Rochesterfan

Riveron is out - I think they want to experiment and it will become an item for 2021. They need to see and adjust to the new technology.

Sounds like a return of Walt and addition of Former Bills Coach Perry Fewell. I hope it improves the process!

Honestly neither of those graphs or scenarios would prove or show a thing about who makes who. All either would show is the pass distribution and catch ratios - it does not show what or who is fully responsible. It is impacted by play design, offensive system, freedom of QB to make decisions, team talent, coaching and game plans, etc. If you truly want to see who makes who you need year over year studies of QB and WRs that change location and the impact the change had. Even that is flawed as systems are different so things happen that can not be accounted for. For example in Pittsburgh with a limited sample size - losing AB seemed to have a big impact early in the season on Big Ben, but then he got hurt - destroying the ability to analyze the data set. If you had the whole year you could see more acutely what the impact of AB was to the passing offense and the impact on the QB and the other receivers. The same could be done with AB on his new team if he had stayed sane - you can look at the impact and determined if he increased the QB production or not and make some projections on that. You could try using Tennessee and seeing the difference in Mariota versus Tannehill to see if he made the WRs better, but I don’t think you will see a conclusive data set. I believe to be successful need a QB with talent to distribute the ball and WRs to get open and catch the darn thing. Just based on the current NFL - a good QB can do more because of his singular impact on a game - than 1 game changing WR, but 1 game changing WR can also be the key to unlocking a QBs potential if the timing is right.

My guess is that the debt team were correct that he was hoping to scoop it up and have the debt load cleared for pennies on the dollar - allowing him another shot. It sounds like the debt team filed a claim to prevent that and typically you have to get an agreement with the debt owners to come out of bankruptcy. If the debt team blocks his bid or refuses to negotiate because they believe he is doing it to avoid payment - they can gum up the works. Plus he took a huge amount of bad publicity for that - using the pandemic to avoid paying people the money they are owed. If I had to guess - you will see someone buy it for near nothing and then somehow miraculously Vince will become a part of it again. I will be interested in seeing if the networks offer the same type of deal or something closer to the AAFL television deal and can he get people to run the league as he royally screwed over Oliver Luck and many other former NFL people in executive and coaching positions. At some point you burn a bridge to far. I will also be interested in where teams play because it was obvious only a few places were invested. NY, DC, LA, TB - were all sketchy- really Seattle and St. Louis were the bright spots.

Mary Kay Cabot is an excellent person for her to aspire to - if that is what she wants, but just be aware there is a pretty big segment of the audience around Cleveland that think Mary Kay Cabot is terrible at her job also. She is a reporter with a ton of sources (fewer with the new Cleveland regime), but her job is to get the details and break news reports from around Cleveland and the NFL. Maddy Glab was hired to do Buffalo Bills/Sabres media content. Her job is to put together puff pieces on the players and post them on Instagram and Facebook live. Chris Brown is the primary mouthpiece for the Bills and Maddy’s job is to provide fun and insightful facts and stories surrounding the two teams (Bills and Sabres). From what I have heard - Maddy knows football and understands the game just fine - her pieces on the pregame show make sense, but she is not in the same line of work as Mary Kay is. It took Mary Kay - 20+ years to develop into the reporter she is. There is zero similarities between Maddy and Mary Kay at this time. At the present time with her current job title - I would expect most of what you get from Maddy to be gimmicky that is her role. Just my $0.02.

That is fine nothing wrong with your opinion - everyone has to start out someplace and you are correct she has little local knowledge, but then again we are also covered by guys like Marcel and Rodak before that, Matthew Fairburn, Jerry Sullivan, along with other radio guys in Buffalo and Rochester - they all came from out of the area. Some lasted a long time and have been fixtures (for good or bad) for 40+ years, while others are new and have fit in well (thanks Marcel). You can not like her, you can think she is terrible at he job - there are many ways to express yourself - the hard part to me is some people just automatically stating that basically she is everything wrong with women in sports because she was only hired because she was female and cute. Her qualifications /degree/previous experience got her in the door - her talent or perhaps lack of talent - we will see - is what will get her either removed or keep her around.

