billsfan89

I thought his deal would be in the 4-5 million dollar range similar to the deal Kyle got last year. So to get him for 3 million is a really great deal.

I hope the NFLPA makes resources available to these linemen to help them with their weight and health. The NFL Players are rare talents that have a lot of leverage with their employer. The union that represents them needs to look out for the health of retired players. To the fans you are a piece of meat and to the league you are a line item. Its up to the union to look out for retired players.

NFL teams are college All-Star teams with players who are grown men most of whom have spent the past 2-10 years playing football as a profession. Even Alabama last year only had 11 players drafted. 4 players drafted in the first round, 0 players drafted in the second round, 1 player drafted in the third round, 2 players drafted in round 4, 1 player drafted in round 5 (A punter), 2 players drafted in round 6, and 2 players drafted in round 7. That means that they only had 5 players drafted in the first three rounds and 7 drafted in the first four rounds. Odds are that out of the 11 players drafted at least 5-6 will struggle in their rookie years and there isn't going to be more than 1-2 players that go un-drafted that are contributors right away at an NFL level. Even if you think there are 3-4 really good NFL ready underclassmen that still only leaves you with 7-9 NFL caliber out the gate players on the entire roster with maybe some fringe backups sprinkled in on one of the best college programs. That's not too shabby but you need 22 starters, rotational/role players, special teams players, and backup players all of which even the worst NFL team provides all across their roster with elite college players. This idea that any college team would be able to compete with the worst NFL team is always laughable when you breakdown the numbers of how many NFL draft picks each program produces and how many of those draft picks actually have good rookie seasons.

RIP, 62 is way too young to go.

If multiple teams are interested in a QB that hovers around 9 then things get interesting and the return for a QB could be significant. I would love to get a 3rd and a 1st next year or a 2nd in 2019 and a solid pick in 2020.

The draft is all about value. This draft is loaded with defensive talent, teams are always looking for more pass rushers and there just isn't a Quinton Nelson or a lot of other dynamic offensive players at the top of this draft. I hope a trade down happens but it take two to tango and one might not be available. I think the team will make major acquisitions in free agency on offense so I don't hate taking the top defender on the board if that's by far the best type of player available.

If you think it takes hours for willing people to go over a wall then I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you. People trafficking drugs will use tunnels and ports of entry and other methods that will not be impeded by a wall. People looking to cross the border will hire people to get them around the wall or over the wall in a matter of minutes. Its not about not trying but rather if you method is massively ineffective and expensive maybe you should look to other methods that get you more bang for your buck as opposed to something that can be a huge waste of time and money that would be better spent elsewhere. I also see you guys keep saying that CBP is in favor of a coast to coast wall spanning all of the border and that's outright not true. The CBP union has come out in favor of it but that's only after years and years of being against it as a waste of money. I don't know why they would come out in favor of it after years of being against it. If there is evidence as to why they did it and that it is supported by something evidence based I would reconsider my opinion. The actual agency has not come out in favor of an all encompassing border wall. They have come out in favor of a border wall system but have not endorsed a full out coast to coast wall. I am not against limited fencing in more remote areas. But an all out border all that encompasses is not only ineffective but tirelessly expensive and comes with other costs. https://qz.com/1525881/customs-and-border-protections-radical-new-approach-to-a-wall-the-boring-truth/

This is the most hilarious straw man arguments I have ever heard. I claim that there is a better more cost effective way to handle securing the border and you basically equate that to supporting slavery and child molestation because I state that your solution is expensive, ineffective, and is still reliant on other forms of manpower that is subject to change. That's some Stephen Colbert level hilarity. Dam I knew this place was a Trump echo chamber but this one really made me laugh. "Hey I agree there is a problem at the border but I don't think a wall solves it and its not cost effective for the level of security it provides." "So you support sex trafficking?" The other costs such as imminent domain are things the government can do but do we really want to exercise federal powers to take people's land for a border security measure that is massively expensive and isn't going to be effective enough without manpower behind it? Not to mention the other costs that would come with such a large construction project.

