billsfan89

3-5 is a tough spot but considering the "easier" back half of the schedule 3-5 at least gives the Bills a chance to get to 9-7 and throw their hat in the ring for a wild card. I wouldn't be too upset with a 3-5 start but 4--4 is much more ideal.

A team thirsty at WR has fans thirsty for receivers.

I could see a bad start but not 0-8, the start of the schedule is brutal. I think the Bills could legit go 2-6 to start the season and then finish the back end 4-4 for a 6-10 record. I honestly think that if the Bills go 3-13 and get a top pick that might actually be to their long-term benefit (If there is a top QB prospect that nets the Bills a haul of picks from a trade down.) Looking at the schedule if the Bills want a crack at the playoffs they need to start 2-0. The Ravens game is a defensive struggle (most likely) that will be decided by turnovers and plays late in the game. If you win that game you have to hope the Chargers start the season slow in week 2 and the Bills scratch out that game. Then at 2-0 you can survive a 1-3 against the Titans, Texans, Vikings and Packers and a 2-2 puts you in a good spot. The only way I see the season shaking out for a crack at the playoffs is in this capacity. Ravens- W Chargers- W Vikings- L Packers- L Titans- L Texans- W Colts- W Pats*- L Bears- W Jets- W Jags- L Dolphins- W Jets- W Lions- W Pats*- L Dolphins- W That takes you to 10 wins which should sneak a wildcard birth. But I don't honestly see it panning out that way. I see a 1-1 Start at best, I see a split with the Jets and Fins and I see a split between the Lion and Bears. Which takes you down to 6 wins, maybe 7 in the likelihood that the Bills win a game they aren't "supposed" to which happens almost every year.

Much like the Steelers the Seahawks are going to have to build around their QB. Although Wilson's current contract isn't massive it is significant and after this upcoming season they will have to pay him a top 5 contract so if you have that much cap space invested in your QB you should build around that position (it also makes more sense to build around a QB when having a great QB is such a huge advantage and you want to protect your QB as an investment.) The Steelers have been able to cobble together an above average to good defense while putting big-time pieces around Big Ben (Big Ben's offensive line is much better in recent years, Brown, Bell and Juju are elite weapons too) now the Steelers defense is far from as good as it was earlier in Ben's career but they still field a top 10 or close defense every year (only year in recent memory where they were below 16 was 2014 where they were 18th hardly that bad.) I think the Seahawks will be fine long term even if they finish below 8 wins in 2018. The Seahawks are getting out of cap trouble in 2018, they will have a lot of cap space in 2019 (only five contracts above 7 million dollars in 2019 on the books so far) and their full complement of draft picks. Even if Wilson gets a massive extension his cap number for 2019 is 25 million (the last year of his second contract has a spike in cap number.) They Seahawks should be able to start rebuilding their offense rather quickly around Wilson and their defensive system still has some quality veteran players that can be a respectable unit with a few additions. Not building up the offense could torpedo Allen's chances. My ideal scenario is AJ kills it in training camp and he gets thrown to the wolves behind this terrible O-line and suspect skill position core. Give Allen that first year to just learn the system and not learn footwork and reading defenses behind an awful supporting cast. You can develop bad habits if you are trying to learn around a bad offense. In 2019 the Bills could really put Allen in an offense where he can actually have success and the defense will still hopefully be talented.

The Seahawks "dynasty" (Hard to say in the modern cap NFL what a dynasty is) was built off of 3 insanely good draft classes from 2010 to 2012. First they heisted Marshawn out of here only costing a pair of 4th round picks. The Seahawks also traded a 2nd round pick in 2009 (37th overall) for Denver's 2010 1st (which ended up being the 14th overall pick.) In 2010 the Seahawks added their franchise running back via a trade and then drafted Russell Okung, Earl Thomas, and Golden Tate with their 1st 3 picks. They also nabbed Cam Chancellor in the mid rounds. Then in 2011 they followed up that draft class with James Carpenter who was a fixture along their O-line, KJ Wright who has anchored one of their LB spots since then, Richard Sherman who of course was an All-Pro corner and they also nabbed useful starters, Byron Maxwell and Malcome Smith, late. They also nabbed Doug Baldwin as an undrafted free agent in 2011. They followed up those insanely good draft classes with a phenomenal 2012 draft class. They drafted Bruce Irvin and Bobby Wagner in the first two rounds both players went on to be fixtures for their defense and then the mega-hit of Russell Wilson in the third round which pretty much put everything in place as they had a stacked defense and now enough pieces on offense. They haven't drafted that well since 2012 and at first because the 2010-2012 drafts were so great it didn't matter if they had a few bad draft classes. But as those draft classes got older and the subsequent draft classes didn't pan out it had a bad impact on the team that is starting to really be felt. I guess the point of this long ramble is that if the Bills hope to have a large run of success they need to put together 3-4 really great draft classes and toss on some good acquisitions via trade and free agency. 2017 looks good hopefully in 2018 with Allen, Edumonds and Phillips those players become a big part of the teams future.

