All_Pro_Bills

Its going to turn out to be ironic but the Dems actually did Trump a favor by beating him in November 2020. Biden is a figurehead middle of the road moderate hoisted up by the marketing guys that determined he would get good public support as opposed to one of the more liberal candidates. In many ways I feel story for Joe that he's been forced into this position by circumstances after a long career. I suspect he would prefer the leisure lifestyle of a comfortable retirement. Something I read elsewhere described it best to me. Winning the Presidency now is like taking over as Captain of the Titanic after the ship hit the iceberg. We're in for severe economic and civil disorder. Its going to unavoidable. Most of the jobs lost to COVID aren't ever coming back. The new administrations program is not going to change that outcome. What's the plan? Pay everyone to do nothing forever? Printing a lot of money for all kinds of programs in the left's agenda isn't going to work. Its been a long slow process but America is failing and the soft social enlightenment agenda is not going to save the day. At some point nobody is going to give a hoot about calls of racism and social justice. Frankly, its going to sound ridiculous given the gravity of other problems we'll face like survival. Cooperation is going to be needed and this administration isn't off to a very good start in establishing that need. Quite honestly the left needs the "deplorables" more than the deplorables need to left. Who do you want to hang with in a crisis? A bunch of people with hard skills and survival skills or a group of gender and race studies graduates? And with war mongers like Nueland, Powers, and Blinken heading up policy and initiatives in the administration its guaranteed we'll be in one or more new foreign wars or entanglements in short order. The only question is where. If you're in the military or have family serving I suggest you prepare. I didn't vote for either Trump or Biden but if you voted for Biden enjoy the win while it lasts because the honeymoon period is going to be real short. I don't think Trump will be back but I do expect some smarter, more refined and polished versions of Trump will appear out of the populist movement to provide a challenge to the Democrats in the future.

A couple comments on coaching and Edmunds: Defensive Coaching: All defenses schemes have an objective of forcing the offense into making mistakes. Its a matter of how much pressure or emphasis they have on forcing these errors. Ir might be something like missing a blocking assignment or the QB throwing the ball into some disguised coverage or maybe forcing a lot of turnovers. Another element is defensive players making positive plays, winning their one-on-one battles, outplaying their opponent. The problem with the soft zone scheme is that its almost totally dependent on the offense making mistakes rather than your defensive guys making a play. The idea is I'm going to make you effectively execute 10 to 12 plays in a row without making a mistake and I'm betting you can't do that combined with a low-risk defensive approach that avoids making the big mistakes on defense. Sort of like a low risk, low reward scenario. The problem is no soft zone strategy is going to ever beat an elite offensive executed effectively. That's what the Chiefs did. The Bills defense as set up and with the defensive roster are not capable of playing an aggressive pressure defense. If you want to get more aggressive your going to have to change not only the scheme but also the players. That takes time so I don't expect much to happen here in the short term except trying to plug in some players the coaching staff and front office think are upgrades. But the improvements, if any, will be incremental and not some extreme improvement into next season. My assessment is the Bills are not going to consistently win against a team like the Chiefs that has great talent and great execution unless they alter their base defensive strategy along with targeting players with a different set of skills to match a more aggressive style. At this point its a case of sitting back and letting them pick you apart. Swapping out one or two players on defense isn't going to change that outcome unless the Bills offense upgrades to the point of matching KC point for point and makes it something like a last team to have the ball wins situation. Edmunds: This is a tough one. One problem is the Bills use nickel most of the time as their base defense, 4-2-5. So really there is no MLB in a classic sense under a 4-3-4. I agree with other posters that Edmunds might be a better fit under a 3-4 system. But the Bills aren't going to change their entire defense to accommodate one player. So either Edmunds adapts and becomes proficient at playing in this system or he doesn't. In 3 years he has had his struggles. One other possibility I haven't seen discussed here is to trade him to a needy 3-4 team. Maybe get back a 2nd rounder and use that draft choice elsewhere or to draft a MLB that might be a better fit. I propose this because for some reason the league values his play more than most here as evidenced by his selection to the Pro Bowl. His trade value at this time would seem high. Better to move a player a year early than a year to late when his stock might be a lot lower. The risk is that its highly likely you have to watch him excel in that 3-4 with his new team and you'll look like an idiot for the next 5 to 8 years. The other approach is to give him another year and hope the light goes on. To me that seems unlikely to happen. Maybe the coaching staff needs to use more 4-3 and drop the emphasis on the 4-2-5 nickel which has its own issues. The other thing is what to do with Milano. He's important to the Bills defense but I'm hard pressed to consider him a top LB relative to the other players in the league. Is he even in the top 5 of players at his position? I don't know. But the issue is paying a lot vs. finding a comparable replacement in the short term. The other possibility here is to use the one year franchise tag and give yourself another year to decide what to do longer term.