My argument is that the wall is massively expensive (and comes with other costs) and its not effective without the manpower behind it. The manpower's funding can change thus the wall's permanence is fairly meaningless if it offers little more than a minor inconvenience for those looking to cross the border. Its nothing more than an expensive symbol.

As many have stated a walls effectiveness is only as good as the maintenance and manpower behind it. So why put up a 20 billion dollar structure whose impact is limited to how well you patrol it? So this idea that you put the wall up and that solves the issue for all time is just not true. If your manpower behind the wall and the funding to maintain the wall gets lower than it becomes very ineffective and just stands as more of a symbol and a minor inconvenience over come by ropes, carpets, and ladders. Not to mention the other secondary costs of a wall such as having to take land from citizens of the US, the logistical and legal implications of such a large use of imminent domain, the environmental costs, and the loss of access to the Rio Grande river. You could literally take the 20 billion in funding a full scale border wall would create and pay for 10 years worth of 10,000 additional border patrol agents, new technology, and even limited fencing. But instead you want a wall that will still require all those things and come at a much steeper cost?

Donald Trump asked that same question only to two seconds later claim that the technology behind ropes would foil a 30 foot drop. You could also toss a ladder on the other side and have someone climb down with a rope then place the ladder on the other side to make things easier for people who might not be able to use a rope. I don't doubt a wall would provide some impediment but is it honestly cost effective compared to other ways of border security? To build a wall that covers all of the border is going to cost more than 5.7 billion dollars. I am not opposed to limited fencing for more remote areas but a massive border wall would cost 20 plus billion dollars and still need billions of dollars of man power and technology behind it. I would rather put that 20 billion into hiring 10,000 border patrol agents for 10 years. implementing technology to secure the border, and do limited fencing in higher risk areas if that's something border experts would think is necessary. A wall across all of the border seems like a symbolic gesture devoid of any real impact.

I think his completion percentage can't just be explained away by outside factors. Although they could be a factor it is what is over the course of multiple College and his first NFL season. Allen does have issues missing some throws and he does need to improve his decision making to take easier throws when available. Allen's cannon arm is a blessing but it means that he thinks he can make almost any throw. That leads to bad decisions or more risky less high percentage decisions. I think his footwork issues certainly prevent him from making some of the easier high percentage throws that he sometimes misses. That being said, can him improve on his deficiencies that lead to his accuracy/completion percentage issues? That's a big maybe. Yes he certainly can improve his decision making, Allen is a bright hard working kid. With good coaching and more experience he can certainly improve on that aspect of his game and making more sound decisions will improve his completion percentage, lower his turnovers, and improve his overall quality of play. Now can he improve his footwork enough to keep him from missing some easy throws? Well that's a much harder thing to do. From my understanding footwork is something that can be improved but its much more difficult to dramatically improve your footwork as a QB. Again Allen is a smart hardworking kid, he certainly is going to put in the work to improve and has the intellect to improve but to what degree can he do it? We all know Allen has the arm strength, the release, the size, hand size, speed, and intangibles of a high caliber NFL QB, but can he make the improvements needed in those two critical areas of the game?

I wouldn't mind bringing him in on a one year deal. I think he could be a mauler at RT. But I would still draft a RT in the mid rounds behind him for depth and to take over in 2020. Glenn did miss 3 games last year but it was his most healthy season in awhile. Overall I would rather not take on an injury prone player but the tackle market is thin and if Glenn can be had on an affordable one year deal then I wouldn't have an issue with it.

It would cost more than a 4th round pick to move up 3 spots in the first round. I suspect it would take a 3rd rounder swapped for a 7th at the very least.

