billsfan89

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.

The cost of living in Western NY is a lot lower, plus the players do get taxed based off of where they play their games, so the games you play in Florida and Texas you don't get taxed on (although of course if you are playing 8 home games a year in a no tax state that's going to result in lower taxes.) But you have to be very naive to think that players care about state taxes that in any meaningful way. NYC, LA, and Chicago have always been high end player destinations across all 4 major sports. All 3 cities are among the highest taxed and most costly place to live in the US. Young people in their 20's generally speaking want to be where the best nightlife and culture are. That's what attracts them to want to live in a city. So I think major cities will always have an advantage in terms of drawing free agents. If you are 26 and have played in a small market your whole career are you really caring about the state tax or do you want to go to a city where there is a lot of nightlife, women, and things to do with the money you make? Of course winning is a big part of it too. But I think if I am ranking reasons for free agents to make their choice in where to play I would put state taxes and cost of living at the bottom of the list.

Cowboys defense looked elite maybe even the best of the league. Zeke looked like he could control any game while Cooper continued his strong play. BUT its just one game, the Saints were due to come out flat after 10 straight wins and it was a road Thursday game. Goofy things happen on Thursday games. Even though both the Saints and Cowboys played the previous Thursday I still always take the results of Thursday games with a grain of salt.

OBJ doesn't seem to fit the McD culture and he is on a very large contract. I don't think the Giants are trading him (you need him and Barkley to make the Giants offense go esp if you want a young QB you draft next year to have a shot at success) nor do I think on a big contract he is that tradeable cap wise. AJ Green on the other hand is an interesting trade option. Green however will be 31 in 2019, he has been a bit banged up 2 out of the last 3 seasons, and he has a significant contract. I would be willing to offer up a swap of a 3rd for a 6th. I think Green could have 2 or so good years left but I think he could also be on the decline. So to take Green on I would give up something but nothing too crazy. I would rather see if Denver wants to trade for Emmanual Sanders.

Assuming Teller finishes the year strong resulting in the Bills needing 3 positions along the O-line it is likely that the team will not be able to address all three needs in free agency. At best they will be able to do is sign 2 high end free agents along the O-line. So drafting a O-line player in the absence of a high end WR is good. It helps protect Allen and get the ground game going.

After a Rocky start Edumonds has played at an above average starting caliber level. He is 19 and raw coming out of college and he already is playing like a solid starter. Vander Eshe is playing like a pro-bowler right out of the gate. I think that in 2 years time both players will be tops at their position and the Bills will not regret the move.

2017 looks like there are 3 legit pro-bowl or near pro-bowl level starters (White, Dawkins, and Milano) and Zay could still develop into a productive player. 2018 setting aside Allen there looks like there could be 3-4 starters coming out of it. Edumonds is a 19 year old rookie playing above average for his position, Phillips looks like a solid player who could develop into a good starter, and Johnson is already a good nickle corner, and Teller has played strong as of late. If the Bills continue to draft well they will be just fine even if they are so so on trades and free agency.

Even if that is the case because they don't want to rattle the donors they won't push Medicare for All to the public. Meaning that you won't see your more center mainstream Dems going to talk shows and other platforms and pushing the fact that they passed Medicare for all and the Republicans blocked it. So they might make a token passing of it to appease the progressive base but it will not be at the forefront of the Dems policy agenda. They will push heavily the Russia probe and maybe something like Marijuana legalization and restoring Net Neutrality (there is enough of a lobby to put money into those sectors) but I don't see them actually doing more than token acknowledgement of a progressive/populist agenda. Sadly the American political system is organized around money and special interests. There was a Harvard study that stated that 90% of the time the policy that has the most money behind it wins regardless of how popular it is.

If McBeane can continue to pull 3-4 starters per-draft the Bills future will be bright. The Team has not put together 2 good drafts in a row since Polian.