The modern NFL offense is streamlined into a single QB. The QB is the fulcrum of the offense. Even a team with a "game manager" has all of their offense based off of their QB's strengths or weaknesses. Having a second QB that is a great athlete like Lamar Jackson come in and do a few trick plays might work for 3-5 plays a game. Trick plays help keep a defense honest and once in awhile, you can pull off a massive gain. But I don't see an offense that regularly switches QB's near a 50/50 split working nor do I see an offense with 2 QB's on the field at the same time working consistently. Not saying it can't be done but it just doesn't seem like from what we know about the NFL and how it is currently structured that an offensive gameplan with multiple QB's would makes sense other than for a few trick plays. Think about how hard it is for an NFL offense to get 1 good QB now try to find 2 of those guys. There are 2 types of QB controversies. The first being a rookie or young QB vs. an established veteran starter. In that case, you can have a good QB situation because you are deciding between your future and your present. However the other type of QB controversy is almost never successful and that's between two veteran QB's, odds are if you have two older QB's on the roster competing your QB situation isn't very healthy.

Trent Murphy was a big veteran signing coming off of a massive injury. Vonta Davis also has a similar injury issue. I think it just more has to do with McBeane knowing the veteran market (Which has been pretty static since June) and wanting to see what he has currently on the roster before dipping into the vet pool.

Mills is a good run blocker but a really bad pass blocker. In a passing league and with an inexperienced QB (No matter who starts) I think pass blocking at that position is at a premium. I think Mills is the epitome of a player you want coming off the bench a bubble starter type. I think him and Newhouse are both backup caliber players while having one of those guys on the roster is nice depth one of them will end up starting.

The Bills will, in my opinion, make one significant move either signing a player like Bowman after an injury hits them, or they will bring in a veteran cut from another team. The Bills have too many areas of concern for them not to at least kick the tires on a player either when injury hits or when rosters start to get trimmed down. I think Guard, RT and WR are the three spots on offense where you could see a significant veteran signing (Maybe even RB if Shady is suspended or out) and Linebacker seems to be the spot on defense. Overall I think the Bills must like what they have in camp enough to see how the roster is panning out. Then as you see what you have and you see what is out there on the market you can make a move if needed. I think it is just going to stay quiet until training camp is in full swing. July before training camp is a time when coaches, front office, and players usually take their families on vacation to get some leisure time in before the long grueling season starts. That's why it is usually a pretty dead time around the league. All the rosters are set, the draft and OTA's are in the books, the veteran free agent market has been static for well over a month and the scouting for the next draft has been blueprinted. By the end of June the coaches have their training camp programs locked in and there really isn't a whole lot for them to do, players are always in shape so getting some mental rest is always worthwhile and executives have their teams set and know what free agents are out there. So it just ends up being that dead time in the league where pundits just talk about "Season Predictions" and "Camp Battles" for the billionth time while everyone actually involved in the game is getting that last vacation in. It's also the last few weeks where these players, coaches and executives can really spend time with their families for months. Toss in the fact that it is summer and you have just a general downtime in the league.

The Ravens defense is very legit and although their offense isn't anything to write home about I think it is slightly better than what the Bills are throwing out there. It could seriously be a very ugly 10-7 type game.

Mario's 2012 season wasn't that good, he got hot for a few games inflating his sack total but his impact on the defense was limited that season. That being said Mario's 2013 and 2014 seasons were legit great.

