billsfan89

First off I never implied that running for office makes you immune from prosecution. My point was that by the letter of the law what Trump did was illegal. It does not matter if what he was investigating was valid or not. If the charges of corruption are legit and there was a justification for it I honestly wouldn't care if he asked the justice department to look into it. I really try not to be a partisan hack mainly because the Dems outside of a few old school FDR types only virtue is being less ***** than the GOP. It would in my mind be more so about the validity of the case. My take isn't that Trump should be thrown out of office for this as it currently stands. My take is that by the letter of the law what Trump did was illegal. Bill Clinton lied under oath thus doing something illegal but was and should not have been thrown out of office. My stance is more so that this needs to be investigated further and then we can make a decision as to if not this warrants more serious trial by the Senate. However you simply cannot say with any legitimacy that what Trump did was not illegal.

You cannot ask a foreign government for an item of value for political gain. That's what he did. Trump could have asked Congress or the Justice department to look into the matter but he wanted Ukranian resources on the matter and used his position as president to do so that's illegal.

It could very well be that Joe Biden is corrupt but that doesn't make what Trump did legal. "Being Right" does not absolve Trump at all. That's not a defense. You can not ask a foreign government to take a call with your personal attorney on a political matter. Trump broke the law and released a memo proving it. His personal attorney admitted it. I feel like if this was Obama in 2011 asking for dirt on Romney from a foreign government you wouldn't feel that being right on the matter would absolve him.

There are serious engineering challenges that come with LST Reactors, it isn't as close to being a proven concept as many of it's ardent proponents would lead on. I don't think I have ever promoted it as a cure all so maybe someone else was a really ardent supporter. My position on the matter is that more R&D dollars should got into developing the technology as the possible benefits of it would be tremendous.

He asked the president of the Ukraine to take a call with his personal attorney about the Biden matter ("get to the bottom of it."). I literally don't know what you could defend on that.

Nuclear also has some environmental risks given that it produces toxic waste that you have to find a waste to store. However I agree that newer forms of nuclear such as Thorium based nuclear energy that are both safer and produce less waste should be a big part of fighting climate change. But the aversion to nuclear from some people looking to fight climate change is not an admission that the whole thing is a scam.It's more so an over estimated fears of the risks and environmental impact it has.

That's changing given the value a implementation of running backs in the passing game. Do it all style RB's like Bell, Barkley, and Gurley have tremendous value as they represent home run threats on the ground and via the air. Gordon however falls into a weird value slot. He certainly is top 10 at his position but not near the top 5. He brings value but not elite value. He is a good player at a position where good's value is not very well valued. So he will be seeking elite value in his contract but his team and other teams would rather save the cap space for other positions and take the dip which isn't as dramatic.

Yes he asked the president of a foreign government to take a phone call from his personal attorney regarding digging up dirt on Biden. Did you not read the transcript? There literally does not need to be a quid pro quo.

Your analogy is way off. Trump isn't the HR department of the government checking references. That is the jurisdiction of the Justice Department. If someone is trying to get your job you can't use your companies resources to try and sabotage their bid to unseat you. That's corporate espionage. You simply can't use the office you occupy to promote your own political campaign. I don't understand this idea that there needs to be a quid pro quo for this to be illegal. You simply can't ask a foreign government to help dig up dirt on a rival.

10 years ago if you drafted a RT and had to kick him into Guard you might have been right that it would have disappointed. But given the new emphasis on interior pass rushing and the lack of imminent development for many offensive linemen in recent years getting a guard in early round 2 when you initially wanted a RT is far from a significant disappointment. Granted Beane finding two quality guards in the off-season makes Ford struggling at RT a bit of a sore spot but it at the very least adds depth and help the O-line long term. I still love the Ford pick as I think when you have a young QB it helps to have multiple young pieces along the O-line and outside of Dawkins going into the draft most of the O-line was older or unproven. So getting a second foundational young piece to the unit adds to the long term health of the unit.

Impact is a relative term. I think Oliver has looked to be a quality player at his position. I think expecting a rookie even in football to play at a pro-bowl or higher level is a bit unrealistic. It happens more often in football that rookies can some in and play at a All-Star or even All-Pro level but even some of the best players have decent but unspectacular rookie years. JJ Watt had 5.5 sacks his rookie year but improved tremendously his second year and was off to the races. I don't think there is a player that could have been had at pick 9 realistically that would have had the impact you wanted.

I am not going to do all that research but I just don't think the way the draft board fell that there was an pass catcher there that you could have justified taking over a player that was a complete steal at pick 9. I think the better argument is to have taken DK by trading back up into the second as he was falling close to pick 60. They wouldn't have had a chance to draft Singletary most likely as they would have had to package the pick used for him and one of their 4th rounders to make such a trade. But I would have much rather come away with Oliver, Ford DK, and taken a chance that Knox falls to the late 4th or take another TE there than to have had Oliver, Ford, Singletary, and Knox. But as with anything it is always going to come down to results. If Knox and Singletary end up as quality starters and DK's career is derailed with injuries it proves everyone wrong or right . He was drawing comparisons to Aaron Donald and Jarrett both of whom are top DT's in the league. Is your issue that you think he won't ever be a Warren Sapp type player or that he isn't one right out of the gate?

The media being super reactive to players in big markets is nothing new. Week to week things always get overreacted and overanalyzed.