Three guys on the D line will probably get released once the 2021 off-season starts after SB55. None of them played up to their 2020 contracts and carrying them under their 2021 cap number isn't a good allocation of cap money. Mario Addison 2021 cap hit 10.163M, dead cap hit $4M Quinton Jefferson 2021 cap hit 8M, dead cap hit $1M Vernon Butler 2021 cap hit 7.8M, dead cap hit $1M Plus John Brown 2021 cap hit 9.53m, dead cap hit $1.6M Other possibilities Tyler Matakevich 2021 cap hit 3.7M, dead cap hit 350K A J Klein 2021 cap hit 6.4M, dead cap hit 4M Moving those players off the roster would free up around $45M for signing Allen to an extension, a couple impact free agents and mid-tier players, and some raises for others on the roster.

My gripe with the mainstream media is they're simply a mouthpiece for the narratives and agenda of the 1% and powerful that make all the puppets dance from the shadows. Like the Davos crowd. Did anyone here get an invite to that gig? They should just call it what it is. The Globalist Worldwide Control Forum. The press has disintegrated into a propaganda machine which would make Joseph Goebbels blush with envy. Unless its Trump, I don't see any push back on questions and investigations into the actions, statements, and views of any politicians. A couple examples from the election cycle. They treated the Biden China./Ukraine deal connections like they didn't exist, and still do. Its all real and his family has taken millions in payoff and bribes from foreign entities. If anyone is going to suggest they'd have given Trump the same pass on that then you're a liar. The Antifa and BLM protests were "mostly peaceful". Clever use of language, mostly peaceful. What does that mean, 50.1% peaceful? Tell that to the people that got beat up, intimidated and threatened, and had they property destroyed or damaged. Pretty much they filter and mold stories to tell you what they want you to know from a perspective they manage. And most people watching or listening swallow it all hook, line, and sinker. Me? I'm old enough to understand its all a bunch of horse crap but young enough to be optimistic it is going to all come crashing down on them at some point soon.

I didn't take the loss to the Chiefs too hard. Mainly because the Bills offense didn't play their "A game" in either of the previous 2 playoff games against the Colts and Ravens. Although I have to also say the defense had a decent outing against the Ravens. To me it seemed like this team was just out of gas playing a very tough regular season schedule and getting to 13-3. Against the Chiefs Sunday they just seemed flat in every way imaginable. What would have devastated me beyond recovery would have been advancing to the Super Bowl and getting beat by Brady one more time. That guy just has our number or made a deal with the Devil to always beat the Bills. I just couldn't bear to go through that so when Tampa beat Green Bat earlier the thought of that match up in two weeks was in my head.

And don't leave out what I view as the biggest priority to address. A defensive line that can neither effectively stop the run or pressure the QB.

Hill is signed for 2 more years with a cap hit of $15.85M in 2021 an is a UFA in 2023. Kelce is signed through 2025 with a 2021 cap hit of $13.25M. UFA 2026.