I hear your point that they can do both but I just don't trust the more center and corporately affiliated members to vote with the more progressive caucus. The Centrist/Corporate Dems remain too corrupted by money from the Healthcare industry and various other interests that bribe them with campaign contributions. So even if the Medicare for All bill comes to a vote the Republicans will vote against it and enough of the corporately vested Dems will too. The Dems also won't pass or even attempt to pass other aspects of the populist agenda because their corporate interests will demand they don't. The Dems are also incompetent when it comes to framing a narrative. The Republicans are masterful or coordinating a narrative and pushing it out to the public. When an event happens the Republicans craft a message and go on all media and repeat the same talking points. The Republicans also message to their base much more heavily. So even if the Dems were to push Medicare for All they won't market it properly or they will instead generally ignore it and push the Russia probe instead. I am telling you that Legislatively the Dems will not use their House Majority properly and in terms of public opinion they won't drive home the populist agenda they should be. The Dems in general are incompetent due to fear of losing their donors driving their acts more so than pursuing the policy agenda their base (Which just turned out big for them in House and Governors races.) My only hope for the Dems is that the progressive caucus grows more and more within the party. Primaries in 2020 are going to be huge if the progressive/populist base of the party wants to continue to push the party more left. Right now the progressive wing of the party only makes up between 10-15% of the party seats in total. Not insignificant but they need to push 50% in order to really accomplish more than just token gestures. Its also a process that is going to take more than 1-3 election cycles to complete. The populist left has to realize that it is a 20 year process and not something that is going to happen by 2020.

Monopoly was a strong term that is not technically accurate, but I think the general sentiment that across a wide variety of industries the market is being more and more consolidated into one or two entities that own a significant majority of the market is true. I don't think large companies in an industry in and of its self is a problem but in certain areas there are mergers and purchases that are allowed that shouldn't be allowed. In other areas there have been regulations since the 1990's that have been stripped that would have prevented the conglomeration of certain industries. Large companies holding 60+% of the market space can quickly become a problem if they become too big to compete against. Does the USPS follow a similar methodology? I find the USPS to have in general better pricing than UPS or Fedex in most cases anyway. Just interested to hear if you know.

The Dems didn't push for Universal Healthcare because their donors from the Heatlhcare industry didn't want them too. The Dems are a corrupt party, they could have an insanely popular platform but they don't want to lose their donor base no more than the Republicans do. Universal Healthcare's popularity had been rising during the Bush Administration and has continued to rise since fairly consistently so its not as though all of a sudden the pollsters rigged it when Republican got control. Your narrative of polls say things I don't like so they must be rigged against the GOP just doesn't make sense. So if Polls are just a psy-op control mechanism, then how do you gauge what public opinion is? I would like some metric other than wither or not you think it is. Polls predicted the 2018 election with a high degree of accruacy and most non-2016 elections pretty well (I would say the 2016 election was a Bradley effect for Trump, more of an outlier.) So their predictive power is fairly decent enough to not be ruled out from a scientific perspective.

Polling isn't 100% accurate but it's the best tool we have at the moment to measure a populations opinions. Polls are usually pretty accurate or at least accurate enough to be something worthy of consideration. Even if you just look at the candidates that ran in 2018 under a populist left agenda they performed extraordinarily well. There is plenty of evidence that the populist left agenda is extremely popular. But you know maybe I should just defer to the metric of wither or not you think it is. It was a Reuters and Gallop poll, the question was around Medicare for All, checking now to see the exact methodology. I remember looking at it but I can't 100% say but I do know they asked the even if it increases taxes qualifier.

Based off of polling numbers they are popular and not by slim margins either. Medicare for all has a 70% approval rating including 52% of Republicans approving. All those other policies poll well above 60%. Wither or not you find it to be philosophically justified is not the point and a different conversation.

Trump isn't always the one making these places competitive, the GOP has run some of the worst candidates in these deep red states and they take what should be a layup and put it in doubt. I expect that with the Senate (hopefully) going back to its traditional role of the chamber where bad ideas go to die, that the Democratic House is going to be an even bigger circus than usual — especially given the unprecedented numbers of vocal “democratic” socialists about to join Pelosi’s caucus. If nothing else, it should prove entertaining. If the Dems were a smart political party they would push the populist left agenda of Universal Healthcare, paid maternity leave, raising the minimum wage, no student cost to public universities, and legalization of marijuana. Pass all of those insanely popular ideas and make the Republicans come out against them. The Dems have a big base that they need to over serve in order to win elections (The Republicans over serve their base and it works ) The Dems won't get that populist left agenda passed but it would state to the public where they stand on the issues and what the Republicans stand against. But the Dems are morons, they will do a soft centrist agenda mostly focused on subpoenas. They consistently fail to understand where the momentum and enthusiasm in their party is.

McCaffery is what Reggie Bush should have been, good enough in between the tackles and an elite player as a receiver of the backfield. The Panthers use McCaffery as a weapon on offense as opposed to just having him be a standard running back.

Marvin Lewis could have been fired at least once or twice in his tenure if not more, its only the cheapness of owner that has kept him around.

I think Dareus has a chance to play a decent role on a team once he is cut from the Jags. But Dareus is toxic to this coaching staff so I don't see Dareus coming back.