billsfan89

Bodine and Ducasse can be dumped for low amounts of dead cap hits, neither are really starting caliber players so I don't think them being under contract matters. I wouldn't mind having them compete for backup spots but if the front office thinks 2 of them should start they deserve to see the offense struggle again. O-line players tend to play at a high level into their early 30's. The typical fall off is around 32-34 for O-line players. So I don't mind signing Pradis to a deal that is easy to get out of after one or two years. This team needs at least 2 impact starters along the O-line to make it into a top 10 unit and most of the top players on the free agent market at the O-line position will be between 29-31. Groy stinks (at least he does in this system) Bodine is a high end backup center and I would like to see him be off the bench. And Sirles is a bubble player who probably is best competing for a backup job. I suspect that Groy will not be resigned, I think odds are they move Bodine to the backup center/guard spot, and they have Vlad and a rookie compete for the RG Spot.

I doubt it but then I thought Lynn wouldn't get a coaching job and he did. Who knows what makes a coaching candidate hot on the market.

I wouldn't sign Trent Brown. NE signings don't typically play well on other teams. I also think that Dawkins is not suited to play RT. Dawkins play in 2017 at RT wasn't that great, his skillset seems to be better suited for LT. As far as O-line I think you need 3 starters in general from C to RT. I think out of the three need positions I would hope the Bills target Center first and foremost in free agency. I think it would help Teller's development in 2019 and if they go with a rookie guard having a quality vet center next to Teller and a rookie RG would be very helpful to the lines development. Overall I think the Bills should target two high quality veteran starters along the O-line. They can go with a rookie at one of those positions but they need to put as much talent around Allen as possible and the O-line is in major need of help to be able to provide good to great pass blocking and generate a push in the ground game.

The Falcons are not trading Julio. Matt Ryan will be 34 next season and you don't really rebuild with a Stud QB entering his mid 30's. The Falcons despite having Ridley will not trade away the player that makes their offense elite because they can't afford to wate Matt Ryan. Julio will be 30 next year, which means he will face 2 to 3 elite seasons left as receivers typically play at a high level into their early 30s. That's not something the Falcons can afford to pass on.

That play has a lot of moving parts, Allen did an excellent job getting a pass catcher to be in position to make a play on the ball. It wasn't the easiest play but it was one a player should have made. Yes if you run the play the exact same way 100 times there are many ways it can be done better. But that's also easy to diagnose in hindsight where almost every play can be done better. Allen did a great job on that play. Clay adjusted to the ball enough to be able to make a play on it but couldn't seal the deal.

Mayfield is having the best rookie season above all the rest by far. I think Allen might be number 2 but not by much, everyone seems to be kind of middling rookie numbers. Still 4 games left to play but some levels of optimism with this rookie class overall. Glad to see the Browns might have found a keeper at QB, hopefully the Bills did too.

If these single payer systems in other nations are so horrendous and result in such terrible wait times then why aren't these nations rushing to switch to free market systems? Why is it that the US has a horribly unpopular system despite having the most free market oriented system in the developed world? If the single payer systems were so horrible surly in Canada during the highly conservative Harper administration they would have begun to switch to a privatized system to get out from under the horrid single payer system? The answer is because single payer healthcare remains popular. Even a majority of American doctors now prefer single payer health care (54% for, 42% opposed.) I also never denied that scarcity exists in a single payer system. In fact your argument about rationing is destroyed by your own point about scarcity (every system will have rationing.) The bottom line is that in any healthcare system there will be people that can't afford treatment. In America we do not deny treatment to people on the basis that they can not afford it. Thus there are costs that are absorbed by the general system no matter what. So the idea that there are these 3 pillars and universality is one of them is absurd due to the fact that you can not ethically withhold care from people just on the grounds that they can't afford it. Thus everyone even those who can't afford it has access to care, thus you cannot have cost be a barrier to entry for extreme needs of care. I also brought up very specific points about billing, preventative care, profit motive, and drug costs that point to specific ways that single payer drives costs down whereas your only argument against it is the government sucks. Despite the fact that in the real world there are outcomes and data that show you otherwise.

