Magox

If you took out the endorsements variable, I would have to believe that Messi would be #1. Simply put he is the most dominating pro that we've seen in any sport since Michael Jordan.

I don't believe he wants to be a Bill, not under Tyrod and doubt he'd want to wait around for the Bills to draft a QB and hope for him to develop. I'm not advocating for him to be traded but It would be dumb to not at least consider any trade options.

WIN Sunday, Sept 10 - Bills vs. Jets LOSE Sunday, Sept 17 - Bills @ Panthers WIN Sunday, Sept. 24 - Bills vs. Broncos LOSE Sunday, Oct 1 - Bills @ Falcons LOSE Sunday, Oct 8 - Bills @ Bengals LOSE Sunday, Oct 22 - Bills vs. Buccaneers WIN Sunday, Oct 29 - Bills vs. Raiders LOSE Thursday, Nov 2 - Bills @ Jets WIN Sunday, Nov 12 - Bills vs. Saints WIN Sunday, Nov 19 - Bills @ Chargers LOSE Sunday, Nov 26 - Bills @ Chefs LOSE Sunday, Dec 3 - Bills vs. Patriots* WIN Sunday, Dec 10 - Bills vs. Colts WIN Sunday, Dec 17 - Bills vs Fish LOSE Sunday, Dec 24 - Bills @ Patriots* LOSE Sunday, Dec 31 - Bills @ Fish

I know the serial apologists will have problems with this but I like it. I don't know, but I get the sense that we actually have a real organization beginning from the top that we haven't seen in quite some time. It's time to hold everyone accountable, even the stars of the team.

No need to be so sensitive, the report from Graham is new and for many of us it is interesting.

I'm ok with the thread. I think it warrants a new thread, some posters are a little defensive when it comes to some of the players, coaches and this case ex GM.

You are morphing from making a case for your argument into crusading. You've made your point.

This is promising Basically, Beef exports would be opened to China. Also more natural gas exports as well and some credit card transactions, in exchange US opens up Poultry imports. Devil is always in the details but on the surface it looks like a pretty damn good deal.

I expect Ragland to be a stud.

I think this sounds about right. Anything above that and I'd be thrilled, based off of the skill set that I've observed.

This is the most over hyped bull **** "scandal" that I've seen since the last over hyped BS Trump "scandal", which was like what? a month ago? I roll my eyes at all the hyperventilating that is going on in the media and social media. Keep in mind, I can't stand the narcissistic know-nothing. He literally has got to be the dumbest most unqualified person to have ever stepped into the white house. But, this is all BS. And if I think this is BS then anyone who is inclined to support him I'm sure would all agree that this is BS. There has been absolutely no proof of collusion that has been presented, yet the media spends all day pondering and speculating the sort of conspiratorial machinations that would make even T Greggy proud (yes, I know you think this is bull **** too). Straight news organizations shouldn't be in the business of spending significant time pushing conspiracy theories. It's sickening. I can't stand the media.

I'm not encouraging anyone to do anything. I'm simply pointing out an observation that was partially in jest. And it's not that Republicans desire to "funnel money to the top". Their desire is to cut taxes for everyone, it just so happens that the Obamacare taxes were specifically for upper income earners, so when they looked to repeal the taxes, it's their taxes that are being repealed, simply because the taxes weren't for anyone elses but theirs. There is a general philosophy that most libertarians and many Republicans have which is that everyone should be treated the same, everyone should be taxed equally etc etc. There is an honest argument to be had in the progressive tax system and the ones that many libertarians and Repubs want. But when you make these sort of shallow comments, it diminishes the debate into partisan bickering. Don't get me wrong, their side does it as well just on different terms. It's simply a matter of how you frame the argument.

We'd be happy? These hypothetical questions are hilarious

These sort of vapid arguments do nothing to advance the discussion. It's these sort of comments are the reasons why over half the board wants to punch you in the face. It's not that the GOP wants tax cuts for the "rich", it's that they want to reduce taxes period, it just so happens that in Obamacare the taxes were for the "rich", and they want to repeal all the taxes. There are free market concepts that they believe would work better, and the fact of the matter is that for certain circumstances it would work better, but not for everyone. There are always winners and losers and for the GOP, under the current plan there are too many losers for the public to accept. The only way they will draft a bill that can not only pass congress but test the time of public approval is if they do things that they aren't used to doing, which is accept a larger role from government along with many of their free market ideas. That way they can pick off some Democrats to pass it through, the product would lead to almost the same level of overall coverage and premiums would go down. That would be the smart thing to do. It's early, but from what I'm reading it does appear that the bill will prioritize the expansion of coverage more so than the house bill, which of course means larger tax credits AKA subsidies.

