billsfan89

I think they keep Phillips for sure and I think they make a significant attempt to resign Shaq and Spain. They are likely not going to overpay for either but they will pay their market value. I think that Cody has in my mind solidified himself as a starting caliber RT so I don't get why you would want to slide him in based off his recent play. My point was that even if you resign all 3 and it take 30 million in space to do so, you are still fine cap wise to both add a big piece, add some depth/role players, and have enough space to roll over and take care of future players.

If I had to rank the desirability of the potential coach openings I would put them as such. 1- New York Giants - 70 million in cap space (that could go up to 90 million easily), some talent in place, good ownership, big prestigious market, high end franchise, and the only negative is that Gettleman is the GM and possibly Daniel Jones at QB depending on your evaluation. 2- Dallas Cowboys - A talented roster with a good QB in place, they have a lot of cap space (85 million) but that is before resigning Dak and Cooper who could occupy a lot of that room, and certainly a prestigious franchise. The negatives are that the owner is notoriously not easy to work with and Dak might not be a top flight QB and you have to pony up 30 million or more for him. 3- Panthers - Another roster with a solid amount of talent. Their cap situation is decent they have 20 million in cap space but they could go up to 60 million if Cam is traded and they make some other modest cuts. Their ownership is a little off but they tend to stay out of football ops and aren't cheap. The negatives are what to do with Cam, the market isn't that desirable, a so-so cap situation, and the ownership can be a little off. 4- Cleveland Browns - Another roster with a lot of on paper talent. They have a young QB any offensive mind would like, a great array of skill position talent (among the best in the league) and major pieces in place on defense. They have a fairly good cap situation at 50 plus million in space with up to 70 million if they make some easy cuts. The Browns ownership is decent, they spend money and stay out of things but they can't seem to get anything going for some reason. The negatives are the teams reputations and recent lack of success, the team also has a lot of personalities to manage which is a headache for a lot of coaches. But this job holds some appeal as the roster is good and they have flexibility to improve it rather easily. The Browns won’t attract a top candidate but it isn’t the bottom of the barrel. They need to find someone who can manage the personalities which will be hard. 5- Jacksonville Jaguars – This roster is far less talented and they have a bad cap situation (assuming they don’t pick up Dareus’s option they have about 20 million in space with only about 30-40 if they make some cuts.) The ownership isn’t afraid to spend and stays out of things but they aren’t a prime time market and the team could very well be in flux. They do have 2 Rams first rounds picks coming up which is a huge plus. They don’t have a good QB situation as I think Foles only works in Philly. This job is likely going to attract second tier retreads or an up and coming coach. If the Jags were smart they would follow in the McD mold and hire an up and coming executive and coordinator to execute a 2 year rebuild using the Rams picks and the draft to rebuild a roster in the short term and build to cap flexibility in the long term. 6- Redskins – Not a very talented team, not the best QB situation, a franchise that has fallen from grace, and a toxic owner. The only positives is that Snyder will spend money and they have a good cap situation. But other than that it is a turd of a situation. I know Rivera is taking this job but this is a situation that I don’t think many can have success in. This is the Knicks head coaching job of the NFL. You take this simply to get money. That’s the way I see the head coaching situations playing out. I can’t see any other situations opening up for the most part. With the exception of the Skins and Jags these are some pretty decent situations for coaches. Each of them has flaws but those top 4 jobs all come with significant positives.

Tomlin worked miracles to get that team to 8 wins and in contention for a playoff spot. They were on their 3rd string QB and had many major injuries elsewhere on their offense. They have successfully rebuilt their defense to be one of the top 5 in the league (with many young pieces in place) and they have some pieces in place on offense (good QB in Big Ben if healthy, Connor and Ju Ju at the skill positions and a good O-line.) Granted the Steelers are not in a good position cap space wise and they don't have their top draft pick. But Tomlin should be safe no matter what happen there.

Cut Kroft and sign a veteran receiving TE. I like Knox but I think he is still going to be smoothing out the edges of his game in 2020, Sweeney is a backup TE good depth but not someone I think has a future as a starter, Lee Smith is a blocking TE a role player and Kroft is worthless and overpaid. I wouldn't be opposed to signing a vet TE in the 3-4 million range to add some depth and flexibility. But yes long term I can see Knox as the starter and Sweeney as the backup.