The Chiefs are a superior team and they played that way. The only thing that might beat them in the long run here is the salary cap. And to beat a superior team they have to make a lot of mistakes. KC made a few but not enough and the Bills played far from perfect. Still I was not too upset with the outcome. If you're old enough to remember, the Kelly-era Bills also lost their first time in the AFC conference finals to the Bengals in 1988 before making their run. From what I expected this Bills team arrived a year ahead of schedule. I think the plan starts with a major overhaul of the defensive line, a couple upgrade on the offensive line, getting a big power back to share the load in the running game. From a scheme perspective more run/pass balance on offense and less of the soft zone approach on defense assuming they can generate a decent pass rush with some upgrades and consistency. One more thing on defense from last night. When the Raiders beat the Chiefs this season they filled in some 3 man rush fronts on third and longs which had good results. Putting 8 into coverage. I was hoping the Bills brain trust would watch that game film and fill in some of that in their game plan. But they didn't.

My final thought is this.. Its one thing to speak out against something. As the saying goes talk is cheap. Its another thing to do take action and to back up the talk. As we know most of these violent demonstrations, destruction of property, clashes among opposing groups, and events took place in Democratically controlled cities and states where the entire apparatus of government was controlled by the party. But police were ordered to back off, prosecutors released those arrested (who got re-arrested and re-released) and refused to press charges in most cases. Mayors abandoned their citizens and allowed the streets to be taken over by anarchists like in Seattle. They refused to cooperate with Federal agents and officers at all levels. Organizers bused and flew in professional agitators to various cities all over the country to cause trouble. Nothing was done to charge these groups with anything like inciting riots or dare I say "insurrection" against the government at one level or another. Governors held back on utilizing the Guard and State Police resources. More or less nothing was done and ordinary citizens and businesses were left on their own subject to attacks and destruction of private property. And now the politicians got the balls to take a law and order stance per the violence at the Capitol as it suits their needs for power. Are you really comfortable with a government that acts in its own interests as dictated by the circumstances and has little regard for its citizens? I am not. No matter which party is in power as I expect the other party would do the same in similar circumstances. A few weeks back the grand jury in Louisville declined to bring charges against any of the cops in the Brianna Taylor shooting. Yet the outrage and street demonstrations you'd expect from such a ruling didn't take place. That seems odd. If it was before the election we would have seen massive street protests and perhaps more violence and looting. But we didn't. Why? Because there's simply no political points to score at this point since the election is over. We're all getting played here and pitted against one another in some manufactured conflict of ideologies and beliefs. I get it, a lot of other people do to, but a lot more don't. The real enemies aren't you and I disagreeing on interpretations and opinions on events and politics. Its the .1% running the show and calling all the shots.

Like I said right around the time when violence impacted polling numbers that saw Biden's lead being eroded. https://news.yahoo.com/recent-surge-violence-impacting-2020-225306636.html So perhaps you should do some critical thinking and examination of both the motives and the timing behind speaking out. And for the record. I am neither a Trump supporter or a Republican.

I've given your request some thought. My problem is you're asking me to do a lot of work here but I'm willing to give a short-version in the paragraph below. I'm skeptical that anything I post on specific violent events and the lack of any reaction to condemn or denounce the use of violence and intimidation will do anything to sway your view one way or the other. Plus, if anyone that's paying attention to events doesn't know who the liberal establishment is at this point I can't help them. And I take exception to characterizing my writing as semi-coherent. It is very clear, worded well, and syntactically correct. I could ask you to find references to any statement from officials such as Pelosi or Schumer in denouncing left/liberal violence. There just aren't any statements until the Capitol violence and then they couldn't keep their mouths shut or their faces away from the cameras. Circumstantial outrage for political points at its finest. But they were too busy kneeling and bowing in the Capitol to say anything before this. Or any other Senator or Congress person. Or liberal activist media personalities on the networks. I'm hard pressed to find any statements from current President Biden or VP Harris. Or former President Obama either. Those are powerful people that command a lot of attention that chose to remain silent. The only statements or actions taken against violence by the left came from Mayors Lightfoot in Chicago and Durkan in Seattle. And those were spoken out of pure self-interest when their homes and families were directly threatened by the mobs. Attacks on the little people in the streets and their property didn't seem to matter. And on the media side I recall liberal mouthpiece Don Lemon decried the violence not because it was bad or wrong but because it was negatively impacting Biden's polling numbers at the time and needed to stop.