Who at pick 9 would you have rather drafted? I get wanting DK but he fell to the very late stages of the second round for a reason (and I would agree that the team would have been better served trading up for him from pick 76 but not taking him at pick 9 or 41.) I don't see what receivers were there instead of Ed Oliver that would have really changed the dimensions of the offense. Without Ed the team would only have J.Phillips and Star at DT thanks the Henry's injury. The team is also a bit old on the D-line only Henery and Shaq (who is on the last year of his deal) being true young players there. So not only does Ed help the team solidify their D-line depth but he is a key cog that the D-line can be built around the the next 5-7 years.

Ed has been pretty good esp for a rookie, but you would like to see those big impact plays like sacks and QB hits. But the eye test and now the advanced stats give you the impression that it is only a matter of time.

I think Ford will at least be a starting caliber guard. Which puts Dawkins, Mitch, Feliciano, and Ford as starting O-line pieces in place for the next 2-3 years barring injury. Ty will likely also stay on in 2020 as depth. I think Spain is likely the odd man out if he turns in a solid year and commands a big contract. Unless maybe Cody shows flashes of being able to hold down the RT position I think they spend big money or a high draft pick to lock down the RT position and keep Cody at guard with Spain the odd man out.

3 wins is 3 wins no matter how you slice it. But the Pats will be the real measuring stick. At home if they can play loose but disciplined they just might have a shot.

Good to see Ford excelled at guard, no need to rush Feliciano back. Still hope that he could have been a plug and play RT out the gate, but some development will be needed and all O-line positions have nearly equal value now. It does seem like Josh had a slow down in his release. But of course that's going to come with a rookie QB ups and downs.

Attack Billy B instead of trying to counter punch. I am sure if Edumonds shows on tape that he is making some fundamental mistakes he will likely be test. Edumonds is going to have to grow up quick in this game and I think he is up to the task. I think the defensive strategy is going to have to be a simple fundamentally sound aggressive approach. I think you need to set your own strategy when it comes to the Pats* if you are counter punching from the start you are already lost and behind.

The Bills will win if they play aggressive and they avoid penalties on the defensive end. The defense is going to need to play as close to a completely well executed game as possible and giving the Pats* freebie first downs and bailouts are going to make it almost impossible to hold them down enough to give the offense a chance to win. I think the Bills need to play like the underdog and like they have nothing to lose. It's kind of how the Eagles played. Super aggressive calculated risks and an attitude to just let it fly is what the offense needs to do. Just let Josh rip it and kind of go after the Pats secondary. See how the O-line and Singletary can take it to them on the ground. Play like you having nothing to lose because in all honesty if you lose it hurts but it isn't the end of the world you still sit at 3-1 and you go into a tough but winnable game against the Titan the week after. It would be great to win this game against the best team in the league. But you aren't going to out conservative the Patriots. The Patriots play super disciplined and hope for the team across from them to make mistakes. But as the Eagles and Giants showed you are better off playing loose and taking risks to try and leverage the Pats* conservative play against them. The leverage you have taking risks is that if you play not to lose 90% of the time you are likely going to lose anyway. So you might as well let your young QB let it rip and see where he is at after 3 games into his second season.

I would just take all sorts of deep shots and risks. Mix a consistent running game early (hopefully with some success) with deep shots off of play action. Obviously you have to let Josh know not to force it and take what a defense gives you but I think it would be better to unleash Josh and have him play loose and aggressive. You aren't going to out conservaitve the Pats* that is simply not going to happen. You have to look at how the Eagles beat them in the Super Bowl by playing aggressive and taking calculated risks. That's what you have to do just play loose on offense and disciplined on defense. Simply put play to win and take the game to the Pats* as opposed to playing not to lose.

I honestly think the Bills should play the game aggressive and like they are playing with house money. Obviously there is a line between aggressive and stupid but you honestly have to play to control the temp of the game and take calculated risks to win games. I think going conservative is the kiss of death against the Pats*. The defense will likely make enough stops and field goal attempts to have the game at worst within 2 scores deep. So the decisions to avoid turnovers might seem good. However considering the fact that you simply will not out conservative the Pats* you might as well go for broke when it comes to beating them.

Green is out 6 to 8 week's I doubt he comes back to showcase what he has before the trade deadline. I don't see any legit WR's hitting the market unless something drastic happens.

I don't know about the best defense but it's pretty dam good certainly playing like a top 2-3 unit in the league. What has really impressed me about the defense has been the tackling. The tackling was good last year but it seems to be even better this year. The defense is mostly the same players (Ed Oliver being the only major addition and Kyle being the only major loss) however the team seems to be comfortable playing with each other and within the system. It is very refreshing to see the defense not missing a lot of tackles and playing very disciplined. The lack of an elite pass rush might cause some issues against better offenses but the pass rush isn't chopped liver either.

The pass rush to my eye has been decent. It gets pressure at time and then disappears at times. The D-line however does have a good knack of getting their hands into throwing lanes and batting passes. Over the course of the season is the pass rush a cause for concern? Yes, the defense will likely still be good enough and against poor and mediocre competition it won't be an issue. But against elite and even good teams the pass rush could be a heavy cause for concern. I think that edge rush could be a point where the team maybe considers an acquisition if the market is there at the trade deadline. I am not sure who would be on the market but I think right now the team has to be eyeing the WR and Edge rush markets. Longer term I think they make a major off-season acquisition in 2020 to bolster the pass rush. But as of the 2019 season it seems to be a decent pass rush but not one to write home about either.