners are indebted to the people/taxpayers. It may be "theirs" but they take money from the public, so they aren't completely independent. I don't see the taxpayers funding any other private business ventures. It's an absolute joke.

Exactly. These ideas have been discussed for years. The problem is they don't make sense. The majority rules. The majority of people at games are coming from Buffalo or Ontario. Making the drive 40 minutes or so shorter for people from Rochester isn't going to help the organization. No one from Rochester is going to start attending Bills games just becaue the drive is 40 minutes shorter. They either attend games already or they don't. Batavia wouldn't make a difference. It will never happen anyways.