This would have been a fine take. I have no issue if you dislike her or think it will be bad as long as you have a reason viable reason. Your initial take was she is awful and only got the job because she is cute and a female and I am just pointing out that she got the job and is eminently qualified to do the job. Whether she is good or sucks will be the next major part of her growth. This is a huge step up from what she has been doing and as I said - her first few go around s were hard to listen to. She deferred way to much to Tasker and they had no flow. I thought she got better as she got more experience and I will defer until I can hear here more to say whether there is hope or no hope in a radio host gig.

That was all just from her initial welcome to Buffalo tweet from 2 years ago. A quick bit of research and you could see that she was qualified for the job. Perfect response from a MILFHUNTER. Sorry that I find it insulting that someone would with no knowledge just assume a hire was because they wanted a pretty face and a female in a role.

Just like many other fans both on here and throughout Buffalo. Chris Brown is what he is - he is an insider - with tons of interesting tidbits and knowledge - some of which I am sure he can not share and therefore talks himself in circles sometimes. I think both Chris and Maddy provide a definite different approach from Murph and I personally like the insight CB has with the team. I think he presents many things that guys like Murph and Tasker don’t because of the time spent with the players. I also don’t mind listening to him at all when he fills in. CB does lack some overall NFL knowledge because he is so Bills focused, but he has also numerous times talked about good podcasts and other Bills related media that is newer and fresher - like Cover1 - and I think he can update the stale takes Murph and Tasker we’re getting to. I will not say he is the best local reporter - personally I like a couple of guys on the athletic- but there is nothing wrong with his takes and he will need some time to grow into a slightly different role - if this becomes permanent. Additionally, I have no issues with his questions - he asks pointed questions that he knows will get answered and that are relevant to the team based on what he has seen. I don’t think his questions are worse than any other reporters and they are much better than the questions asked by guys like Sal M from Rochester or Jerry Sullivan or even a guy like Mike Schopp when people are on WGR. They don’t ask tough questions people want to know they ask inane questions to stupid trivial things and then complain bitterly when they get a pat answer. Heck, Jerry even complains about the food provided to try and create a point - right until it is pointed out he is lying. Give me Chris Browns questions over these guys all day long.

This is just so wrong - I really can not believe people think this way. You can say you don’t like the way she broadcasts herself or that because she is new to Buffalo that she lacks knowledge of this sports scene - heck you can even say that you can’t stand her voice and don’t want to listen - all can be explained, but to say they only hired her because she is a cute girl is everything that is wrong with society today. This is not her 1st or 2nd job doing sports broadcasting. She has Played sports her whole life, is a huge Chicago sports nut since being a kid, got degree in journalism, did media production and relations at both Stanford and Tennessee. She has the background to do the job and is qualified to perform the job. She is also a true sports fanatic- so although she lacks intimate knowledge of Buffalo history - she understands the game and the passion. Her first couple of shows filling in were rough because I think they tried to let Steve as the veteran lead and he is not good as the primary voice, but I thought as she gained experience and they let her do more as a fill in host - she got better. I can understand if people don’t want to listen if they think her voice is grating - I am that way with Mowins calling MNF, but I can still respect their passion and that they have earned a shot at this because of their credentials. I look forward to see if Maddy can grow into a role or if she falters because of her lack of Bills knowledge. I really do not care if she is a guy or a girl (or a talking solar being like Sammy) - if she brings good insight and a passion and brings in lots of players - then great - I will listen. If she sits there and defers on every topic and can’t keep up with the conversation- then she will fail. Her gender should have little to do with it. We saw that with Donald Jones, a former player with loads of knowledge and passion, but terrible at speaking and getting a point across or even keeping up with a topic.

I think that is Bruce Arians team and offense. They do not want to have to teach the Bucs this type of system for the 2 years Brady will be there. As we have seen with the system in NE it took years to install and get guys up to speed, but patient was a virtue as once guys are fluent- there are so many things you can do. You just can’t expect 1st/2nd year guys in the system to be as nuanced as multi-year vets.

Nope - I believe he was hired in Cleveland. I think WR coach and passing game coordinator (for what it is worth).

