billsfan89

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.

So I shouldn't be skeptical that a board that is insanely conservative might not give a clear representation of the accuracy and fairness of a heavily right wing organization that the sample size from a conservative board might not be the most accurate way to judge it?

It makes it much more inclusive. My vote as a voter in Nebraska counts just as much as a vote in California. They are literally given equal weights. Whereas if my state goes to the opposition party I give 0 support to my candidate. Yes smaller states would see less attention than larger states but that is a better method of which states candidates should be campaigning in than 12 seemingly random states many of whom are bigger in population anyway. I think you would see much greater voter turnout because conservatives in heavy liberal states would feel the need to support a general candidate as opposed to thinking well my vote doesn't matter my state will go to the Dem anyway and vice versa.

They also lost a lot of lawsuits and seem to have a strategy to carpet bomb courts. Trump's own investigation into the matter turned up Nothing, let alone 3 million illegal votes all going to one political party And Hunter Biden did nothing illegal. Letter of the law vs intent of the law.

Right now it isn' like the smaller states get better represented than the larger ones in the electoral college. North Carolina, Ohio, Penn, Michigan and Florida (all key swing states) are states in the top 10 in terms of population. Other swing states like Virginia (12th), Minnesota (22nd) Wisconsin (20th) are well within the top half. The only smaller states that are in the swing states are Iowa (31st), Nevada (32nd) and New Hampshire (42nd.) So it isn't restoring power to the smaller states. You would see the national priorities shift in a major way if each state was given a say in the election. It would be completely different for our politics to get rid of preferring 12 states many of whom aren't small under represented states.

I agree that this team has the space and the flexibility to both retain 2-3 of their own free agents and add a high end contract and even a mid-level contract or two on top of that. I also agree that after 2020 there will be some contracts this team can get out of (Hughes and Star) but I think your need for future space to keep your young prime players shouldn't be ignored. This team can add a big time talent like Yannick and another mid-level pass catcher while keeping their talent and still have 30+ million to roll over. But to expect to retain 2-3 of our own AND sign three 15 million plus a year free agents just doesn't make sense for this team and how they hope to compete in the next 3 years.

Given the nature of this board I think their wins would be overrepresented. I am trying to figure out if there is another source that has a better picture. I think you would see candidates focused on turnout all across the country. I think you would see more turnout in states like California and Texas where minority political beliefs would have their votes count equally as people in Florida. I think you would see less focus on policy for places like Ohio and Florida where both parties try and over favor them so that they can win elections. There are numerous positives to getting rid of the popular vote. 12 states soak up a majority of the focus on election night and that locks out the other 38.

I am trying to find the percentage of lawsuits they have won (as a cursory search has turned up the fact that they sue a lot of people a lot of the time) and how many lawsuits they have won in regards to voter fraud. They have been involved in a lot of rather odious smears and lies from what I have seen. It doesn't seem like they are honest actors but rather a group looking to spread misinformation and clog up the government with lawsuits. Go ahead and make a principled argument for a system of representative government where you give preferential treatment (aka affirmative action) to a small group of states and have a system where it is common for the person with the least amount of votes wins. If you like the system because it helps Republicans fine, support it on partisan lines but don't pretend you have any non-partisan justification for the system.

Do you have any proof that their information was accurate? Judicial Watch has an awful track record, the article I linked literally has quotes from direct sources.