Why do other countries who have government insurance pay drastically less for insurance and get the same or better outcomes? Even the Swiss who have a more free market oriented approach have a more heavily regulated system that results in better care for significantly less? Healthcare is a utility not some product subject to free market forces.

Releasing KB is addition by subtraction. Use those snaps on better younger players. Holmes is the same, although Holmes didn't seem to have a bad attitude like KB he is what he is at this point (A Jag) and given his age he isn't likely going to amount to more than he is.

That's a fair point, I would prefer to keep Murphy but I am not going to be that upset to see him go for a 5 million dollar cap savings. Although I think Murphy could be in line for major improvement in 2019 as he gets another year removed from injury. Sometimes it takes a player an additional season to fully recover from a major ACL injury. I think getting 5 ish sacks and solid run defense in limited snaps as a rotational player is pretty good for 5 million. But its possible to better use that money elsewhere.

I have illustrated specifically that it will drive costs down. There are real world examples of countries implementing these systems and spending much less to get the same or better healthcare outcomes. As a whole the US spends more on billing in the private system, the US has the low levels of preventative care which drives up costs, the US has a horrid prescription drug system which drives up costs, and the US doesn't do basic thing like lump sum payments that can make costs for providers much more stable. Just to be clear we both agree that Healthcare is a finite commodity thus rationing of care happens in any system. Thus you can't argue that rationing of care would happen as a result of single payer. My point in regards to universality is that anyone will get treated by the healthcare system in the US to the best of its ability regardless of your ability to pay. So we have a universal system of care where costs for people who get treated but are unable to afford it are absorbed into the general system. Creating a single payer system where everyone has a baseline form of insurance actually accounts for those costs. Having the current system where you ask hospitals and providers to do charity care or overcharge insurance companies on other patients is the unaccounted costs systems. And yes as DC Tom point out there are times when the system can't treat everyone but who and how it treats people are not determined by your ability to pay but rather by medical need. To the rest of your specific points 1- Please explain the magical phenomenon in which monopoly and price fixing are a net consumer good. Single payer systems are able to negotiate using their collective bargaining power and through price transparency. There is a reason why treatments in Canada and other single payer systems are much cheaper. You can't have one hospital charging 10 times more for a procedure without justification in a single payer system. Whereas in the US even if you had full price transparency people in emergency scenarios can't shop around like a typical commodity. So in the real world you have the US spending 17.9% of GDP on healthcare whereas the average developed nation spends 10.7%, the next highest system is the Swiss who spend 12.7% of GDP on healthcare. We don't look at police and fire fighters as commodities who are monopolies and priced fixed. 2- Please explain how increased government bureaucracy lowers costs, and how that would scale up in a takeover of 20% of the domestic economy. A private system has dozens if not hundreds of insurance providers, each provider has many different plans. A hospital or provider has to bill each patient and navigate each different insurance billing system to do so. The private system generates far more bureaucracy. Hospitals have to have specialists for each major insurance provider they deal with. A hospital has to hire staff to negotiate rates every year with many providers. In a single payer system that is consolidated into one negotiation. As I said before real world examples show the US private system spends 14-16% on billing, Medicare spends about 4% because Medicare only has one set of codes and a limited amount of plan. Even Medigap insurance uses Medicare codes. Other nations which just have one set of billing codes that 90% of their patients use. Even private over the top insurance in those nations bills with similar codes and pricing. Imagine having to have police insurance to call the police and the police have to bill 32 different providers to get paid and each provider has different billing and different plans. Single payer systems offer payment in lump sums too where hospitals can operate off of a yearly budget as opposed to having to nickle and dime each patient and go back and forth with insurance. Also the issue of scale makes no sense to me. About 50% of insurance is paid for by the public through Medicare, Medicade, and the VA. The government already has the infrastructure in place its just a matter of scaling a tax (A payroll tax most likely) to incorporate the rest of the population. So I don't see scaling what is already in place (Medicare) as a major burden. The most conservative studies still say that Medicare for all saves general healthcare spending 2 trillion dollars over a 10 year period. 3- Please explain why it is desirable to place unaccountable government bureaucrats between patients and their care. Why is it more desirable to have a company who will make more money not covering your claim in between patients and their care? Insurance companies are no better than bureaucrats. I don't argue that a single payer system is perfect but I argue that it is the best system we have to pay for healthcare. Why do you have the government between you and the police? Why do you have the government heavily regulating you and your water? Healthcare is a basic human need not a commodity. 4- Please explain how profit motivation does not lead to dynamic innovation in industry. Because as you said healthcare is a finite product that can't be ethically denied to lack of payment. The US doesn't spend that much more money on R and D than single payer countries. In fact many drugs that are on the consumer market were researched and developed at Universities and then drug companies buy the patents from the Universities on the cheap. US insurance companies are mandated by law to make the most money, thus they are mandated to pay out as little claims as possible. That's a perverse system.

