Game has been moved to Wednesday. If .... Lamar can come off the covid list for this game. The Steelers should boycott the game. Completely catering to the ravens and Lamar is a complete joke.

Knowing the broncos played without a QB
- Sabretooth9

agreed. IMO

agreed. IMO
- TheHank

I mean what else has the NFL done to cater to a team?

The saints winning the super bowl a couple years after Katrina?

The patriots winning the Super Bowl after 9/11

Just makes you think

I mean what else has the NFL done to cater to a team?

The saints winning the super bowl a couple years after Katrina?

The patriots winning the Super Bowl after 9/11

Just makes you think
- Sabretooth9

the Pat's had to play the chiefs on schedule w/o their qb this year too.

Awe, noticed you weren’t around all day when Davis made 2 excellent catches and a TD. 3 for 79 yards and a TD. Very, very good for the rookie
- sbroads24

3 catches for 79yds does NOT equal “very very good”

Ekeler had 11 catches as a RB,
that is “very very good”

There’s no need to overhype him
He’s had MORE 0-1catch games (6) than he has 3+ catch games (4)

He’s played well in some games....
but the “very very good” rookie WRs are guys like Lamb, Jefferson, etc etc

IMO
IMO
IMO
IMO
IMO
IMO
IMO

It seems with the TV contract with NBC and NBC's contract to broadcast the Olympics beginning July 20sh; the feeling is they are time boxed to finish the playoffs by 7/15sh. At this point, extending past then doesn't seem to be a viable option.

Now if the Olympics are cancelled, that is a horse of a different color.
- IonSabres

Why is there an assumption that the league wants to be done with their upcoming season including the playoffs by around the normal time it would end, when the league liked having less sports entertainment to contend with when finishing last season?

at a glance. 8th in catches for rookie wr's

vets around him in stats
aj green
larry fitz
hollywood brown
edelman
golden tate



and tied with diggs for 27th in nfl with the 4 tds



not bad for a rookie who is the 4th option when team is healthy
- homiedclown

Correct, “not bad”
Just not “very very good” either

IMO
IMO
IMO

So assuming the Bills hold onto the Division and nothing weird happens, we know the Bills' opponents next year. They play all AFC and NFC South opponents.

Excluding Division Opponents:

Home:
Atlanta
Carolina
Houston
Indianapolis
Pittsburgh

Away:
Jacksonville
New Orleans
Tampa Bay
Tennessee
Kansas City

Hopefully, we have fans by then.
- buffalofan19

How is it determined which games are home vs which are away?

Why is there an assumption that the league wants to be done with their upcoming season including the playoffs by around the normal time it would end, when the league liked having less sports entertainment to contend with when finishing last season?
- kingcong39

I’ve heard it has to do with the Olympics,
& starting the 21-22 season on its normal schedule

Why is there an assumption that the league wants to be done with their upcoming season including the playoffs by around the normal time it would end, when the league liked having less sports entertainment to contend with when finishing last season?
- kingcong39

I think they are more than willing to go beyond the “normal” ending time in early June, but they have to be done before the Olympics start in mid July. NBC won’t compromise their Olympics coverage/contract for the NHL.

Correct, “not bad”
Just not “very very good” either

IMO
IMO
IMO
- jdfitz77

For a rookie WR with the targets he has he’s been very good

Unless an agreement is reached over the next several days to a week, the Jan 1st start date to the NHL season seems to be in jeopardy, making for Jan 15th more likely.
That would allow for 4 months of the regular season, if they can wrap-up the Playoffs in 2 months to be completed by July 15th or so.

How many games are reasonable to squeeze into roughly 120 days?
3 games in 6 days would be pretty aggressive and would yield 60 games
3 games in 7 days would yield 51.
- IonSabres

Jan1 start has seemed unlikely for a few weeks now
Hopefully they can get started by Feb1

There’s reportedly 8ish owners who don’t even wanna play this year though,
so how this all plays out is anyone’s guess at this point

For a rookie WR with the targets he has he’s been very good

- Fattony1187

The Bills have been throwing the ball A TON this season
If he really was “very very good” then he’d have more targets

There’s been plenty of opportunity for him
Especially with Brown banged up all year, Diggs getting lots of attn from defenses, & Beasley only running 5-7yard routes
That’s a lot of space for him to be open down field & for an “elite” qb to find him

I’m not saying he’s been bad at all
Just that “very very good” is an exaggeration

3 catches for 79yds does NOT equal “very very good”

Ekeler had 11 catches as a RB,
that is “very very good”

There’s no need to overhype him
He’s had MORE 0-1catch games (6) than he has 3+ catch games (4)

He’s played well in some games....
but the “very very good” rookie WRs are guys like Lamb, Jefferson, etc etc

IMO
IMO
IMO
IMO
IMO
IMO
IMO
- jdfitz77

The entire conversation was based on this years draft class and how he's looked and what he can do going forward. Like almost everyone else has stated, for a rookie 4th rounder coming in as our #4, he's been very good.

Relative to Epenesa, Moss, Hodgins, Bass, Dane Jackson, he's been very good in his role. Feel free to drag this on again at 3am

The entire conversation was based on this years draft class and how he's looked and what he can do going forward. Like almost everyone else has stated, for a rookie 4th rounder coming in as our #4, he's been very good.

