billsfan89

I don't know why Diggs is always in trade rumors (26 soon to be 27 year old stud WR on a big but reasonable contract) but I would easily give up a 2nd to take Diggs at a 15 million dollar cap hit. Diggs's contract is actually easy to get out of in 2022 (3 million dead cap) and actually not horrid to get out of in 2021 (6 million dollar cap hit.) His deal would add a short term injection of talent at a fair cap hit. The window to win is now but Diggs is also young enough where he could be a key cog for this team in the next 3-4 seasons if not longer with some good health. The risk is lower because after 2 season the deal is fairly painless to get out of and even in a catastrophic situation the cap is not locked in that much beyond 2020. A 2nd round pick is a steep price but it would free up pick 22 to be spent on other resources and get a big time prime player to help Josh immediately. I wouldn't give up pick 22 for various reasons but a 2nd rounder and a mid rounder in 2021? For sure I would strongly consider it. I know he isn't the biggest target but he is a speedy guy who is 6 feet tall. I think if this team wanted to add size they could find a vet TE would could be a big body in the receiving game.

If he goes 5 or less wins the next three seasons I don't see how they justify keeping him esp in Vegas where they are hoping to make big moves. Thanks to the Vegas move the team is flushed with cash and future opportunities for more cash. They could be willing to eat 4-5 years of that contract.

Pass, I like Olsen but only on a 3-4 million dollar price for a small portion guaranteed. He got Seattle to pay him up more and good for him but he was priced out of this team. I think there are other vet TE's out on the market that could be had at a better price.

Reminds of EJ Gaines last year, I would love to bring him in on a cheap one year deal with zero risk in a depth/competition role. But I wouldn't bring him in as a starter or for any significant money. I think this is a move that could make sense given the right context.

The Jags can drastically lower their cap with a handful of releases (Dareus alone is 20 million in savings) and they got a good haul for Ramsey but not having any solutions at QB just kills them.

Dak might not be a top 10 QB, hell no am I not committing 15% of my cap to him. Dak should be slotted in at 25 million or just about.

It feels weird that I honestly feel like this team for once actually goes into free agency with cap space and a solid amount of draft picks to where I feel like they can actually fill all of their needs and still remain in a good spot longer term. I also feel like McBeane is a good enough front office to do so. They could easily retain 2 or all 3 of their own free agents while adding 2-3 starting caliber pieces (along with some depth) and then go into the draft and fill the remaining 2 or 3 starting needs and role player needs.

Olsen makes sense as a vet stop gap depth type player to allow Knox and Sweeney a backstop in case they have some more growing pains. I wouldn't hate it as I think Olsen in a limited role could work but I worry about his health and ability to stay healthy, maybe if he is a receiving TE only and in more limited use they can keep him available easier but that's a lot to bet on. I would prefer to go on a big one year deal (in the 10 million range) to Hunter Henry instead but I think he commands a multi-year deal given the desperation of the position. I think Henry would have a big impact short term which would help Allen get another quality target while having Knox be the backup grow at a better pace for one more season before taking on the starting duties in 2021. Given the market for TE's I think Olsen is one of the better one and done options to help bridge Knox and Sweeney into a their sophomore year.

I would consider it if the Lions threw back their 3rd round pick in exchange for pick 22 and a Bills mid round pick. I am still not sure I would do it but I would consider it.

Saying he is 148th highest paid in the league is highly misleading. When he signed his deal in 2018 he was the 10th highest paid DT in the league and even in 2019 was still the 13th highest paid at his position. I think looking at his standing within his position is the best way to look at things. Star has a function in the system however he doesn't rush the passer and Star is not elite at being a space eater. Don't get me wrong he is good at that role but I don't think he is a Snacks Harrison type space eater. I don't think he comes even close to being top 20 DT in the league, thus him being paid in or close to the top 10 at his position makes him overpaid. However being overpaid doesn't mean he doesn't have value to the defense. I think this pay cut brings him closer to his true value and I am fine with him at his current salary and he fills a good role effectively.