Universality exists in the sense that a doctor will not deny someone due to inability to pay. If you need care a doctor or service provider will do their best to take care of you regardless of your ability to pay. I never argued that everyone gets treatment but rather that no one gets denied treatment because of inability to pay. Thus it does not operate in a true free market commodity fashion. I understand very well that in any system rationing of care exists (Which destroys the conservative argument that single payer healthcare would lead to rationing of care.) I understand fully the concepts in play here. A common conservative argument against single payer is that healthcare can be 2 out of 3. Affordable, Quality, or Universal. I argued that because doctors and providers do not deny people due to inability to pay that the system in the US and any system that will not deny people based off of inability to pay is universal. That there will be people that can't afford treatment and unless you deny them treatment those costs will be absorbed into the general system either way.

Take what the defense gives you. Although I do agree Allen can't continue to rely on the run as heavily in the future. But with a limited receiving core Allen shouldn't be too afraid to take cheap and easy yards on the ground.

I am not sure how much teams play 3 LB's. Milano and Edumonds will be the LB's for the foreseable future and it seems like teams play nickle as their base defense more than 4-3. I would love to see how often the Bills have played 3 LB's this season. I can't see it being more than 50%. I would rather the team draft a mid round LB to sit behind Lorax and act as depth than to pay big for a player that will be in a limited role.

Triage is used in terms of overwhelming emergencies and when hospitals are flooded. But no hospital/doctor will deny a patient based off an inability to pay. Even triage goes off of medical need and not ability to pay. The US system can't save money in a private market unless providers are allowed to deny people based off of inability to pay.

Murphy is one year removed from a very serious injury and while he has struggled with injury when he is able to get out on the field he looks like a good rotational pass rusher (Which you need in the modern NFL.) So I would bring him back in 2019 for one more year. By then he will be 2 years removed from an ACL injury and the cap saving are good but not great so you might as well keep him and not open up a hole on the roster. I wouldn't hate them moving on from Murphy but I think rather than take a modest amount of dead money you are better off keeping him for one more year then get rid of him in 2020 when his deal produces almost no dead money if were to still be over paid and underproductive. I am not sure how much more a player for under 5 million AAV will produce more than Murphy. Murphy has 4 sacks with 4 games left to go and he hasn't played all that many games nor has he been taking a majority of the snaps either. If he finishes with 5+ sacks in limited rotation with limited games played that's a pretty productive season for a situational player behind Hughes, Lorax, and Shaq. I also think that Murphy stands a chance of being more productive in 2019 because he will be farther removed from an ACL injury and the Bills can manage his knee over the full course of the off-season. So I think the Bills are better off keeping him as I think finding a 5+ sack situational pass rusher will either cost more than 5 million AAV or require more bonus money and a commitment through 2020.