Will you please stop. I am not quoting Trump talking points. When and where did Trump say any of what I wrote? Frankly, I don't think he's smart or literate enough to write several coherent sentences to form a paragraph. I am not quoting anyone's talking points or views. Believe it or not these are my original thoughts. The product of critical thinking, intellectual curiosity, and a lot of skepticism. Something I think everyone here is capable of doing for themselves. Can we please all give each other credit for having our own unique thoughts and opinions here? Regardless of whether we agree with them or not.

Well then pick it apart rather than call someone you know absolutely nothing about a racist. What your doing is using your own stereotypes and biases to make an uninformed conclusion. That's something you might want to avoid. But what specifically is racist about what I wrote above? Its the God's honest truth. Is it that I dared to criticize BLM for using violence? Well they did. That's a fact. Are you saying speaking or writing the truth is racist? if you believe that there's something fundamentally wrong with your thought process. You can make all kinds of excuses to deny reality. One of them is the kill the messenger approach. You seem to have that one perfected. But its a false argument. I stand by my contention. The liberal establishment was comfortable using and supporting violent acts when it served their purposes but now that it doesn't they assume the law and order stance. Now they fake all kinds of sympathy and support for law enforcement. If I was a member of law enforcement I wouldn't buy it for a second. And personally, I wouldn't put my life on the line to protect these parasites. Let them take the bullet, why should I step into the line of fire? These liberal intellectuals are among the worst kinds of hypocrites and liars. They can't be trusted. I don't understand why you or anyone would trust them. Or any professional politician for that matter. But its your choice to do so. Just to be clear, I'm not defending any alt-right thinkers here either. Frankly, I have no need for any of them left or right. I'll form my own views for myself. Everyone else is free to do the same.

When you have no legitimate response or argument play the race card to change the subject and divert attention from the original point.

I guess we could ask how did the liberal establishment and their drones that supported rioting and looting from groups like Antifa and BLM along with calls and legislation to de-fund the police, participated in nauseating public displays of obedience and submission to BLM, support for the defacing and attacking of public buildings, and mobs tearing down statues and national monuments without due process of the law suddenly become big supporters of law and order? Because it is now convenient and advantageous to do so. Sorry but there's no moral high ground for one side or the other at this point.

The guilt by association argument Lemon engages is a simplistic false choice, itself filled with bias and stereotypes generated by the observer. Something these guys accuse their opponents of doing. Ironic, right? It establishes some binary decision like you're with us or against us when in reality the choice is a point in a continuum. Like I might be with you but only up to a certain point such as I believe in equality and ending racism but I draw the line at the point where you want to ignore the Constitution and try to force everyone to do and say what you want in order to achieve that objective. Or I might believe the government is corrupt beyond repair but I'm not going to go out and shoot up the town to push my point. Others that share my views might agree with me but the idea that they want to push beyond the line i draw for myself has absolutely nothing to do with me as an individual and does not imply I support violence or some fringe ideas. As the choice provided by Lemon's argument is to abandon my belief and join the other side it seems absurdly simplistic and irrational.

