Rochesterfan

If you felt that the protocols in place are sound and you didn’t think the additional testing adds anything - why spend the additional 100 million? Their doctors and infection prevention team put together a plan that got them through last season without cancellation - so I would image they are listening to them and going based on heir models and if based upon what you hear coming out is true - they NFL team felt the additional testing added little value. The NFL gave some limited reasons why they felt the testing added little value and why even adjusting to weekly testing was probably not needed. Now whether that is fully true or not will be seen, but if I asked you to just throw in additional money for what is deemed limited value - I would assume you would have to think about it and may not want to provide the money. What we don’t know is if and when and what data their planning was done. The one thing I suspect is that the NFL will adjust this policy as needed - just as they did last year to ensure games were played.

Excellent questions Hap. I started with costs based on a tweet before last season from Pellisaro I believe that stated $125 a test, but because most testing has gone cheaper - It could be cheaper, but again that did not necessarily include everything in the pricing. I would imagine they have switched to saliva for general screening as that is how most large places have gone - schools, colleges, etc. it can be less expensive, but we found it did not pool as well with the assays we had - we lost significant sensitivity. Therefore for our hospital system we returned to nasal swabbing because we could pool the expected negative population into groups of 5 and/or 10 depending upon the assay. Much beyond 10 patients pooled you again started to see sensitivity decrease and the increased risk of missing a positive. I know our sister lab has been trying several assays to find a saliva assay that pools in acceptable ways as not to lose the sensitivity - so I would assume some places have it available. I am sure they have a volume discount applied to their work, but for us the assay cost went down with pooling, but the manual labor piece to actually pool the sample and move them into proper tubes and then result them because that process could not be automated was significantly higher - so the cost to private clients didn’t really change - it just allowed us to hit throughput margins we needed. I know that on the morning drive on NFL Radio last week - the team was discussing it and cost seemed to be what they pointed at as the biggest reason the NFL was maintaining the less frequent testing (and based upon available data at the time seemed and adequate and safe mix). It was speculation, but the owners ate the cost and with the already decreased revenue last year and the agreed to limits - there was a significant shortfall for some owners. I think many owners were hoping that with the way things looked in the spring that they could claw back a little money and have full stadiums again and all would be right in the world, but we have all seen that change - we will see how long before the owners acknowledge that point and move back to follow all of last year’s protocols - I expect it will happen at some point due to a break-out, but I think they are being a little short sighted right now.

The NFL is against it because the cost. They are alone absorbing the cost and last year the daily testing cost them close to 100 million dollars. By setting it 2 weeks originally for vaxxed players/staff (let’s say 80% of players and all staff) during the season that equates to over 37,500 less tests performed every 2 weeks - at $125 a test - over 4.5 million in savings every 2 weeks or about 43 million in savings for the season. At 1 time a week testing you cut that saving in half down to about 20 million in savings. Daily testing goes back to the owners paying an additional 100+ million out of their profits. Plus I think the idea was to have incentives to get vaccinated, but the money is the driver.

Let’s look at point differential and the impact of a single game and once again why I think it is somewhat meaningless. Going into week 17 (16th game) - both Buffalo and Miami had a point differential of 96 points +6.4 per game. Yet at that point Buffalo had locked in a top 3 seed and a home game and Miami was still out of the playoffs. The Miami point differential of +6.4 had them better than the eventual AFC champs in point differential, but they were 4 games worse in the record column. The Bills won that game by 30 causing a 60 point shift in point differential between the 2 teams. The Bills went from +96 to +126 and the Dolphins dropped from +96 to +66. Going into the game it was a net 0 between the 2 and coming out the Bills are +60. How can something be real meaningful if 1 game can have that kind of impact. The sample size is just to small to be meaningful. For point differential to be truly meaningful- we need trending over 70-100 or even 162 games - then these single game anomalies start to smooth out. The issue is teams change to much season to season - so it is meaningless over a long term and can be overwhelmed in the short term by one game or even 1-2 late game plays. The Dolphins going into the last game were +6.4 point per game and were tied with the Bills as the 2nd best AFC team in point differential. They came out of the game at a season average of +4.1 per game. Still very impressive and top 5 in the AFC worthy, but that last game cost them the playoffs and 2.3 points per game in point differential for the season. One game knocked nearly a field goal off their per game win margin. That is a small sample size impact. All NFL metrics have some of that sample size issue - part of what makes it great. Things like DVOA really begin to give nice metrics as the season wears on and provides some meaningful data. Sometimes that data along with Win/Loss data mirrors point differential- see TB and sometimes it doesn’t- see Miami.

