billsfan89

I thought he played well against the Jets. Hopefully he can keep increasing his snap count

Hyde's salary in 2021 is fairly reasonable for his level of play currently. I think he stays in 2021 and the team drafts in round 3 or 4 his replacement long term. But there is no reason to move off of him just yet. His play might be declining but his salary is still good and he is still a starting caliber player.

Bills 31 Pats 17. I just don't see how the Pats put up points, their offense is barely better than the Jets and I don't see Josh not putting up at least 3 TD's on a banged up and depleted defense. I could see it being 17-10 at the half and the Pats hanging on. But I think the Bills pull away and get a 2 score lead and comfortably sit on it.

The Bills developing a reputation as a high quality organization is good. It will only open up the Bills appeal as a destination for free agents and for existing players to want to stay. Buffalo will likely never be a glamorous market but if the organization presents its self as a winning place that handles its self well players will come.

He has 5 ST tackles which is good for 9th in the league, seems to me he is a highly effective ST player.

Just looked that up and dam that's crazy. I would have thought it would have been a bigger story.

When was the time it got blocked? I remember the Oswiler trade but that one went through.

I always talk about this issue with my dad who supports eliminating interest on student loans and means tested partial forgiveness. But I always tell him that it is probably not that much more expensive to just do full forgiveness. Due to the fact that the massive means testing needed would probably require a massive bureaucracy that would likely cost a lot of money and it would be both easier and more effective to just make the program universal.

If you address the cost issue for future students (through various means) what do you do with the current generation of people with crippling student debt? Do you support some sort of partial forgiveness or at least a lowering or eliminating of their interest rate? Or are you just fine with doing nothing?

It would kind of be like an NBA deal, where there is a salary cap dump. A team will trade a player with a 15 million dollar salary and the 20th pick in the NBA draft to acquire a 2nd round pick. The player acquired is inconsequential it is just a math transaction.

What is killing me is that Klein has a 6 million dollar cap hit in 2020 but he has a 6.4 million dollar cap hit in 2021 with 4 million in dead cap. I think they will likely pull a Kroft and renegotiate his deal to just above his dead cap hit for one year. But that still means he will be on the roster with 4.5 million yuck

Yeldon is solid depth. He is inactive because he doesn't contribute on special teams. IF Moss or Singletary go down having a solid back that can step in like Yeldon is a plus. Is Klein even a plus on special teams?

Klein had a nice strip in the KC but other than that he is ass in coverage and mediocre against the run. He was a complete waste of 6 million and he carries a 4 million dollar dead cap. Him and Butler were complete zero signings. Beane's worst missteps this off-season.

I wouldn't hate it

I thought Ford played well to end 2019 and I think his skills translate to being a starting caliber and possibly good LG. I can't relate him to Maybin or some other outright bad drought picks just yet. I think the team moving Ford around a lot along the line has done no favors for his development. His best stretch of play came when Ty got hurt late in 2019 and he was stuck at RT. I would like to see him play out the season at LG and then get him into a full camp and off-season preparing as a LG before I pass a final judgement on him.

Forget that it's the Pats this game much like last week is an absolute must win. For one this would heavily bury the Pats in the standings and put the Bills at 4-0 in the division. The Bills also must win to fatten up to 6-2. After the Pats game the Bills play a tough Seahawks team and a tough toss up match up in the Cardinals. Ideally the Bills would split those games and at 6-2 a split would put the Bills at 7-3 going into a very winnable Chargers game. But if you are 6-2 and you lose both games you lick your wounds but you still sit at 6-4 going into a winnable game. But if you drop this Pats game and go to 5-3 then a split against AZ and SEA puts you at 6-4 and dropping both games puts you at 5-5. Got to beat up on bad opponents, that's what good teams do.

I am not seeing it from the Dline. Maybe a closer analysis makes things better but I have seen a lot of games of mediocre play. Yes against the Raiders second half and against the hapless Jets they got a good pass rush but for the most part the pass rush hasn't been there.

Bojo has been a stud, Roberts has been a stud, and the coverage units have been great. I would also add that Bass while he has been up and down with kicks he has been very good on kickoffs. So overall outside of Bass on field goals I would rank the Bills as having an elite ST unit. Granted I am shocked that Bojo has been so good, but McBeane did put it a lot of resources (relatively speaking) to build a good ST unit. They signed a pair of ST specialists in T.Jones and Matakevich, they signed a stud returner in Roberts last year and they invested in Bass a 6th round pick. I think one thing I always have liked about McBeane is the attention to the little things that they do on the roster. ST investments have paid off.

