billsfan89

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.

Cousins led the Vikings to a playoff victory but I think Dak is more likely to be a Cousins type average to above average QB rather than the top 5 QB hos contract will demand him to be.

Basically a 2 year deal gauranteed with 2 team options at about 12.5 million a year. Seems more team friendly to me as I think Henery should have pushed for one less year (so he could get another shot at a contract under 30) or an average annual salary that was higher. It's not like the franchise tag was that bad but I guess they felt the pinch of being tagged again. I also think the possibility of the cap shrinking could make this deal more appealing.

What is the one big piece the Bills are missing? Right now I would rather wait until the season (hopefully) begins and save draft/trade capital to replace an injured player or fill an unexpected hole. I don't know what is the one "big" piece this team is missing. It would be nice to add a prime TE or a big time DE. But Knox could easily develop and the rotation at DE could be more than good. Corner opposite Tre could be an issue but I would rather see what that crop has before putting assets into that unit. Outside of a modest mid round pick trade for Njoku I don't see any trade out there worth pursuing. Clowney would be a nice addition but I am not sure he would fit here or make the requisite impact. Overall I think this team should wait to make a big "all in" type move. For one there might not be a need to deplete future draft assets and secondly what we think is a weakness now might not be a weakness and what we now think of as a strength might need help. This team is solid all around nothing major is needed until we see them play and see what injuries occur.

Was still a productive run stuffer for the Jags but never the disruptive monster he was in 2014. Seems like a typical "buy low" type move for the Pats, smart.

His numbers at the first half of the season were still good. 14 TD's to 4 INT's, 62% completion percentage, 1800 yards, he took 16 sacks and lost 2 out of 3 fumbles and the Eagles were 4-4. Looking at the game logs he only had 2 maybe 3 stinker games in there (Atlanta and Dallas and possibly Minnesota.) Compare that to his second half numbers. 13 TD's to 3 INT's, 65% completion percentage, 2200 yards, he lost 5 fumbles out of 12 and took 21 sacks, and the Eagles were 5-3. He had two stinker games in there losing home against Seattle and New England two of the better defenses in the league.So I can't exactly say that based off the numbers and game logs that his performance increased that much. I haven't watched too much of the Eagles this past season so I can't say for sure if there are other qualitative factors that could change my opinion but while I certainly think he improved in the second half of the season by the numbers it didn't look to be so dramatic. Both schedules were mid-level in both halfs (the Eagles did finish out the season playing the Giants twice, Redskins, Miami and a flaming out Dallas team but the first half of the schedule did feature the Redskins, Jets and Atlanta) and the Eagles receiving core was banged up from the start (DJax hurt all year Alshon banged up all year.)

They will try to have a season without fans at the very least.

Last year really impressed me with Wentz. He had zero receiving help outside of thier tight ends (which isn't nothing but you need more to throw to.) Alshon got hurt, D-Jax got hurt, Agholor was ineffective when out there and he still got hurt, and they even had an injury or two to their fourth and fifth string guys. The Eagles O-line also was super banged up and older so it wasn't like he was playing with a lot time or with a dominating rushing attack. Yet he still turned in a top 10 season at QB regardless of context (and when factoring in the context of the season you could argue top 5.) His issue is health after 2019 in my opinion. Because in 2017 before his first major injury he likely would have been the league MVP. He had a very shaky 2018 and got hurt eventually but in 2019 he really played really well.

Washington Warriors or Redhawks would keep the Native American theme going but be less offensive.

Last year Wentz proved to me he can stay healthy. Even in 2018 and 2017 he played 11 and 13 games. He just has had some horrid luck getting hurt late in seasons. He has been banged up but he played all 16 games in 2019 and was a top 5ish QB. I think if he can overcome these injuries he will be more than worth that contract as hefty as it is.

They drafted two WR's high up this year and traded for Goodwin. The WR corps were getting crowded before D-Jax did this and now it looks like he is already solidifying his exit. D-Jax last year was banged up last year and is older for his type of player. The Eagles cap wise should see Goodwin, Jeffery, and D-Jax out the door by 2021 if not 2020.

I would also like to see if he has an out by a certain point in that deal. If I were his agent I would make sure at least by year 4 he has an opt out.

They looked at Olsen before they restructured Kroft into his one year deal. I think they weren't completely sold on Kroft but didn't want to spend big either especially after Kroft took a cut in pay and had his deal expire after 2020. I would say a trade here is not impossible but unlikely.

Having a quantity of a position is worthless if the quality stinks. The TE position is by far the weakest on the team in my opinion. Knox is raw but could develop, Sweeney I see more as developing into a quality backup, Kroft is often hurt and nothing more than a JAG when out there and Lee Smith is a specialist who need dwindles and I am not sure how good he is at his specialty. Overall I think that if this team could land Njoku at a good price he would immediately improve the TE situation.

I would actually be interested if I were the Bills. I would look to trade Kroft and a 2021 fifth for him. The Browns get back a viable backup TE to replace the depth and pocket a pick. The Bills get a young TE who could work in tandem with Knox. BUT I doubt that they make the move. The FO seems to like Kroft for some reason and I do think they rightfully believe in Knox long term.

This Domino Theory people have is weird. I am not going to protect the Redskins name under the theoretical guise that they might come after the Blackhawks name next. I would rather die on the hill of defending the names of the Blackhawks, Chiefs, Indians, Warriors or Braves than on the Redskins. Defending the other names has nothing to do with defending the Redskins name.

Just change the name to the Washington Warriors. You keep the native American theme without the offensive name. It is a simple solution.

Rivers isn't leaving a Clippers team with a Big 2 and good organizational structure in place. The Clippers will have at least 2 to 3 more years of championship opportunities and Rivers isn't leaving to go to the Knicks. The Knicks need a coach who can develop young talent. Atkinson is exactly that. Give Kenny Atkinson three seasons of a hard rebuild and they will see results. Thibs would be the absolute worst hire. I thought Thibs was a good coach in Chicago got a lot out of a team that lost an MVP due to injury. I actually thought he would have worked in Minny bringing in Butler to help KAT and get Wiggins into gear. But Thibs proved in Minny he can't handle younger players and he doesn't know how to not overplay starters. The Knicks need a development guru not a guy who can't work with younger players.