This is excellent and much more meaningful information in my mind. 👍

The Steelers point differential was +5.5 right there with KC - not sure what that was indicative of. They got blown out in the playoffs by at team that had a point Differential of -0.3. The team with a -0.3 point differential went just as far in the playoffs as the AFC team with the top point differential of + 8.8 in Baltimore. To me it does not indicate anything other than the fact that Cleveland won games close and Baltimore blew people out. They both made the playoffs as wildcards. They both won in the first round and lost the following week and yet had a difference of 9.1 between their point differentials. Miami at +4.1 for the season with a 30 point loss to close it out - missed out on the playoffs all together - yet 2 teams with fairly significantly worse point differentials in the AFC made it in. The point differential means almost nothing - the fact that teams that win by definition must score more points impacts that. A team like Baltimore dominated teams in wins and lost close games, but that had no impact on where they were seeded or how far they went. They went just as far as Cleveland a team that got absolutely hammered several times during the season and when they won - they would squeak it out. Point differential is also greatly impacted by garbage time play. NFL by its rules and nature tend to produce games that get tighter near the end. If you are a team with a HC that plays a conservative keep the play in front of you - you might give up late meaningless drives when you are up by multiple scores. It impacts point differential, but not you record or seeding.

Agreed thought it went very well - we will see as they get going and have to cover the same topics over and over if it gets stale, but I enjoyed it.

Yet Cleveland was even worse in the point differential and played KC down to the wire. I anticipate the Browns will struggle in the point differential again this year as a run first team, but they are getting a lot of play as SB contender. I think in Football point Differential is the least helpful metric to looking at teams. The sample size is small and with certain match-ups things can skew very quickly. Miami was a strong positive point differential team last year - especially early as the defense dominated and created points and turnovers, but the they didn’t even make the playoffs and one game at the end completely flipped their entire point differential by getting absolutely crushed. I won’t say it can’t be meaningful, but in the NFL there are many significantly more important metrics.

I actually think since Sneaky Joe does the locked on Sabres podcast - that his 2 hours with Sal will have a nice mix of Bills and Sabres, but will be better than the instigators talk - which sometimes is terrible to listen to.

It is not even Mike’s take with Sal that bother me because I agree he balances it out. It is how in the middle suddenly he will flip to fantasy football topic when Sal is talking about Bills DBs or some other inane non-football question in the middle of the training camp report. If he wants to talk baseball or fantasy draft with Sal great - put it in a different segment. The fact that Sal gets a 15 minute training camp section in the afternoon and nearly always 10+ minutes is wasted with a super long winded question that has no point or a fantasy/betting question that is non Bills related or an instant trivia thing that takes up 2/3rd the segment. The Beane interview was facepalm worthy and it was to bad because Beane provided great insight into the cut down process and Mike just kept taking the interview off the rails.

Wish 3pm was to late - he really ruins the station listening to him talk to people like Sal. I wanted to hear training camp news and Mike just jabbers on and on. The interview he had with Beane was a 100% embarrassment. Asking Beane about do they bet on other teams cuts when their scouts go over that team. 🤦‍♂️

Hoping Sal’s show is as good as on victory Monday. Worried about the time that Sal has to be out at the stadium. Wish they put the instigators on at 10 and then 4 straight hours of Bills talk with Sal and OBL. We will see how this goes.

100% agree - the argument around Tyrod was never a question of his hard work, his desire to win, his leadership, his competitiveness, or his desire to start and lead a team. The issue with Tyrod was could he learn to throw with anticipation or was he going to continue to only throw to wide open receivers that have turned to face him. Many fans both on this board and others really only wanted the best for the Bills and the hope that Tyrod could bring that about. What we saw was that in a limited role on a team with a strong defense - that was possible, but we could only go so far. I feel for Tyrod because every place he has gone he has fought to get the starting role and things have conspired to hold him back (some of that being his own play), but he once again finds himself in a no win role on a team with their QB of the past and present stuck behind him and no real future. I hope for his sake he finds some wins on a bad roster because I think this might end up being his last rodeo.

