PBF81

Definitely post your experience. It's going to run $150 non-refundable to experience the virtual set-up. Only people definitely paying are going to drop that kind of money, presumably. It is a little weird that there's so little detail at this point, for a stadium that's well under way in construction.

If the survery they sent out either last year at this time or two years ago at this time means anything, those will be on/about the pricing. I've got the survey if you need the info. It's too rich for my blood, that's all I know, even if only on principle. I don't sit in siht seats anymore, and if I have to pay as much to go to Bills game for me and a couple of my family members, as it would cost me to take a week vacation somewhere, where I can also watch the game on TV, that decision is clear. It's also difficult to explain to my family if I go alone why I dropped almost $1k on a seat, parking, hotel, etc. for just myself to go to a game under the prices that they put out in their survey, and as mrags says, many if not most will be bought by brokers that put them at even greater cost on the aftermarket. For example, the survery price for LL between the 40 and 20 runs about $240/game, not including the PSL. So with Allen on the team, figure double that just for the ticket on the aftermarket. Then add parking, concessions, hotels, etc. Club level seats are going to be nuts.

Agree on the secondary market. As to the timing, it's not unreasonable to consider that they're waiting until the last possible time to release the price info so as not to dampen the mood of Bills Mafia and all that's associated with it. It's also reasonable to assume that when those prices are released, it's going to be a thing that permeates at least the regional media and social media. The prices have already more or less been released via their "survey," and Pegula has plainly stated that "his contribution" will be driven by the PSLs. It's also been stated that PSLs are a "one time" payment. Not sure that there's anything in there that suggests that the team will buy them back, because that's Pegula's "contribution" to the stadium expense. Why would he give that back? Maybe I'm wrong, but my understanding is that if the STs are not renewed, then ownership defaults back to the team, as usual, and they can then charge another PSL to whomever purchases them next. It's the gift that keeps on giving for owners. Am I off there?

The whole thing is just disappointing. We had it in '21 before Allen & Davis' historic effort was undermined and with Allen outplaying Mahomes in regulation. Then this season's disappointment. Disappointing is the word I'd use. We can't do anything as fans, but it definitely dampens the outlook on our prospects going into each season. Everyone's different, but speaking for myself, it's a little difficult going into the season realizing that we may win the regular season but then choke in the playoffs as has been the trend. Regular season wins & record are nice, as are divisional titles, but much as in the early '90s, simply winning divisional round playoff games wasn't enough. I'd rather miss the playoffs once or twice then win it all than do what we've done. This team, with any coach, would be underachieving if we did not even make the playoffs, particularly in our division, with Allen as our QB. Pegula makes about the same amount of money either way, so there's little reason for him to care. We're left to bicker about it. LOL

Allen did it and outplayed Mahomes in the '21 season. His effort was undermined. It's quite possible.

I'm still somewhat perplexed that they haven't released more detailed renderings yet.

I thought that this was a new Microsoft product for Bills fans. Stop teasing. There's also a major mismatch between the core strength of this team and it's strategic philosophy. It's difficult to see that being overcome.

It'd be fun to see alternating players tee the ball up at the 25 and try to knock it thru the uprights using a specialty made NFL version Big Bertha Driver. First one to miss losses the game. Unpopular take otherwise, if you find yourself in OT, maybe you should have done something different to have avoided that, the least of which is hardly to have played better in regulation or not made key mistakes.

My first thought was well. That "talent" pool has dried up tho. Wilks would have to turn the lights out on the way out.

You and I have discussed this quite a bit in the past, I'm not sure one needs five studs, if take 5 above-average OL-men all together for a bunch of seasons. In fact that's the approach that is take, always, for four the very reason you cited. Chemistry is more important than an 8 or 9 level player over a 6-7 level OL-man. The obvious exception is at LT. i.e. if rather have five starters, and maybe even a backup or two, that are 6/7s (on a 10 scale) than two OL-men at 8 and the others at 4-5. But I always find myself asking how's other teams do it. That's the role of the GM. But there are almost always some very good deals available for 6/7 OL-men. McGovern was one.

Point taken. Keep in mind however that nearly 40% of games are divisional games. Like Brady had, going into a season knowing that you have a 5-1 or 6-0 positive handicap really grades the skids. We've had a similar luxury since 2020 and I've the past four seasons that SF also would have had. That was the crux of my post, responding to the focus on the division. But little of any disagreement to the above.

