Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
Yes. The first tiebreaker is regulation/OT wins. The Sabres have 15 of them, the Coyotes 19. That's why since this past weekend all the Sabres needed was one regulation loss or any Arizona win since the Sabres couldn't catch the Coyotes in regulation/OT wins.
Every single one of us remembers that game in detail. One of the bigger nut punches from a franchise that specializes in punching its fans in the nuts.Bankerguy said:
SD would be insane to let Rivers go for that price. If they would go for it, I would do that trade in a heartbeat. They would instantly be a top 3 team in the AFC easily.ScottNorwood said:
This part is bull####. The Bills need to either relax whatever policy they unofficially have or take this up with the league. This is a serious competitive disadvantage. Not quite as bad as voluntarily surrendering a home game (not that we would ever do that of course), but still pretty bad.
Honestly, @Wash-Dal-NYJ is the easiest end to a season we've had in a while. I think people generally get too caught up in sequencing and forget that you're going to have some tough road games no matter what, but that's a friendly finish if we're still in contention.
Those are a couple tough games to open with, but I think another positive is starting with 3 of 4 at home. If they can win one of the first two, they could go into the bye 4-3 or even 5-2.
I'm not sure why Indy, Cincinnati, Philadelphia, and Dallas are all automatic losses. None of those teams are clearly better than us.
The Indy game at home is especially winnable when you consider that they can't stop the run at all and Rex will have extra time to prepare his defense to stop Luck. I'd actually pick them to win that game right now. It's obviously not a gimme, but it's definitely not a sure "L".
There's nothing "auto" about any game, this is just a prediction on what seems likely to happen at this point in time. Things rarely go exactly as "planned", and they will win one or more marked as a "L" and lose one or more marked as a "W", etc.
One thing about the away games is that they're mostly in the northeast. So not a ton of traveling. I think that makes a difference.
Oh come on, if they go 1-1 in the opening two weeks, we'll be partying like it's 1991. Especially if they beat the Pats.
I'm not a big fan of Rivers, but I'd give 2016 1, 2017 1, and conditionally 2018 1 that might fall to something like a 3 if the Bills don't make the playoffs in 2016, 2017, and falls off the deal completely if Rivers retires before the end of the 2018 season. Sprinkle in an EJ, or some fringe prospect.
Three first round picks for an aging QB? Really? I wouldn't even give two 1st rounders. Maybe one.
Totally agree. A future 1 does not equal a current 1. It's way off, and I'd say it may even be more than a 1 round drop per year. I understand that, and I factored that in. There's no way I'd give 3 2014 first rounders for him. But, I think there's a real chance a QB like Rivers would add enough to this team to make them a top AFC team for the next 2-3 years. Sure, he may only have 2-3 years left, but you have to take a shot when you have it. It's been almost two decades since the team has had anyone even close to a Pro-Bowl caliber QB.Anarchy99 said:
As I understand it, Rivers isn't against moving. He's against moving to L.A. I don't know why, but that's what I've gathered from what I've read, and from what LT2 said on NFLN a couple nights ago.
Fairly likely. He isn't even talking to the Chargers about an extension right now. They could franchise him, but I think he still has the upper hand. He could sit out, and the team would be screwed. Going back to the interview I saw with LT2, LaDanian, I believe said he doesn't think Rivers will be on the team as of week 1. I don't recall if that was 2015 or 2016... I might need to try to find that clip...
Seriously? What possible justification would there be for a regression? They are basically the same, or slightly better than last year all across the team.ESPN is projecting the Bills to have 5 wins this season.
Well, last year ESPN projected them to have 3 wins, so WaLa!Seriously? What possible justification would there be for a regression? They are basically the same, or slightly better than last year all across the team.ESPN is projecting the Bills to have 5 wins this season.
Here's the link- it's not really an ESPN projection, it's the collection of reporters who project their own teams' W/L's. The Bills guy (Mike Rodak) picked them to go 9-7. The discrepancy is that he gave them wins vs. Jax, Houston, Washington and Dallas where those reporters gave them a L instead. ETA- if you add up all of the team projections, the NFL collectively will be 25 games above .500 this year.Seriously? What possible justification would there be for a regression? They are basically the same, or slightly better than last year all across the team.ESPN is projecting the Bills to have 5 wins this season.
There are different schools of thought on this. The alternative viewpoint is that the future picks aren't necessarily worth any less as there isn't inflation in NFL drafts as there is in real world currencies. Specifically, there aren't going to be more first round draft picks available in a draft in future years than there are today. Conversely, we can say with great confidence there will be more dollars in circulation three years from now, thus watering down the future value of today's dollars.Anarchy99 said:
The best historical comparison would be the Bills' trade for Drew Bledsoe in 2002. The Bills gave up their 1st round pick for the following year for a 30-year old Bledsoe. Here, Rivers is 3 years older than Bledsoe was then (33) and arguably has not had quite the same level of success as Bledsoe had in New England up to that time (although it's debatable).flysack said:
There are other factors to weigh though both for and against the idea of draft pick deflation. There is utility in having a player now versus later. Both in on the field production and development and in financial return as fans will pay more money now for jerseys, season tickets, etc.
The demand of the other 31 teams ultimately determined Bledsoe's value in that trade - not how the Patriots intended to use him the following year if he stayed on the team.