This team has plenty of cap space to resign Shaq, Phillips, and Spain (or at least 2 out of the 3) and add a big piece like Ngakuoe at around 15-18 million aav, without compromising the ability for the team to give out extensions. This team if they cut Kroft and Murphy (two players of little value) will have about 100 million in cap space. Even if it takes 30 million to resign Shaq, Phillips and Spain they still have 69 million left in cap space. They can make that big splash and still have over 50 million in space. They can even spend 10 million more on other depth/role needs and still have 40 plus million to roll over and kick in once extensions are needed in 2021 to the 2017 draft class. Then once you need to resign the 2018 draft class players after 2021 you will have plenty of space as guys like Hughes and Star come off the books. The window to win in the NFL is small and I think if you can add 2-3 starting pieces to this team via free agency you do it esp considering you have the cap space to be prudently aggressive. I wouldn't be opposed to signing Shaq in the 9-11 million aav range. He is a quality player and I would like to see him stay here and continue to develop but I wouldn't keep him at all costs either. There are a lot of edge rushers out on the market and I don't trust Shaq as a starter opposite Hughes, I think he is best as a 3rd DE who plays on rush downs and in rotation on passing situations.

Cooper disappears a lot and if I am going to invest WR1 money into a player I want him not to have a case of the drops. Since Cooper entered into the league he has the most drops by a WR. Cooper getting a 15-20 million aav contract is a very dangerous risk. I would much rather go after one of the top pass rushers like Ngakoue who could probably fall closer to the 15 milion range due to the market being more flooded at that position (there are 3-4 top pass rushers compared to just Cooper as the top WR.) If I am going to go after a WR I would try and sign Perriman or another mid-level vet with upside on a one year deal even if it is in the 8-9.5 million range and draft a WR in round 1. That would add both depth and production to the position while not locking the team into a long term deal that could hinder keeping other players that need extensions long term.

I think given what this team will have to pay to keep its own 3 major free agents (Spain, Phillip's and Shaq) or at least keep 2 if you let Spain or Shaq walk along with the extensions needed for players currently under contract it would be wise to be a bit more prudent in free agency when it comes adding pieces. However I do think considering the cap space is plentiful they can add a couple of pieces to supplement the roster and be fine long term. The major piece I would like to see added is a major edge rusher. A big time piece like Clowney or Ngakoue would set the pass rush up to an elite level. I think they could also get another starting caliber player on a mid level deal such as a CB2. Right now keeping our own talented core is going to come at a cost but the NFL's window to win is short and this front office needs to not be afraid to add at least 2-3 starters via free agency.

The Bill's are thought of as a winning situation which will help lure free agents. I don't think many think of Buffalo as a prime time city. 75% of NFL free agency is about cash and most of the rest is about winning.

Because the argument they are to preserve history is undermined when the entire context is as a racial response to the civil rights movement. The local communities are the ones that want those statues removed. I am only supporting their decision.

So please enlighten me as to how you would gauge how a community in general (not universally) feels about an issue?

I was referring to gauging how black people in those communities that have statues feel about the statues. The polling, voting and what community groups say about the issue I think is a fair way to judge what the general (not universal) consensus is on an issue within that community. Also please address these points. 1- How do these statues preserve history by being public more than they would in being in a museum? 2- Almost all of these statues were erected 50-80 years after the war ended and were erected as a counter symbol to the Civil Rights movement. In what world do those statues which were put up for that purpose serve as anything other than a negative symbol for black people and Americans?

Letter from soldiers are only one piece of evidence. I don't dismiss it but I also can find a lot of other evidence that states otherwise. Local Papers, wartime propaganda, articles of secession, quotes from leaders and representatives, and letter from soldiers that state otherwise. I only bring up Prager U because even a right wing organization supports the simple and historically true idea that the Civil War was about slavery. The guy in the video was also the leading professor of military history at West Point, so someone with a decent perspective. Even if the average Southern person who fought was ignorant to that reasoning most of these statues are to generals and other high up leaders of the confederacy. Those people most definitely knew. Also you guys keep ignoring two very obvious points. 1- How do these statues preserve history by being public more than they would in being in a museum? 2- Almost all of these statues were erected 50-80 years after the war ended and were erected as a counter symbol to the Civil Rights movement. In what world do those statues which were put up for that purpose serve as anything other than a negative symbol for black people and Americans?

