mjd1001

I personally don't think it was all Diggs. He got here right when Allen was maturing. Did he have a part in that, maybe, but Allen was getting better on his 'timeline' one way or the other. And if there is a step back, it might not be because of Diggs, its going to be because of a LOT less money spent on players due to them wanting the cap reset (Diggs being a part of that)

Can we 'sticky' this so its at the top of the board every week?

I guess its not wrong for people to be arguing whether they liked Diggs/thought he was good for the team or not. Its 2 different ways of being a fan. -For some, being a fan is about big names. They are exciting. Its fun, great entertainment when players are 'divas', meaning they are just having fun with the fans, trolling people on other teams, etc. The more players you have like that, the better....and its even BETTER if they put up numbers and demand those around them do better and call them out. Celebrate after a big play, show the other team you just did something great. The 'alpha male' mentality, some support it, some are it, and some fans want that type of player. -For others, being a fan is about the team, not the individual at all. Celebrations after a touchdown? C'mon, act like you've been there before. Saying too much on social media and not keeping it 'in the house'? that is the sign of "Diva" behavior and Diva behavior is NOT good for the team. Entertainment is about a well executed play, a well structured drive, seeing a WR on the other side of the field complete a block on a running play even though the play went in the other direction. 2 Types of fans. I personally am the 2nd type, but we have both on this board. Its not so much a matter of Diggs being 'good' or 'bad' for the Bills when he was here, its just as much the type of fan he appealed to (or didn't appeal to).

EBIDTA is interesting (Earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation, and amortization) Dallas at $550 million New England at $250 million Rams at $243 million Majority of other teams (20 of them) at least $100 million Buffalo? Dead last at just $29 million Cincy is 2nd last next to Buffalo, but still almost 45% higher.

Article as of today: https://www.cnbc.com/2024/09/05/official-nfl-team-valuations-2024.html 30.Buffalo Bills $5.35B 31.Arizona Cardinals 32.Cincinnati Bengals more details at the link

It drives me crazy when people do this... Blame me, I can take it...blame me....BUT then they go on and give you a ton of reasons and excuses to not blame them. Saying you have 'big-ass shoulders' and then immediately pointing the finger other places is pretty much proof that you have the narrowest shoulders that crumble at the smallest sign of criticism leveled on them.

no not at all. If you did take the time to look at my posting history, I was kinda down on Diggs for the past 12-18 months.

For 15 years. But after that, i think all bets are off. I do not know the 'buy out' with this new stadium. But if things keep going the way they are, growing cities like Austin, San Antonio, Oklahoma City, Raleigh/Durham...they are already bigger/more populated than Buffalo and at the rate they are growing, they might be REALLY far ahead in 15 years in population, GDP, TV market size, etc. Yes, there still is Toronto, which is still growing at a rate of adding 1/2 of the population of the city of Buffalo each year (albeit to the 'metro area'.) All you need is one of those places to say they are going to build a $4-5 billion dollar stadium (todays cost) and one billionaire owner. The other NFL owners probably wouldn't think twice when they see the populations figures/wealth of those areas and see how much more it would mean to the entire league's bottom lines. I'm not trying to bring people down. I'm not saying this WILL happen for sure. The Bills are safe here 'for a while' and we all should enjoy it. Its just to say the Bill will be here for 20-30 years because of a new stadium is a little bit naive to me.

I really agree with 50% of what you said, and totally disagree with 50% of what you said. As far as what I bolded above: Diggs. I think he is slowing down big time. Now, CAN he have a big statistical year if they force feed him the ball in Houston? I suppose, but I think he went from a top 5 receiver to 'just another guy' over the course of the last 2 years. Getting rid of leadership? Yeah, probably. But a lot of those 'leaders' have seriously slowed down. Both of the safeties last year were 1-2 steps to slow to make plays, and they aren't/weren't going to be any better this year. Diggs, see above. -Von? He's stuck here with that contract. I'm hoping (wishing) he is recovered and has one last 'above average' year in him. But yeah, mostly because of the injury signing him was a mistake in hindsight. -Milano? If he could stay healthy he is a top 10 linebacker in the league, maybe a top 50 overall Defensive player in the league (that is saying a lot considering there are close to 350 defensive starters in the league. But, he A.) can't stay healthy. B.) he is getting older and with those injuries, his athleticism is likely going to be taking a hit when he is on the field.

I don't know much about Babich, but happy for this. I would just have someone else besides the head coach calling plays.

Ok, devil's advocate again here. Then why did so many republican support it, and initially say they would vote for it?

Ok, again I'm wading into this discussion with a legit question I am hoping for a legit answer without simply getting talking points from each side. What I understand, there was a border bill, one supported by both democrats and republicans earlier this year, that might not have solved the problem at the border 100%, but it seems it would have made it much, much better. From my understanding, Trump did talk to republicans in congress to effectively kill the bill so he could campaign on the issue. So my question is, why so much complaining about the border issue by the right, when there was a solution (at least a partial solution) that was about ready to be passed but was killed...by the political right?

