BarleyNY Posted May 31, 2016 Posted May 31, 2016 (edited) It was reported that Schwartz wanted the head coaching job or nothing. He wasn't going to serve under Rex,especially since their two philosophies are 180 degrees apart.There was speculation, but nothing concrete on that. I would never have expected Schwartz to take the DC spot under Ryan - or any other defensive minded HC. That's why I specified a quality offensive minded HC. Seeing as how he took a job as DC under an offensive HC in Philly I think it's certainly probable he'd have stayed in Buffalo under Gase or Jackson. Also there were reports that the Bills were planning on retaining Schwartz, but that plan went out the window with the hire of Rex. An OC moving up to HC fits nicely with that. Edited June 1, 2016 by BarleyNY
DrDawkinstein Posted June 1, 2016 Posted June 1, 2016 ESPN: Losing Millions of Subscribers Monthly Lost 1.5 Million viewers in the last 3 months, 10 Million in the last 3 years. http://www.foxsports.com/college-football/outkick-the-coverage/espn-loses-1-5-million-subscribers-as-cord-cutting-accelerates-052816
3rdand12 Posted June 1, 2016 Posted June 1, 2016 This to me is the material discussion topic for the 2015 buffalo bills defense. I really want to know if everyone came into the year actually thinking Rex + 2014roster = even better defense or if inside they all quietly understood there was a mismatch that would lead performance in the opposite direction and that a roster remake was needed and inevitable. This is irrespective of all the Williams's issues frequently cited. The draft, and free agency are clear evidence the conclusion was reached, but I'd really love to know if they knew it going in to that season, or just figured it out with the rest of us. fine question to be asked. we will never know of course. Buffalo was at rock bottom right before chan/nix. That was the point in time, I believe the front office, the ownership, the relocation likelihood, the untalented roster and condition of the stadium were all hovering right around historic lows. Since then it's all been trending up!!! It's a sweeping statement, but not altogether untrue unfortunately. and i think it's true about trending up. maybe a bit sideways at times but certainly rising from the pits of pergatory
Buffalo Barbarian Posted June 1, 2016 Posted June 1, 2016 Buffalo was at rock bottom right before chan/nix. That was the point in time, I believe the front office, the ownership, the relocation likelihood, the untalented roster and condition of the stadium were all hovering right around historic lows. Since then it's all been trending up!!! now about those wins. ESPN: Losing Millions of Subscribers Monthly Lost 1.5 Million viewers in the last 3 months, 10 Million in the last 3 years. http://www.foxsports.com/college-football/outkick-the-coverage/espn-loses-1-5-million-subscribers-as-cord-cutting-accelerates-052816 How does one subscribe to ESPN and what benefits would it bring?
BarleyNY Posted June 1, 2016 Posted June 1, 2016 I'm not so sure that's the case. There are only 32 of these jobs, and they didn't have any trouble attracting candidates after Marrone left. Add to that the idea that a new HC will have some talent to work with on both sides of the ball, and an owner willing to spend what it takes to bring in more talent, and it's likely a relatively attractive destination. This. A coach has to think he has a reasonable opportunity to win.m Buffalo can offer a better opportunity than some other teams. There aren't a lot of HC openings on stocked teams that just went 12-4.
Gugny Posted June 1, 2016 Posted June 1, 2016 now about those wins. How does one subscribe to ESPN and what benefits would it bring? Yeah, I'm confused by this, too. As a TWC customer, I get all of the ESPN crap whether I want it, or not. I personally can't stand anything-ESPN and will only tune in when it's an NFL game or a Mets game that's not viewable elsewhere. But I'd assume that I'm still counted as a "subscriber," because I'm a TWC customer.
BarleyNY Posted June 1, 2016 Posted June 1, 2016 (edited) Yeah, I'm confused by this, too. As a TWC customer, I get all of the ESPN crap whether I want it, or not. I personally can't stand anything-ESPN and will only tune in when it's an NFL game or a Mets game that's not viewable elsewhere. But I'd assume that I'm still counted as a "subscriber," because I'm a TWC customer.That's correct. I read an article about this almost a year ago. By the end of last year Disney (ESPN's parent company) was one of the most shorted stocks on the NYSE. It is all due to ESPN dragging it down as the Disney business is doing very well. It is why ESPN nixed their new, big, expensive NYC studio and office project. It is also why they've been letting their expensive personalities walk. Cost cutting is severe and ongoing. The situation is basically this: - ESPN has spent a lot of money on long term sporting event contracts. That includes dramatically overpaying for their NFL contract and several expensive college contracts. The strategy was to make ESPN indispensable to sports fans. - ESPN has used this leverage to charge quite a lot for their channels. That's not just profit as the above has driven their expenses through the roof. The flagship station is the most expensive non-premium station on cable/dish. Collectively their stations are a disproportionately huge part of your cable/dish bill. - The expense is pretty reasonable if you love sports, but sucks if you don't. And most people don't. Many of those people - along with those who can't afford the ever growing cable bills - are cutting the cord. - ESPN is retaining most of the people who love sports, but they've lost some of them along with a lot of casual viewers - Fewer cable subscribers sends less direct revenue to ESPN and fewer viewers equates to less advertising revenue. The cycle of revenue loss leading to cost cutting is continuing as more and more people cut the cord. But those expensive long-term contracts ESPN signed are still in place and they are dragging the network under. Soon there won't be much more to cut. ESPN is already becoming the network of "hot takes" because they've cut out so much of their more expensive good programming. As a sports lover I can say honestly that the only reason I haven't cut the cord is sports, but I really only care about games - college football and the NFL primarily. Something major is going to happen with ESPN and how sports programming reaches viewers in the coming few years. This could go a number of ways, but it has to change. Edited June 1, 2016 by BarleyNY
Nihilarian Posted June 3, 2016 Posted June 3, 2016 IF Terry were to fire Rex, he would have a difficult time replacing him. BUF has never been a HC's dream assignment. Given that, if Terry gets the rep of running a revolving door at HC he'll never be able to attract any high caliber HC's. . I kinda doubt this simply because this new owner has the money to make any new HC one of the highest paid in the league... and money talks. Once Terry Pegula tires of the three stooges and decides he wants a championship instead of a clown show. He then should make some better choices on who will have control of the football side of his team. I'm hoping anyway.
Recommended Posts