I think the focus should be more on growing the middle class so that you have a larger tax base and fewer people not making enough money to pay income tax. Even if you had a 15% base tax that was flat and had no deductions (for sake of simplicity) you would still find it very easy to push a populist agenda promising free stuff. If I make 20k a year, 15% of that is 3k. If you promise those workers more than 3k worth of benefits then they will still vote for the populist. Whereas if you invested money in infrastructure programs everyone wins. Working class people get jobs, that helps the need for consumer demand, infrastructure is heavily improved which makes transporting people and good easier that helps the economy grow overall and there becomes a positive effect overall in quality of life as commutes are shortened and overall places become better. If you cut out the massive amounts of spending needed to do a flat tax the damage to the economy is insane and the needs of the economy for infrastructure, research, education, jobs training and economic development will not be met. Massive tax cuts failed to stimulate the Kansas economy as rich people can only consume so much and the idea of putting money back into the hands of the investor class so that they can invest more sounds good but it fails on two accounts. 1- A lot of investments are overseas, giving rich people a lot of money to invest is no doubt going to flush a good chuck of that overseas due to technology and investment opportunities in emerging markets any investor is going to properly be investing a chunk of their money outside of the US. 2- The biggest issue with the economy is consumer demand. Corporations are flushed with capital, investors are flushed with capital and profits are at all-time highs even adjusted for inflation. There just isn't the consumer demand from the middle class as there was in past decades. That lack of demand results in there being less for companies to invest in. Flushing the rich and corporations with cash does nothing to solve this. That's my take on it if philosophically you think there should be a flat tax rate for the sake of ethics. I can't argue with you, but I just don't see that working out in a pragmatic sense.

Consumption taxes replacing income taxes would mean much more of the tax burden would fall on the working class and middle class. In general, the highest earners spend a much lower percentage of their income on consumption. I honestly do favor a progressive tax system, the draconian cuts to vital programs needed to have a flat tax or less progressive system would not be worth the "Fairness" that is sought out by people who advocate for a flatter tax system. Are we really trying to get more taxes out of the working poor and middle class in order to give the wealthy more money? I would much rather see money spent on education, infrastructure, and job training than on tax cuts for high earners. Are there things the government spends money on that is terrible that could be cut? Of course, I think the military is bloated, I think there are a lot of subsidies and crony capitalist things going on and as with any large entity, there is waste and inefficiency. But just because there are things that could be cut doesn't mean that the money used for tax cuts couldn't be put to better use securing the future of the American workforce through infrastructure and jobs training programs.

I was not saying that was what should be done. I don't think a struggling middle class needs more taxes. I was more so saying that the evening out of the federal income tax distribution couldn't come from the poor since the poor have so little income. If you taxed the 45% that don't pay federal income tax at 100% it wouldn't be that much more than the whole worth of the Bush tax cut on the top income bracket. So this meme that some (not you in particular) float out that because 45% of American workers don't pay federal income tax that must mean that if we taxed them more there would be a lot more money coming into the system which just isn't true by the numbers.

First of all if you factor in payroll taxes the tax burden is much more evenly distributed considering that income above a certain income level (I believe 125k) isn't subjected to the tax. But if you just want to talk about income tax I think that evening out the burden can't come from the bottom 45% as if you tax them at 100% it wouldn't make much of a dent in the overall burden. You have to even out that distribution through taxing the middle class more.

As long as someone is not too insanely fargone I always enjoy seeing how others think. From what he has been replying I think he is reasonable enough (even if I vastly disagree) where there is actually something useful that could come from the conversation.