Relative to Epenesa, Moss, Hodgins, Bass, Dane Jackson, he's been very good in his role. Feel free to drag this on again at 3am
- sbroads24

When u have to put multiple disclaimers on it,
in order to move the goalposts so that what you’re saying makes ANY sense at all,
it just goes to show that you’re trying to hard

We throw the ball A TON
We use 4wr sets A LOT
He’s had increased opportunities for a wr4 with Brown banged up, so he’s played quite a bit in a wr3 role
And he ONLY HAS 22catches now over 11games

He’s had opportunities for many more targets & catches
Averaging 2 catches per game is ABSOLUTELY NOT “very very good” no matter how many qualifiers u add on

I like him
You’re just doing your typical over exaggeration,
AGAIN

There’s no other WR in the league you’d call “very very good” with those stats

OMG I'm so sick of the "he's good/great/elite" arguments in here. SO SICK OF IT. Hockey season can't start soon enough. I realize there's not much to talk about (hockey-wise) right now, but holy crap it sucks extra hard in here.

OMG I'm so sick of the "he's good/great/elite" arguments in here. SO SICK OF IT. Hockey season can't start soon enough. I realize there's not much to talk about (hockey-wise) right now, but holy crap it sucks extra hard in here.
- kritter65

OMG I'm so sick of the "he's good/great/elite" arguments in here. SO SICK OF IT. Hockey season can't start soon enough. I realize there's not much to talk about (hockey-wise) right now, but holy crap it sucks extra hard in here.
- kritter65

Put out a topic for discussion sir

- homiedclown

Maybe a hall of famer?

[quote=Fattony1187]

Umm no. He’s been good not very good or great

Jefferson on the Vikings is “very good”

When u have to put multiple disclaimers on it,
in order to move the goalposts so that what you’re saying makes ANY sense at all,
it just goes to show that you’re trying to hard

We throw the ball A TON
We use 4wr sets A LOT
He’s had increased opportunities for a wr4 with Brown banged up, so he’s played quite a bit in a wr3 role
And he ONLY HAS 22catches now over 11games

He’s had opportunities for many more targets & catches
Averaging 2 catches per game is ABSOLUTELY NOT “very very good” no matter how many qualifiers u add on

I like him
You’re just doing your typical over exaggeration,
AGAIN

There’s no other WR in the league you’d call “very very good” with those stats
- jdfitz77

The disclaimers were in the original part of the conversation

But you of course jumped in halfway.

Why is there an assumption that the league wants to be done with their upcoming season including the playoffs by around the normal time it would end, when the league liked having less sports entertainment to contend with when finishing last season?
- kingcong39

Maybe it wasn't explained well enough when I responded to the previous post with:
It seems with the TV contract with NBC and NBC's contract to broadcast the Olympics beginning July 20sh; the feeling is they are time boxed to finish the playoffs by 7/15sh. At this point, extending past then doesn't seem to be a viable option.

Now if the Olympics are cancelled, that is a horse of a different color.

So, to simplify
NBC has the US TV contract for the NHL, including the Playoffs
NBC has the US TV contract for the Olympics starting July 20sh
If the NHL Playoffs extend further than 7/20sh, there is a broadcast conflict
NBC would not want to lose value by having viewership of either broadcast lost to the other...makes complete sense.
Hence, NHL Playoffs need to be completed by the time the Olympics start.
If the Olympics are cancelled, then that changes it...maybe too late though by the time they make that decision.

Also, Bettman and Daly have stated publically that they want the 021 season to start relatively on time and have a somewhat normal offseason timeframe as much as possible. The thought the league was moving to a later start permanently was a bunch of speculation.

The disclaimers were in the original part of the conversation

But you of course jumped in halfway.
- sbroads24

IMO?

OMG I'm so sick of the "he's good/great/elite" arguments in here. SO SICK OF IT. Hockey season can't start soon enough. I realize there's not much to talk about (hockey-wise) right now, but holy crap it sucks extra hard in here.
- kritter65

Agreed.

How is it determined which games are home vs which are away?
- jdfitz77

With the divisions it rotates. So the 2 NFC South teams you hosted at home 4 years ago, you play in their stadium this year, and vice versa. The same goes with the AFC South teams 3 years ago. The other two opponents are based on where you finished last year. So, the Bills will play the division winners of the AFC North (Pittsburgh) and West (Kansas City), assuming nothing crazy happens before the year is over. I believe there's a rotation of some sort in that, but it's a little more fluid since you already rotate the divisions you face in a given season. In 2022, the Bills will every AFC North team, and every NFC South team, and then the two teams from the AFC South and West that finished in the same spot in their division as the Bills did.

With the divisions it rotates. So the 2 NFC South teams you hosted at home 4 years ago, you play in their stadium this year, and vice versa. The same goes with the AFC South teams 3 years ago. The other two opponents are based on where you finished last year. So, the Bills will play the division winners of the AFC North (Pittsburgh) and West (Kansas City), assuming nothing crazy happens before the year is over. I believe there's a rotation of some sort in that, but it's a little more fluid since you already rotate the divisions you face in a given season. In 2022, the Bills will every AFC North team, and every NFC South team, and then the two teams from the AFC South and West that finished in the same spot in their division as the Bills did.
- buffalofan19

Strong post!