I think then for you guys the Bills would be ideal - your team and Hard Knocks would be forced to cover a ton of teaching and management speak. I would enjoy that for the Bills as well, but I think many people watch to see the “stuff” hit the fan. They don’t care about how well these guys train people up and my guess is McDermott would not want the cameras running during many of his team meetings as he talks about being the best version of you. I think they would have to cut the clips in ways to make things more interesting for general fans because I think watching McDermott clap up and talk with these guys and build a team with personal bonds so they play for each other rather than themselves is just not compelling TV long term. They wanted Cleveland for the dysfunction and the Raiders for AB gold and that is what they got - that drives viewers to see if Chucky or AB are going to lose it first and start swinging. I think and would hope the Bills would be boring TV, but lots of good fundamentals of football. I love how with Davis they talk about his “playing speed”. They knew he was not going to run an elite 40, but film saw him get open over and over again on deep routes and double moves. Hopefully that translate onto the field for us as they expect it to.

I just don’t know. I think they would draw initial good ratings - especially from the Bills fan base, but I do not see these guys having any kind of sustained following because they seem so even keeled. It might be mostly because of what we see externally, but they seem like straight shooting leaders that are always talking to these guys - lots of teaching - even from McDermott and I think it would get old shortly for non-Bills fans. If it is not your team on Hard Knocks - you are looking for drama to boost your interest and I think these guys give you little of that. Even the UDFAs get lots of teaching, feedback, and praise. I think they would look good, but cheesy with lots of cliches.

This is absolutely awesome - the looks are priceless. The more I see of Frazier - the more I like what he brings. ?

Agree 100% - he just lacks enough physically that his body cannot cash the checks his mind gets.

Funny guy - definitely an old school gun slinger. You can see how he exudes leadership - just wish he had a slightly better arm to go with that attitude.

No that is totally incorrect. The data is the percentage of fatal accidents that involved alcohol for each age bracket. I am not interpreting the data in any way - all it says is that 27% of fatal crashes involving people age 21-24 involved alcohol with a BAC above 0.8. That number becomes 26% of all fatal crashes involved alcohol for people 25-34 and 23% for age 35-44. It most certainly is not the percentage of DUIs at each age out of a total and it does not indicate anything to do with levels of drinking and driving or even repeat drinking and driving cases. It is merely a statistical data set by the government looking at alcohol involvement with fatal crashes. The data is right in the link Royale provided and is easy to see and should be easy to interpret. I just think it has very little to do with the overall discussion- the issue I had was a small group was trying to prove a point by dividing percentages to get per year totals - when that is not how the data sets work. People were making judgements on data they used incorrectly and that is all I am pointing out.

Yes - unfortunately you are mistaken- the numbers are not taken out of a total number of fatal crashes, but out of the total number for the specific age bracket. Therefore because it is a percentage of that smaller data set you can not add each group together and equal 100% because the number sets are not related in that way. I did some quick math for Royale and if you want the data out of the same total number of fatal accidents it breaks down as: 21-24 - 5.6% of fatal accidents (age21-44) have BAC above 0.8 25-34 - 11.7% of fatal accidents (age 21-44) have BAC above 0.8 35-44 - 7.8% of fatal accidents (age 21-44) have BAC above 0.8 Now that we are using the same total number of fatal crashes - you can use that to determine the per year total to balance the data out (now you can divide the percentage because you are comparing the same data). This data can not exceed 100% because now you are comparing to a total number of something - so these are cumulative and should = ~ 25% which was the average of the 3 data sets originally. 21-24 - 1.4% average per year of fatal crashes involved alcohol. 25-34 - 1.2% average per year of fatal crashes involved alcohol 35-44 - 0.8% average per year of fatal crashes involved alcohol That is all the numbers show. You can go further and add in the rest of age brackets and redo the math and things will change slightly - the percentage at each will drop slightly because the total data shows that 20% of fatal accidents at all age groups together involved alcohol. The data set does not talk at all about how many DUIs are issued per age bracket or where we see that breakdown and the data is not garbage- it is vital statistics to show the impact that drug laws and anti drunk driving campaigns have on people over a 10 year span related to fatal crashes. You see overall a 2% decrease in the decade included and the biggest drop is in the youngest age brackets - where you see no impact or an actual increase is in people over the age of 45 - which is not the people generally targeted for anti drunk driving ads.