I don’t think they expected Nate Becker to get any calls to join other PS. Much like when they bring guys in for tryouts - I would expect that if something significant happens to Sweeney - they could call someone up and Nate will be available to go to the PS and/or eventually land on the team - if that blocking role is needed. He already knows the playbook from multiple seasons, but is not a guy you are going to continue to put a lot of long term development into. He becomes one of those guys that gets future contracts and sticks around the Periphery and is available, but just can’t take the next step.

It is not an investment - Don’t pretend we are talking about an investment. Most public funds go to support money losing endeavors. And make up for the shortfalls. Whether it is zoos, museums, postal service, or the Bills. If you don’t get a rec center - let me explain - the town built and paid for a swimming, exercise, and weightlifting complex with local tax money, but I even as a resident do not get to use it. I have to buy a yearly membership to “join” - the membership dues don’t even cover the cost of the staff and management- so every year additional taxes go to cover the overage. It will never, ever pay for itself, but it is a nice community equity. As to your fundraising point - You know who else is constantly fundraising - the Bills and their foundations helping to make money for tons of needy charities, but in your world all will be fine because we take that 1.4 billion and give it to all of the needy charities, the schools, the libraries, etc and all is fine. Except that is not what will happen - that 1.4 billion will go to a tax break to help a company like Amazon or Walmart build a nice NYC headquarters that they say will bring X number of jobs, but those won’t materialize and wham everything here is the same minus the Bills. You know what would really tick you off though - if the Bills fund raised for themselves rather than for others, but that is essentially what you are asking. So In the end for you - don’t build the stadium and don’t complain when they leave. And most of all don’t complain when right after they leave - the city suddenly finds a way to build a 2.5 billion dollar stadium downtown to try and lure another team back. The same way St. Louis, Baltimore, Cleveland, Houston, and Oakland all did when they lost teams. The good thing is the Pegula’s, the state, and the county already understand and are working on a public/private mix that will cover the cost. It is going to be upsetting for some because in the end the majority will most likely be public and it is going to build a stadium in OP that is a public service for the people of Buffalo and the surrounding areas. It will not be built to ever see a profit and it will be supported by future public money for upgrades and renovations and it will belong to the county - so they will have to dispose of it in the future, but it will be happening.

I totally disagree and I think the issue is you look at it as giving the Pegula’s the money and I don’t. I look at it as subsidizing every person that attends every game for the life of the stadium. Just like the zoo, museums, libraries, etc. are funded by public equity for the enjoyment of the community- so to is the stadium funded by public equity for the enjoyment of the fans. The public portion paid for via taxes, fees, hotel surcharges, etc - all go to fund the building of what essentially becomes a county owned req center that is used by 60 - 70,000 and much like the town built req center in our community - it charges a yearly membership fee. That membership fee is what goes to the Pegula’s and by the public providing funding - they are able to keep the cost down. There is no rule on what teams have to charge - so if the Pegula’s wanted to increase profit - there was nothing stopping them from raising ticket prices to league medium and pocketing the extra. They have not shown the interest in doing that and screwing the fan base up to this point. They have kept the price point low and basically have said that to maintain that price point that the fans want - we need a significant amount of public funding. The Pegula’s have maintained all along that there must be a public and private mix of funding. The 100% bull was all shown to be part of poor reporting as was the garbage about Austin Tx. In the end, where the split ends up - is what will decide the future price point for tickets - the more public money - the lower the tickets and PSLs. It is really pretty simple.

I don’t know as I was not in practice, but Sal who was in practice said he looked really good as a blocker and he catches everything. Sal seemed to think he had the best hands of the TE group even with Hollister on the roster. He just lacked that athleticism that Knox and Hollister had. I believe he said that Sweeney was not as good a blocker as Lee Smith, but was a better Athlete and could be better in the red zone. Maybe I am wrong, but the way I interpreted it was Sweeney made this team for short yardage and goal line situations - so to me I thought that meant in spring and early practice and in his limited time in TC - playing when Hollister was out - he made an impression that he could handle that role and when he was out - Hollister and Knox couldn’t. I believe the competition in camp was Knox v Hollister and Sweeney v Becker and the winner of those 2 competitions had a spot. Then The loser of the competition was in a numbers game for a spot on the roster. I am pretty sure Morris was earmarked for the PS as a future athletic TE - I actually was sort of surprised Becker also did not slid in, but with Hollister and then Warring - I think they assumed Becker could just stick around outside the squad. As an FYI - Of all the media guys watching the practice - I tend to trust Sal the most - so I seek out as much of his stuff both in the morning and evening and now he has a new show starting daily. He doesn’t have ever inside scoop, but he actually has some good thoughts about roster building and why certain guys make it or certain guys get released.