The reason 20% of the population pays 87% of the income tax burden is because they take in 52% of the total income. You could argue that the middle class could be taxed more but then there is the issue of making a tough economy even tougher for a shrinking middle class. The distribution of tax to income is thrown off a bell curve because of the middle class and not the working poor. There is a flawed idea that the 45% of people that don't pay federal income tax could "pay their fair share" and contribute more. I remember seeing a study done around the time Obama was considering repealing the Bush tax cut for the top bracket that said that if you taxed the bottom 45% of earners a 100% tax rate it would only be about 10 billion dollars more than the tax revenue that the top earners got from the Bush tax cuts top bracket rate cut. So I think if you are to take an honest look at evening out the distribution you have to look at middle-income people because the poor simply don't have a whole lot to contribute to the tax pool. As far as comparing the USA to Sweeden/Scandanivan nations, I think that there is a bit of a flawed and rather racist or at best racially biased talking point of it being a homogenous country. The USA has a very homogenous culture, we assimilate people so insanely well. I don't buy that as being any significant factor in why the USA can't adopt similar policies. Now I do think that the USA can not completely adopt the same level of social programs as those nations have is mainly due to the massive amount of military spending the US does as a percentage of GDP and the USA's military presence around the world lowering the burden on those nations for defense. I also think the USA's political system is completely owned and bought by special interests legally bribing pols. We can't get anything done that is at the expense of a large corporate entity because the influence will not get it. Not saying other nations do not have corruption but rather the level of corruption in the US is just at an insane level. Personally, I don't want to see the US adopt some of the more out there policies of the far left (The jobs guarantee being the biggest example) but we desperately need Universal Healthcare and some of the other more realistic policy prescriptions that come from the more populist left. We have been letting right wing nuts and corporate democrats !@#$ this nation over for too long. It just isn't sustainable.

The demand might not be static but everyone at some point with little exception will need access to healthcare. I think that most people would want at the very least a "catastrophic" health care package if they could afford it, no one wants to risk something like cancer and not being able to afford it and have it bankrupt themselves. I hear what you are saying about it being 60 years too late, the current healthcare system is deeply entrenched and very powerful. But I think that the dissatisfaction with the US system for the insane amount of money we put into it and the rather mediocre outcomes will only grow. There is only so much dissatisfaction you can tolerate.

But you aren't socializing demand. The demand for healthcare exists as inherent to human nature because everyone will need it to some degree. Socializing demand would be only allowing people to access X amount regardless of need (Equality of outcome.) In a single payer system you are allowing the healthcare providers the ability to assess access to care based off of need and not economics. Right now we let insurance bureaucrats decide the level of care that is needed, I would rather put those decisions in the hands of doctors. You are making the payment of it through taxes as opposed to private insurance. The question is what is the best method to pay for the care? The demand for care remains static no matter which system you are using, yes you would open up access to care by making the payment public. But once again I would argue that the costs and manpower saved by billing and the access to preventative care would far exceed the risk of rationing care (Which we already are rationing care along economic lines.) I don’t see any private model that reduces billing and addresses the need for preventative care. Then there is the economic issues of healthcare being a tremendous advantage for larger business (who can group their plans together for increased savings) and the issues of freelancers and the self-employed being underinsured or uninsured making people going into business for themselves much harder. My mom came from Iron Curtain Poland, she said everything in America was simply vastly better than Poland back then with the one exception being healthcare. She says that the healthcare system in Poland back then was actually better in how they treated people and she felt like American’s were so scared to see doctors because of costs. She always says that what good is great expensive medicine if no one knows how to access it. That should tell you that the privatized system is just inherently flawed.

What was it that the poor were doing in 1960 that was so different than they are doing now? I think the ills of the economy are caused by large corporations outsourcing (along with automation which is more a natural progression of technology) and the government being corrupted by the creeping influence of money and special interests. What is it that poor people are doing that is causing the jobs to be outsourced? I think the enablers of poverty are these large entities that take away a lot of the jobs and opportunities that formed the foundations of the middle class. Yes, everyone who works pays a payroll tax which funds Social Security and Medicare, the working poor also pay a sales tax on almost everything they buy as most states have some sort of sales taxes. Toss in fees and other state and local taxes like tolls, gas taxes and vice taxes and you will see that even that 40-45% that isn't paying federal income tax is paying a significant portion of their income towards taxes. Is what they get out greater than what they put in? In some cases, yes, but to say they are putting in 0 taxes and getting a lot out is inaccurate.

Once again, the working poor still pay Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, Payroll taxes, Sales taxes, state and local taxes, fees on things like car registration and various other little taxes. I don't dispute the "federal taxes" portion, however, to present it as 45% of working Americans are just taking from the public and not putting anything back in is completely dishonest. It's a semantics argument but I think the way some people frame that statistic is highly misleading. I think we are in agreement on the Hand up and not hand out. I do think that there are some very basic needs like Healthcare and education that should be publicly funded, you can't get off your feet without those basic things. But I think that a lot of conservatives (Not you specifically) will place all the ills of the economy onto the poor when in reality it wasn't the poor who shipped jobs all over the world to undercut their labor. It isn't the poor causing the larger economic issues. The poor are the symptom, not the cause in most cases. The government isn't getting influenced and bought by lobbyists poor people are paying for.

