Drunken Pygmy Goat

I agree with it being a first shot fired in a long, drawn out negotiation process. But the "We might not get there" part has meaning IMO. If a renovation would cost half of what a new stadium would cost, we can get there. Eventually, something has to, and will happen. It's all a matter of what's feasible economically for this region. Bills fans don't "need" a new stadium or a renovated NEF. Most fans are fine with it as it is now. But the league and the owners do need it, for the Bills to be able to contribute money that's more in line with the rest of the league.

Of course there is a range. I'm sure it could be researched. The point is, people seem to think that a new stadium would require fans to purchase PSLs for tens of thousands of dollars across the board, which isn't accurate. But If a new stadium downtown is the idea, it will cost much more to build and facilitate, and without a larger private contribution, the cost for PSLs would be greater. That's why a renovation would be the best option, and why you probably could read into Kim's comment as saying as much.

https://www.google.com/amp/www.latimes.com/sports/sportsnow/la-sp-rams-psl-20170831-story.html%3foutputType=amp "The NFL's three newest stadiums priced the licenses much lower: Atlanta ($45,000), Minnesota ($9,500) and San Francisco ($80,000). About half of the NFL's teams use PSLs or something similar to finance their stadium." People keep throwing out the $100,000 PSL, but the most expensive PSLs for a new stadium in Buffalo would likely be much less, and those are for clubs seats. $500 is enough for a PSL in some stadiums, but then you have to pay for a ticket on top of that.

I could be wrong, but I don't think there are any provisions that would allow the league to force a team to relocate. What they would have to do is amend certain provisions in a new CBA, that would provide less revenue sharing to the Bills, thus forcing the team to make a move (no pun) one way or another. The Bills do not "need" a new stadium. What the other owners want is for the Bills to be bigger contributors to the pie. One way to do that is with higher ticket prices and concessions. Without looking it up again, I believe ticket sales contributed roughly 17% of the league's annual revenue, and with new, expensive stadiums being built recently, with higher ticket prices and PSLs, that percentage may go up. The Bills cannot justify a significant price increase to tickets and concessions currently, due to the lack of amenities, as well as the product on the field. Part of the new lease agreement with Erie County was the stadium research committee. They concluded that the bones of NEF were good enough to last another 30 years (IIRC, it may have been 40). On average, stadiums are lasting roughly 30 years before a new stadium is built. A total renovation could be done for much less money than a new stadium, and the league's contribution could be higher for a renovation, based off of the current (<key word) G-4 program ($200 mil max for new stadium, $250 mil max for renovations). That would appease the owners, by creating an atmosphere that would allow for higher ticket and concession prices, as well as lessen the burden on tax payers. Someone threw out a figure of $600 mil for renovations (although it could cost less, based on recent renovations already completed). If that's the case, the "team" contribution (Pegulas + the league) could reach $500 mil. Then you would have $100 mil left for the state and local municipalities to sort out, much less public funding than would be required for a new stadium (roughly $300-400 mil, or more, depending on the scenario). That money could be paid off by enacting localized taxes, like a $5 (just throwing out a number) hotel tax within Erie and Niagara counties, $5 rental car taxes, local restaurant taxes of 1-2% to surrounding counties, license plate taxes, etc. Aside from the license plate tax, most of the other taxes will be paid for by out-of-towners, visiting for Bills and Sabres games, visting Niagara Falls, etc. Not too many locals are staying in hotel rooms or renting cars, and even still, the tax wouldn't kill your wallet. It doesn't necessarily have to be a "local taxpayer" burden fully if done right.

Honestly, I think a renovation would be much easier to accomplish. A new stadium downtown would require a lot more money for infrastructure, and that would really hammer taxpayers. Not sure why, but the league actually provides more funding for renovations than new stadiums. Maybe it's because teams renovate much more often than they build new, but most stadiums are up to date at this point. Which stadiums would need any renovations in the next couple of years other than NEF? Bills could get .ore of the cut if they time it right. The Bills can get up to $200 mil from the league for a new building, or up to $250 mil for a renovation. $50 mil might not seem like a big difference when it comes to spending hundreds of millions of dollars, but it is a significant amount when it comes to negotiating with the state and local municipalities for public funds.

JMO, but I believe a big part of the "pressure" is derived from league shared revenue. Visiting teams receive a portion of ticket sales, and when a team plays @BUF, they are getting significantly less money than they get elsewhere. Not certain, but I believe it's either the least or 2nd least producing team (not counting the Chargers and their current 30,000+ soccer stadium seating). I'm sure teams have complained about this, and would love for the Bills to have an excuse to charge more money for tickets, so that they'll become more of a level contributor to the big pie. The Bills cannot justify a 100+% ticket price increase (odd-ball figure) with the current stadium. The TV experience is just too good these days for fans to justify dropping that kind of money to sit in an outdated (by NFL standards) stadium, especially if the team isn't contending, which they haven't for 20 years. Another possible reason why the "pressure" has mounted over the last 3-4 years could have something to do with the current CBA set to expire soon, and the uncertainty of the G-4 program in the next CBA. Perhaps the league believes that the Bills should take advantage now, rather than wait until after the current agreement expires in 2020. Their motives, however, seem questionable. Perhaps the program will be amended in 2020, which could decrease league provided funds (max 1.5% of annual league revenue currently). Or, maybe due to the increasingly higher costs to build stadiums, the amendment will increase the max annual percentage, which would allow the Bills to obtain more money from the league, which they wouldn't want to do for the Bills if they don't have to (before 2020). But as far as forcing the issue goes, I really don't think there's anything the league can do, other that keep pressing to the media. The Bills know the position their in, in relation to the rest of the league and the revenue. They don't need the league to tell them as much. Its been the same issue for years, but I think the league was much more quiet in the matter due to RWJ's health. Keeping the team afloat with an aging owner was the focus, and stadium talk was put aside.