They ran that a lot, but used a variety of TEs. They used Knox, Smith, Kroft, Bates got used, and they used Gilliam early in the season for a TD catch. They ran a ton of formations - including bringing McKenzie into the backfield as an RB and moving an actual RB out to WR. I think the difference is they will expect Gilliam, Sweeney, a RB (most likely Moss) with a bigger WR like Kumerow and/or Davis to force the defense to commit to more run stopping front because Sweeney is a better in-line blocker than Knox and Hollister were and Gilliam can be a TE, FB, or even the lone RB if you split Moss out wide. The size and blocking were not available a bunch last year and this then gives the Bills different options. I honestly believe that Sweeney was on this roster because of his blocking as a “Lee Smith” replacement. I think Hollister and Knox were competing for TE #1. Knox won TE #1 - Sweeney was TE #3 (Blocking) - Gilliam was special teams and his position flexibility - so Hollister was slotted into TE#2. When Stevenson played well enough that they could not cut him and the DE group played well enough to keep everyone - numbers started getting tight. I think the final decision was when Phillips was injured. He should be back for week 1, but I think the FO felt they needed Butler - just in case Phillips was unable to go and that additional DL player put TE#2 outside the bubble. I really think Hollister was just edged out and based upon the things Beane said, I really think they would of loved to keep Hollister, but it just didn’t work out with the numbers. They made a decision in the short term for some early season DL protection and it cost them TE#2.

Sorry the 2000 was related to a family of four - which was why it was in parentheses. Yes it is almost like the government is asked to cover the costs of a ton of things that no longer fit. Tons of industry and business and wealthy stakeholders get tons of handouts and this is just another one. Companies all over get huge tax breaks to “create jobs”, but if those jobs never develop - they get additional tax breaks because they lost money. Can you go have a picnic in the Zoo at no charge - they get tons of public funding and you have to pay to attend their service and it is a much smaller group that uses and enjoys the service. How about the Buffalo Museum of Science - are you allowed to just walk in there at no charge when ever you want? I know - the post office - you can mail all your letters for free and borrow a truck (ala Neumann) to transport stuff when you want. How about your local school - can you just walk in and have a seat during lunch and get some food with the kids - you pay your taxes - you are entitled to free food right? Nope - all of those things provide a service and rely on yearly subsidies/taxes to remain open, but you still have to pay to use them - just like the stadium. Maybe all of those things and libraries and adult rec centers etc. are all things that make no economic sense and should be eliminated based on your second paragraph, but they provide a sense community to many people - the cost point is different and the stakes much higher for something’s over others.

Yes it is a subsidy, but not to the owners - to the fans. It allows ticket prices to be significantly less and actually make it affordable. You would need to add over $50 per ticket per game (or $2,000 for a family of four) to every ticket holder just to try and cover the stadium cost. Then every 5-10 years add in renovations and it goes up to $75-$100 per ticket. With that you factor in other increased costs and basically you price the fans out of going and it becomes more Corporate event - see Dallas games. That is the people you are subsidizing - the money is coming from there. Libraries and roads are far from free - without public subsidies they could not exist. They provide services to limited groups of people, but the money comes from public money donated by all. The same goes for schools - you have to pay school tax - even if you do not have any children - you are subsidizing other people to attend school. Just as many people get something out of having the Bills remain in Buffalo as utilize the museums and libraries that get huge amounts of public money. Is it worth it? That is for you to decide - for me it is not a question. The Bills staying in Buffalo means a ton to me and I think it is worth every penny to keep them here. As I said - I would be fine if they wanted to put 2.5 Billion in public funds and make a domed downtown stadium with new infrastructure for the city, but 1 billion in OP is fine also. You last point is just ignorant. The ticket prices will be set to maximize profit, but if the Pegula’s pay for the stadium privately - then they also need to recoup that money. It was discussed a bunch previously that fees and significant PSLs would be needed to cover the cost and with the current stadium client - the cost would price out huge groups of fans. Spreading the billion dollars across NYS allows ticket prices to remain affordable. Again the other piece you never address is why if this is such a loser idea to mix public and private funding - why to every city that loses a team turn right around and suddenly find a way to 100% public fund a stadium to lure the next team. All of these cities must find something redeeming about having NFL football in the community. They all clamor to find funds once they call the bluff and the team moves. So I am not worried - the county and state are going to come together - they will cover 60-70% of the cost. The Bills and the NFL will pick up 30-40% - the stadium will be smaller and the tickets slight higher to recoup their payment and the Bills will be local for another 30-40 years.

