billsfan89

The USA and England's versions of unfettered capitalism weren't sustainable, the massive amounts of inequality and relative poverty resulted in the welfare state and regulations. Many modern capitalism practicing nations don't do the unfettered version of capitalism because the massive levels of inequality were not sustainable. "Property rights, private ownership, and individual rights are hallmarks of capitalism, not limitations of it." Completely agree I do not know how you could infer that I was characterizing those things as limitations. I was not implying that at all, I am a big fan of capitalism just not without some degree of oversight by the government.

People love capitalism, the countries staunch Bernie Sanders voters prop up as great examples of socialism are capitalist nations. People don't like unfettered capitalism because it results in massive inequality that once it reaches a certain threshold isn't sustainable. The government's role is to shape the conditions to which a free market with property rights, private ownership, and individual rights against the government exist. I think 80% of people believe in some shape a government should take in balancing those conditions so that the markets do not run away to the point where massive inequality becomes an issue. The debate exists as to what degree and to what extent those conditions should be set.

You do realize there is a middle ground between socialism and unfettered capitalism right? Do you honestly think someone saying hey maybe unfettered capitalism has some unintended consequences automatically means they are a socialist? That's an insane jump to conclusions. Capitalism is the most powerful force we have on this planet to generate wealth but left unchecked it ends up in a pyramid scheme were so few see that benefit. Capitalism is the powerful flow of a powerful river and the government are the dams and levees that keep the river from overflowing and flooding.

How so? Unfettered capitalism encourages strong concentrations of wealth to a small number of people Employers broke unions through force, forced children into the labor market, abused employees all to the end of saving money. The Book The Jungle by Upton Sinclair is the result of unfettered capitalism.

Pure capitalism failings are a rapid deterioration of inequality that leads to a massive underclass of people who feel that they have nothing to lose so it ends up creating a deterioration of society. Pure Capitalism is insanely zero sum which has a chance to create the conditions for massive revolutions to occur.

25% to pay for what the federal government does is a pretty sweet deal and hardly tyrannical. The largest Military on the planet, infrastructure, Space exploration, National Parks, Disaster relief, Healthcare for the elderly, Social Security, and so much else. Granted as you said you are not paying 25% but if you seriously think that living in a modern society with all those programs and earned benefits isn't worth a significant portion of your labor then you have an odd definition of tyranny. There is always a debate about how much is too much but the framing of your argument is a bit silly. My biggest issue with an ideology of libertarians is two-fold. 1- Libertarians place the same blind faith in free markets that socialists and communists place in the government. 2- Libertarians ignore the fact that most rules, regulations, and programs exist in response to the failings of the free market. Are there examples of government overreach and regulatory capture? Yes, that's why socialists and communists are stupid to think that the answer is always more government. But on the other end, the reason things like Environmental regulations exist is because the free market and private enterprise didn't give a !@#$ about pollution. Every time we roll back environmental regulations we eventually hear that the companies lower their standards and bad things happen. If the free market was the answer to the Environment then there wouldn't be instances of lower regulations leading to bigger problems.

Eli Manning wrong pick, Phillip Rivers wrong pick, Carson Palmer wrong pick, Jared Goff wrong pick, and there are many other examples of QB's not playing right away that went on to be uber successful in the NFL. In fact there is evidence that sitting a QB for most of their rookie year is the best way to go. This has to be trolling.

Allen is a project, he needs to mature in a lot of aspects of his game. Unless there is an injury or Allen performs dramatically better in camp/pre-season there should be no need to rush Allen into action. Allen might need 2 years to sit depending on how well the coaching staff is able to work with him.

I don't think the Bills are going to take on Klein's (relatively) massive contract. Klein's deal averages out to 5 million per year, this team didn't want Preston Brown for a little less than that so I doubt they give up a draft pick to take on that contract. I think if Klein is released then the Bills would be very interested because he is a guy McD is probably familiar with and fits a need (outside of Milano and Edmunds who does the team have at LB?)

It's not unfair to question if a college system makes a QB light it up in the NCAA but won't translate into the NFL. Granted you have to take a look at this in a short span of time, who cares if a QB from X college was a bust in the 80's when the NFL and college games were rapidly different. What type of system the college runs and what type of talent the college puts around a QB are factors too consider. It is one of many factors that I think scouts and organizations should consider. There is a reason why certain colleges produce certain types of position players more so than other ones (Coaches, systems, competition levels, etc.)

