billsfan89

The protests were according to research only responsible for a small part of the surge. Opening up too much for Memorial day and then July 4th was responsible. Places like Texas opening up bars were much more responsible for the surge than protests. I too questioned the likelihood of protests leading to cases and due to almost all of these protests taking place outdoors and high mask usage it appears they weren't too bad at spreading the illness.

In a "normal" season LB depth would be a nitpick as I agree that Edumonds and Milano would play most of the snaps and if one gets hurt Klein could step in. But given this Covid situation depth might be more key than ever. Adding a vet LB as a camp body at a marginally thin position for a minimum contract would be a smart move.

Haynesworth also fell into the wrong situation. With the Titans Schwartz built the system around him wrecking havoc in the middle. Haynesworth was allowed to freelance and just go out and be a physical freak on the Titans. With the Redskins he was asked to do more and work within a scheme and he didn't know how or care to do that. So Haynesworth really got hit both ways losing motivation and playing in the wrong system/team.

Dareus was still a solid player even phoning it in he still was a good NFL run stuffer. That shows you just how insane a physical talent he was to still be a starting caliber DT with little motivation.

I wouldn't hate it, never should have let him go. Not sure he has much left but let him come into camp as a depth contributor.

The Seahawks have to feel that they were only one player away from a SB. But I just don't see that player being Jamal Adams.

I think it would be a mistake to let Milano walk too. I think him and Edumonds are one of the best combos in the league and they complement each other well. I wouldn't break the bank for Milano but I would easily give him a good offer. I think depending on how he plays in 2020 I think offering him a deal between 8 to 9.5 million aav is a good idea. No need to overpay but no need to undervalue either.

They should allow 90, given how easily teams could lose players due to covid having some extra bodies would be better.

It's not just the draft picks, Adam's wants to be paid so not only are you giving up 2 firsts and swapping a third for a fourth but you are also giving up a chunk of your cap space. Now this would easily be justified for a QB and could be justified for a prime pass rusher. But a large cap and draft capital commitment for a safety? That's insane.

This was a complete steal for the Jets, they might have wasted the first two years of Darnold's rookie deal and are on track to burn a third they actually got a huge amount of compensation for a player that wasn't interested in being there. They could easily fire Gates and hand a new coach a promising young QB and a lot of draft picks and some cap space to work with.

The poster is also not taking into consideration that "high end game managers" get paid good money and even a QB making 27 million or closer to 15% of your cap makes it harder to always have a good to great defense around them. If Josh is a good but not great QB then the Bill's are only going to consistently win during his rookie deal and if they can draft insanely well. Drafting that well is hard to do so it will likely come down to Josh long term.

Fair point I will not reply anymore

Everyone makes political calculations, but FDR was still pursuing universal healthcare (which is such a win for everyone besides insurance companies I have honestly no clue how anyone could not support it) in his 4th term making it the priority of his platform in his 4th term. Not to get lost in the weeds here but the Democratic party of today is a center right party by most industrialized nations standards and even by America's warped to the right standards it is still a center left party not pushing any real radical change in any meaningful sense. All of their solutions to economic problems tend to be incremental steps that are usually heavily means tested. FDR however often preferred universal dramatic solutions that speak to the core of the Progressive movement and what it means to be firmly left economically. You have social security which was a universal program that almost any working American has access to, you had massive jobs and infrastructure programs that didn't include any tax cuts for the rich. Whereas Obama's stimulus bill was 40% tax cuts. FDR promoted massive public works and universal programs that are no longer seen in American mainstream politics no matter how badly they are needed and shown to be effective. The fact that the party twice threw everything it had to stop Bernie Sanders tells you that economically they are far from FDR. I have never seen such an epic coordination against a single candidate in my lifetime. And the reason they stopped Sanders was two fold. One like Serpico if you don't take the money (corporate pac and campaign contributions) then your hands aren't dirty and you become a problem for those who take the money and less conspiratorially they don't believe in his platform. As I said before even on social justice issues do they actually do anything on those issues? In 2015 Ferguson happened under Obama and all that they did was some moderate police reform mostly built around the idea of body camera funding and non binding mandates. They didn't even push anything and have it killed by the GOP they watered down any and everything deemed left of center to the point where it is DOA or ineffective if it gets passed. So yes the language might be more radical by some members but does it actually result in anything? I don't agree with all of the social platforms and language but will it translate into meaningful policy?