Especially if you end up seeing the ad over, and over and over...

I don't need to know much about you and don't need to follow your posts for my reply to be appropriate. You came in pretty hot with your statement followed by calling it a 'fact'. I strongly disagree with it being a fact. That is what I was/am responding to.

On a somewhat but not totally related note... PSL....personal seat license, right? Apparently not to everyone. In the past week I have heard PSL used as as short for Pumpkin Spice Latte. First at work a girl saying she can't wait until they are available, she wants to get a PSL...and then just now someone on the news said it when talking about Starbucks. I never knew...

It could be as simple as some people being like/thinking: I know football better than ALL of you! I am smarter than the coach. I am smarter than the GM. If they would have taken the guy I said I wanted, they would be better! Look how smart I am! If they do anything but win the superbowl its just proof that I was right, if they would have done what I posted that they should do, they'd be world champs by now! Its complaining, but its a way for people to just point out how 'smart' they think they are. They need to point out the negative things as a way of making themself, and what they think, be better.

1.) many people are more likely to express negative sentiments than positive ones on a lot of topics. If people are happy, they often times just be happy and go about their own business. But when someone doesn't like something, they want to complain and be heard. Not everyone, not all the time, but it seems this way more than not. 2.) self defense mechanism. I have one relative that is this way a lot....ALWAYS complain about something...be negative, tell everyone you are negative, and then IF things go your way, its a bonus. Kinda like buying insurance. If the team does well, few care you were negative because everyone is happy in the end. BUT, if things go wrong, you can take pride in being the one that said "I told you so!!" 3.) The curse of high expectations. I have thought something like this for a while....there are only 2 ways MOST fans will be happy. First, you win the championship. Second, you exceed expectations. When the "expectation" is that you WIN the championship and nothing else, then anything OTHER than that is a failure....thus something to be negative about. Think about it, when the Bills were bad a few years ago and Josh took over and had those first few games, no one expected them to win the Super Bowl right away but the board was a lot more positive as they got better with him. Why? Lower expectations. Not the case anymore. Hard disagree on that one. Usually bright eyed optimists, people who's expectations are not even close to grounded in any kind of reality...those people often can't take the idea that someone disagrees with their sky high expectations....so when that person does disagree with them, they say a statement like you just did. Its not a fact. You saying its a fact in itself is a defense mechanism you are putting out there to try to prevent people from disagreeing with you because you so BADLY don't want people to disagree with you. Someone who calls themself a realist MAY be a pessimist...but they may also be someone who like to position their opinion in a way where they take into consideration both positive and negative possible outcomes equally.

I am dis-interested in this season for the Bills and the NFL in general. I'm going to probably watch most of the Bills games, follow the league, but a small fraction of what I used to do. I think personally I'm an outlier here, but the more something gets hyped up, the more it is talked about, the less interested I am in it. Right now of the major sports, Hockey is my favorite (wasn't always that way). Why? I'm not blasted with it, hit over the head with coverage non-stop everytime I open Twitter or turn on ESPN. I like the game of football. I don't like the commentators yelling on TV (Stephan A. Smith among others). I don't like non-stop discussions about dynasties, and who is 'the best ever'. I don't like the fact that if I wanted to go to a game and get a set of 'decent' tickets and some food there, its hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of dollars. (yes, Hockey is getting that way too). So again, I'll watch the games, but if I miss one? Oh well. I want the Bills to win but if they don't...Oh well. Its not the game itself that pushed me to where I am now...its not the success or lack of success of my favorite team. Its just the non-stop attention, the fact it seems hard to follow the sport without being suffocated by it.

Stadiums...the discussion has been going on for so long..... So, 18 million people watch an average NFL game on television. About 70,000 go to an average game. For every 1 person at the game, 250+ see it on Television. Stadiums are obviously not built simply for the sake of 1 in 250 fans. Think of this, you could have each team play ON a state-of-the-art field...no spectators, just a perfect field with perfect drainage (or under a cheaper roof), with every square foot of space outside the field devoted to perfect placement of TV adds and perfect locations for television cameras. A "made for TV only" game, the way 250 in 251 viewers watch it, could probably be built for a few million dollars. Or there is middle ground. For many fans, you could build a stadium with 'perfect site lines) and no high-end amenities for a fraction of the cost also. How much would it cost to build a brand new, modern day replica of the current Stadium? Give it somewhat more comfortable seats, a wider concourse, and of course build it to last for 40-50 years, but with none of the high end stuff? Certainly a small fraction of the one being built now. So, Billion dollar stadiums are built for what? Those 1 in 250 people that watch an average game? The "atmosphere" around the field on TV? Of course, for Revenue for the owners/teams. NFL revenue estimates are all over the place depending on where you look. I have seen business sites say total revenues are anywhere from 13 Billion (CBS) to 23 Billion (Sportico). I think Goodell has stated the projection is for $27 Billion in revenues by 2027, so we are probably somewhat close to that now in 2024. Stadium revenues are a little easier to figure out. The total stadium experience (parking, concessions, tickets, merch at the stadium) is around $3.9 -$4.1 Billion per year (reported by quite a few sites online) Of course as I said, all of these numbers are slightly different depending on the source, but appears the stadiums are built as 1.) a source of 'civic' pride for the area for a few years. 2.) for the benefit of 1 in about 250 fans who see the game from them. 3.) making the atmosphere of the event better for those watching on TV. 4.) For the league/owners, who make anywhere from $9b-$19b without them...bumping that number up by about another $4b. Are they worth the cost? Some wish they would never be built. Some say they are worth every penny. Most are probably someplace in between.