Negatives 1- Shady will not reach 1,000 rush yards. 2- Josh Allen will be rushed into action by week 9 in order to try and inject some life into a lifeless offense. 3- The Bills will not make the playoffs. Positives 1- The defense will be a top 10 or close unit in the league responsible for most of the team's success. 2- Haush will continue to be money in the kicking game. 3- Edumonds will be in the conversation for DROY 4- The secondary will be fantastic again.

WR would be a fantastic need to fill but I only have heard about that CB that's available. I wouldn't mind using a high non-1st round pick on a CB if that player would have been a 1st round prospect had he declared or been able to declare. Corner isn't a huge need but outside of White I am not too enthused about what this team has. Vonta is a good reclamation project but coming off some injuries and only on a one year deal. There really isn't a proven nickel corner on the team either.

6 1000 yard seasons with 2 additional 800 plus yard seasons that were only held down under 1000 yards due to missing 4 games both of those seasons. That's in addition to over 3000 receiving yards. McCoy has been one of the best starting running backs for 8 straight seasons. That to me is HOF worth regardless of what he does to end his career. What more do you want than nearly a decade of a player being one of the best if not the best at his position? Is one more good season the difference?

I don't think that Tyrod Slipped at all, I think he stayed the same but the talent level around him dipped from 2015 to 2016 (Sammy not being healthy) and then the talent level fell again from 2016 to 2017 (Woods leaving, Matthews hurt, and Benjamin getting hurt.) I also think that the O-line got a little worse each season esp with Glenn's major injury. I think Tyrod settles in around the 18th to 22nd best QB in the NFL. That's not fantastic but you certainly can do a lot worse. But when you have a lower mid-level QB like Tyrod his level of play is going to heavily depend on the talent level around him. Tyrod isn't going to make players around him better but he is good enough to allow the players around him to reach their level of talent. Bad QB's handicap the rest of their offense, good and great QB's make their supporting casts better, and OK QB's allow the talent to play to their level. You can win with a QB like Tyrod but it is super hard to consistently put that level of offensive talent around him while still investing enough in your defense.

Tyrod was a starting caliber QB in the NFL, There aren't 32 QB's I would rather trot out than Tyrod. I think you can make an argument there are much more than 20 QB's one would take over Tyrod. But Tyrod is also not a top 16 QB, I think it would be a hard argument to say Tyrod is a top 20 QB. Tyrod was also on a very friendly deal. The Browns offered up a low-end premium draft pick for him and the Bills took good value for him. The Bills wanted a longer-term answer at QB and The Browns needed someone that could play well in front of a rookie for a year. The Browns were willing to spend the 65th pick in order to get competent QB play to avoid having to force in their top draft pick. The Bills got a good pick for a QB that wasn't going to be here past 2018, the Browns got a solid QB that gives them the luxery to not have to start a rookie. Both teams won, the trade isn't a reflection of how bad Tyrod is more so two teams needs lining up.

There is no conspiracy theory here, Josh Allen is a polarizing player. Allen poses everything you want in a QB from a physical perspective and from an intangibles perspective, some scouts and coaches are going to love him because they will find ways to explain away the stats and the game film. But some more analytics oriented scouts and coaches are not in love with him because he does not fit the profile statistically and you can see some of the issues that might drive him to not be successful in the modern high percentage passing era. In the modern NFL a QB needs to make the easy throws on 1st and 2nd down. The NFL is built around increasing scoring, defenses are starting to adapt but once defenses start to get good and catch up the league adjust the rules to be more friendly to the offense. So QB's will need to make the right decisions and execute on almost all their easy throws in order to have success. Allen gives you reasons to be concerned about but he also gives you a lot to be optimistic about.

Linebacker could be a real concern, but I think that they can figure it out there esp if Edumonds stays healthy. But my biggest concern is the pass rush. There are no sure bets as to the Bills even having 1 player that can get to the QB. Hughes is coming off a bad season and is older, Shaq is coming off of an injury and hasn't light the world on fire, Murphy is coming off of a big injury, and Lorax is older and coming off a not so good season. Now all 4 players give you reasons as to why you think they will rebound but all 4 could be ineffective. If the Bills can get 2 good seasons out of those 4 players then I think it is off to the Races. Star and Phillips should be effective in the run game, the LB core should be competent enough, and the secondary is the strength of the defense. But if the Bills can't get the pass rush going it will just destroy the rest of the defense.