Unless you are looking at totally different data - I am not seeing what you are seeing maybe you are looking at a different graph, but the one quoted earlier was looking at drivers involved in fatal crashes with BAC greater than 0.8 2007 versus 2018. There is no specific data for DUIs by age bracket. the data states that in 2017 for an age bracket of: 21-24 - out of 5007 fatal accidents 1347 involved alcohol ~27% for that age group 25-34 - out of 10876 fatal accident 2843 involved alcohol ~26% in that bracket 35-44 - out of 8217 fatal accidents 1862 involved alcohol ~23% in that bracket The data does not support or disprove either your or Weos argument because it is looking at a specific data set and it in no way matters that there are more years because it is a percentage based on the years included. Now if you want to compare them you would look at each year as a percentage of total fatal accidents and you could make some claims. for example 21-24: 1347 alcohol fatalities out of 24,100 total fatalities- 5.6% total or 1.4% each year 25-34: 2843 out of 24,100 - 11.7% total - 1.2% each year 35-44: 1862 out of 24,100 - 7.8% total - 0.8% each year so you do see a small drop off in % of fatal accidents involving alcohol in each age group, but it is small and the additional data suggests previous speeding and previous crashes are a bigger indicator of people causing fatal crashes than BAC or previous DWIs. Again - based on the data you can not draw any real conclusions that people learn or do not learn to drive under the influence. The data is not looking at DWIs per age group per total drivers or anything that could validate either position. It is merely looking at involvement of alcohol in fatal crashes and the data suggests that the numbers stay fairly consistent whether you are 21 or 44 - just a small decrease as we age - which could be attributable to things like the ability to own a better vehicle as you get older - larger SUV versus performance car or it could be attributable to differences in speed - younger people like to drive faster perhaps. It does not prove or disprove how many arrests are made at each age for DUI. Sorry, but I think it is nearly useless as data for the Ed Oliver case. What was interesting to me is that overall in the last 10 years at each age bracket mentioned the data suggests a significant decrease in cases especially in the 21-24 age bracket (drop of 7% of fatal crashes involving BAC greater than 0.8) - which does suggest fewer people now drive drunk than did 10 years ago - which is one promising stat.

Incorrect the numbers cited in the data set (which in my mind is an irrelevant data set for what Ed Oliver is going through, but I did not provide the set) are fatalities involving alcohol. It is not looking at number of DUIs per age bracket, but the number of fatal car accidents involving alcohol as a percentage of all fatal accidents. Therefore based on my understanding of the data set: ages 21-24 - alcohol is involved in 27% of fatal accidents ages 25-34 - alcohol is involved in 26% of all fatal accidents ages 35-44 - alcohol is involved in 23% of fatal accidents Weo is trying to say that therefore it appears that people don’t learn as the percentage stays the same. I do not think that is true because the overall numbers change it just happens that alcohol is involved in about 25% of fatal accidents from age 21-44. Again this is totally irrelevant to the Ed Oliver situation, but the percentage of alcohol to fatal accidents does not change and is the similar whether you break it down to individual 1 year blocks or 3 year blocks or the entire 20+ year block. Each segment how ever you dice the years would be around 25% of fatal car accidents involved alcohol.

Sorry - having a lot of issues with this site tonight. I do not think that data is based on DUIs per age level. The data is a stupid data set pulled by others that look at % of DWI associated fatalities per age group. The data set is dumb and overall meaningless to the Ed Oliver incident, but you and several others are totally missing how percentages work and that is causing a skewing of the data incorrectly. There is nothing in the data saying that 45 year olds and 21 year olds get the same level of DUIs. It does state that in fatal accidents at both age brackets the percentage that involve alcohol are about the same. The numbers might be significantly lower in absolute numbers, but the percentages stay consistent.

