All_Pro_Bills

I think that conclusion is demonstrably false because to this point any escalation in hostilities from either side has been met with an equal or larger escalation from the other. It might be a major error in judgment to base strategy on the premise the other person is going to back down if they're threatened with more harm. I've been a party in one form or another to some personal disagreements where both potential combatants had a similar expectation (that being the other guy will back down) it never ended well for either person.

When they run out of soldiers the war will be over. Then some Pentagon & defense industry funded think tank will perform a study which concludes the US and its allies should have done more sooner and they'll recommend a 50% boost in annual US defense spending to over $1.2T. And all the puppets in Congress from both parties will vote for it while they consider an annual budget bill that raises grandma's social security eligibility age to 70 and cut school lunch programs due to lack of funding.

Regardless of the size of the QB's deal, the trick is drafting well and getting major contributions out of 3 or 4 players every year that are on cheap rookie deals. The Bills have consistently failed at this and to add insult to injury McDermott hesitates to play rookies. The player acquisition problems are on Beane.

For 2023 12 players account for about 3/4 of the cap. Josh Allen $39,772,281 - 17.56% Stefon Diggs $20,271,111 - 8.95% Von Miller 18,615,000 - 8.22% Tre'Davious White $16,223,147 - 7.16% Dion Dawkins $14,824,870 - 6.55% Matt Milano $13,338,588 - 5.89% Mitch Morse $11,160,000 - 4.93% Ed OliverDT $10,753,000 - 4.75% Micah Hyde $10,571,294 - 4.67% Taron Johnson $9,215,000 - 4.07% DaQuan Jones $8,583,333 - 3.79% Dawson Knox $6,425,000 - 2.84% That doesn't leave much for the other 43 players on the 53 man roster. They'll need to restructure a few deals to create some space but I don't see how they re-sign Poyer and any deal with Edmunds is going to be too expensive. Signing other big time free agents looks like a dream. Scoring an "A" in the draft is going to be required along with signing budget free agents and college free agents on rookie deals.

The Bills have 24 UFA's. And still need to restructure some deals which is can kicking because at some point either you pay guys a lot more in the back-end years or cut them which loads up on dead cap money. Which is something Beane stated was not part of his "sustainable" plan for managing the cap and personal decisions. But here we are.

I agree with 1/2 of this. I think the Bills right now are arguably the 6th best team in the NFL behind KC. Cinn, Dallas, SF, and Philly. If anyone wants to argue top tier is getting beat in the division round every year then fine. But I also think Allen is the most talented player at the QB position and THE single player in the league most responsible for his team's success. Without Allen the Bills are no better than a 7 win team. I see him being wasted by a regime that won't or can't surround him with enough talented players at other positions on offense. Their thinking is they can get by with a middling offensive line and lots of 3rd receiver types because Josh's athleticism can cover up those problems. But against the best teams in the playoffs that approach falls flat. Another off season of ignoring the offense is unacceptable. The good news is the team is set at the QB position for the next 5 to 7 years. The bad news is cap problem, a coaching staff that can't learn from their past mistakes or the successes or strategies of others plus a front office that can't find enough impact starters in the draft year over year along with signing a lot of marginal free agents that are just good enough to get by. Combine these problems with the Jets and Dolphins knocking on the door and next year might be brutal.

The Chiefs came out with a good game plan and to their credit the Bengals made adjustments. KC lost some receivers and had to adjust their offense on the fly. It was back and forth in the second half. It was a chess match between the two that came down to the end which could have gone either way a play or two different. But my expectation is there's close to a zero chance this Bills coaching staff will apply any learning or experiences from the past few seasons and playoffs that will fundamentally alter anything they do regarding the scheme or play calling. So why wait to make a change? It's just wishful thinking to expect some light to go on that will cause this crew to fundamentally change anything. If it hasn't happened yet it isn't going to happen. Is ownership that disconnected from reality? Why waste another season of all our lives, and more importantly Josh Allen's career? The Bills have 24 UFA's and not much cap space. They need to hit on the draft, sign some cheap free agents that will outplay their contracts, and make some adjustment is play calling and scheme on both sides of the ball. A lot changes to stay in the hunt. The coaching staff doesn't seem up to the task, neither does the front office which I think is a bigger problem and a whole other conversation. I think 2023 is going to be rough which will be followed by some big changes and a return to contention.

How many times does Romo say "huge"?

A big reason the loss to the Bengals didn't bother me much was the conclusion the Bills chances against the Chiefs, Eagles, or 49ers offensive lines were slim to none.

The issue isn't roster spots and the rotation strategy. It's the players comprising the rotation acquired at a cost of high draft picks and cap space that have under-performed.

While I think scheme, play calling, and execution are issues that contribute to the Bills problems the biggest issue is poor drafting focused on the defensive side and ignoring obvious needs on the Oline and at WR. Likewise, I'm not expecting magic to happen which suddenly transforms the Bills drafting. Too much depends on Allen and I think this is a 7 win team without him. They have cap issues and there aren't good players on the roster to replace any free agents that might be lost. Another problem is the Jets and Dolphins seem to be getting their acts together and another poor draft in 2023 parks the Bills in 3rd place in the AFCE. Immediate help is needed, not more developmental PS picks in the 3rd round.

