billsfan89
-
Posts
12,812 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Gallery
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by billsfan89
-
-
Day one picks:
Lynch, Posluszny, Edwards
Whitner, McCargo, Youboty
(no one - guess why), Parrish, Everett
Evans, Losman, Tim Anderson
McGahee, Kelsay, Crowell
Sure looks like the core of a 7-9 team.
Well Lynch, Poz, and Edwards looks like a great draft. But yeah if you wiff on day one picks like they have in the TD era you will be a 7-9 team. Also like in the Marv/Russ era if you don't get the best value for your picks you might not get past 7-9. Whitner isn't a bust but they should have taken Nagta. Also it didn't help that year that they got McCargo who is looking like a bust.
Although say what you will about the 2006 draft it wasn't a disaster. They pick up Butler who is a valuable piece along the O-line and Kyle Williams who is a decent starter and in a rotational role has value. They also got Youboty who adds depth to the secondary. Not to mention Whitner isn't a bad player either. If McCargo could develop I could see that draft getting a B or B- but so far it gets a C- from me.
-
I am presently paying the full price for DIRECTV, NFL Sunday Ticket, and Superfan. I do so willingly. But after reading this thread I have a feeling my costs will go down a bit, at least $100 dollars. Thanks for all the advice everyone.
As far as the maximum cost...$375, if you divide that by the 16 weeks of Bills games thats only $23.44 per week. So I get to watch the Bills in hi-def, at home for that amount.
We make a nice meal, have a nice stocked bar, can have friends over (although my wife and I don't like having people over for Bills games unless they are hard-core Bills fans), avoid the DUI/DWI thingy, etc.
Plus we have the DVR so we can record the game and watch later or do as many home replays as we want and fast forward through commercials as we catch up...
And also the ability to watch almost every other game for all 17 weeks and the Red Zone Channel hosted by Andrew Siciliano who does an excellent job.
To be able to watch my favorite sports team in hi def every week plus all the other benefits...$23.44/week is a great value for us.
Compare it to the cost per couple for seeing a movie, playing a round of golf, etc.
Hey if you can afford it God bless you. Although I would try to get that Super Fan thing for free though. Not necessarily for the money but more on principle of how dare they charge extra for HD (And a lot extra not just like 20 bucks). One day I hope to be able to spend that kind of money on watching football games but until than I am relegated to only being able to watch them play the Jets twice a year and the National games. As for the rest of the games I either have to go to sports bars or other peoples houses.
-
True and having top 5 picks helps a ton too (except if you're the Lions). The Bills just been so average that we don't every get the sure fire franchise changing players.
It wasn't just Jake Long Even than the Fins added a bunch of small unknown pieces to the puzzle (Who knew who Anthony Fasano was) and a bunch of veterans who were cast off for bad reasons (Pennington and Jason Fergueson) than built up the offensive line with picks and free agent grabs (Justine Smiley and Jake Long). Than the Fins instilled a new coaching staff whose play not to loose philosophy got them 10 more wins and a division title.
I doubt the kind of player you are able to get at pick number 1-5 is going to be 20 times better than a guy at pick number 11. It was a good draft and a combination of luck and savvy pick ups that led to the Fins turn around.
There have been tons of franchise changing players in the range of 10-20 every year in the draft.
-
I only look at picks in the first two rounds to have any major impact to the team. So guys like Ellis and Fine were not on my radar but I thought that down the line Ellis could be the replacement for Kelsay. I actually kept Hardy in perspective and thought he would be a project that would be good in two to three years. So for his rookie year I thought 4-5 TD's 500-600 yards.
As for McKelvin I thought that the Bills were going to use him as depth and than groom him for when Greer left. Basically a pick for the future so I didn't see him having a huge impact unless someone went down or on special teams. I thought last years draft was one that was made for the future not for last year.
Last years draft grades out to a C for me (So far) the McKelvin pick was really good. The jury is still out on Hardy but it isn't looking good. As for the rest of the draft Fine looks to be a nice back up/role player so we got some production out of him. Than Ellis the jury is still out. But if Ellis could develop into even a good back up/rotational guy at DE than at least we got some pieces (Even if they are small pieces) out of the later rounds of the draft.
-
Fun. The man is alive and likes to live / play football. I watched that whole 1st episode of his show and thought, wow this guy is alive. Jim Kelly used to go out with Andre Reed, Bruce Smith, Talley and a few other guys and just live. How refreshing is it to have someone that looks like they can control themselves all the time.
GO T.O.
I agree TO brings some swagger to the team but to say no one was having fun is just a cliche. If you honestly believe that everyone who has worn a Bills uni in recent years didn't have any fun or have any bonding with their teammates than you just don't realize how awesome the life of a pro athlete is. By accident some of these guys must have had some fun.