The number doesn’t matter if you are comparing percentages. The percentages take the absolute number out of the equation. You are looking at absolute numbers of TD passes - then yes the larger number of players win, but if as the numbers provided is a TDs as a percentage of passes thrown - it does not matter how many QBs make up the cohort - it only matters The % how many TDs were thrown versus how many passes thrown by each age bracket would be much closer. Just a quick look using NFL.com 2019 stats and ages showed the following (did not include everyone because some guys would really throw the numbers off because of limited throws) 21-25: ~ 5.3% of passes were touchdowns the highest %, but because there were fewer players the actual number of TDs was only 155 25-34: ~ 4.9% of passes were TDs, but the highest absolute number due to sheer volume with over 200 for the players included. over 34: ~ 3.8% of passes were TDs and the smallest overall number with 126 TD for the big 6 old guys that played a lot. That is why percentage matters - it balances the entire number set over the age range making the absolute numbers meaningless. It does not matter that more people are in the 25-34 bracket and it does not matter that it is larger as long as what you are using as a number and a denominator are the same idea - the percentage balances that out. As to the other point - I can not then say well if we look at it in 3 year blocks for 25-34 each 3 year block only only threw 1.6% - it makes no sense - each block would remain ~4.9% until you pull the actual data and review that block and it will still be close to 4.9%.

I do not understand why you would divide it to get it into 3 year segments - it is a percentage. The absolute numbers would change, but the percentage should not change no matter how you break the numbers down. Based on the numbers it would be ~ 26% for any 3 year set from 25-34 so long as the average for the period is 26%. if you were comparing absolute numbers then yes you would divide by 3, but based on you logic if only 8.67% were impacted each 3 year set - then the total would be 8.67% for the entire time period - they are not additive. For example if Josh throws a TD on every 10% of his passes this year and 10% again next year and he again throws TDs on 10% of his passes in 2022 - he would average as a percent of his total throws a TD on 10% of his passes for 2020-2022 - not 30% as you match suggests. His absolute numbers could be all over the place, but when they build it out into percentages as in the data set provided - that would make it the same % of fatalities each year during that period whether it is 3 years or 10 years. Therefore based on the numbers provided: 21-24 years = 27% 25-28 ~26% 28-31 ~26% 31-34 ~26% average of these cohorts must be 26% 35-38 ~ 23% 38-41 ~23% 41-45 ~23% average of these cohorts must be 23% most likely what you would see based on mathematical formulas would be: 21-24 - 27% 25-28 ~27% 28-31~ 26%. Aver = 26% 31-34 ~25% 35-38 ~ 24% 38-41 ~ 23%. Aver = 23% 41-45 ~ 22% This is logically how the numbers would fall in a perfect modeled world.

I won’t roast you at all - it is a fine opinion. For me the Wall does not represent HOF style greatness - that is what the HOF is for. For me it should be for legacy type players that did something special in their time in Buffalo. For most players that is - playing a long time at a high level (like HOF caliber) or being very good and making an iconic style play (like Stratton) or even being a player that gave your life for you country like (Kalsu). The only real player I question on the Wall was Phil Hansen - he gave his heart to the team for a number of years, but he never made the iconic play or long term excellence that should be needed. You can easily tell the story of the Bills franchise and leave Hansen out and it would have no impact. I am on the fence about Smerlas (one of my favorite Bills growing up) as he was iconic for various reasons (look at that ‘stache), but he is really more a foot note in history. Now as to the original post about Bennett - I could go either way. His career gave Him enough during his time in Buffalo that he was a better player than some on the Wall, but he was behind 2 other WOFers from that era. There was also the run in with the law that impacts his status. He does some more iconic style of plays (Sacks of Elway, etc), but if leadership feel the charges overweigh that - I am fine. He is a man that based solely on the play on the field is more deserving that some already on the Wall, but taken in total - I get it and i have no issue keeping him off the Wall. I have the same feeling about OJ. He deserves to be there based upon his play on the field - same with the HOF, but if he was just becoming eligible now with what we know - I don’t think he gets on the Wall. The HOF is another story as they let Ray Lewis in - so I can’t say the HOF would keep OJ out, but I think they would have serious talks with the Wall about not being included.