billsfan89

You could have a legitimate debate about the merits of Sanders economic policies, effectiveness and unintended consequences of economic mandates. But how his foreign policy is looked at as radical and ineffective is baffling. Sanders was against the War in Iraq, yeah good thing we didn't listen to those people. Our interventions in the middle East have been horrendous. Is the Middle East a better or more stable place with all the wars and military action put in place? Non-Intervention and engaging the world through economics and diplomacy use to be a highly conservative principle. The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again expecting different results. Are the results from our Middle East policy working? If you think it's being successful then I hate to see what you think a failure would be.

I support someone based off of the principles they stand for and what their policy prescriptions are. Their shot of winning is subjective and I think that Sanders chances of winning are much better than the media makes it out to be. If you go by numerous polling data the American people agree with Bernie Sanders on a significant majority of issues. In a Democratic election I think that gives him good odds to be a viable candidate. But even if Sanders didn't have a shot of winning I would still support him, a man who has real policy prescriptions that the majority of the people agree with and a 30+ year career in politics where he has been tremendously consistent and principled on positions. Also the fact that he doesn't take Super Pac Money is another huge plus. Carson on the other hand think geologists, physicists, astrophysicists, and biologists are lying about the age of the Earth. On top of all the other weird and horrible stuff he has said in the past makes Carson a non-viable candidate for anyone with a working brain.

Two point conversions are a what 30% success rate? Not the wisest strategy and then dropping the ability to hit most field goals on top of that? Seems like a very bad idea.

Seems to be a glass half full guy. First off Rex is a world class defensive coach so even if you liked Schwartz that's at least a push. Roman over Marrone and company is a huge upgrade in offensive coaching. InCognito and Miller appear to be starting caliber NFL guards which is a huge upgrade along the O-line. McCoy is a huge weapon and threat out of the backfield that is an immidate upgrade over what the Bills had last season. Charles Clay is a substancial upgrade over Chandler (Although I would have kept Chandler as a backup, a mistake). They resigned Hughes who was key to retain but let Searcy walk. They added Darby to replace Graham at CB who changed to FS to replace Searcy. Cassell was also a nice addition as a backup QB. Also the Harvin addition was a decent shot to take not the biggest fan of the move but it could pay off as a significant upgrade. To top it off the team was 9-7 last year. Even if the team only wins one more game than last year that's still 10 wins possibly enough to make the playoffs. So you are starting with a huge talent base and adding even modestly onto it.

Could be but I think Roman will be here for at least a couple of seasons. The circumstances that led to Pettine being hired as a head coach after one year as a DC probably won't line up again. Roman would have to have a good year with the offense (Which isn't as talented as the defense was a couple of years ago, possible but not likely), a team would have to be hard up for a head coach (Possible but I doubt the Browns dip into the Bills pool twice back to back), and the established canidates would have to be holding out for better opportunities. Either way if you have a defensive head coach it's smart to advertise your OC position as an opportunity to craft a resume as a head coach as you will be much more credited with the units success. While the team attracts the best offensive coaching talent.

The man thinks Noah's Ark is real and that scientists are lying about evolution (Not to mention a doctor thinks being gay is a choice not a biologically based condition). Any civilized country with access to information would just immediately dismiss him. But with the Republican base he will do great.

Not surprising, but I would be interested to know who the backup is. I think Cassell has a spot as the third string QB. Seems like EJ should be the backup while Cassell is on the roster in case of emergency injuries and to be a reliable veteran that the younger QB's can learn from.

It sucks they couldn't keep him on for one more season. The Bills could have used a tough 3rd down back who can block and catch the ball out the backfield. Boobie, Brown, and Karlos should provide plenty of depth but I think Freddie would certainly have given them some life at the RB2 position. Guess it's good that they feel confident in Brown and Karlos while also valuing Boobie's special teams contribution.

Shady is a for sure second round back. I have pick 3 I am going with Eddie Lacey and then hoping against hope a top back is there again at pick 21. But if I had an early to mid second rounder that's where I would pick McCoy esp in PPR. Watkins is a upper mid round pick late round 4 to early round 6. Bills D should be one of the top 3 defenses drafted.

Yeah but when you are ending camp teams know you are likely to cut a player you are looking to trade. Before the off-season activities begin you aren't so sure since teams are willing to bring players into camp to see how they respond. So similar but not the same circumstances.

When I said "Only Socially Accepted Narrative" I meant as far as relationships go. Being single isn't looked upon the same way it used to be. If someone chooses to be single it's not looked upon as weird or anything like that. In fact a lot of companies love single people because they don't have to provide as many benifits. So right now in society we have the choice between single and monogamy, any other type of long term arrangements are looked at as weird. I agree that if you establish the conditions of a realtionship as being monogamous it is unethical for someone to cheat. But what I am saying is that men and women need to stop looking at polyamorus, open, or swigning relationships as being odd and not socially accepted. Monogamy is viewed as the only legitimate type of relationship. But why? Swingers and open marriages have much lower divorce rates and higher satisfication rates. So clearly there are other paradigms that work better. It shouldn't be one size fits all.

It might a little but Bryant's stock should go down significantly. He was getting drafted in the later mid rounds. This might sink him to being a very late round pick or not drafted at all. I really liked him as he is a pretty good WR and Brown is going to be the center of attention for defenses along with Bell and Big Ben can get it out to his targets. Unless it gets reduced to 2 games this is a big hurt for his stock.

Good they need to get a good look at EJ, Taylor got a good look the week before, it's time EJ gets work in with the first team.

