billsfan89

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.

I don't get why the Confederacy is this thing of value for conservatives who claim to love the USA but then want proud public displays of people who were in open rebellion against the USA because they wanted to preserve the institution of slavery (yes the Civil War was about the states right of slavery, all the propaganda, transcribed speeches and Confederate declarations before and during the war all mention preserving the institution of slavery, it was only after the war these economic issues and "states rights" arguments were fashioned to make the South feel better.) Hating on the Confederacy should be something that units everyone left and right.

Would you blame Germany for tearing down statues of Nazi generals and placing them in museums? The Confederacy is literally a rebellion against the USA, why should they be memorialized? The analogue that removing statues from public spaces is akin to not teaching history makes no sense.

I guess my point was that had Russell Wilson not ended up being a top 5 QB the Seahawks would have quickly been a losing team after winning the Super Bowl in 2013. Their defense began to erode after the 2014 season when injuries, age, and free agency took their toll. They were still a good defense in 2015 but by 2016 the cracks started to show. Granted just as their defense and surrounding parts began to erode Wilson began to ascend. That's why I think the Bills window for sustained success beyond 2 seasons will be defined by continued good drafting and Josh improving.

If you could trade a 1st round pick for Justin Tucker would you do it? I honestly don't think trading a later 1st round pick for such a great kicker is all that bad an idea. Considering that usually 2-3 games a year come down to kicking having a guy you know is money 49 yards and in (along with consistently money on extra points) and has a high degree of success post 50 and can hit a 60+ yarder in the right conditions gives you a lot of value in a league where so many games are decided by single scores. The reason we don't see kickers in particular drafted in round one is mainly due to the position being hard to project into the pros. Kickers drafted high or in the mid-rounds are a crapshoot. If there was more certainty around the position and you had a high chance of getting a Justin Tucker type kicker by drafting one early you would see kickers go high fairly often. As far as a punter goes I wonder how good Guy was? I know his reputation and credentials were outstanding but how does his punting stand up to the modern era? Genuinely curious.

I find the Patriots under Billy B to be mostly conservative. They tend to play in a way that is super disciplined and philosophically designed to limit mistakes and capitalize on their opponents mistakes. Yes they take some chances here and there like any coach but overall I think they mostly play to force you to lose the game. Marty Schotenheimer was a coach who had a lot of regular season success playing a conservative type of game. Bill Cowher was also a very conservative coach who let his ground game and defense win a lot of games who won a lot and did win a Super Bowl. I think there are actually a lot of "great" conservative coaches. But we tend to attribute aggressiveness in coaching to winning when in the end selected moments of aggression are outliers as opposed to the coaches general nature.

A window for success in the NFL is usually about 2-3 seasons unless you have a great QB (and even then you will ebb and flow as the team has to adjust to paying a QB a lot of money.) Everyone thought that after 2013 the Seahawks were going to run off multiple Super Bowls and have this long window of success. After 2014 and that brutal loss in the Super Bowl to the Pats they went 4 straight years with 10 or less wins and not getting out of the divisional round. I think the Bills have a 2 maybe year window with Josh on his rookie deal to have a high degree of success. BUT if Josh can't develop into a top 10 QB this team will fall quickly under the weight of retaining talent and quickly find its self in a rebuild. A lot rides on how good Josh can be. Even the Seahawks recent success has post 2014 has been because Russell Wilson is the real deal at QB. Their defense up until this season has been far from elite in a long time.

I would rest the starters and take advantage of a defacto bye. But I think playing a half to keep everyone sharp isn't bad.

Might as well honestly no need to play anyone. After a long season it would be nice to get these guys rested into a road playoff game.

The defense travels but this is the playoffs. I still consider it a negative to be on the road.

The roster is good but beyond Josh's development and retaining the major 3 free agents (Phillips, Shaq and Spain, certainly have to keep 2 out of the 3) there does need to be some additions made to supplement the talent roster. Talent Additions in order of urgency. 1- A true WR threat opposite Brown and Beasley will set this offense to have enough firepower to more consistently move the ball against stronger defenses. I would say that given the strength of this draft at WR I would say this is probably the team’s top draft priority. 2- A Prime time edge rusher. Hughes is a solid player, Shaq is a quality player, and Murphy is barely above JAG level. The pass rush for this team tends to come from the middle as opposed to the edges. You need the ability to be able to generate pressure off all ends. Add a 10 sack a year edge rusher to this defense gives it that last piece it needs to have one of the best D-lines in the league. Given the market for DE’s will be decent this is probably the one big FA addition I would make. 3- A CB2 opposite White. This is probably the other large piece needed on defense and a starting caliber free agent add would be justified. White is a stud CB1, T.Johnson a quality slot corner, however Levi Wallace and Johnson are better suited as depth. This team could either dip into the Free agent market or spend a draft choice in round 2 or 3 to solidify this need. I think a mid-level free agency add would both be prudent and make sense given the CB market in free agency is solid. 4- A OLB to take over for Lorax. Given that Nickel is the base defense of the NFL OLB is not as huge of a positional need but there does need to be some sort of effort made to address this. Either a lower mid-level free agency signing or a draft selection in round 3-4. 5- A veteran Tight End. I love Knox but Sweeney is a depth player and Smith is a role player. I think they need to cut bait on Kroft and sign a vet tight end both to help out with depth and to take some pressure off of Knox. 6- A Between the tackles runner. I loved Gore in the beginning of the season but he is out of gas. A lower mid-level free agency add or a mid-round draft selection is a good way to address this need. 7- Quality Punting and Kicking competition. Bojo has been better as of late and so has Haush. But if this team has aspirations to have a longer run in the playoffs they need to push Haush and Bojo in camp with a quality kicker and punter. Kicking and punting are small facets of the game that can make a big difference. 8- Special Teams? This is super picky but could this team add 1-2 special teams specialists? The Special teams this year has been OK beyond punting and kicking. Roberts has solidified the return game but if you want to compete at a high level you need the ability to have as complete a roster as possible. Adding 1-2 high end ST players could be the difference between a mid-level unit and a top 10 unit. Overall needs 1-3 will require major resources. Needs 4-6 are more so depth needs that can be addressed on smaller contracts of in rounds 3-5 in the draft. Whereas need 7-8 are more so moves around the edges that don’t require too much in terms of resources.

The Texans defense is subpar and their offense while really good I think could be stopped by the Bills quality defense. I would give the Bills a slight edge in the matchup but I downgrade it to a coin toss due to the fact that it will be an away game.

Houston away is a coin toss. The big matchup everyone is going to talk about is the Bills top flight defense vs. Watson and the Houston offense. But the real question will be can the Bills offense move the ball on Houston's defense? I like our odds.

God dam that got me hyped.

Gase is a guy who will probably be known as a very good offensive coordinator but not someone who was able to hack it as a head coach. The Jets are in for a couple more years of mediocrity.

That's why the Pats just keep doing what they do. They are willing to risk a few million in fines and maybe losing some draft picks if they are able to game the system. But I do think that their reputation is probably their best weapon at this point. While I do think they do skirt the edges of the rules and sometimes outright break them there is a paranoia about the Pats exceeds what they actually do and ends up being a mind game that they aren't doing anything to accomplish.