-
Considering that Jackson had 0 tds and Hardy had 2 plus Tuck had 1 sack in his first 2 seasons, you weren't that far off.
Fans hate patience.
Most teams hate patience too. For better or worse its a win now league. And the way the Falcons and Fins bounced back so quick proves that every team feels they can rebuild in one off season.
-
Single payer system may have worked for you where ever you were, but it is not a sustainable system over a long term with an aging population that will provide universal care to everyone. A single payer system means that one of two rationing schemes will happen - either someone will chose the procedure for you or you will have to wait a long time for your procedure. It also will mean that innovation will occur on a much slower basis, because there will be far fewer incentives to experiment for big pharma or for venture capitalists to fund new medical ventures. But hey it's great to talk about how universal health works, while ignoring the groundbreaking science and procedures that private US healthcare funds for the rest of the world.
Well what is the alternative to our system. Or do we just accept our system as is and say free market has spoken too bad if you are uninsured. But what do you do if you want reform but not a single payer system? Honestly If you can theoretically tell me a system that would be better than our current one and better than a single payer one I would be all to hear it out but as it stands we pay for 39-57% of our health care system so health costs are already being supplemented publicly.
And why would a single payer system in America work like a single payer system in Canada or somewhere else in the world. Why can't we have a universal system that works better than the rest of the world. Our military is better run and funded than any other country in the world so why couldn't our heath care system be better.
We spend more in terms of percentage of GDP than any other country in the world so why can't we have the best health care system for all. Yes our system is the most innovative but can't we try and keep that innovation with a universal system?
-
I do not disagree with these moves. However, doesn't anyone find it disconcerting that the Bills talked to Walker and Butler AFTER the draft to see if they would be ok with these moves? What if Walker said I can't play LT or didn't want to make the switch? Holding my breath these OL moves will work out.....
I don't remember hearing that the Bills talked to Butler and Walker after the draft about the switch. I would like to think that they talked to them before hand about a possible switch. I would like to think any NFL team plans these things out far in advance.
-
Ah, couldn't give examples. Yeah, you can file suit and spend your money but you're not going to win. Go ahead and tell us about these consequences.
How exactly does being able to sue them for things that have nothing to do with protection somehow provide a standard of protection? I can't wait to have this explained. I'm almost giddy.
Horsecrap. There are ALWAYS going to be interests who'll band together and lobby to screw over the little guy. This "Rainbow Bright" ideology that you're attached to is seriously clouding your judgement. There are SERIOUS consequences to turning over things like health care to an entity like the Federal government.
I'll take "What is the Dumbest Question Anyone Asked Me Today?" for $400 please.
You can sue the police for things like brutality it has happened in the past Rodney King sued the police and got 3.8 million dollars. Consequences for police actions can come in the form of internal actions and trial of officers involved in cases of things like brutality. I admitted I was wrong that there is a legal right to police protection but morally you are at a right to be protected by the best of the ability of the police.
What are the serious consequences for tuning over health care to the government and are those consequences worse than what is already going on? I mean there are 50 million uninsured and others under insured. While many companies continue to cut costs on coverage many more Americans continue to loose coverage or become under insured.
You have to ask if the government can do a better job than what is being done now not a perfect system but it will be better. What is the alternative to the system we have now that would be better than a universal system.
How is that a stupid quesiton last time I checked you have the right to LIFE, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness according to the Constitution.
-
Is it just me or does that girl look like TO a little bit. Is that how in love with himself he is
-
For the simple reason that that public funding is getting a free ride on the advances paid for by private funding. There's no question reform is needed. There's also no question that 100% public funding & care is the answer.
Government isn't the answer than what is the alternative. Private sector? Thats the current system we have and it doesn't work for many Americans. What reform can you do that isn't going to be or lead to a single payer universal health care system? Should the government invest more or less into the system? If we invest more how much more and how should it be spent?
From my own personal experience single payer universal health care is the best solution. If it is managed right and gives rate cuts to those who live healthier life styles it could be a real solution. Does anyone else know what the alternative theoretically could be?
-
Wrong. Eight ways till Sunday wrong. Please explain why insurance rates for non-smokers are less then. Apparently the insurance companies use the same specious logic to determine premium rates...but they are all idiots right? Yeah, they don't reward the individuals who take care of themselves, they simply give out the same insurance rates to everyone.
You don't want to talk about poor people? Ok, how about rich ones? Apparently you haven't seen just how poorly most corporate execs take care of themselves, knowing fully that not only do they have gold plated insurance, but that they can get themselves on the short list for organ transplants as well. I have seen this right in front of me, on multiple occasions. Most memorably the liver transplant guys continuing to belly up to the bar.