It does drive costs down and I would argue that the "Three Prongs" argument is very flawed because you have Universality in any system that adheres to the Hippocratic oath which states you can't deny care to someone who needs it simply because they can't afford it. So then your argument comes down to quality vs. affordability which is also flawed because US Healthcare outcomes are mid-level to upper mid-level despite the US spending the most on healthcare per-capita and by far the largest portion of GDP. So the US system is universal, unaffordable, and not the best quality for a variety of factors. I also fail to see where a black market would arise? I have yet to hear an argument that is compelling and fact based that the current system can be corrected by deregulation and free market forces (Healthcare is also not an elastic product which makes it less susceptible to market forces) as long as the Hippocratic Oath exists. Yes if you wanted to treat healthcare like an actual commodity (one where a doctor or provider can deny treatment to those in need) then you probably could drive costs down. But unless you want to live in a society where people are left to die because they can't afford healthcare then a for profit system won't be able to drive down costs. I would also argue that every system rations care. As I said before Healthcare is not an elastic product, its not easy to create more of it and you can't ethically deny people access to it. In the US we ration care off of how big your wallet is (Not even wither or not you work because self-employed people and people who work for a small business don't always have insurance, and even full time workers for big companies can be underinsured.) In single payer countries they go by medical need. So it is an outright scare tacit to claim rationing of care when 10-40k people die from lack of medical access in the US. The Main reasons Healthcare in the United States is so unaffordable and lacks general quality for a system so expensive is due to billing, prescription drug prices, lack of preventative care, and the profit motive. The US private Healthcare system spends 14-20% on billing, Medicare spends about 4% on billing most single payer systems spend about 3-8% on billing. That's mainly because if you have dozens of health insurance companies with dozens of plans each of them have their own billing codes and each plan is its own soup of benefits. You also have each insurance provider looking to get its own pricing for services for each of their providers in their own network. That means each provider needs to have people to navigate and negotiate with each insurance company patient by patient. In single payer systems they have a singular billing code and singular models of pricing. Hospitals can also get paid in lump sums yearly as opposed to having to get paid on a per-patient basis. This is not a result of the government being better at doing something but rather universality and simplicity winning out over a more complex and unnecessary network of middle men. Prescription Drugs also add to the cost of care because the Medicare system is driven up against the private system. Corruption is also at play because thanks to legalized bribery known as campaign contribution the drug industry is a powerful lobby. The US also sees worse outcomes and more costs because uninsured and under insured people will not get preventative care do to cost and they will wait for things to get worse because of costs. When things are found sooner they are cheaper to treat. In the US we have a system where we don't have great access to catch thing early and then we treat people later on when a condition has progressed worse. Then there is the profit motive. Profits in the US Healthcare system are 2% or less of the system. Certainly it would be nice to get rid of that 2% but we aren't being driven to the cleaners for 2% or less (Usually less.) But the profit motive is one that creates a perverse relationship between the patient and their insurance company. A private insurance company has an incentive (profit) to not pay out a claim, this generates a lot of back and forth between the insurance company and the provider (More bureaucracy) it also ends up with insurance companies not paying out claims (Often for frivolous reasons) and then placing the costs onto the patient who will go bankrupt or pay the full inflated costs. There are also other benefits to a single payer system where the government can have access to rates across the whole system and bring down costs (Why does X procedure cost less in this other hospital.) I have laid out a detailed and specific argument for single payer driving down costs and recording better outcomes. Can you please tell me how more free market drives down costs while still having the Hippocratic Oath?

Do you not remember when Tyrod was here? Despite being the most successful QB since without dispute Flutie and arguably Jim Kelly, Tyrod was absolutely hated while here. People last year were shitting on Tyrod for not making enough plays when throwing to an absolutely ***** receiving core. People also ***** on Tyrod for quarterbacking two top 10 NFL offenses in 2015 and 2016. I am not saying Tyrod was a prefect QB or the Bills weren't right in a long term sense to move on. But if you read this board you would think Tyrod was the worst QB in the league. The fanbase did love Flutie although Flutie was an amazing story and had a pretty good amount success while here even if his numbers weren't eye popping, I wasn't on this board when Flutie was here but I can easily imagine him being beloved. I was on here during the Fitz era and Fitz was loved but everyone knew after he faded in 2011 Fitz was not the answer and people were skeptical of Fitz hot 2011. Fitz plays with a lot of fire and passion plus he has the whole Ivy league, beard, wedding ring combo going. Also Allen isn't as universally reviled as you are painting. After the Vikings game a lot of people were anointing Allen the next 2017 Carson Wentz.I don't think the fanbase cares much about small vs. large QB's. I think its a combination of personality/story and success. Fans like passionate players with a good natured personality. They also like winners of course. I think with Allen the fanbase was split on him since so many draft pundits were very night and day on him. So I don't think there is any preference for large QB's

Eagles are at 6-6 and they are starting to get healthy (or at least healthier) and they are playing well. I could see them getting hot although their schedule is very difficult. Playing a hot Cowboys team next week and then the Rams and Texans.