Happy? What kind of question is this?

This point seems to be lost on virtually every post I've read. The point of the article is the philosphy of McD, and it fits right into everything that we've been reading, which is the contrast of Whaley and co. scouting approach to McD's vision of building a team.

The majority of the country cares about expanding coverage. Anything that doesn't cover nearly as many if not more people than Obamacare will be viewed and reported as going in the wrong direction and most likely won't either become law or have the longevity to sustain itself. If Republicans were politically smart, which they aren't, what they should do to try to avoid Medicare-for-all becoming a permanent fixture in our lives, should try to institute many market based reforms along with the acceptance that the most of the public wants there to be a high priority on expanding coverage which would entail a high dosage of subsidies. I like the idea of the high risk pools, it makes lots of sense. The idea of moving a portion of the population away from most of the risk pools would without doubt lower premiums. If implemented properly, this would be a game changer. Of course the key is to not let anyone slip through the cracks. There shouldn't be a mandate for the private carriers through normal risk pools to cover people with pre ex, but there should be a guarantee that through the high risk pools that are subsidized by the government that coverage for anyone wanting to obtain coverage can get it. However, there should be some sort of penalty or blow back for people who wait to get coverage until they are sick. That would be a problematic issue, but it can be overcome. There is a real opportunity for the GOP to show the world that there is a better alternative that could achieve near universal healthcare that wouldn't be a solution that comes solely from the government but a partnership between some creative elements from the private markets along with the government. It can be done. The idea that society is going to accept a healthcare system that has lots of lower income and sicker people not having the means to get coverage are over. That ship has sailed.

I'm not advocating for this, I've criticized that this idea would be a logistical nightmare and yes it would lead to rationing. Having said that, I think this would lead to two types of care, the Medicare-for-all coverage that would be for the majority of the population and then there would be boutique style coverage for the upper middle and higher economic class. It's apparent to me that most people care about the total number of people that are covered as opposed to the quality of coverage. I'm not sure how the details would look. My guess is that Medicaid would stay on the books. Medicare Advantage plans and Medicare supplements would be greatly expanded. As expected, the Senate is going to rewrite the whole thing. Rand Paul, Cruz, Lee and probably Cotton and maybe even Rubio will serve as the potential firewall to a deal not going through. I'm not sure how a bill gets through. It's gonna get interesting.

Even though Obamacare in itself has been a failure, Obama had won the argument. The General public cares more about overall coverage than anything else. No matter what the Repubs do, we will eventually become a Medicare-for-all single payer sort of health system within a decade. It's not a matter of if but when.

I just get the feeling that we finally have a vision moving forward. I don't just say this because of the article, it's just the sense that I get with the sort of decisions that we are making. I feel good about McD

So far I'm impressed.

I think it's safe to say that McD is a point man and has as much say as anyone else.

Awesome! I hope he signs with us today. Don't let him leave the building without a contract.

Teams pick up the option on their players because they are sold on that particular player. Reasonable people can disagree on whether or not that there is an argument to be made that Sammy may not be worth the risk. I happen to believe the McD strategy of "show me" happens to be a good move. The downside risk is $3M. The upside potential is a more motivated, unwavering and productive Sammy. There are a lot of excuses as to why Sammy hasn't put up the numbers as some of his peers and those arguments do carry validity but at the end of the day, it's about putting up the numbers and helping this team win. So far, he hasn't been able to do that on a consistent basis.

This is my general thinking as well. A lot of hand wringing going on when in actuality the only real risk is about $3m in salary cap and even that wouldn't be a sure thing with Transition tag and re signing him to a long-term deal would be in the cards. Many football people also happen to believe this is a good move as well and their line of reasoning is basically the exact same as what I happen to believe.