Gives the Bills a little bit more cap space and gives Star a guaranteed salary for 2020. Seems like a win win.

He was overpaid from the get go. Run stuffers aren't a premium position in the NFL and Star was paid a borderline top 10 salary at his position with a hefty guarantee. Star was good at his role of clogging up lanes and shifting along the line but he wasn't an elite player nor the type of player (interior disruptor) that defenses pay a lot for at his position. BUT that doesn't me had has no value, other than the few games in the middle of the season Star's play ranged from solid in the beginning to really good to close the season. Him taking a modest pay cut of close to 2 million simply makes him less overpaid which is a win win for both sides. The Bills get some cap space and Star gets security for 2020 and some guarantees for his 2021 salary. I think a lot of people got on him excessively failing to see that just because a player was overpaid for his position doesn't mean he doesn't bring value to the defense.

Arrowhead renovations cost 375 million in 2007 which would adjusted for inflation be just under 500 million in todays dollar even adjusting for increased construction costs in the past decade I think the massive renovations needed to make the Ralph more modern would probably cost 600ish million. But I do agree they are going to push for a new stadium that best aligns with their interest. I am merely saying that I think for a stadium that is going to be empty 345 days a year it is best for the city and the team to go the route or renovations as opposed to building a new stadium that will cost at a minimum a billion dollars.

There is a lot of cap space to gain by cutting him. I don't see him as anything more than a slightly above replacement level player who is paid like a starter.

Not sure if I would love an Addison signing unless it was fairly easy to get out of after 1 or at least 2 years. Addison is going to be 33 next season (although he only started his career at 24 and has only been a heavy rotation player or starter for 6 years.) I also would want Lawson back and cut Murphy. If you sign Addison for about 8-10 million aav you can cut Murphy and save most of that salary. I think if you can get out of it somewhat easily after 1 season (only 50% dead money) and then get out of it easily after 2 (15% or less dead cap hit) then I think you can find better players for that money.

I think even a basic stadium is going to cost if not a billion very close to a billion. The Colts built their stadium in the late 2000's for 792 million dollars. That is a cost of 963 million in 2020 dollars adjusted for inflation. Also the Colts were aided by building before construction costs generally skyrocketed (I think there were various factors that made arenas and stadiums cost a lot more to build in the 2010's as opposed to the 2000's.) I think even a stadium that costs 950 million to build is still way too much money for a market like Buffalo to spend on a stadium that will sit empty 345 days a year. A 400-500 million dollar stadium renovation for New Era field is just a much better use of money and is much easier to finance. As another poster pointed out all those teams you mentioned did build new stadiums or massive renovations. I agree with you that if The Ralph is structurally sound I don't see why you would need to do anything and waste money building a new stadium or renovating the current one. Football stadiums sit empty 345 days a year. All I want for a stadium (esp in a market like Buffalo) is that it is a good place to see a game. But the NFL is a business and new stadium and renovated stadiums create more revenue and revenue opportunities. The NFL will always pressure teams to build new stadiums or renovate as their stadiums age. I think the best way to keep the economics happy and not waste nearly as much money is to just do a massive 400-500 million dollar renovation to the Ralph. Make it as modern a stadium as possible and finance it in a way that doesn't cost the tax payers anything other than maybe loans/bonds that get paid back.

In the biggest metro area of the country by population (NYC) there is a football stadium that houses 2 teams. That stadium gets used about 40 times a year (now that the XFL is operating a few dates.) 20 NFL Games (16 regular season and 4 pre-season, maybe 1-2 post season games), 5 XFL games and maybe 15 other events between concerts, big time international soccer matches and other special events like an occasional Wrestlemania or Monster Jam. That's at best the largest market with 2 teams maybe filling up 45 dates a year in a good year. How many times do you think a stadium in Buffalo would be used? 10 Bills games plus maybe what 5-10 concerts and other events? Why do you need a fancy billion dollar stadium that will sit empty 345 days a year? I get that they might need to do a renovation of the stadium for economics and probably every massive building could use one. But I think that it is much better for the city of Buffalo and the Bills to do a 400-500 million dollar renovation of the current stadium rather than build a new one. You could finance it thought 50% private funding from the Pegula's and the NFL's stadium fund. Then the rest could be a bond issued by the tax payers that gets paid back from parking and other revenues that the stadium generates over its first 10 years. Effectively the city doesn't pay anything as while they front half the money they get it paid back over the course of the first 10 years of the stadiums operation with a degree of interest. Stadiums produce a lot of money between the parking, naming rights, concessions, concessions licenses and other ancillary revenues the Bills could easily pay back the city 250 million over a 10 year period even with interest on the bond.