Look this was a bad LONG TERM idea when Kaiser, the WWII boat builder, first hooked up Dr. Permanente, and has been a bad idea ever since. During WWII you had literally 10s of thousands of workers descending on shipyards practically overnight. Something had to be done to care for these workers, because, they had to keep building ships so we could win the war. All other things became secondary concerns, especially whether this new "health insurance" plan was actually saving money. At that time of crisis, it made sense to centralize the health care of those workers because the care could be organized and distributed better, and because we were going from nothing to 50k people showing up. There was no way they would think of doing deductibles, because you would have to hire 1k accountants and clerks just to figure that out a that time. Also, due to FDR's wage controls, Kaiser thought that "free health care" would get him more and better workers, because he could only pay them the fixed wage. So, it made sense as a SHORT TERM solution.
3 things about that group of insured people that simply cannot be said about insuring everyone today: they did manual labor 8 hours minimum a day = exercise, and, they all had a job = each worker brought in income to the company, and, each worker was relatively young and healthy = see manual labor. It doesn't take an actuary to figure out that covering that risk group is going to be a hell of lot cheaper than covering the entire population of the US. But I am sure there's something specious here...
Yeah I get universal health coverage so I am going to smoke now. Things like cancer magically go away and I can drink myself silly because getting an organ transplant is so easy and fun. Corporate Executives take poor care of themselves in part due to the fact they have access to everything possible in the world its not because getting a liver transplant is so easy. I doubt they think that far ahead.
Do people who have insurance say !@#$ it I have insurance I can go nuts and do whatever I want. Diabetes and obesity won't effect me. I think dieing early is enough to keep people from not doing stupid things. We won't go from a society of health nuts to smoking fat asses because of universal health care.
In a universal system you can still lower payer rates for healthier people and raise rates on those who smoke and have other conditions. I pointed that out in my original post.
-
You know it's been done? How about a little proof to back it up?
In 1856, the U.S. Supreme Court (South v. Maryland) found that law enforcement officers had no affirmative duty to provide such protection. In 1982 (Bowers v. DeVito), the Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit held, "...there is no Constitutional right to be protected by the state against being murdered by criminals or madmen."
In 2005 (Gonzales v. Castle Rock), the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the police did not have a constitutional duty to protect a person from harm, even a woman who had obtained a court-issued protective order against a violent husband making an arrest mandatory for a violation.
So now you need to come up with ONE example to the contrary. Good luck.
Life doesn't exist on paper. The government already manages health care for selected individuals. Ever hear of Walter Reed Army Medical Center? Any controversy involving the VA or military health care in general? Reality says that the government does things very inefficiently for a price that is significantly higher than the market.
There are a variety of steps to try before we simple stand aside and make the government even bigger and more powerful.
Nice dream world.
Its true that the police have certain immunities against prosecution in order to avoid being over sued there still remains ways to sue the police and protect your rights. You have a right for the police to protect you even if the police can't get sued you fundamentally have a right for the police to serve and protect. If they do not do this they can suffer consequences.
But anyway I was mistaken about suing the police for lack of protection but you can sue the police for many other reasons proving that there is a standard for the protection you can receive.
Back on to health care the reason the government isn't doing a good job because they are trying to function within a system that has business interests. Either its government run or its privately run. government inefficiency is found in instances where government tries to have it both ways where they have a more than regulatory hand in private matters.
If life doesn't exist on paper than what does exist?
-
They're not doing a very good job of it, so lets give them a bigger job.
Yeah so lets let a business who benefits from find a way to not treat their clients continue to run the system and if you aren't insured or are under insured tough sh-- take better care of yourself Free Market has spoken. The reason the government hasn't done a good job at health insurance (Other than Military Hospitals and Medicate) is because they can't have it both ways either you go fully private or fully government you simply can't go 50/50.
-
By your own definition, before there is a universal health plan, I could sue the government for not providing one because it's an entitlement by social contract that they will keep me healthy?
Thats jumping to a conclusion isn't it. Saying your government should do something to make a better health care system is wanting your government to do its job and look out for the best interests of its people. Also your government does fund
39-57% of the current system and the government will pay for your emergency room visits and for some people they have Medicare. So they are trying to do their part in keeping you healthy its just that they aren't doing a very good job of it.
-
I will never understand why there are 3 teams in Florida. The Jags are the most likely to leave town for LA due to the fact that they are in an oversaturated market for NFL football.
The Bills if they are ever going to move it is going to be to Toronto (As much as I would hate that)
-
Try suing your police department for not protecting you and find out just how "entitled" you are.
I don't disagree with the rest of your post but I also don't know the answer to the problem, other than it isn't a gigantic government program.
