billsfan89

I can't blame the Fins, J.Phillips was on the last year of his rookie deal and he was an underperforming malcontent. They waived him because they knew he wasn't going to resign and wasn't good on the field for them. I would assume that they also explored a trade market and one wasn't there. The Fins were not a good situation generally speaking and not a good situation for J.Phillips. Sometimes players need a wake up call and a change of scenery. Jordan got both with the Bills and it has reaped benefits for both parties.

Just beat the Broncos and get to 8-3. Too far early to look ahead.

The Bills have been super fortunate when it comes to injuries. H.Phillips is the only major injury I can think of (Singletary was out for a bit but I can't think of any other injury where a player was out for more than 3 weeks) it helps that the team is fairly deep but they haven't had to use the depth much this year. I think a week ago they literally had no one on the injury report a rarity this deep into the NFL season. Hopefully this is a sign of a improving training staff as opposed to a case of fortune. It's deep into November I wouldn't be shocked to see it take until January for him to be available. But this injury already wasn't as bad as expected so maybe this is just a 2-3 week injury?

Bingo, The Bills have the ability to add significant talent and keep their own talent this off-season. They can go after a big prime time pass rusher and run stuffer while also retaining drafted players and addressing depth. They then have their draft choices to add other pieces of talent such as a receiver and a RT. Overall the Bills are well positioned to make a serious run the next two seasons.

It is a solid comparison. However unlike the Bears who invested a lot of draft capital and cap space to acquire Mack and upgrade their team overall the Bills have the draft picks and cap space going forward to upgrade their roster in 2020 and beyond. The Bears were capped out this past off-season and have limited flexibility in 2020. They also don't have a lot of draft choices this upcoming season either. I think Bills are built for more long term prudent success than the Bears who added a lot of talent in one off-season but did so by tying up their draft capital and cap dollars. The Bills however will have 80-100 million in cap space (depending on who they cut) along with all their draft capital. I also think Allen is a better prospect than Mitch so there is that.

I don't know about Smith but DiMarcio does do a lot on special teams. I look at Dimarco as a ST player who can be a specialist at FB.

The linebackers have been a part of the problem but the D-line has been used and abused in the run game as well. The run defense has been a total failure since the bye week with the exception of this past weeks game and the second half of the Skins game.

I think he looked very bad against the run since the Eagles game. It looked to me that he was at least decent against the run early in the season. But since the bye he has looked soft against the run. Once again hoping the Liuget helps the team in that regard as Phillips is an average run defender and Star has seeming gone soft. Oliver I would hide in passing situations as that is his strength at this point in his career.

The way I see the playoff picture shaking out is that The Steelers and Browns have an outside shot. Both have easy schedules but the Browns are in a big hole and will have to win out to get to 10 wins so 8-9 wins is more likely. The Steelers are 5-5 but play a super soft schedule so 10 wins is possible but they have to go on a tear to get to 10 wins and the Bills play the Steelers so a bit of control your own destiny in that regard. If the Bills can drop the Steelers and get to 10 wins they should hold a tie breaker. The Raiders and Colts both sit at 6-4 and they are the real competition as both could push to 10 wins. I actually look at the Raiders as being more likely to get to 10 wins. Both teams sit at 6-4 but the Colts play tough opponents in the Saints and Texans. The Raiders only tough opponent is the Chiefs. So if I am handicapping the wildcard race I would put the Bills and Raiders in while the Colts and Steelers have an outside shot. In the end it is too hard to project these things. Just beat the Broncos this week and see how things shake out at 8-3.

In the same way that one bad game isn't a sign he should be benched. One very good game (against a bad opponent) isn't a sign that he arrived. The way I look at it is that if you aren't going to beat up on the Fins then who are beating up on? But beating up on a horrid Fins team while a positive isn't a sign that all is well with Allen. I like Josh as a QB prospect but he was and still is a project QB. All the talk in the draft was that Josh was best served being in a situation where he could sit for 1-2 years where he can work on his footwork and get a feel for the pro-game a bit. Well the Bills mismanaged their QB situation so horrendously that they had to start him a lot his rookie year and go into him in year two as the undisputed QB starter. Allen has been progressing a lot since year one but he is definitely a work in progress.

I don't see a major breakout or upgrade happening to help alleviate the burden on Brown, Beasley, and Knox. I thought Robert Foster might come up and pop a few chunk plays now and again which would help the core a bit to have someone else be a downfield threat. But in 2020 they are going to have to find another weapon in the receiving core. I think Knox could handle the TE position in 2020 (although a true vet backup would be nice, someone in Kroft's role but actually good.) But if there is no help coming at WR.