Allen and Darnold still have a long ways to go in terms of what their final product is. Darnold to me (Thus far as a rookie) looks like a less dynamic mobility Jamis Winston, lots of big throws but lots of sloppy play and mistakes. He can throw for 400 yards and 3 TD or throw for 4 INT's in any given game. Allen on the other hand looks more like Cam Newton but less dynamic in the passing game. Both players have a long way to go, I honestly wouldn't mind having either player to try and build a team around the next 2 years. Both could be top 5 QB's in the league both could be busts. I honestly do have a slight favor towards Allen because I think Allen has the tools to be much more dynamic.

I wouldn't hate it, you could sign McCoy and still have plenty of money to spend on offense while drafting an edge rusher or another player at pick 9.

Haha, I guess its hard to find a move that makes sense for everyone. Unless the cap number is insane I think there isn't much not to like.

Is there any info on terms? I love that the team wasted no time in bringing Lorax back. Not only does Lorax bring a lot of the intangibles and leadership but he was also a pretty good pass rusher that brings a lot of versatility as he can be a decent LB and line up along the edge or inside on passing downs.

I like the consistent "good enough" is not good enough mentality he has. That's the mark of a good player. Dawkins didn't have a bad year at all but he didn't get better. So I like the fact that he think and knows he needs to take a step up in year three.

People seeking Asylum walk into various ports of entry. They don''t sneak across them. By the very nature of asylum you are supposed to declare yourself to the border agents. So a wall doesn't solve that issue. I also disagree that a wall has a level of effectiveness if the manpower behind it is cut. I don't doubt that a wall might have some level of effectiveness but is that level of effectiveness enough? To put up a massive concrete and steel wall on the southern border is probably going to cost 20 billion or more. The miles and miles of steel and concrete alone blow past the 5 billion mark. If you estimate the cost of one border patrol agent to be roughly 100k per year (Salary, benifits, office space, training, equipment and other costs) you could hire 10,000 additional border patrol agents for 10 years at half the cost a wall would cost. You could take the other half and invest in other technology needs. I am not dogmatic about the issue, I can see the need for limited fencing in more remote areas (although I would have to see what evidence for effectiveness there is) but to construct this wall to only be a very expensive mild security measure seems like an expensive government boondoggle that won't come close to accomplishing its goals.

I understand that but half a mile away from a wall on the Mexico side people can leave ladders, carpets, and ropes to use to smuggle people over a wall. A wall to me would cost way more than 5 billion esp if they wanted a steel and concrete barrier (I think the original 20 billion is probably more in the ball park) and it wouldn't be as effective as people seem to think. I am not dogmatic about a wall either. If there are areas that need fencing for some tactical perspective I wouldn't be opposed to it, but a wall that covers a vast amount of the border just doesn't seem effective nor worth the massive costs, when other cheaper more effective options are available.

Ports of entry do not have a wall. People who come in caravans to try and gain refugee status go through legal ports of entry such as border crossings. So the idea that it could prevent migrant caravans is also just not based in reality.

But if the permanence is ineffective (and comes at the costs of the environment and at the cost of citizens losing their land among other costs) what good does the permanence offer? People can dig under a wall, ladders and ropes can be left on the Mexico side (which America can do very little about,) and the wall in certain areas can be damaged. I just don't see what impact a wall could have other than symbolism. From a tatics stand point I don't see what value it actually serves. I would also disagree that it even offers permanence. You have to maintain a wall in case it gets damaged or weathered. So if the funding goes down the wall becomes less impactful too.

Wouldn't a ladder and a rope make any wall ineffective? Even Trump said so himself that rope and ladder technology would fool even a 40 foot wall. I am all for border security. Its completely necessary for a country to maintain borders and there is a vested national security interest but why do people think a wall which could be circumvented in so many different ways be the answer? Why not spend money on more border patrol agents and other surveillance technologies such as drones and advanced motion detection? I think the idea that a wall is the only effective way to secure the border is just not based in reality.

That's two different arguments. The person had said that a national sales tax would be able to produce at or near the current levels of funding needed to continue the current size of the government. I think any illustration of the math would state otherwise.