FDR didn't push for universal healthcare because he died in office (in his 4th term, as it turns out his economic agenda was insanely popular.) FDR used his popularity as president to push his agenda not work his agenda to be workable within the system. FDR literally put healthcare into his economic bill of rights platform he was building for his 4th term. Democrats always favor means tested half measures. Look at the primary for an example of this. Sanders was the only democrat in the primary to push universal student debt forgiveness. Everyone else either wanted means tested solutions or half measures like lowering interest. Sanders was the only democrat to push for medical debt forgiveness (medical debt should be non-existant in a developed nation.) Sanders was the only one who wanted fully publicly funded public college and community college. Any other candidate always put forward means testing or half solutions even Warren someone supposedly to the farther left of the party. Even Medicare for All which some polling shows a majority of Republicans favor was only in full force supported by Sanders throughout the primary (Warren and Gabbard softened their stances and the rest outright backed away from it.) Even in the Coronavirus Relief bill back in March their solution to people losing their health insurance because they lost their job (another moronic idea) the vast majority of the party was proposing to subsidize COBRA (the most expensive insurance there is) or open up Obamacare exchanges. The radical idea of expanding Medicare to everyone in the US temporarily during a public health crisis wasn't even broached by this party you think is far left. So no it isn't empty rhetoric it is a study of recent political history and the actions of the party. Yes maybe for a conservative the Dems are too spicy and left on economic issues, but for the significant majority of the country that favors a populist left agenda they are at best center left. Based on their favoring of means testing and half measures over universal programs and bold action. The reason Biden isn't supporting Medicare for All isn't because of swing voters (swing voters like the policy 60% support among independents in most polls) but because he doesn't believe in it. He likes the Healthcare lobby and its money. It's that simple. As far as the social policy argument. My point wasn't this is inevitable. But rather that at any point since the 1970's you could look at the Democratic parties social platform and view it as "the farthest left they have ever been." That doesn't mean that they are correct or wrong (although typically they end up being correct) but rather that using that as a gauge for the parties overall platform is misleading. But that also doesn't always even translate into policy. For all the talk of social and racial justice what major moves has the Dem party taken to actually do any action other than lipservice?

I would also think that they see some other use for the assets outside of oil and gas which long term have a murky future. Maybe the equipment could be repurposed for other mining uses such as rare earth materials, nickel or thorium.

Isn't Vivid a porn company?

Does the voucher give you a one to one exchange or is it something that gives you the dollar value? If it is just dollar value take the money.

Close to FDR economically? Are you serious? The Dems now are 1970's Republicans economically. Do you really think that this current Democratic party is anywhere near FDR on economic policy? Their candidate for president would favor vetoing universal healthcare. The Democrats voted against cutting the military budget a measly 10% to put into other programs. The majority of the party is against universal programs that help the middle class. They take a ton of big business money and only mildly sway from the Republicans on Chamber of Commerce issues. Don't let AOC and a few others fool you because right wing media has a hate (and probably real) ***** to cover them. The vast majority of the Democratic Party is far from FDR. I would love it if they were "so close" to FDR, this country would be in far better shape. But that's not the case at all. Bernie Sanders a fairly moderate social Democrat who was the closest any of the parties major candidates since the 1970's to come even close to FDR's economic policies and the entire infrastructure of the party untied and put its resources to defeat him twice. And yes on social issue the Dems are farther left than they ever have been but that's simply how progress works. We are only 3 generations removed from half of the US being in a literal apartheid state. Desegregation and civil rights were considered radical platforms in the 1950's to 1960's and early 1970's. Gay people not being viewed as monsters was a radical position in the 1970's. Civil rights for gays in terms of marriage was a radical position as recently as the early to mid 2000's. Where did you get this idea that the Dems are "so close" to FDR.

This is the farthest left the Democrats have ever been? FDR was pushing for universal healthcare and an economic bill of rights that included a job guarantee. The current Democratic party voted against cutting the military 10% and has a nominee that is basically a 1970's Republican who said he would veto Medicare for all. I suggest you look into US political history pre 1980.

It could vary wildly with Josh. He could hit his stride in year 3 and be a fringe MVP candidate or he could regress and be a below average QB. It hard to put a ceiling or floor on it.

My mother had it in March, she recovered after being very sick for a week but hasn't had the same level of energy since. But you know if something doesn't impact you directly then it is a hoax right?

Titans, Bucs and Patriots are arguable ahead of the Bills but it isn't egregious. I would personally rank the Bills 6th ahead of those teams but it is arguable to put any of those team's ahead of the Bills.

It's basically an article just shitting on Josh, yawn.

Being the 9th to 12th best paid QB in an inflated market doesn't mean that is a recipe for success especially with a cap that might not be inflating as preciously thought. Paying 35ish million for a QB who isn't a top 5 to 7 player means the team around him isn't as good given that you are committing to 15% or more of your cap to one player whose positional advantage is limited without progression. That contract is going to cap the Cowboys at above average unless Dak plays at top 5 to 7 level. If he is just kind of good like he has been then they will be a 7 to 10 win team.

It's still going to be a large contract that eats up a lot of cap even on the back end of that deal. In totality for that deal to be worth it for the Cowboys Dak is going to have to be a top 5 to 7 QB. If Dak plays at a 9 to 13 QB level throughout that deal the Cowboys won't ever be more than a 9 to 10 win team in a good year.