The Steelers were really starting to worry be only being a game behind and seemingly having a lot of momentum. Hopefully they drop their 7th game soon. The Browns I honestly think are too far gone to get to 9 wins let alone run the table. The Competition for the Wildcard spot is going to come from Indy and The Raiders. I think 10 wins gets you a wildcard spot which if this team bets Denver then gets one of the next 4 they should be set up to have 9 wins going in to the Jets game and possibly 10 if they can go 2-2 in that 4 game stretch.

I would have to see who else is available on the tackle market for depth. Henderson has a lot of experience but never exactly tore things up. I wouldn't mind brining him in as a backup but I would have to think that there has to be better options out there.

The Bills did what they needed to do and they took care of a Fins team that is playing better but still someone the Bills should beat by 2-3 scores. The special teams did make the game much tighter than it should have been (coughing up the kick return and onside kick made the game within a 2 point conversion of the game being a one possession game fairly late) but the offense closed out the game and the defense held up its end of the bargain for the most part. The Fins are still bad but the Bills controlled this game on offense and defense with only the special teams costing them a coast to coast win but still turning them a comfortable win. This win doesn't make me feel more confident in the Bills as a whole but a loss or really close game would have been a really big blow to any playoff hopes on the season. The Broncos game is an absolute must win, 8-3 was a complete necessity for this team going into this brutal 4 game stretch. If the Bills lose to the Broncos then that might be the season. But they did what they had to do and they kept their season alive and well.

I think you have to play Lugiet, Phillips, and Star on the running downs and just have Ed be in mostly on passing situations (second and long, third and long.) I think he just needs a full off-season of NFL strength and conditioning to add some strength and size in a way that wouldn't impact his quickness. If he can just be an OK rush defender I think he can be a Pro-Bowl caliber player as he is already a disruptive penetrator as a rookie (although a bit inconsistent but he is a 21 year old rookie.) But he has the frame to add some bulk without losing his quickness which should help him become a better run defender.

Oliver in my opinion has proved he can be a disruptive pass down DT. He has been a bit exposed in the rush defense department. Going forward I think he figures it out. But against better teams he should only be in on passing downs.

A+ offense put up 37 points that's not only good enough for a win but a comfortable win. A little tight when they were a 2pt conversion away from a one posession game but the shaky special teams was the main culprit.

Defense has to shut the door and close this game out. Offense just needs to get it to a 3 possession lead (not sure why they didn't go for 2.)

Solid opening drive, always good to get some points on the board even if it is just a field goal. Defense gets a quick stop and this team is off to a good start on both sides of the ball.

Josh was a project QB out of college whom many pundits said would be best served sitting 1-2 years before starting. The Bills mismanaged their QB situation in 2018 and rushed Josh in. 2019 is his second year and he still has a long way to go despite some massive improvement. I am not shocked that a project QB with tantalizing physical ability is not a polished product half way through year 2 and about 20 starts in. Josh will be the team's QB in 2020 and will still come with some growing pains. But as long as he steadily improves I have no issues.

It's kind of an irrelevant question Tyrod or Josh. I liked Tyrod I thought he was a game manager who bought some dynamics with his legs and would make a big play now and again but was far to risk averse and unable to consistently work within the pocket. Tyrod was what he was after 2017 and the Bills decided to move on and got solid compensation for him. Tyrod is the type of QB who is as good as the team around him. Put a team with a good defense, solid special teams, and some good weapons and offensive talent he can win you 10+ games, put a bad team around him and he will win you 6 games. However unless he has a Godly team around him he is never going to get you into contention let alone consistent contention. Josh on the other hand is good with his legs, works well within the pocket, and has had sloppy turnovers but has cut down on that. He has trouble with a consistent long ball but work well within the 0-15 range and OK in the 15-25 range. But Josh regardless of wither or not at this very moment is an upgrade or downgrade over Tyrod is completely irrelevant. Josh is not a finished product. He has the ability to be a top 10 QB in the game if he finds that long ball ability again, continues to improve his decision making and gets a slightly better feel for the game. The Bills are developing a QB not working with a player who is for the most part capped out as to what he can improve to.

Even with Garrett justifiably out this season (and I would say at least 8 games or a significant portion of next season) the Browns at 4-6 could easily still finish 8-8 or 9-7 this season. They have two layups against the Bengals and a game against the Fins, they play the Steelers and Cardinals as well. If they just take care of those Bengals games and the Fins game they already get to 7 wins and I would imagine they at least split the Steelers and Cards games. Their only tough game remaining on their schedule is the Ravens a team they have beat. 8 wins would be a disappointment for them considering their expectations but still a decent season considering where they started out.