A few quick fact checks below. The point is that every time tax cuts and deregulation is tried as an economic model we lose money on that investment. The Bush tax cuts didn't pay for themselves, the Trump tax cuts didn't and the deregulatory policies of the Reagan, Bush I, Clinton and Bush II presidencies led to drastic boom bust cycles that have routinely destabilized the economy. Massive public works and infrastructure programs are a proven winner economically but the GOP never pursue them because corporations don't write pols from both parties checks to build public works programs, they want a return on their investment. We have seen Trump's exact policies fail with George W Bush, why would they work this time? 1- The US government directly owns 92% of student debt and can easily buy back the other 8% as most of those agencies are either quasi government agencies or companies that get preferred treatment from the government. So yes the government could forgive all the debt and make it up in the budget via a Wall Street Speculation Tax (Which exists on stock trades in other nations.) The reason for student debt forgiveness isn't because debt is oppressive. The reason for debt forgiveness is to act as an economic stimulus. One where the government can get hundreds of dollars monthly into the hands of young consumers in perpetuity, and yes if you paid back money in the last 5 years you should get a portion of that via a rebate prorated to how recently you paid off that debt. And unlike forgiving people's mortgages or credit card debt it doesn't carry the moral hazard because it was completely irresponsible for the US government to issue those loans to mostly 17/18 year olds with no collateral to begin with. And I would also argue that the bailout in 2008 should have been of the consumers and not big banks for that same reason. If you go all the way back to my original post I did say that public universities and trade schools should be free and the US government should stop issuing student loans going forward (and have bankruptcy protections on loans) as a means to both address the past/current problem (people with student debt they will never pay back) and keep the problem from occurring in the future. It is a two fold problem. You can address the college cost issue any way you want, but in the end you can't have a generation saddled with debt that they never should have had access to draining the economy and tax cuts do nothing to solve that. 2- 56% of workers may have a retirement program but what percentage of those workers have more than 10k in those plans, its a shockingly low percentage? The stock market isn't the economy, yes I do agree that it isn't irrelevant but I would also argue that any tax cut and deregulatory scheme has no long term impact on stocks because neither pump up sustainable increases in demand. Stocks go up because earnings go up because the tax burden is lower. The company buys back stocks and increases dividends prices go up. But the company doesn't have any actual increase in business. Their customers aren't booming because a middle class family have 500 dollars more a year. So there isn't really anything driving that growth besides a lower tax bill. So earnings slow down and things eventually normalize. It's not sustainable. 3- I stand corrected in the terms I used. To correct myself the real economy wasn't "red hot" under Obama. However the same stock market, unemployment numbers (which are misleading) and GDP were all growing fairly solidly and didn't see much of a difference when tax cuts were added on top of it. The comparison to the Obama economy was to say that the economic needle wasn't moved much despite adding 250 billion dollars of stimulus to it. Proving that regulation cuts and tax cuts don't move the needle. The GOP senate would have cried and clutched pearls if a Dem president proposed an unfunded 250 billion dollar a year infrastructure program but for tax cuts and wars they bend over backwards to take it. Also stocks are 40% owned by foreign investors. That means the Trump tax bill was a huge transfer of wealth from out of the US. Whereas the infrastructure build in the US actually stays in the US and helps US citizens. 4- If Trump was serious about a massive infrastructure deal he would have actually pushed a deal when the GOP controlled the House and Senate in 2017 and 2018. Instead he floated a bizarre privatization scheme that would effectively give tax breaks to make infrastructure private. The 2 trillion dollar deal he was working on in 2019 was a complete farce as Trump knew the GOP would shrink any infrastructure deal down as they outright told him they would. If it was a priority he would have bent his parties will to get it done when they were in control of the government.

If the Bills can take care of the Pats and fatten up to 6-2 this week I think they have a greater than 95% chance to make the playoffs. Sitting at 6-2 (IF they take care of the Pats) all the Bills would need to do is go 4-4 over the back 8 to get to 10-6 which should at the very least get you a wildcard and most likely win the division. And I know everyone looks at the schedule and thinks the team plays such a hard schedule but honestly its not that bad. I count two really difficult games in the Seahawks and Steelers, two toss ups with the Cardinals and 49ers and four games the team should be favored in (Chargers, Fins, Pats, and Broncos.) Even pessimistically the team should be able to split the toss ups and win 3 out of the 4 winnable games which gets them to 4 wins. Right now you have to take care of the teams you are "supposed" to beat. Just win against the Pats and get to 6-2.

I haven't been too impressed with Hughes this year. Granted he took over the Jets game, he really brought that defense alive. But the other 5 games I just haven't seen it from him. Last year he didn't put up the sacks but you saw with your eyes how much he was getting pressure and disrupting things. But this year he isn't bursting off the edge like he used to. Hopefully we see more of the Hughes we saw in the Jets game and not the first 5.