Not sure I undestood you correctly, but if so, you do realize that the records of the teams in the AFCE since Brady retired four seasons ago, are: 10-6, 7-9, 2-14 10-7, 9-8, 4-13 9-8, 8-9, 7-10 11-6, 7-10, 4-13 And that the QBs during that span, other than Tua, have been Fitzpatrick, Wilson, Darnell, Jones, and Newton, right? The AFCE has statistically been as easy as it's been since the '90s.

To be fair, that is fair. But again, and we can argue over it, they never went out of their way to try to do much more than the absolute minimum. Filling the offensive holes while leaving the biggest resources for that F7 that you mention in your post at the bottom of page 3. They may have gotten a few OK seasons out of some of their 1-2 year signees for relatively or even dirt cheap, but that does not negate the approach. Let's keep in mind that until this season, Allen has not been able to rely upon our OL for a pocket or much consistent protection. Glad to at last see that we have that, but again, only for another season whereafter contracts come up again. As well, we had zero OL injuries. It'd be unwise to expect that to happen again. Right now, and with Diggs' status pending, our issue is with WR and perhaps more relevantly, how those WRs are used. Most will disagree, but I'm firmly of the opinion that Diggs' "falling off" has little to do with his age/health. Again, no need to argue over that, in a popularity discussion I'll lose, but the point is we'll see how our next OJT OC does next season with a good OL, decent RB, and very good (RS at least) F7 that McD seems to favor. A big part of the differences of us all here seems to be whether "we get there" via offense or via defense. Those of us thinking offense (aka building around Allen to every extent possible) will be in disagreement with the status quo. We're never going to have a QB anywhere near as good as Allen, whenever he's gone whether it be in two years or 12 years, so we'd like to see us cross that Jordan on his watch. IMO he never leaves Buffalo, but the question, obviously, is how long does a QB upon whom we rely upon his running skills to overcome other elements of our game, last as such. Unrelatedly, insofar as Allen's tenure goes, I'm a little concerned by his love for golf. It would hardly surprise me at all if he prematurely decides that he'd rather travel the world and play golf 200 times/year than beat himself up more.

Oh, sorry, I thought were were talking about passing since we were talking about WRs and OL in terms of protection. I'll clarify, passing he sucked. He had 3 passing TDs in as many playoff games, with a completion % of 58.2, which would have been good for DFL on the season and only marginally better than his season ranked 27th otherwise, and he had a playoff rating of 87.3, which on the season would have also been good for 25th, which would have been just ahead of QBs such as Bradford, Osweiler, Gabbert, and Winston. Other than a few games against poor defenses, it really wasn't a great passing season for him. Very overrated. Well, you nailed the primary point there, that the effort to get WRs has clearly failed. Never once have we even drafted a WR that was listed as a likely starter much less a bona fide #1. For as much as I like Davis, on our team with Allen playing the way that Allen can, and given that he's the only one that's ever stepped up in a key playoff game for us, he was always a role-playing deep threat WR that had route-running issues, and still does. As to the OL, within your response you used some telling words. Re: Safford, predictable. Many were high on him here, presumably because McBeane "told them," but you're right, there was never much to be excited about there. But the same can be said for just about every one of our other 1-2 year signees, many of which came from terrible OLs elsewhere in the league. I recall pointing it out at the time, but everyone defers to what McBeane says rather than facts that are readily available. As to Brown just having his best year as a pro, agreed, pretty obvious in fact. But again, this is their 7th season, and we've had no key offensive injuries. What are the odds of that happening again. A good guess would be pretty slim. We can argue over this in many ways, but what is indisputable is the fact that they've spent way more top draft resources and effort on building a D that keeps choking in the playoffs despite being top-ranked in the regular season. The question is why? Gunner hit that nail on the head in one of his earlier posts in this thread on the bottom of page 3, that McD came from Carolina where the focus was on RB on offense and on the F7 on defense. I have little problem with the focus on the F7 insofar as the D goes, in fact, that was the core strength of our '90s teams defensively. But when you have Allen, you've gotta do everything possible to try to get the utmost out of him and by implication the offense in general. We've clearly not done that. Instead, we seem to have, for seven seasons now, and with this one pending given the state of Diggs, expected Allen via his athleticism to overcome any and all offensive deficiencies. The question is why this is. But the implications are clear, namely the one that's crafting this team does not believe in doing that. That's not in his wheelhouse of understanding and strategy. It's also a strong, I'd call it unmistakeable, implication that things like "complimentary football" also lend itself to the team revolving around the D first, which is clearly the opposite of doing everything possible to build around Allen. The topic du jour should be, ... OK, so we've tried that approach now for 7 seasons and it's failed miserably come playoff time. Are we going to, and if so, when, going to pour a majority of resources around Allen to try it from the offensive perspective? Also, let's keep in mind that doing that hardly entails having a 30th ranked defense. McD is good enough in strategizing defensively to get at least an average D, likely much better, with lesser talent. I simply don't think that the IP exists on this staff to optimize the offense, not even close. Consider, the top on that food chain is an OJT OC, one of the youngest in the league. Sure, he'll do OK because he has Allen, but will it be enough to get us over that hump that we all want to get over, and given the current state of our WR corps. We will find out. We all have our hunches and opinions.