When you have a year where you are basically going through a cap re-set like they are this year, things like this can happen. You hope they don't happen, but if they do happen, its not gross mismanagement that you don't have a backup plan. Its what you do when you decide, IN ADVANCE to take your lumps with the cap this year so you can have freedom with the cap going forward in future years. Do I like the WR situation right now? No, its not ideal, but going into the season I knew there was a strong possibility something like this would happen with one, or more than one, position groups and I made my peace with it already...for THIS year.

3 weeks until opening day. Hopefully 'week to week' means give them TWO weeks off, and get them in a good week of practice that 3rd week before the opener.

1.) Josh Allen has a fully healthy season 2.) The Offensive line is at least slightly above average. I personally think this offensive line has been over-rated by most on this forum and most fans. Most other QBs back there besides Allen would be battered and injured by game 5, and they really can't open holes consistently against many defensive fronts that are even slightly above average. 3.) The Defense is at least average all around, with ONE elite (or close to elite) pass rusher that you can hope will consistently be annoying to Mahomes, Burrow, or any other elite QB they face. Thats it. If you have #3 and #2, then having a healthy Josh takes care of the rest. As far as #3 above....Why are the Chiefs so good? Even if you are ahead of them, playing with the score to score, if Mahomes has the ball last the expectation is they WILL score. How do you stop that? to me the best way is to have that one elite guy he doesn't see hit him from behind. One guy that blows up a play so quickly and there is nothing he can do about it. One guy who gets to him 1/2 second faster than anyone else and hits his arm as he releases it to cause a game saving INT. You don't need it every play, but you need a guy to be able to single handedly blow up a play just once or twice in a final drive.

Thanks, except thats probably just wrong. Nice jobwith the 'FIFY' though...I'm glad its catching on now after poeple doing it for a coupe years and only thousands and thousands of times...its still cute I guess..

I wade into this discussion carefully, because honestly I do not like either candidate. I was not a huge fan of Biden, and Harris I was OK with...but in her rallies lately, almost everything she says regarding policy I don't like. More targeted tax cuts, the SUPER pro-union support (I'm OK with labor unions, I just don't want the government pushing them.). Basically, I could LIVE with her policies but I don't like that. But on the other side of it, I just cannot vote for Trump because of the person he is. The 8-year old level name calling. All politicians lie, but his blatant, obvious, in-your-face lies. The promises that never came to pass. The obviousness (to me) that he will put himself, his personal wealth, above all and everyone else. I just can't do it. Personally I may not vote at all for either of them. Whoever wins I just might have to look the other way and hold my nose for 4 years. If I had to pick now, I'd probably rather have Trump lose just so the party can move on from him. What I WANT is a Republican who is actually a decent human being. Someone who will push and push for his policy, but knows when to compromise a bit with the other side and take a bit of a win, and then fight on another day. Someone who doesn't come on TV and have me say...I will still give you a chance just don't make this ALL about you..and 2 minutes in its all about him. I don't love Biden, I'm not impressed with Harris, but to get a respectable Republican, I think Trump has to lose so the party has a chance to move on. And as far as people posting polls saying Harris is up and likely to win....or Trump is catching back up in better odds, or Harris is leading in some swing states, or Trump leads on certain policies....SO WHAT? I mean, this is a message board and the reason it is here is to discuss things, but posting your favorite candidate is leading in some poll or some issue isn't going to change anyone's mind...that is just a way to make yourself feel better, by finding something that supports your own point of view and putting it out there to figuratively poke in the eye the people who don't agree with you. But again, its a message board, I guess that is what this is here for. 🤷‍♂️ I just think when people post stuff that includes pet name calling or use 'colorful' adjectives to describe candidates...just...grow up already.

Here is the problem with graphics like this: Those topics might 'average out' to be the top issues for the nation, but they aren't the top issues for each group of voter. For Republicans, who are already likely to vote Trump, those are the top issues. Ask independents and/or Democrats what their top issues are, and I'll bet the list isn't the same.