I think we are just going to have to leave the conversation at agree to disagree as you stated (This isn't going anywhere as we can talk in circles.) And I really respect your opinion and your acknowledgement that the student loan issue is a problem and that there are many avenues that can be done to help the problem. And I just want to reiterate that if we are negotiating on this issue hypotheically the funding mechanisms, means testing, repatriation of recent payments, and defaulting vs. forgiveness are all things that I wouldn't oppose if a compromise had to be made. I do think that large scale forgiveness or default allowance has to be favored over interest reduction and restructuring because there are some who are far too foregone for those types of solutions to be viable and many who might eventually make a repatriation in 7-10 years whose issue is more massive principle than interest or monthly payment amount (If your principle is 75 k that's 625 dollars a month for 10 years to pay back if your interest is 0, if your principle is 50k that's 520 dollars a month for 8 years if your interest is 0.) I guess my main issue with your idea (or at least how I interpreted what you said) that if you have anything you can cut back on you are then being frivolous is devoid of how human beings operate or any nuance that there are various degrees of being modest. I think telling someone who is visiting their family once a year on a modest vacation (basically paying for a flight and some eating out while there as they don't have to pay for lodging) or someone who takes one modest domestic vacation a year that their fiscal issues stem from those vacations and their lack of Metro PCS as opposed to the large inflated amount for their loans is sort of penny wise dollar stupid. Yes if someone lives a joyless life cutting down on anything fun or not an absolute necessity for many years they might be able to service more of their debt but that doesn't mean that if you do some moderate indulgences like visiting your family and going on a date now and again that you tow the line into being fiscally irresponsible. I think a lot of conservatives often times blame the struggles of the working and middle class on their frivolous habits they narrowly define as anything not a necessity as opposed to the major costs they are insuring in various avenues simply because it's easier to say hey cut down on X and you will be alright than actually trying to possibly address a larger issue such as loan debt or medical costs. Finally that's not to say that some people aren't frivolous or their own undoing fiscally. That would be dishonest to say that every poor person is vitreous. I do know people who made bad decisions fiscally and although they aren't struggling with student loans (mommy and daddy paid for their college) they continue to have limited prospects fiscally because they spend money way too loosely. However the sacrifices they would have to make to have a healthy savings and investment range aren't cutting everything and anything to the bone but just sensible live within your means type things like don't go on 3-4 vacations a year and go out to eat twice every weekend.

These are people who are paying off their loans to the tune of hundreds of dollars a month. They aren't delinquent and they do their best to pay extra on their loans if they can. They aren't welching or people I am crying for. I bring them up to illustrate that these are individuals who are having their consumption and economic power limited by onerous student loans to get them into professions that are economically viable. Thus if you did do a debt forgiveness program you would see more money being pumped into the consumer economy and cause a positive impact on demand (an area of the economy where you need more growth.) Just because they aren't living to the standard you think they should live by enjoying life in a very modest way (***** people for visiting their family once a year) doesn't mean they are delinquents. Is the 1,000 to 1500 dollar vacation the difference between them paying off a 50-75k student loan? This idea that if you have anything you can cut down on you are thus irresponsible and a delinquent is just silly and not in line with a reasonable world view. Once again if you want to "punish" those who are unable to pay back allow them to default on their loans (thus dinging their credit), allow those who are able to pay back but have onerous loans a reduction on their loans or a restructure. Pay back people who have paid off loans the past 3 years. Those are all viable alternatives that depending on how they would be implemented I would support. But to say that well you have a cell phone while you owe loans for the education you got to get your job you should just cut that down and your loans will be manageable is just silly and not a serious take in my opinion. It isn't a scheme that results in riches all around but rather form of a tax cut aimed at younger consumers to help foster growth in consumer demand. My personal opinion is that we have oriented our economy for nearly 40 years around the idea of improving the stock market and capital markets. Yet we have record stock market numbers, record levels of corporate reserves, capital markets are flushed. And yet there exists a relative lack of investment due to a lack of growth in demand. The general economy is one that has yet to see a massive improvement for your average worker. Most companies are pumping up their stocks by buying back shares and issuing dividend increases. I think perhaps we should aim our resources at increasing demand and taking the burden off of the middle and working class while investing in infrastructure and longer lasting investments other than tax cuts that will often get funneled into international hands via dividends and buybacks.

I actually have a good feeling about this Sunday. Lord knows they need to take care of the Fins and Broncos to fatten up before that rough patch in their schedule.