***** Hillary, her being a terrible candidate has nothing to do with the merit of the electoral college. Once again how are conservatives in California and Liberals in Alabama better served by this beautiful system. How is Nebtaska's 3 electoral votes better than 2 million individual votes? Conservatives are supposed to love individual liberty but you seem to love the collective nature of the electoral college. Policy is also shifted heavily towards swing states. It completely neutralizes much of the nation.

So in a popular vote where one person's vote in Nebraska counts the same as one person's vote in California makes it so that the people in Nebraska don't have a say? Is Nebraska that much better represented by have 3 electoral votes as opposed to California's 55 (An 18.5 to 1 margin?) It's not beautiful it is stupid to lock 38 states out of the process. A liberal in Nebraska has little reason to turn out as does a conservative in California. There is no beauty in the electoral college a system which produces 12 states that get campaigned in. The US has ridiculously low voter turnout and I think that is in part blamed on the electoral college.

That is true, there were fringe elements on the left stating that George W Bush would start a war and declare martial law. But then you also had fringes on the right that also thought Obama would do that same thing. The only thing that makes Trump different (and I think it is a fringe possibility he demands a recount or does something weird) in my opinion is that he questioned weeks ahead of time the legitimacy of an election he won.

It does completely change the tilting. Elections wouldn't be about geography but about turnout. And getting turnout in a popular vote election is a lot easier because your vote isn't locked into a state that is winner take all (38 of whom aren't viable to switch parties.) Messaging would be far less geared towards 12 states. You would see ad buys and engagement in all 50 states. Yes would some states be more heavily favored? Yes but it wouldn't be locked to just 12 states. You would see much more engagement across the whole country because each persons vote counts.

Sates aren't going to make the change to how their electoral votes are changed because once again it has become a partisan issue. I really don't think our forefathers really intended for 12 states to dominate 50. that would be the equivalent of 2 colonies deciding the elections of 13. I don't think anyone would want that type of system by design. Just because it is a partisan issue that is gridlocked doesn't justify the existence of the system as being the best system for elections. Once again do you think it is right that our nations policies are heavily tilted towards 12 states. that candidates don't campaign in 38 states and that you can lose the popular vote by 5% and lose an election?

They will probably get a fine and a mid-round pick in 2021 taken away. A slap on the wist, nothing new.

I agree that it isn't going to happen because it has now become a partisan issue (I think had Kerry won in 2004 without the popular vote then it would have a chance of changing since it would mean both parties got screwed by it.) I think the electoral college is stupid on principle of it locking out 38 states from the process, I honestly wouldn't care if it helped liberals or not. However I don't think you are disenfranchising a voter in Nebraska in a popular vote contest. Their vote counts the same each vote goes to the national total for their candidate. It engages more people in the process to know that their vote goes toward the total of their candidate as opposed to being locked into a state that (with the exception of Maine) is a winner take all affair. It engages turnout because you don't have the mentality of 38 states feeling like they have a 95% chance of their vote not mattering.

I think Josh's chances at an MVP are slim. 5% or less. He doesn't need to be an MVP to get this team to win the division and get them in a position to 12 wins and a possible first round bye. Josh needs to be a top 10 QB or at least close. If I am pegging his stats I say he has to push 4k yards, 30TD's 10 or less INT's and a 60% or better completion percentage along with sub 3 lost fumbles and 350 rushing yards and 3+ rush TD's.