What are the top 10 tight end busts? Since 2006 there have only been two tight ends taken in the top 10. In 2006 Vernon Davis was taken at pick 6 and in 2014 Eric Ebron was taken at pick 10. Davis was for a 5-6 year period one of the best tight ends in the league and has been a pretty good player most of his career having a late renaissance in DC the past few years. Ebron might not have lived up to the billing in Detroit but he still was a top 10 player at his position most of his time there and he is proving to be a top 5 player at his position with the Colts. So out of the two tight ends drafted in the top 10 both players have been very good. Even if you expanded to just tight ends drafted in the first round its a pretty good hit rate. 2017 - OJ Howard, Evan Engram, and David Njoku (Jury still out but all 3 look like they can be among the best at their position.) 2016 and 2015 - No TE's drafted in the first round. 2014 - Eric Ebron (Good in Detroit great in Indy) 2013- Tyler Eifert (Bust, played well for a couple of seasons but just got hurt a lot.) 2012 and 2011 - No TE's drafted in the first round. 2010 - Jermaine Gresham (Borderline, he had a pretty solid career in Cincy, good blocker consistently right around 500 yards, 50-60 receptions and 4-5 TD's but never really top 5 at his position.) 2009- Brandon Pettigrew (Borderline on this one, for 2 seasons from 2010 and 2011 he was among the best TE's in the league 70-80 receptions 700+ yards and 4-5 TD's, he also had 2 other solid seasons before injuries derailed his career.) 2008- Dustin Keller (Again Borderline, for 4 seasons he was one of the top 5-7 TE's in the league and then was playing well for a 5th year in 2012 before a catastrophic injury derailed his career.) 2007- Greg Olsen (Big hit on this one, dude is a borderline HOF player) 2006- Vernon Davis and Mercedes Lewis (Davis a big time hit borderline HOF tight end, Lewis I would say is a small hit, he was a pretty productive player for some ***** Jags teams for a 7-8 year period, he probably could have been a really good player on some better offenses.) Also you have Gronk, Ertz, and Kyle Rudolph drafted in round 2 (Although the busts in round 2 are much higher.) So while I think that there exists the ability to find tight ends elsewhere its not that high of a bust rate to take one in the first round. Most of the tight ends drafted in round 1 seem to be at least top 10 players at their positions for multiple seasons. Even the ones that were borderline or busts got derailed mainly due to injury not lack of talent. So I wouldn't be opposed to drafting a tight end fairly high up, Allen needs dynamic pass catchers and I don't see Clay going forward being that type of player as he never has been.

Assuming these numbers are regular season only (Which considering there are only 11 playoff games wouldn't make the playoffs that much of a factor) the NFL went from 14.45 penalties a game in 2009 to 16.9 penalties a game in 2015 (Assuming the 2018 projection of 4040 holds 2018's per game average would be 15.7 penalties per game.) I think the hits to the head, pass interference emphasis (after the Seahawks won in 2013 they call more PI and holding penalties thus the big jump from 2013 to 2014) and QB rules are probably what has increased the penalties overall. I don't know what you can do to enforce less penalties. Because of you are making refs artificially call less than you will see complaints of more missed calls. I think what you aim for in any leagues officiating is to have consistency in enforcement and clearly laid out rules. If players know what they can and can't get away with they will adapt as best as possible. Yes you will have some borderline judgement calls but as long as there is a level of consistency fans will be OK with it.

They do that. The NFL reviews every call and every "missed call" (how they determine what a missed call is I don't know, but if the announcers are talking about it you dam well know that's getting into the review process) and if a ref misses too many calls they get demoted and eventually fired. I think some people view NFL refs like college professors with tenure, in that no matter how badly they screw up they don't get any negative consequences. But the NFL does have a process in place to have quality control and evaluation on referees. Now I don't know what specifically can be done to improve the process as I think the NFL needs to make sure there is more consistency in what gets called. But there is such a process in place for all 4 major sports.