You won't see me defending Trump's persona or behavior. For the record I didn't vote for Trump in either election but I also didn't vote for Clinton or Biden. I didn't like any of these choices and view our incoming President as nothing more than a figurehead or puppet of some powerful interests lucking in the shadows. Given his physical and mental condition I expect he'll be out of office in a year or so. But nobody voted for or supports Trump because they think he's a great human being or a man of high integrity. And this brainwashing narrative needs to stop. Trump just told them what they want to hear and did basically nothing of what he promised. The wall wasn't built, jobs didn't return, America didn't become great again. Most of his support comes out of the reality that it was the mainstream professional political class consisting of both major parties that oversaw the dismantling of the economic relationships and arrangements that lead to the hardships a lot of them have lived. So who do you want them to support? Coastal Democratic leftists pushing some social agenda they could care less about? An agenda that blames them for all the social woes and evils of the country. Or some global economic platform? Or pro-corporate big business Republicans? That very thing that de-industrialized the middle of the country. They supported Trump because he was the only game in town. A game that turned out to provide nothing back in return. And now that they've gained nothing and are the target of the left and the media they are pissed. If the liberals were as smart as they think they are, which they are not, they'd work toward de-escalating the situation. But they won't, They'll pile on here. And I fear it is going to result in a lot of adverse consequences all around.

That appears to be the trajectory at this point but what comes next is going to decide whether it continues. But focusing on social causes and attributing the cause of many problems to things like inequality and racism can only take you so far. And the idea generated by the far-left that Trump is the cause and source of all hardship and evil and that removing him from power solves all that is a delusion. At the end of the day economic issues will drive the voting patterns. Another possibility is the Biden/Harris social experiment might turn out to be a 2 year event. What if the economy turns down hard? What if the economic "recovery" from COVID never happens the way many expect? What happens when unemployment rates fail to come down or increase? What happens if food and energy prices double or triple? What happens if all these money printing programs lead to very high rates of price inflation and a loss of confidence in the US dollar by holders both domestic and foreign? The cost of everything in dollar terms goes up. Your standard of living goes down unless your wages or income keep pace. What's the answer? Give away more free money and throw more fuel on the fire? What if the new administration engages in new foreign military adventures? Something that appears certain given the resumes of many of the people Biden has named to key posts. My guess is US military forces will be engaged in some new adventure somewhere before the end of Summer 2021. If you're an American born citizen under-30 you have no firsthand experience dealing with an economic downturn of any severity and duration, I have and so have many others here that are a little older. I'll guarantee one thing. When the free money stops and you don't have a job or food in your stomach or gas in your tank or a comfortable place to live or a way to take care of yourself or your family and the government becomes ineffective and incapable of doing anything to help all that talk about solving every social evil that ever existed isn't going to be the focus of your attention. I may be wrong, and I hope I am, but that's my assessment of where we are headed. What the coastal lefties don't comprehend about the "mid-west" Trump supporters (because they all too easily accept the "racist" narrative rather than doing any real thinking about things on their own or gathering an real firsthand intelligence or information) is that most of them are living this already. So if it happens to the rest of the country they don't care. They know they'll survive but they're betting the liberal urban snowflakes will not.

Weather.com says 1 to 3 Saturday night. I think the psychological effect might be the greatest impact. But the greatest physical impact might be learning how to hold onto the ball in a "snow game" if you're not used to it.

I like where you're going with this. Most of it sounds reasonable. I don't mess with you and you don't mess with me. I don't try to impose my moral and social beliefs on you and you don't try to do it to me. I don't force you into arrangements and transactions and situations against your will and you don't try to do that to me. I respect your freedoms and you respect mine. I make my life choices and you make yours. Lastly we agree that anything that gives "The State" more control and power over the individual should be opposed. A fundamental problem is there are people out there that think they're intellectually, morally, and ethically superior to everyone that disagrees with them. They think there is something fundamentally wrong with the people that don't believe what they believe. That they suffer from some character flaw or behavioral issue. That they somehow need to be "reprogrammed" or "educated" to act and think and speak in a manner consistent with their belief system. They see the world through their eyes and refuse to accept the idea that anyone could have another perspective on things outside of their own view. There are intellectual bigots on both sides of the left/right divide and they are a problem. I'm not advocating taking action against them in any way. Just that we all need to realize they are the cause of strife and conflict and they need to be ignored and that handing any power to them is dangerous. As somebody that likes to mind his own business and take ownership and responsibility for my own life while respecting the rights of others to do the same I have absolutely no use or need for any of these extremists. I don't need or want a leader to think or decide for me what is best for me.

