mjd1001

Sometimes I do start watching the Bills games at 1:20-1:30pm.....with the DVR recording the game. I won't do it on opening day, but I'll start up the game a little late...and then just fast forward through commercials and halftime and usually by the late 3rd or early 4th quarter I am caught up to real time. I know its not for everyone, but sometimes I just hate the breaks due to commercials and halftime..that by doing this I'm just about watching it 'live' but end up catching up to the end.

I'm slightly less invested in the season just because there isn't much to go on yet...no buildup. No preseason games, no practices at camp. Once the games get started for good I'll probably be back to 100%. As far as the political stuff....doesn't really impact my interest in the games. And what I get annoyed with about it is...no so much what the players or owners do or say....but what really gets me is how people react to what they say. If a player, coach, owner, or former player wants to make a statement on an issue..fine, I'll deal with it, for whatever side they support. But when us, the fans..the message board and twitter uses take that and run with it to a huge extent.....when we want to argue-to-the-death to prove we are right....that is what I have a problem with. Bottom line..when the name-calling starts, that is when I need to leave and take a break.

I should have worded the poll better... I meant how will this be rated locally compared to previous bills games rated locally?

I was having this discussion with a friend. I think the ratings will be very high, but a point was made that this game could be one of the highest rated games ever. Its the home opener, but no fans there, they mostly be at home watching it. Bars/restaurant viewership is going to be way down, with many of those people added to the ratings at home. Not much competition, as many of us have already caught up on past shows and movies over the last few months, and finally there has been virtually no football to watch up to this point...no training camp to attend, no preseason games to even look at. Oh, and this might be the most highly anticipated Bills season in many, many years. Referring how this bills games rates locally, compared to how Bills games have rated locally (Buffalo market) in the past.

I understand what you are saying..but if that was true he would have the Cowboys ranked in the 20's....not a small market team like the Bills. You want to get people upset and drive up your traffic, have the Cowboys and Pats ranked well into the 20's, and that will do the job.

https://www.cbssports.com/nfl/news/ranking-all-32-nfl-teams-by-training-camp-performance-ravens-steelers-among-the-top-five/ I know most sites like to over-rate the Cowboys...but the justification for the Bills 26th? Singletary fumbling problem, a team write 'gone rogue' and Josh Norman not looking good. I know the author say they are based on how teams look in camp...but they also say they take into consideration how good the team is overall. And how can you rank a team based on a couple weeks of training camp performance when very little actual footage/info is coming out of camps this year and no games are being played? Hope this isn't a repost, I took a quick scan of current topics and didn't see it anywhere.

With the way things are now..and no scouting in the preseason/training camp..it is going to be hard. The only thing I think they MIGHT do (but not likely) is a backup for a backup with someone..but only if that is a player they have kept an eye on for a while in the past. I really don't see anything happening though.

I'm not sure why this can't be done today in a way that is at least 'more affordable' than it would have been even a few years ago. Content is there,...sure a lot of it would repeat to fill a 24 hour network, but you can find content. It doesn't have to be a traditional Cable TV channel also. It can be an 'app'. Look at Roku TV, Apple TV...Samsungs collection of 'television apps'. That has to be a lot cheaper than what it would cost to put it on traditional Cable TV.

If you get one of these and keep it in mint condition, can you imagine what it might be worth in 20-30 years from now?

If I think Tony Gonzales at his peak was just as important to his team as Kittle is, then it certainly is appropriate to look at it that way. The Cap is the Cap...the more you give to one area (as a percentage) the more other areas are suffering. If Kittle is taking a higher percentage of cap space than Gonzales did...he better mean more to his team than Gonzales did.

I don't have time to do the research now but for me to think its a good deal, I'd want to know what percentage of the cap his salary will be. For example, when Tony Gonzales was at his peak..what percentage of the cap was his contract...or Antonio Gates in the prime of his career...vs what Kittle is going to be getting now. If he is getting a similar percentage of the cap to those guys..then its worth it..if his cap hit is a higher percentage of the total cap...maybe not.

I'd say the example of a Formula 1 driver is very good. Life or death (or severe injury) if you concentration is off just a little bit. Most people who deny that are just people who are not that familiar with F1 or most other high end forms of racing and don't want to do the research on it. Taxing in a different way? I'd say a goalie on a big-time Soccer team...European league...for your country in the World cup. Why a Soccer goalie? Letting in one single goal can be the difference between being a national hero and getting legit death threats from crazy soccer fans. This is a tough question because 'taxing' could mean so many things...pressure? Difficulty? Danger?

I have found with some of my relatives who are primary viewers of Fox news....that just about ANY other news channel on Cable tv that is 'not' Fox news is the 'dreaded mainstream media". Personally I think all the networks are a good source of information. I find it best to watch all of them...and I think it is a GOOD thing when I get 2 sides to a story...if one 'expert' is saying one thing and a different network 'expert' says something else....that gives you information to do your own research on. When present with 2 points of view don't just pick one to side with...research both..try to DISPROVE both as much as you can...and when you are done...the point of view you were 'least' able to disprove (when legitimately trying on both)...that is a good way to learn. You may think you hate one network or the other, but when you watch them you might get information that you won't get on your 'chosen' network. If you watch the same news all the time...you get nothing to change your mind...just the same commentary over and over to just further cement your opinion..and that is true on both sides of the political spectrum.