Butler to me is an easy cut, Addision might be worth a restructure to save some money and depending on how he finishes the season Hughes might be a guy who could rework his deal. Jefferson is a good rotational player easy keep on the roster for at least one more year. Honestly the great thing about Beane's salary cap management is that he almost always avoids getting the team bogged down in contracts that carry steep penalties. Pretty much every deal he signs carries either a low penalty or no penalty for the following season. It keeps the roster and cap situation flexible. I personally am OK with Addison as the second DE, he is a quality player just not a "war daddy" front line pass rusher that you need. He should finish the season with 8ish sacks despite not really having a top line guy opposite him. I am also OK with Hughes as a rotational DE depending on how he finishes the season and if he is willing to take a restructuring. Then you have AJ as a young up and coming guy in the rotation. Overall I think the DE situation is kind of a mixed bag. You have some solid players in Hughes and Addision but both are older and likely overpaid. Then you have AJ, who I think is a nice prospect but not much else. It's in flux and a big acquisition is definitely needed, even if you restructure Hughes and keep Addision.

Zach Moss time.

Just to clarify a few things. I really do appreciate the good faith arguments by the way. My overall point is that tax cuts and deregulation don't meaningfully help the economy. Tax cuts juice things short term but they don't really improve demand and stock prices will get normalized. Programs that put money into working people's hands directly at a larger and more direct rate (Like student and medical debt forgiveness) are better stimulus policies and infrastructure and education investment is better for short and long term growth. 1- The US government holds almost all student debt. Private banks stopped issuing student loans well over a decade ago. So the government would be forgiving debt it is owed and making up the money with a Wall Street transaction tax (which would also have the added benefit of eliminating high frequency trading.) So there is no problem in terms of 2008 since the debt has already been socialized. 2- Most workers don't have 401k's or hold less than 10k in a 401k. Most workers don't have a pension either. So while the stock market is important to some extent spending hundreds of billions on tax cuts to juice the markets some more when the market is going up 20-30% year over year anyway isn't really helping that much. Is it worth 250 billion a year added to the debt to help the S and P 500's moving average go up 35-40% instead of 30%? Could we not spend that money better elsewhere? 3- The point in bringing up the Chamber of Commerce stats under Obama (which i didn't not qualify as a "red hot" economy) was to add context that despite adding in hundreds of billions of dollars in tax cuts when GDP growth was regularly above 2%, unemployment was low and the stock market was regularly gaining above 20% yearly was to point out that the economy didn't really take off for the average worker or even in the context of what Chamber of Commerce people would traditionally measure. Unemployment fell at the same rate, GDP couldn't eclipse 2015 gains, and there was only a moderate bump to the stock market. Even take home pay wasn't increased that much for middle and working class people. People were getting more in their pay checks but then getting smaller refunds due to less SALT deduction and withholding amounts changing (basically a bait and switch.) Obama raised the top tax bracket and cut federal spending once the recession was over (going from 1.3 trillion in 2010 to 665 billion in 2017 the last year of Obama's budgets and going as low as 438 billion in 2015) and the GDP numbers, stock market numbers, wages adjusted for inflation were rising slightly and drop in unemployment rate were about the same as seen in 2018 and 2019 when taxes were lower. So did 250 billion a year in tax cuts really do much? I am not the biggest fan of Obama (not nearly progressive enough on policy in my opinion) but he basically was a centrist pol who governed like a 1970's Republican. 4- Infrastructure was never on Trump's agenda. Trump unveiled an infrastructure plan (I want to say either in 2017 or 2018 when he had both houses) and all it basically proposed was giving tax breaks and privatizing infrastructure. Which is a huge disaster as it would basically amount to the public paying huge tolls for tax subsidized private infrastructure. It wasn't an FDR like Tennessee Valley Authority type system or an Eisenhower Interstate Highway System. It wasn't even money to simply fix and stabilize current crumbling infrastructure. That plan was also doomed to fail because it also relied on state and local funding to which is hard to stabilize because those budgets are more volatile. Then in 2019 when the Dems were willing to pass a 2 trillion dollar plan Trump basically pulled out of negotiations and never came back to it because he has zero ability to get things done that aren't pre-packaged by the GOP (like the tax bill which was ready to go by Paul Ryan.) 2017/18 horrid plan for reference. https://www.inthepublicinterest.org/wp-content/uploads/ITPI_TrumpInfra_Feb2018.pdf

He is getting paid like a fringe starter or a high end rotation player and he is performing like a JAG. Never liked Murphy at all, but the Bills won't be able to trade him unless it's part of a salary fill for another deal. I think Buffalo is trying to make a trade to boost the D-line. If you look at the areas where the Bills could improve that's an easy one.