Except that is BS. They took the bluff and lost. They decided public money could be used elsewhere, but SD soon found out that meant more of their public funding left the area to support things in LA where their team went. They did not suddenly have some huge influx in cash - the money followed the team and they are no better off. Oakland is starting to see the same thing with money heading toward SF and San Jose to support infrastructure and stadium builds in that area. Now SD has already started internal discussions that if they can get another team where would a stadium go. They have started politically looking at how and where they can publicly finance a build for a baseball/football complex and bring the NFL back. They lost and now realize it was a loss to the community. St. Louis for years has been fighting the fight - they had the Cardinals and didn’t pony up the money - lost the Cardinals to Arizona. Then spent huge money and effort to lure the Rams - the city got raped to get that team. Then in a flash - they are gone and once again they are looking at ways to rebuild and get a new team. Baltimore/Cleveland/LA - same story over and over - the cities plays hardball or drag their feet and franchises do what they have to do - Iconic Franchises - Baltimore Colts - Original Cleveland Browns - original NFL franchises pack up in the dead of night and bang gone. But to you that is a good thing - those cities should have a glut of public money for projects, but it doesn’t work that way - suddenly the city lacks an identity and very shortly they are 100% publicly financing a new stadium. The dumbest argument for not building the stadium is the “it won’t pay for itself” and “it doesn’t create the economic impact to counter the cost”. That is just asinine. Of course it won’t pay for itself or create the impact to cover the cost - that is why public money is needed. If they made a huge profit - then privately people would finance it and suck off the profit. Do libraries and museums make a profit? Nope - they suck huge amounts of public funds every year to cover costs, upgrades, projects. Roads are needed, but they bring in no money, but we spend tons of money on roads. The list is endless on what our public money goes to and almost all of it is money lost. In this case it is money lost to keep an identity for the area and I am ok with that. The final piece is if we tried to ask the users to pay only and you want to understand the impact on who attends - you are looking at adding about $100 in fees a ticket or about $1000 per seat pear season to pay off the initial build and interest in 20 years. Plus as we already know - being open air - upgrades and new features will need to be added within the first 10 years and every 10 years afterwards. So a season ticket holder of 4 seats will suddenly have to pay a new PSL, higher seat prices, and over $4000 in fees each year - so suddenly it costs a ticket holder about $12,000 or more each year and for club type seats 25 - 30,000 or more per season. Have fun with that.

Why should they step up and tell you anything? Look around the league - there are several privately financed stadiums and to recoup the cost you have huge PSLs and massive ticket prices and regular fans no longer attend and the games become corporate in nature. See Dallas. There are other stadiums - like what the Pegula’s want - with a public/private mix that has helped maintain ticket prices and fan support. See Pittsburgh The issue is what are you willing to spend and if you look at the earlier part of this - most people don’t or can’t have a big ticket increase and so what should happen - The Pegula’s like everyone else want to make money to keep the teams active - so the cost is the cost. People ar paying eithe way - the question is how many people do you want to spread that cost out to. You tax money already pays for multiple new stadiums in and around NYC - multiple new Baseball, basketball, hockey and football. Your tax money goes to providing tax breaks to many businesses owned by billionaires. You have an option, you just don’t like it. Pony up and have a mix of public or private funding or become the next Oakland/SD. I am still hopeful for a mostly public funded stadium because I believe that gives us the best chance at a similar game day experience. I know it won’t ever recoup the cost, but I am willing to eat that cost for something that makes my life better rather than seeing that money flow elsewhere to be spent on things that do not benefit me at all.

Your a great fan it will just be of another team. Enjoy 🤦‍♂️

Why would they change the rules - the team needs a new stadium, the league wants a new stadium, the owner is working on getting a deal done and you are driving them out with a completely stupid logic. Good God - I thought the fan base was smarter than this. 🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️

Even if you had the price the league doesn’t allow it - so your sorry plan moves the team out - hello Buffalo with no sports. Good For You! 👏👏👏👏👏🤦‍♂️