I have a little more confidence in the Bills chances against the Ravens than many here. I think they just need to go out and execute their game plan on offense and let the Ravens defense worry about how to defend it. And on defense they had a decent strategy last time they played, losing 24-17 mainly because the Bills offense was ineffective. That has changed since. I was watching ESPN First Take and they were talking about the Bills/Ravens and Stephan A. Smith didn't give the Bills much of a chance against the Ravens. Citing their defensive stats and Jackson's ability in Roman's system. And citing their surge down the stretch. But who did they beat? They had one quality win against the Browns plus wins against the Cowboys, Jaguars, Giants, and Bengals. Hardly a "murderers row" of good opponents. Plus on Saturday a game against a Titans team that just looked flat after the 1st quarter. If the Bills bring the house here I can see them coming out on top.

The problem is who gets to decide what is acceptable and not acceptable? I never liked Trump much and can't condone or support much of what Trump has done or said but I could site a multitude of examples of tweets and statements and sites on social media that extort and condone violence but they are not censored, flagged, or taken down, or de-platformed. Why is some violence and resistance okay but not others? It boils down to who gets to decide and what criteria they use to decide. At this point these actions are being used as a weapon against people or organizations that are identified as political enemies of those controlling these platforms and forums. Its not about good and evil. That's what dictators do. The objective is to control the conversation and the narrative rather than suppress and remove violent statements and ideas. That should be obvious. You don't need to be a genius to figure that out. So what happens when ideas you might support or approve of or express get censored because some tech oligarch or political hack on the left or the right decide your thoughts are evil? Are you good with that? I don't agree with a lot of what people say on either side of the political spectrum but I'm also not going around trying to stuff a rag in their mouth to stop them from speaking. And I don't support this clear and obvious movement of criminalizing political descent. That's what this is all about. Is isn't about good and evil and stopping violence. I call BS on that. We all know that's what it is. So can we please stop all the phony moral outrage?

I'd add doing a poor job of managing their 2nd half timeouts to the Colts shortcomings. They burned a timeout early in the 3rd quarter when the play clock ran to zero. They seemed to be playing to that clock management strategy all day. A 2nd timeout was spent challenging a fumble when it was obvious, on the play Moss was hurt, that he was down before the ball was loose. That left them with 1 timeout down near the end of the game when time outs would have helped get them into FG range to tie the game and go to overtime.

For one, Heyward was a disruptive force in the 1st half pushing the pocket, getting pressure, and clogging up the interior. The Bills seemed to make some blocking adjustments in the 2nd half and he was not as much of a fact as a result. Josh was also getting the ball out a little quicker and reading the "D" more effectively.

I've always concluded the Bills lost SB25 because they failed to make any major adjustments to their game plan given the Giants approach on offense and defense. To this day I will never understand why the failed to make any major adjustments on either side of the ball. That game was there to win with some simple adjustments. To me they beat themselves that day. Get more players in the box on defense and on offense adjust to a more "take what the defense gives you" approach. The Giants played a light 2-5-4 if I recall. What they should have done is run the ball for 5 to 7 yards a play and force the Giants out of that. But they didn't. If the Bills play to potential on Saturday they will win. I think the Colts are a good team but this fear that they possess some unstoppable running attack and will run the ball down our throats and control the clock with a rookie RB is overblown. Plus this coaching staff is a lot smarter and flexible than its SB25 counterpart. They'll be ready.