The indictment of McDermott and Frazier is the Bengals fielded 2 Oline starters and still managed to punish the Bills defense. As for Beane, all the Dline resources, draft choices, free agents, and cap space yielded little. Nothing they did appeared to confuse or surprise the Bengals. Which should have been expected as the same defense didn't seem to faze a 3rd string rookie the week before.

I don't expect these tanks will do much good given the timeline to get them and the necessary personnel onto the battlefield. But already I've seen calls to up the ante by sending F-16s. I can only guess what the lead time to train crews with that fighter jet are but my guess is its measured in quarters to years in order to develop the necessary proficiency. Add in the expense and logistics involved for support. I believe assessments produced for domestic consumption that the Ukrainian military has the upper hand are greatly exaggerated. I think there are several different ways this conflict can play out from here and one of them, which might be worst case scenario, is that no amount of funding or arms shipments of any kind are going to ultimately lead to victory and the Russians prevail, the Ukrainian capitol is occupied with a pro-Russian government installed, and their armed forces are neutralized. So then what? Does the administration, seeing this playing out, intervene and send in US forces to prevent this outcome. I'd say that would be a very unpopular decision domestically both socially and politically. Or do they just throw in the towel and let the country fall into Russia's sphere of influence? Or before that happens does some deal get worked out? There's a lot of things that can happen and also go wrong. My concern is there's a lot of risk and danger already baked in here for people beyond the borders of Ukraine and a lot more likely that can result from escalations on both sides. And when I hear American officials such as Kirby speak and they nonchalantly dismiss any concerns about harming US strategic interests or Russian foreign minister Lavrov make thinly veiled threats it makes me worry all the adults have left the room and we're a lot closer to an all-out escalation and confrontation that will leave no winners.

If you operate under a baseline assumption that 90% of these causes have no material impact other than to impose some rule or restriction that creates a nuisance and inconvenience for the general public you'll be right more often than not.

So its not "cost effective"? That's the bottom line. When you run the numbers on the renewable "economy" or even an all electric economy, it will just cost too much along with being less efficient and less reliable.. And if you want to adopt an energy source with those characteristics the implication is you as an individual and society as a whole will become less productive and as a result your standard of living and quality of life will suffer. Look at EV's. If they were cost effective you wouldn't need $7,500 tax credits to entice rich people to buy them.

No technical data on the servers, standard stuff AWS monitors and tracks such as access logs, download logs, IP addresses, firewall and security alerts, user sessions and log in records, etc., has ever been provided to FBI or other law enforcement experts that enabled them to establish definitive proof the DNC was hacked by Russian operatives.

That's the fictitious story the resistance continues to peddle but to this point in time there's nothing that shows Trump and Putin have a relationship outside the diplomatic channels used by heads of state from 2017 to 2020. As Putin does not speak English and Trump does not speak Russian any conversations were attended by other officials and interpreters. nobody said peep about any irregularities. Do you think they used secret hand signals over Zoom to collude?

You're just flailing away here. Like a fighter that takes a beating you just don't know when to stay down.

I'm no expert when it comes to elections or party politics but I do know a bit about forecasting as it can be a very tricky venture. Fraught with lots of assumptions and expectations for the future. The writer could be correct, or not. A lot can happen between now and November 2024. But assuming some Parliamentary like or party line action by voters regardless of other factors is suspect. One thing to examine would be the actions of independent voters that tend to vote issues and concerns rather than party. Another is the condition of the economy leading up to the election. And probably most important the quality of the candidates and how they relate to the voters. As an example, I'd be hard pressed to believe that Democratic voters, or Republicans, would reflexively vote party line for their party's incumbent candidate when faced with unemployment, losing their homes and cars, huge unserviceable debt, high food and cost of living, and personal bankruptcies and other hardships. I mean, they'd have to be real mind blowing imbeciles.

It's extremely irrational that you won't admit to something that the people doing the assessment have admitted to doing. Why can't you just accept the fact the IC community assessment was formulating without examining the servers or any data related to the servers? That's exactly what they stated. But you're insisting they lied.

Because they issued their assessment and called it a "conclusion" while noting they did not examine any server or forensic information. That sounds like a guess to me.

These IC people rendered an opinion without facts. As for their motivations, don't ask me, ask them.

Firing the Safeties coach! That should resolve all the management and coaching deficiencies in the defense, the offensive line, and a poor draft record. Can the locker room attendants and laundry crew be far behind?

You just don't want to get it. They provided a consensus opinion without examining any evidence. An opinion absent fact. Which in my business is what we call a SWAG, a stupid wild ass guess. Wrong? How about irresponsible and unprofessional. I'll leave it at that.

That's not the truth. That was a conclusion expressed by specific members of the intelligence community. Without associated evidence. Without any examination of the servers. Without questioning anyone with access to the machines. An opinion, nothing more. Because the DNC refused to allow the FBI or any other law enforcement agency to examine the servers. It could have been a hack, it could have been a leak.