That's a big misnomer. Healthcare is not an elastic product, it is not easy to create more of it and everyone has a demand for the best possible use of it. People always cite the government as being this massive bureaucracy and thus everything they do is inefficient. That's true in certain cases, esp for consumer products (Soviet phones and cars were !@#$ing horrendous) but when it comes to health insurance all quantifiable evidence proves your thesis wrong. Although I think that people will ignore the fact that any massive entity private or public is inefficient. People like to compare the federal government to a small business as a sign of inefficiency but compare a large corporate entity to the federal government and you will see very similar waste and politics. Anyway back to why I support Single Payer Healthcare. The USA's health insurance system spends 13% on billing. Most single payer systems spend less than 5% with the highest single payer system paying 7% on billing. The reason private insurance is inefficient is because healthcare providers in a private system have to deal with hundreds of insurance providers for each patient at the point of use. Each private insurer has their own coding, bureaucracy and payment methods. It's wasteful and inefficient by its nature. I am sure you have been to a hospital and doctors office and seen the massive billing department, that is unique to America. In a single payer system hospitals can get singular lump sum payments for the year (The administration can ask the government for X amount to cover their budget for a year.) Single payer systems also save money with preventative care. How many people do you know in the USA that don't see doctors for preventative care because they are uninsured or underinsured? People wait on things to get worse and then the treatments later on when a problem gets worse are more costly. The private insurance system is incentivized to not cover people for treatments because it saves them money so people don't like to navigate the system because it is so intentionally complicated. I also think that there is a tremendous economic benefit beyond the fact that the US would save trillions in healthcare costs. All businesses love a fixed cost. Replacing private insurance costs which can vary year to year with a simple payroll tax you fix that cost. It is also a great benefit to small businesses looking to compete and it also makes freelancing and self-employment much more realistic. Start ups looking to get talent already are at a disadvantage not being able to offer more pay but smaller companies and start ups have an even harder time competing for employees who might need the health coverage a larger company might be able to provide. Removing health care from work is a big boost. All single payer healthcare is, is paying for the services of healthcare providers with taxes as opposed to hundreds of private insurers with their own complicated rules and incentive to not cover people. Is single payer perfect? No there are issues but the question shouldn't be what system is perfect, the question should be what system is better. The outcomes and efficiency of a single payer system are far better than the ones of America's horrendous private system. The Walton Family has more wealth than 42% of American's combined, I think the decisions of the super rich have a much larger impact than the decisions of poor people. I am not saying that there aren't a lot of poor people that make bad decisions on their own accord that lead to their disposition in life. But I think that if I am looking at what the !@#$ is wrong with the economy I can't put the blame on the poor instead of the people that actually hold the economic power.

The talking point of "Half of America doesn't pay taxes" has been disproven so many times. The working poor pay social security, Medicare, Medicaid, Payroll taxes, State and Local income taxes, sales taxes, fees and various other taxes. So to portray anyone advocating for the outrageous notion that Universal Healthcare is a good idea is some freeloader who just wants a handout is not only dishonest but intellectually lazy. I think it is insane to look at the people with the least economic power (The poor) and think they are the ones responsible for everything wrong with the economy. On the surface level whose decisions are going to impact the economy more a billionaire or a poor person?

The term Democratic Socialist has kind of been co-opted and used to describe a social democrat or populist left candidate (for better or worse that is due to Bernie Sanders.) Which must be super frustrating for the actual Democratic socialists who actually believe in a form of post-capitalist society. I honestly think that if the Democrats went more populist left pushing for things like Universal Healthcare, Increased Infrastructure spending, ending rampant military spending, criminal justice reform, legalization of Marijuana, Green energy and job training you would actually see the Dems win more elections. But instead, the same special interests that kept the Tea Party people out will do there best to squash any outsider interference. The jobs guarantee is virtually impossible current economic conditions and would be economically disastrous. Other than that and maybe 1-2 other policy platforms I don't see anything radical about the populist left agenda. Universal Healthcare, in particular, is always pushed as this unreasonable radical thing when in reality the US healthcare system is the one that is actually radically inefficient and wasteful.

I think Groy takes it unless they kick Groy over to LG.