I would love to see a Medicare for all system in America both in a general level and on a personal level. Its a lot you asked about so I am going to try my best to address the very real concerns you have. I also want to say that I do not believe that Medicare for All is a perfect system, it has its issues, but rather that I think the private insurance system is way worse and costs more for no real reason. Should private insurance be allowed? In the Bernie proposed Medicare for All system it allows for private and supplemental insurance to exist, it just gives everyone a baseline access to Medicare. My own personal preference is to allow Medigap policies that supplement the gaps in coverage and expand coverage by Medicare so that if your employer wants to offer you an additional coverage supplementing your base insurance they should be allowed to do so. Even now many seniors take out Medigap insurance to help with the cost of care, so I don't see why employers couldn't go over the top to provide better insurance to people like yourself. Would you want a system in place for everyone? I argue that we already have universal healthcare because doctors can't turn down patients in need because they are unable to pay. The only way a private system would actually be able to save you money is by having doctors and providers able to deny people that need treatment based on their inability to pay. So if a poor person or a self employed person who is underinsured needs care those costs get absorbed into the general system either way. Its also not just lazy bums not working that are under insured or uninsured either. Americans work more hours, take less vacation, and receive the least amount of benefits in the industrial world, I think if you removed the vastly overpriced and often inaccessible healthcare system and replaced it with a serviceable baseline policy for everyone that removes a huge burden from your average working person and for reasons I will go into later saves the general system money. Government run healthcare is terrible look at the VA. The VA argument on the surface seems valid but it is also misleading. First off the VA is underfunded, even though almost every government agency claims to be underfunded the VA is by all metrics underfunded. But even throwing that out there are many reasons why the VA isn't effective (Although the VA the boogeyman many conservatives use to scare people against government healthcare has a higher approval rating than the private system, not to say the VA's approval rating is that high but more so that the dissatisfaction with American healthcare is that low.) Another reason why the VA is a not so effective system is because the VA has a population of patients that need much more care than the population of patients provided by the private system. Soldiers need more healthcare than your average citizens, battle injuries, mental healthcare, and various other factors that the average 2-64 year old the private insurance system handles simply don't have to deal with. So you have a concentrated population of people with a much greater demand for healthcare in an underfunded system. I would also argue that the VA is the worst type of structured government healthcare, in that the hospitals are both government run and government funded. Most universal healthcare systems are public financing of private institutions aka the insurance is financed through the public but the hospitals are privately run. The UK has a VA type system with government run and financed hospitals, its not bad but it is not as effective as the public private hybrid found in countries like Canada and France. I also think you fall into the fallacy that because you are paying more for private insurance that must make it better. The general stats don't bare that out to be true. For one America pays more per-capita for healthcare than any industrialized nation on Earth. Yet our Healthcare outcomes are usually in the middle of the road. Yes there are examples of people from other countries coming to America for care they couldn't get in Canada or other countries. But there are also examples of people going to single payer countries to get care they simply couldn't afford to get in America. There are also specialists and best of the best doctors in other countries so its not as though you can only find the best care for everything in America. The framing of the argument around single payer healthcare should be that we can't afford to not have single payer. The US in 1970 went from spending 6.2% of GDP on healthcare to in 2016 spending about 17.9% of GDP on Healthcare. To put that in context the average industrialized country in 1970 was spending about 5% of GDP on healthcare. In 2016 the average industrialized country spends 10.7% of GDP on healthcare. The closest nation to US spending on Healthcare is Switzerland which in 2016 spent about 12.7% of GDP on healthcare. Yet America does not have the best healthcare outcomes. America has an estimated 10-40 thousand people per year dying because of lack of healthcare coverage. Even a study funded by the notoriously conservative Koch brothers stated that Medicare for all would lower total healthcare spending by 2 trillion dollars over a 10 year period. That's just the lowest estimate, other studies have put the savings as high as 10 trillion (although I am not sure that is so realistic.) I will respond in a supplemental post about how exactly single payer drives down costs to the general system in another post this should be enough for you to read haha.

I keep seeing Derek Anderson on the list but it seems like Allen and Anderson have formed a good bond and Anderson has been a mentor. I don't think having Anderson as a third stringer is a bad thing. I wouldn't want Anderson as a backup but as a veteran mentor yes.

Yes but the fact that your house costs 400k less that's a big difference, you are right in the day to day stuff is a rounding error but bigger things like housing are probably significantly lower in Buffalo than most major metro areas that host NFL teams. Honestly taxes and other trivial things are so far down on the list of why players want to play for a team.