It's cost-benefit analysis, Tank probably wouldn't cost anything more than the vet minimum and the Bills are uber thin at Linebacker and don't have a dominant special teams unit. Tank could be an upgrade over what the team has and at worst would be a nice veteran to have in camp. I don't think this would be a bad move at all. The Browns are a lot more talented than they have been with some big trades and free agents to go with a lot of high draft choices they brought in. I still think they are a year away but 5-6 wins is a pretty reasonable expectation for them.

Haush has to be number 1, Carpenter would be number 2 in my opinion. Carpenter was money for 2 straight seasons in 2013 to 2014. In 2015 he was still pretty dam good on regular field goals but he just missed way too many PAT's. In 2016 he fell apart. But 2 great seasons and 1 OK season is hardly a bad run for a kicker. Lindell had some good seasons, but he never was capable of hitting longer field goals, I think that not having a kicker that could have a shot at hitting 50+ yard field goals really hurt the team.

I don't think McD would rush Allen in if he looked unprepared in pre-season but I worry that McD would rush in Allen if the team was floundering offensively and the season is slipping away. McD rushed in Peterman over Tyrod who is a competent pro-QB because the offense which had no NFL receivers that weren't hurt was floundering. Allen starting the last 2-4 games of the season is fine if the season is lost but rushing him in for a lot of games with a bad O-line and lacking in receivers could long-term derail his development and confidence.

I honestly am hoping that Allen doesn't play. If Edmunds is the real deal and they get some luck at the pass rush position I think the defense can be a top 10 unit in the league if not better but as good as the defense can be the offense can be just as bad. I think you run the risk of Allen getting rocked behind a bad O-line and developing bad habits due to tons of pressure. Throw McCarron to the wolves to manage games while Allen just learns the fundamentals on the bench.

It should be 0 starts, I agree. Allen needs at least 1 year to simply learn how to be a pro and work on his fundamentals. Probably better he sits 2 years since Allen is a massive project. But considering the aggressive move this coach made with Nathan !@#$ing Peterman when Tyrod was a competent starter (Everyone loves to **** on Tyrod but every NFL caliber receiver he had to throw to was traded away or hurt, not saying Tyrod was good but he was far from horrible) it would not surprise me if this coaching staff rushes in Allen. Putting Allen behind a probably bad O-line with hardly anyone to throw to isn't going to help his development either. If Allen starts the last game or two that's one thing but any more than that and it could actually stunt his development.

Mayfield - 6 starts Rosen - 12 starts Darnold -5 starts Allen - 6 starts Jackson - 0-1 starts That's my prediction, I think Tyrod holds down the Browns job until they at mathmatically out, I think Tyrod gets them to 3-7 or 2-8 and then they pull the rip chord on Mayfield once the season is lost. Rosen I think gets a lot of starts simply because Bradford will likely get hurt. I think the Jets get McCown to 11 games before their season is completely shot and then the hand it over to Darnold. Lamar Jackson isn't likely to start since I think that the Ravens will likely be competitive late in the season and I can only maybe see him getting 1-2 starts. Allen is interesting. I think the Bills season 10 games in might not be lost (something like 4-6 or 5-5) but McD doesn't seem like the type of coach afraid of a bold move. If the offense is sputtering and the season seems like it is slipping I think they can turn to a rookie QB deep in the season to try and jump start the offense.

Bodine makes for good competition and excellent depth, the money they paid him wasn't much and he is a 26-year-old center with 64 starts under his belt that's a pretty good player to have as competition for a spot and at worst a good depth player. I really liked the Newhouse and Bodine signings good depth overall.

Up until the draft and InCog's retirement, I wasn't too upset with the off-season moves regarding the O-line. Trading Glenn (Who I thought could have been an absolute stud at RT) was a bitter pill to swallow but they needed to gain the draft positioning and Glenn's large contract and injury issues are a huge concern. They added Bodine and Newhouse which added a good sum of affordable depth and competition. But then InCog who was counted on to anchor the LG spot retires and suddenly you go from needing some youth at guard to needing a starter badly. I think banking on Miller to rebound isn't a bad thing considering how good he was his first 2 seasons and the reason he regressed last year was due to scheme and not injury or performance based. Considering that you are planning on running a scheme he is a better fit for his skills that's not bad roster construction to count on him improving. But with InCog creating a huge hole at LG and the mortgaging of draft capital for 2 trade ups created a situation where there were going to be holes on this roster and currently LG and RT are two big holes and you are counting on player improvement at RG. I am super concerned about the O-line but honestly, I am treating 2018 as a bonus season. The team has a plan at QB and a coach and GM that are trying to build a system and have a coherent plan. Ending the drought in 2017 has really made that 3-year plan McBeane are on a lot easier to buy into.