I have no better way to gauge how local people feel about such statues other than listening to the communities leaders and groups as to how they feel about an issue. There is no issue that produces universal consent from any group and there is no group that is empowered to speak for everyone so please stop stating that though that is a thing. You are being disingenous to state that because there might be some black people that have a different view disproves the polling and community support that states most want the statues removed. Please stop being purposefully obtuse. I have also not devolved the opinions of others in those communities who disagree. It doesn't invalidate the idea that if most people in a community feel a way that it is fair to characterize that position as having the communities support.

We will see, if Allen is a top 10 QB year in and year out the Bills will not be portrayed as historic losers. But even though White is a top flight All-Pro CB he still isn't worth missing out on a possibly generational QB. But if Allen develops into a top QB and Tre stays healthy no one is going to look at the Bills as having made the wrong move. Especially if Edumonds and Tre are foundational pieces for the defense the next 5 years and Allen is a quality QB. As the real pieces the Bills got for Mahomes was essentially Edumonds and White.

Local African American Groups are the ones that want the statues removed. I am not deciding for them I am supporting their choice.

It doesn't? Articles of Secession state other wise. Quotes from generals and leadership say otherwise. What is this evidence? 20 years after the war when Southerns looked to Whitewash what the war was about? "Alexander Stephens, vice president of the Confederacy, said the Southern states would fight to keep “the *****” in “his place” in a hard-to-misread statement on the day the Civil War began." https://www.huffpost.com/entry/civil-war-slavery_n_7639988 Mississippi explained, "Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery — the greatest material interest of the world … a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization." Texas Stated "We hold as undeniable truths that the governments of the various States, and of the confederacy itself, were established exclusively by the white race, for themselves and their posterity; that the African race had no agency in their establishment; that they were rightfully held and regarded as an inferior and dependent race, and in that condition only could their existence in this country be rendered beneficial or tolerable." South Carolina actually comes out against the rights of states to make their own laws — at least when those laws conflict with slaveholding. "In the State of New York even the right of transit for a slave has been denied by her tribunals," the document reads. The right of transit, Loewen said, was the right of slaveholders to bring their slaves along with them on trips to non-slaveholding states. https://www.livescience.com/13673-civil-war-anniversary-myths.html Even Prager ***** U says that Slavery was the central issue. https://www.prageru.com/video/was-the-civil-war-about-slavery/ So I ask what the ***** are you talking about?

I will go break it down in a much simpler manner as I think we are getting lost in the weeds. I understand that wars and large scale political events have many layers. But the entire underpinning and central issue of the war was slavery and race. The artifacts of the time tend to back up that statement as a general term. But putting a pin that for the moment as I don't think that it is even relevant as the statues were not put up to memorialize the war (thus undermining the argument they actually serve as any preservation of history.) These statues were put up as a response to the Civil rights movement 50-80 years after the war ended. Do you think it is fair for local groups to call for the statues to be taken down? Do you understand why local groups feel as though these statues represent oppression of black people in the South? Why do you feel taking down these statues and putting them in museums means that history is lost? I would rather be much more sensitive to the people that are justifiably wanting to take down statues put up in response to the civil rights movement than keep them up for a rather arbitrary notion that taking down statues and putting them in museums erases history. I am honestly asking this question, what history do the statues preserve that they couldn't preserve in a museum? Why do they need to be in a public space?

Southern's weren't fighting for their right to keep slaves but against the idea that blacks were equal to whites. You aren't getting average people to fight for "states rights" you can however get them to fight against the rights of people they feel are lower to them. To Whitewash the Civil War and slavery as anything else does a massive disservice to history. Even the history of why the statues were put up is racist. Did people forget the Civil Wars history for the 50-80 years after the war when the statues weren't up?

