billsfan89

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.

Trump alleges that not only millions vote illegally BUT they all voted for one political party. He alleged it well before an election he won and when pressed on evidence he couldn't provide it. I have not seen a credible non-partisan report that voter fraud is as wide spread as Trump claimed and is only happening in one direction. I don't trust a self professed conservative group like judicial watch who has been proven to spread misinformation. https://thehill.com/policy/technology/481224-iowa-secretary-of-state-disputes-viral-misinformation-about-voter

Why should there be affirmative action for a handful of states (Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and a handful of others) Candidates in the general don't step foot in 38 states unless it is to attend private fund raisers behind closed doors. How can you rightfully call that a just system when so many are locked out from the voting process and being heard. A conservative in California has just as much a right to have their vote heard as a liberal in Alabama. I don't know how anyone can from a principled perspective argue for a system where a person who doesn't win the most votes wins an election. Other than it helps a political party you like what justification do you have for prioritizing certain states over the majority of others? I was being hyperbolic and it came off bad. I know the electoral college was structured as a compromise between a parliamentary system and a straight popular vote system in addition to having pragmatic concerns about the ability to actually conduct a massive count like that.

How does this team have 186 million in space next year? Isn't the cap only somewhere around 190 million? This team can't just spend 50 million on 3 players with significant bonuses that tie them to the team for 3 years and not expect it to impact the ability to resign Milano, Dawkins and even White. I feel a discount on QB's salaries would only widen the gap between team's with great QB's and the rest of the league. Imagine paying Mahomes 50 million and it only costs 35 on the cap or if he takes 40 (still 5 above the next highest paid) and it only counts as 28 million. I think QB's just have to decide on their salary vs their team's talent level.

The Electoral College was established because the founders didn't have an electronic system to send results near instantly (and personally I think it is stupid in this era but that's another question entirely.) I also think that without any evidence Trump is going to question the results. He questioned the results weeks before an election he won. He kept repeating this 3 million illegals voting line without any proof. Him and his party are the ones who called an election security bill partisan. This is going to get ugly.

Ralph was a great owner in the early days of the AFL and into the merger, but he was built from the older cut of owners (the ones who treated their teams like a business that need to make money as opposed to a vanity project for billionaires from other businesses) and as the league began to become more overrun with owners who treated their teams like vanity projects Ralph didn't adapt his mentality. Many owners treated their teams as loss leaders, who cares if you lose 10 million operating a team when the team's value is going up and you have 5 billion in the bank. Ralph stopped spending to the cap after 2004 (the Bills were always well under the cap from 2006 to 2014, never were they ever a team that spent close to the cap) and the Bills never had great infrastructure within the organization (things like practice facilities and the like.) Ralph also was rumored to take cuts on the team in the 70's too so it wasn't just a recent development. There is no Buffalo Bills and there is no NFL the way it is presently constructed without the investment he made to keep the AFL in general healthy. But that doesn't mean that he wasn't a general liability to the team as the game's ownership ranks changed. These liabilities particularly manifested themselves in the drought years.

I don't get the love for AJ Green other than the love for the "name" as opposed to what a 32 year old WR who missed most of the past 2 seasons and 3 out of the past 4 seasons will actually bring to a team. But I also don't think the Bills would spend on 3-4 massive free agent signings. According to Spotrac's estimates (which are within 1-2 million most of the time and are based off of what similar players have gotten as a percentage of the cap) the Bills would have to spend nearly 50 million aav on those 3 players, I get what you are saying in that the team could do that and still resign Spain, Lawson and Phillips (or 2 out of the 3.) But then they are cap strapped going forward and could risk losing Milano, Dawkins and others as they are burdened with 3 players occupying nearly 30% of their cap none being a QB. I think the team should go after a prime edge rusher and maybe another mid-level signing or two to help the offense while resigning 2-3 of our own free agents but going on such a spending spree doesn't make sense for this team. They need to roll over 30+ million to retain their talent.

Given how good of a drafter Beane is thus far I would be unwilling to give up pick 22 and possibly another mid-round pick for Bosa AND give him a massive contract. That's exchanging a lot of your cap space and draft capital for one player. If this was Whaley or another GM who stunk at drafting I wouldn't mind doing it since the picks have lesser value if you don't know how to use them. But I would rather just use cap space to go after one of the many pass rusher on the market instead of cap and picks.

I don't think Trump was talking literally unless there is some context to prove otherwise. But I do think that if he loses the 2020 election I wouldn't expect him to go out quietly and peacefully. He questioned the results of the 2016 election he won (3 million illegals voted) and said that there was voter fraud before the election even happened. Do you think if he loses he isn't going to question the results?

Brown will have an NFL pension at some point in his 50's which might give him a 6 figure salary given he has 9 credited seasons that might be his only income by then.

Mike Tyson blew through more, if you are a bad with money it can go rather easily.