Agreed. something of this nature should not be posted unless there is a source to go with it. It might be true, but shouldn't be here posted as a fact without a source.

I don't mind Tasker. I don't think he is great but I find very little about him to not like. Glab...wow, where to go. It seems she is a nice person. She seems to work hard at what she does and seems to to her research. I think she is great as the person to do quick TV or video spots interviewing players and the like..BUT, I have a hard time with her on a radio show like this. It isn't her fault, but her voice is just very hard to listen to for anything more than a minute or two...and her personality, while fun, is more suited to a goofy morning drive-time radio talk show than it is a show like this. I hope she keeps her job with the Bills, does sideline stuff, video segments...and is on call for EMERGENCY fill ins for the radio show, but the full time 12-3pm show isn't a good permanent gig for her.

After all the stuff this guy has done, why isn't he just banned from the NFL totally, or given a 2 year ban. By banning him less than a full season, all you are doing it having him put himself back in the news and cause trouble every year. I'm all for giving people 2nd and even 3rd chances...but not much beyond that...and not ANYMORE beyond that when they use the media to always come after you (not to mention always seeming to be in trouble with the law.) The NFL doesn't need him in any way, shape, or form. Just be done with him already.

This view is very very narrow. I was going to reply to this post directly but I see a lot of other people have made many of the same posts I have.

good so far, but if players are going to live there....what is your power supply for the island? How about other infrastructure like drinking water and sewers? Fire station? If you are starting your island from scratch...there is a lot more to it.

We have heard over and over and over....the Foxboro is not a nice place to play for a lot of players. That coaching staff wears on people. A lot of players probably only sign/played there because with Brady they thought they were a superbowl contender every year. Even if you think Bellichick makes the team a contender...with Brady gone 'half' of that 'winning draw' is gone. I'm sure a lot of players are hesitant to want to be there ESPECIALLY with new rules/regulations that may come because of Covid and how that coaching staff will deal with them.

Except, as above, for the required meeting space, weight rooms, and practice fields that NFL teams seem to spend a lot more time on than most other sports.

I thought a bubble would work better for MLB than the NFL. NFL teams have more players requiring more space/training facilities/practice fields. You could have a MLB bubble with a few diamonds available, and the teams just share them for practice. In the NFL, how much time and how much space do you need for practice, and as far as training facilities (meeting rooms, weight rooms, etc), it puts a LOT more stress on single locations even if you have just a handful of teams.

Very few things will ever be 100% safe. As a society, we have to determine where to draw the line between risk and reward. To most people, keeping schools closed for Covid-19 vs the flu ...the line seems to be between them. Your very linear argument seems to be ignoring that. So why would many prefer to keep schools closed for Covid and not the yearly flu? Everything we know so far says Covid has a higher hospitilization rate, higher death rate, more long term issues that arrive in people who recover from it, and there is no vacccine for Covid (if a huge, wide spread outbreak of the flu occurred, we have several vaccines available that could be administered in the community)

As far as the sports leagues go...I wouldn't say ineptitude....maybe a bit too much optimism......planning for the best case scenario (or at least hoping for it and integrating it into the plans.) Heres the thing, they want to play, they want to make money....so they have to plan for that based on the current conditions and then make adjustments around it. They would much rather plan for a scenario with a bit of caution that makes them the most money and adjust on the fly if need be.......rather than plan for a scenario that doesn't make them as much money.

I had a long discussion with a few friends about this...and while many of us understand this..it wasn't apparent until we broke it down. If your party wants to win a presidential election, your candidate should be someone younger or newer to National politics.........older in age, well established veteran Washington DC politicians don't do so well in the past few decades: -1992, young newcomer Bill Clinton beats George H Bush -1996, Clinton beats older, long time politician Bob Dole -2000, Bush Jr (new to Washington politics, although not his family) Beats long time Washington politician Al Gore -2004, Bush Jr Beats John Kerry, who had been in Congress for almost 20 years -2008, Obama, younger and a relative newcomer, beats Washington Veteran John McCain. -2012, Obama beats Romney (best recent example of two 'younger' candidates against each other) -2016, Trump Beats Clinton. While not young, Trump wasn't the Washington DC veteran...against Hillary who many in the country viewed as the best example of typical Washington insiders I'm sure there have been exceptions and will be exceptions in the future...but the rule seems to be if your party wants to win....have your candidate be younger and fairly new to Washington...do NOT have a candidate 65-70 or older and viewed as someone with long time ties to Washington DC. The problem is....the voters/party members are the ones who select their candidate in the primaries. I'm sure many people who are very dedicated to their party may not like this...but it seems the best way for EITHER party to win election is you find a candidate who is younger, moderate within their party, and someone who is fairly new to Washington.

I think its better than 50-50 around here, but the numbers are getting worse. My personal observation is that in the last 2-3 weeks, more people are out in public without masks, and social distancing...well, that concept is fading fast.