It is just weird because his numbers on net average punt while good aren't dramatically better than quality modern punters. So it is hard to quantify his impact. But of course he earned a reputation for a reason.

All the Articles of Secession mention slavery as the driving issue. Also if the Confederacy is just a symbol of Southern pride (or whatever) why were these statues put up 50-80 years after the war in direct response to the growing Civil Rights movement?

American Black people in the South shouldn't see statues glorifying the Confederacy figures who fought to keep their ancestors enslaved. This idea that taking statues out of public spaces whitewashes history ignore the fact that statues have little value in teaching history. It also ignores the actual history of why the statues were put up (as a response to the civil rights movement.) Whitewashing the Confederacy is a far greater travesty. No one should blame the USA and the American South as uniquely evil for slavery. That is silly and anyone doing that is wrong. The vast majority of recruiting was done under the opuses of race and slavery however. This idea that your average Southern was going to care about the federal government (an entity an average Southern person and zero contact with) or tariffs is out of touch with reality. But your average poor Southern was going to care about their place in society compared to blacks. That is why all the articles of secession mention slavery as the main cause. The main issue dividing the South was their right to slavery. I also ask once again if the Confederacy was not about slavery or race why were these statues put up 50-80 years after the war and in response to the civil rights movement?

The Civil War was fought over slavery. That was the prominent states right that they fought over. There is no arguing this as the evidence only points to that. Any attempt to say otherwise is whitewashing history and buying into a post war Southern narrative to paint their own history in a better light. The evidence of slavery being at the forefront of the war are in the Propaganda used to get the public for the war, the articles of secession published by the state governments themselves, the speeches transcribed from the time, the diaries of those who were alive at the time and the political maneuvers of the Southern senators and states from the time that are on record. This isn't guessing what lies in the hearts of man. This is historic fact brought on by the artifacts that have been verified from the time. I don't need to put myself in at the time to read these pieces of evidence and make a very sensible conclusion. The apartheid state that existed for black people for 100 years after the war is also further evidence. Hell the fact that the statues were erected 50-80 years after the war in response to civil rights movements is further evidence the Confederacy was built off of the idea of states rights to slavery. Once again do you feel that the Confederacy is something that should be celebrated with statues in public spaces?

What idea do statues in public spaces represent? That the Confederacy was not bad and something that should be glorified? The actual history (transcripts of speeches, propaganda, and articles of succeeding the union) show that the war was over preserving the states rights to slavery. The South years after the war are the ones who were pushing this "states rights" and "Tariffs" narrative trying to change history. The statues themselves weren't even put up until the early to mid 20th century as a response to civil rights movements.

Not everyone in the South owned slaves. But the propaganda to get the common person to fight was about slavery. Your average poor Southerner was not going to fight a war about tariffs or some more obscure idea that only impacted the elite. But tell them that this is about preserving the place of the white man in society and suddenly you have an emotional idea that they would be willing to fight and defend their homeland for. The Confederate leaders knew what they were doing in putting the slavery issue at the center of their propaganda and speeches before and during the war. To think that statues built to commemorate people fighting for the institution of slavery should be glorified in public spaces as a means to preserve history is stupid. Also the calls for these statues to be taken down are often coming from Local groups and communities. It isn't some mandate coming down from outside these communities. The issues was started and raised by those in the community who find those statues offensive. So the argument is who in those communities is right? The people that want the statues put into museumes or those who want to keep up statues of those who fought in open rebellion against the USA for the purposes of preserving the institution of slavery?

You're presenting the idea that the only way to teach history is to have statues displayed and glorified in public spaces. That is a false dichotomy. You can put the statues in various civil war museums thus not deleting them out of existence. Also these statues were erected in the early to mid 20th century as a response to civil rights movements. These aren't statues commemorating history right after the war ended. Thus the idea they preserve any sort of history is silly. Do Confederate documents and manuscripts have to be on public display for them to be a valid tool for teaching history? Or is having them preserved in archives and photographed/scanned digitally enough. Putting statues and memorials in public spaces glorifies them in a way that makes a lot of people uncomfortable. I wouldn't tell a Jewish person that a statue to Himler shouldn't be taken down because there is no way to teach that history without that statue being in a public place.