I think they do intend to roll over 30-35 million in cap space out of the 90-100 they have to help their future extensions, but I also doubt they roll over 45-50 million. The window to win in the NFL is super short and Josh's rookie deal only has 2 years left before the hefty 5th year option. You can't be too conservative and roll over too much money at the cost of missing out on adding a piece or two to a roster loaded to win.

I think a GM for Jacksonville would be wise to gut a lot of the roster and rebuild through the draft. The Ramsey trade was a haul of picks that could easily help facilitate a rebuild. I can’t see Yannick no a tag getting more than a 3rdround pick but it is a decent asset to add. I think they are likely to consider a full scale rebuild trading Campbell to a contender for a pick (I think he can fetch a mid-round and late round pick)

I would take the over. I don't see this team which won 10 games (and could have easily won 11) winning only 8 next year.

I think they franchise him then trade him, this has a Clowney situation written all over it.

I don't see McBeane going after Cooper, he doesn't seem to be a process guy and I think the Bills only make one big move and I don't think it will be a 15 million aav or more signing but it will be more in the range of 10-12 million aav. I think McBeane's approach will be more likely to replicate the 2019 off-season and go after one upper level signing (10+ million) and then go after 2-3 upper mid-level signings (7-9 million aav) and then pepper in the rest of the needs with mid-level or lower signings (4-6 million aav or less.) I think they try to resign 2-3 of the team's primary free agents (Spain, Phillips and Lawson) and then make one solid splash before trying to fill 2 needs with upper mid-level signings and then go after depth and role players in the mid-range or lower level. Obviously the overhaul of the team particularly on offense won't be as drastic but I can see them targeting a big Edge defender in the 10-12 million range and a corner or LB in the 7-9 million range and then possibly a pass catcher in the 7-9 million range. Then going after a TE and RB in the mid range (4-6 million.) I think they then go WR 2 out of their first three picks and then BPA. I think that their goal is to retain talent, fill 2-3 holes in free agency and then fill the remaining needs via the draft and roll over 30-40 million to help ease the burden on extending contracts while not tying them down to more than one massive deal beyond 2021.

I wonder what changed after the TD era in 2004 that the Bills really stopped being competitive in terms of spending to the cap? I know “cash to cap” was a formula that the bean counters high up used during the drought era but was that formula developed in 2005 or late? Why was Butler and then TD seemingly allowed to go above and beyond the cash to ca During the John Butler years the Bills remained super competitive even as they retooled and became a team driven by their defense in the late 90’s. And despite the lack of general success in the TD era from 2001-2005 the Bills were still a team that attracted a lot of free agents (Spikes, Sam Adams, Fletcher, and Miloy among others) and did have 8 and 9 win seasons in that time frame. They were also a team that was cap strapped at times showing that they were spending up to the cap. Then after the TD era ended in 2005 they entered into an insanely frustrating era from 2006 to 2014 when the team always had a ton of cap space even in years where they spent some money. The cap only became an issue after the 2015 spending spree. When and why was this team never spending to the cap for nearly a decade?

If I am grading the picks after one year (based on impact in year one and long term potential) Ed Oliver- A: Rather obvious pick as he fell right into the teams lap and while I felt like Ed Oliver struggled at times in the middle of the season he finished the season strong. Really think he will ascend into a pro-bowl player in years 2 and be a possible All-Pro going forward. Cody Ford- B minus: Ford stepped in and played very uneven. He was outright bad at times but also played well at times, I think he finished the season somewhat strong. I think at worst he is able to kick into guard and be a borderline pro-bowl player or stay at tackle and develop into a solid player. I don’t think this pick will be looked at as a homerun but I think it will be a productive pick. Devin Singletary- A plus: Singletary far exceeded his expectations in year one, taking over the starting role and proving he can be a two down back and a threat in the receiving game. He reminds me of a very poor man’s Lev Bell (not as big or dynamic as a receiver as Bell but a similar type of player.) I can easily see Singletary handling the primary RB position for years to come at a pro-bowl level. Great value in round 3. Dawson Knox- B plus: Knox showed flashes of brilliance and looks the part of a tight end as an athlete. But he also showed signs of being very raw and in need of significant development. I think by year 3 or 4 he can be a top 10 player at his position. However for a 3rdround pick that kind of development timeline is hard to swallow and it is possible he never develops the full skillset needed to be more than a role player. Still to get a possible starter with great potential late in round 3 is a positive pick. Late round picks- B: The late round picks are mostly unproven players who were either on IR or riding the bench. But I think it is possible Joseph takes over the LB position in 2020 and the two Johnson’s could develop into effective role players or more. Not much if any impact in year one but some potential to help the roster in the next 2-3 seasons. Overall I would give the draft an A minus. It is a draft class that could produce up to 5 starters (Oliver, Ford, Singletary, Knox and one of the late round picks) which would be an epic draft. But even on the low end I think the draft will at least produce 2 high end pro-bowl caliber starters and is more likely to produce 3 starters with an outside chance at 4. But overall a positive draft hopefully with one more good draft this team will have a fully laid foundation to contend. A late third round pick none the less.