OK, fine, but what great FA OL did we go out and get? None until this past season and Morse. Great QBs, in terms of passing at least, need veg good OLs, that's a long-standing fact, and the best QBs in history have had them. Can Newton posted one (1) above-average season in 11, and against what may have been the easiest schedule of any team in the modern era. Likely why he only had one above-average season. 15 of his 35 passing TDs were against the bad defenses. Could be why he sucked in the playoffs. Is Newton our standard now? Pretty low bar. Just sayin'. But if your point is that we need one of the easiest schedules in the history of the game to win one, first, that still doesn't address the playoffs situation, second, insofar as the regular season goes, maybe so.

This doesn't exactly support your original post that I responded to.

A very similar argument can be made about OL as well. Before O'Torrence, late in round 2, the only two OL they drafted prior to the 161st overall were Ford (38th) and Brown (93rd) in the late 3rd Everyone knows that the two most important things needed for any QB to make maximum use of his skills are OL & WR. That's 101 Basics. Apparently we struggle with that. They're finally catching on after nearly a decade. We'll find out to what extent very soon.

1 true WR1 in 7 years, at top dollar, that now everyone's complaining about after 4 seasons. Hope many WRs did they draft on days 1 & 2? Zero RB? 7 seasons in and we have a decent one. OL? How many OL drafted after Allen? How many good ones? As one of Davis' biggest supporters, that statement is laughable, and he was a 4th, 128th overall. He never had the skillset to be a #1. They "felt" a lot of things that never happened. McD felt that Peterman was good for example. Nothing could have been further from the truth. You're reaching. 😏

An interesting analysis would be finding out how many teams in modern NFL history with a top-2, or say top-3 even, QB, did less to support that QB.

Adjust it for after Allen. To the ridiculous points of some, I mean you have Josh Allen, why bother supporting him. If it isn't obvious it never well be. If we had drafted Allen before McD, McD wouldn't have had a chance of being here. And who in their right mind truly believes that under any circumstances we'd be missing the playoffs otherwise with Allen as the QB. And it's not as if we're doing anything in the playoffs.

A fantastic option would be a head coach that actually understands offense, given that the team has a historically iconic player and QB.

... in the playoffs. Also, he's a coach that does not understand offense, admittedly now. It's unimaginable how that's not a show-stopping inpediment when the single biggest strength of your team is your QB. I still hang up at how on earth, and being the only one in the world, he stood behind Peterman over Allen back then. At the end of the day the question that needs to be continually asked, is are we getting the utmost from our QB and the offense that surrounds him? And relatedly, have we done all that we can to support that offense that's around him? If not, then why not, and whether or not that's the best approach for an Allen-centric team? Plain and simple.

It'll be tough for them to be much worse with Mahomes at the helm. They had the 15th ranked scoring offense this season, patently average.

There's a lot to that. NYS has chased out so many of its former residents over abusive taxes, that so many of us now reside elsewhere, which creates a sort of camaraderie above-and-beyond a normal regional one. Agreed, and what contributes to that is having been so close four times straight in the '90s that we can all taste it, still, at least those of us that were around for that and back when more of us were in WNY.