Out of the current field I think Bernie Sanders has my support. Although I don't agree with all of his positions (I think 15$ minimum wage has unintended consequences among other things) but I do think that most of his policies align with what the American people want and what makes sense pragmatically. Also the fact that Sanders has been consistent with his positions and doesn't have a Super PAC and a big issue of his is campaign finance reform (My personal number 1 issue, as none of the nations problems gets solved without it). So I think Bernie is the most likely to stand for what people actually care about and not big business interests. Hillary is another big business Dem and the rest are Hillary lite on the Dem side. Most of the Republicans are bat **** crazy although John Kasich is the only one I would consider voting for if I learned more about his platform and liked it.

I think you are drawing a false narrative with the stealing thing. Stealing is inherently wrong, there is no ethical alternative to not paying in some way shape or form for a product. But there are alternatives to monogamy that aren't morally wrong or unethical. I get that no one is forcing monogamy, but what I am getting at is that as people we need to stop making monogamy the only accepted social construct. Yeah you personally might not judge people with open marriages or swingers but society in general doesn't look at that practice too kindly. Too many married people are unhappy the established paradigm isn't working. With divorce rates still fairly high and marriage stratification rates low the system clearly isn't working. And it's not simply a young person wanting to bang everything in sight. It's taking a look at why the marriage game is messed up. I think many people just aren't honest about their sexual needs. Think about it, women fall for the guy who was getting girls when he was single. The wild beast so to speak. They then tame the beast and soon after they don't look at the domesticated animal with the same passion. The beast also resents being locked up in a cage. Why on Earth do we think that system is good for everyone involved? Why should everyone involved sacrifice happiness when they don't need to? Just because of some arbitrary standard of what is moral. EDIT: And of course monogamy works for a good amount of people. But it shouldn't be considered the most moral or the best thing in every situation.

What players specifically do you think won't make the roster but have some value in a trade? Bryce Brown? Goodwin? What teams are willing to trade a 7th rounder for those players? What teams have a half way decent backup tackle they are will to part with to get their hands on those players? I just don't see teams hounding the Bills for players the team is considering cutting. Why not just wait till the Bills cut the player and why wouldn't the Bills do the same for a player on another team

I actually wouldn't put Russell Wilson on that list. I know he makes big plays, but his team has been stacked year in and year out with a great defense, great running back, good Offensive line, and pretty respectable receivers (Who just added Jimmy Graham). I would also put Eli Manning on that list instead of Wilson. The rest of the list seems fair. Flacco and Stafford are right up there on the cusp.

Not everyone cheats but almost every guy has a desire to sleep with other women. A lot of men may not act on that desire but that doesn't mean that desire isn't inherently built into the DNA of men. Monogamy is a fairly recent human invention. Men evolved to spread their seed as much as possible. That's not an excuse for doing something immoral but there needs to be an honesty among men in society that monogamy isn't a natural state for most men and it leads to a lot of unhappiness for both parties. Until men start being honest about our sexual nature we are just going to keep subjecting ourselves to this one size fits all monogamy myth.

Cheap is of course a relative term. And yes I know that reality TV isn't real. Either it's fully fixed or situations are manipulated and framed. I work in TV production so I know the deal. But making a high quality scripted show still is more expensive than a reality show. Bar Rescue may have an 18 million dollar tag per-season but the last two seasons were 30 and 40 episodes 43 minutes each. While House of Cards costs 50 million for 13 episodes 43 to 59 minutes long. So even though both shows are well into 10 figure budgets one costs a lot less relative to the other. I did some freelance work on the show Comic Book Men by AMC and that show (Staged scenarios but those dudes aren't acting so much as just reacting to what gets put in front of them by the producers), and that show must have been excruciatingly cheap to produce. The raw production costs must have been something below 300k per episode by my own semi-professional estimate.

It's cheap to make in general. Reality TV doesn't need writers or actors that could be expensive if the show becomes a hit. Reality TV ratings have been on a decline over the past 5-6 years. But the cost of doing it still remains cheap and you get a few hits now and again which can make a network for 4-6 years.

Let's see how game 3, the most meaningful of pre-season games (Starters playing into the second half) plays out. Saturdays game could provide much more useful info on the QB's. I honestly don't see an obvious front runner, although if I had to put money on it, Taylor would be the starter.

I think it was at the this stage of camp, I am not 100% sure but I think it was at this stage of camp but I could be wrong. Looking into the stat now. EDIT: It was at the end of camp. Camp is almost over as another poster pointed out.

For reference 2013 was over 30.

That's kind of misleading. First off what's the NFL players incarceration rate compared to high income earners of the general population. I bet the NFL players would be higher or at least similar (Not because they are inherently bad guys but they are going to be a lot younger than your typical well into 6 figure earner and a higher profile target, and a lot of the players aren't as educated seeing as in college they weren't going for the education most of the time). People on the lower end of the economic spectrum are going to have high incarceration rates than people higher on it. So it's generally easy to see how people with more money and access will have lower raters of incarceration than others.

What about teams with huge turnover and new coaching staffs installing new systems? The last CBA placed a lot of limits on Off-Season activities, very little goes on before training camp. Should they just wing it after a few practices in shorts? Not every team is the Packers where Rodgers and all his receivers are fully in tune with one another. What about players on the cusp of a roster, either trying to catch on with a team or trying to hold onto a roster spot. The players you mentioned were more so the exception to the rule. Of course you can have HOF level 8+ year veterans know how to get themselves in gear. But not every player is like that. If coaches felt training camp was unnecessary and pre-season was just filler, then why would they even bother with the process. Why would they even bring almost a 100 players to training camp, just bring 70 and narrow down the practice squad.