If I'm not mistaken, the most expensive PSL at Jerry World is $150,000. I seriously doubt you'd see a price tag anywhere near $100,000 in Buffalo. Side note: the Rams new stadium is supposedly going to cost nearly $2.5 billion. Some of the most expensive PSLs there would be in the $175,000-$225,000 range...

Exactly. I thought of Mario Williams when I posted that comment about Richie. Still a good player, but not being used properly to get the most out of his skills.

$500 mil is way too low, even for an open air stadium. Lucas Oil in Indy was $720 mil. Granted it's a dome, which adds roughly $100 mil, but that building was finished 10 years ago. If replicated in Indy today, inflation would bump that number up to around, or more than $800 mil. Crazy talk

You did a much better job of explaining yourself here. It's possible for either outcome to be the case with KB, and the offensive line. I think the issue people may have had with your posts, and probably why I commented, was that you seemed to be "speaking in absolutes". Truth is, no one knows what will happen. Could go either way. At least you backed up your claims with solid reasoning. IRT the line; no question, the Bills lost two good/solid starters. Getting similar or better play from their replacements won't be easy, and certainly shouldn't be expected right away. But one way to look at it is by recognizing that both players were up there in years. They weren't going to be playing at a high level much longer anyways. I don't know that Richie "regressed" last year, so to speak, but it did seem like his overall impact and level of play wasn't quite the same as it was the year before. Personally, I think it had more to do with the change from down blocking to zone. Still a good player, but not really being used properly, to utilize what he's best at. Same could probably be said about Miller, and that has a ripple effect across the line. Perhaps the switch to more hat on hat blocking will have more positive results, but I'm not familiar enough with their replacements to make a determination on that. I'm just going to have to trust that McBeane and the coaches know what they're doing. What I will say, is that cohesion and continuity is probably more important on the offensive line than it is with any other facet of the team. Richie and Wood (and Glenn to an extent) had 2+ years worth of games playing next to each other, and that kind of chemistry won't be replicated overnight.

Don't you know? No WR has ever come back from knee surgery and been a better player... Dude is just trying to justify his opinions by taking unknowns and putting a factual spin on them. There's no way to know for a fact that KB will not be the same player after surgery that he once was before last year, just like there's no way to know for a fact that the offensive line won't be as good or better after losing two starters. It may be a safe bet to assume that the line will not be as good, but that doesn't mean it will come true. It's just an assumption; a guess. What you don't seem to understand is the fact that, just because something looks worse on paper, it doesn't mean that it will be worse. It's an unknown. You're logic isn't wrong, but you sound as if you have some magic crystal ball, and that you know for a fact that KB won't be better for having surgery, or the line won't be ok. Remember last year, when the Bills lost Gilmore, Darby, Williams, etc in the secondary? And remember their replacements? Pretty much everyone thought the secondary would be the worst group on the team, based on how it looked on paper (even though most people loved the White pick). Turns out, the opposite came true.

Best part of the interview: "Little" things like that go a long way when it comes to coaching grown men.

Agreed. But that doesn't mean we need to pay too dollar for multiple corners/DBs in this scheme for it to work well. Micah Hyde is making average starter salary at safety (iirc), but he's a playmaker. The Bills got great value out of his contract last season. Part of that is him, part of it is scheme. Josh Norman was a late round selection, but he flourished in the cover 3 scheme in Carolina. Not so much in Washington as a man to man corner. The Panthers initially franchised him, but quickly changed their minds. All I'm saying is that I don't expect the Bills to spend long term big bucks across the board in the secondary as long as Beane and McDermott are here. I think they take care of the front 7 first. Our secondary was the best unit on the team last year, and they did it with a terrible pass rush. With a good one, they could be dominant.

IMO, McBean's model for building a team is to allocate more resources to the front 7. Builld from the inside out. Based on scheme, this defense doesn't seem to need high dollar, premiere talent at CB. It's much more zone, and good "man" corners typically get the most money. The scheme IMO isn't as dependent on having great corners, as it is creating havoc up front. A good line and front 7 will make the DB's jobs easier. Granted, they could have had White and Darby for at least two years, but it was clear that the Bills needed a QB, and gaining draft assets makes attaining one a bit easier. Darby had a bit of a down year after a really good rookie year, and maybe the Bills get less in return for him if he would have been traded now, with it being his contract year.

Good post, Shaw. Hiring Rex Ryan may have been a mistake, but it was all just part of the overall process, being new owners in the NFL. The Pegulas may have been successful and smart, but they were rookies to the landscape of NFL ownership. The Bills may not have been the Browns, but as an organization, they were mired in years of mediocrity and disarray. There wasn't "one voice". It was going to take some time for them to make this organization "theirs", but first, they needed to acclimate themselves with being owners and everything that comes with it. Cleaning house from the start wasn't an ideal method. Guys like Brandon and Whaley were kept on, basically to help make the ownership learning process easier. Say what you will about them, but they had experience and familiarity with the situation that the Pegulas inherited. It allowed the owners to get accustomed, without the team becoming a total dumpster fire in the meantime. Rex may not have been a good hire, but the Bills could have done worse. Of course, Russ was in their ears wrt hiring Rex, but that just goes to show where the Pegluas were in the learning process. They were delegating. The old saying goes: "sometimes you have to lose, to know how to win". Hiring Rex was a "loss", but a good lesson learned as the Pegulas became more acclimated. While delegating, it allowed them to dissect and examine every facet of the organization. In some ways, Rex and his personality, and the way he did things, helped to expose much of what was wrong within the organization. There was all kinds of mumblings, which happens with all teams, but more important was the leaking of them to the media and fans. It helped them to make the decision to move on after less than 2 years easier, because everything was out there to see (and, of course, the team regressed). In just 3 years, they went from getting their feet wet, to doggy paddling, to breast stroke. The way that Russ, Whaley, Rex etc. conduct themselves was not a reflection of how the Pegulas conduct themselves and how they became successful. McDermott and Beane may not have been hot commodity, proven top choices at the time, but their approach and how they conduct themselves seems to match that of the Pegulas. Its "one voice" now, and that resonates all throughout the organization. "Buttoned up" as you say is the perfect description.

Teef likes his beef raw

You forgot the "Bold" before "Prediction"

Agreed. O'Leary has hands of glue. No gloves; he just looks the part of a "classic" TE, despite his size. Aside from his hands, he's rather average across the board, but just looks like an old school type football player. I don't think that either of us are describing O'Leary or Clay as more than they are. I just don't view them as "not reliable" (when called upon).

I don't agree with this. The bolded part; I would say the same is true for all but 4 or 5 TEs in the league, and Clay is probably a better blocker than those guys. Keeping him in to block at times obviously doesn't allow him to be an outlet on those plays, but he does provide value to the passing attack in those instances. He led the team in receiving yards, and was 2nd in receptions behind McCoy. Granted that's a reflection of the lack of WRs and inconsistent QB play, but I'd say he's "reliable".

I think maybe the whole TEs argument here may have gone off the rails a bit...here are the comments I was focusing on: There's a difference in being "excellent pass catchers" and "inconsistent" (which, based on your follow ups, you're referring more to their overall performance/impact on the stat sheet, week in, week out). Not trying to speak for John here, but I interpreted his comment about being excellent pass catchers as having reliable hands. Maybe that wasn't his point, but that was the basis for my post. Now perhaps "excellent" might not be the best choice of words, but IMO both Clay, (and especially) O'Leary have great hands for their position.

You make it sound like our TEs should have been the focal points of our offense for every game. They're certainly not top 5 TEs, but they've been reliable when called upon. Just because their stat lines aren't consistent each week, it doesn't mean they're not reliable or not excellent pass catchers. Wasn't that the argument here? So many factors involved in their stat lines from week to week, year to year. Different schemes, different game plans, inconsistency at QB, etc., all played a role. Again, when called upon, they've been reliable. They can't force the ball to themselves.

I agree with the idea of an improved run defense and pass rush, but I have a hard time seeing so many fumble recoveries. Same with INTs, to a lesser extent. The Bills may have scheme that sees players swarming to the ball very well, but they only recovered 25% of forced fumbles last year, near the bottom of the league rankings. I can see an increase in INTs as a result of a better pass rush. And as for Edmunds, I love the pick, but I'm not expecting great results in his first year. His physical abilities should help the pass defense, but I think his biggest contributions in year one will be against the run. Overall, nice thread.

More fuel, please.

I agree with @John from Riverside. Clay and O'Leary are reliable, "excellent" pass catchers. Not too many drops between the two of them. And they're not a part of a bottom tier WR corps, they're TEs. They should be good outlets for our young/inexperienced QBs this year.

I think it's too early to draw any conclusions or expectations from the offense. We don't even know which players will be on the roster in 3 months, especially at WR. TOO many question marks, IMO. With that being said, I don't think our offense will be quite as bad as many people might be expecting. I think (<key word) we'll see a mix of down and zone blocking, but mostly down blocking, which hopefully leads to less runs for negative yards. And with Shady being a focal point for defenses, more play-action. But with Wood and Incognito gone, there's a bit of drop in talent there, but more important IMO is the lack of chemistry between the new offensive linemen. It could take them several games to really gel. Some might say that's a reason to not start Allen early on, so that he doesn't take a beating. Others might say that is why you should start Allen, based on his ability to extend plays. We should revisit this thread after week 3 of the preseason.