Entitlement is a guarantee of access to benefits because of rights or by agreement through law
As a citizen you are entitled by the social contract you have with your government to have the police serve and protect you as best as they can. You can sue a police department it happens all the time (Mostly in police brutality cases but there have been cases where people have sued police departments for ignoring a victim of a crime granted its hard to do but it has been done)
I feel if we trust our own government with nuclear weapons and to put up the worlds best defense apparatus than I think they can run a hospital system. If you harness the amount of money companies and individuals pay on private insurance and put that into a public plan for good coverage for everyone I think it on paper could work.
Also as I have said already we pay up the nose for a system that is already 39-57% funded by public money. So why not just pick up the rest of the tab and have a better simpler system.
-
They will forfeit their 3rd round pick in next year's draft. No other player was selected. I know some here thought the Bills might have an interest in this guy. He would have been suspended for his entire Senior year for testing positive for banned susbtance.
Anyone know how the supplemental draft works? Would we know if any other team made an attempt to grab him with a lower pick?
Its a blind posting system. Whoever puts in the highest pick (Its based off of Aprils draft) gets the player. Lets say the Bills had a interest and they put in a fourth round pick than a team like the skins puts in a third than the Skins get him. Basically its a bidding process but you don't know what your opponents are bidding either.
-
I have and I am, in fact it's part of my job to do it. This plan is blatantly stupid, both in general and in detail. It ignores the major problems, creates new ones we don't need, and fails to attack most of the Obama talking points properly or at all.
I can do this in one sentence:
This plan is based on the false premise that people shouldn't need to pay more, if they use more, health care, or be accountable for their own behavior, both financially and physically/how they treat their bodies.
Assume your body = your house. If you throw knock down, drag out parties at your house every day, and stuff gets broken and the place gets dirty, is it my job to pay for your repairs and cleaning? No, it's your job.
Another sentence:
This plan does not go after each problem area and in fact ignores a lot of the most egregious issues that cost the MOST money = no viable plan for sustained benefits, no tort reform, no regulation reform, no REAL cost reform, and the creation of another massive government agency.
Medicaid spent $400 million on "anti-fraud activity" last year. They did such a good job that there was $38 BILLION in fraud.
The size of Obamacare will dwarf Medicaid, but I am sure there won't be any fraud, and I'm sure they won't spend another 2 billion on trying to stop it. Yeah, so we spend huge money on a losing play....it's the "war on drugs" all over again. How in the hell is the "pass healthcare immediately" directive from Obama an example of discussion, or analysis? What holes do you see getting poked in something that, once again, Obama is urging Congress to pass without reading it first?
Perhaps you are the one who is watching too much American Idol? Perhaps it's best if you continue doing that instead of voting next time, because clearly you aren't putting very much effort into that, or your posts here either
Bingo.
What this boils down to is: where are the consequences for bad behavior? Answer: there aren't any. When a hardworking single mother who works 3 jobs for minimum wage gets the same health care that a selfish, crack whore mother does, something is clearly wrong with the plan.
But none of this is the real issue! Everything you are hearing from both sides is nonsense. Utter nonsense.
The fact is: you cannot control costs....which is Obama's supposed premise for this whole thing....unless you: CONTROL COSTS! I can go into extreme detail in each "circle and box and arrow" where costs are created and not controlled. Ask me anything.
Why would people getting health coverage lead to more people treating their health like crap. I don't care how much coverage you get having diabetes or a crack addition isn't going to be a good thing. People are lazy thats why they don't take care of them selves.
What makes you accountable for your own body is that if you treat it terribly it will break down and health coverage isn't going to fix that and if you think things like heart attacks and diabetes are going to go away with health insurance coverage than you have bigger issues than being uninsured.
I don't doubt some of your points like why is Obama having such a sense of urgency when it comes to reform. But that one point about universal health coverage leading to people not caring about their health is specious logic.
-
It DOES scare me. We have completely forgotten that health care isn't an entitlement.
You know what the problem is with health care in this country? The problem is us.
If we were really concerned about our health, we'd stop eating fried foods and eating too many of them.
We would stop guzziling so much soda and alcohol, and drink water and other healthy drinks.
We would quit puffing cigarettes, and we should at $4.50 a pack.
We would quit doing dope and other drugs.
We would quit having unprotected sex and bringing unwanted babies into the world.
We would quit having unprotected sex while contracting deadly diseases, and blaming the world for not finding an instant cure, so we can go back to having unprotected sex with whomever the hell we wanted.
Should I go on?
Saying health care isn't an entitlement is like saying police protection isn't an entitlement. Private insurance and health care is an intrinsic conflict of interest. A insurance company benefits from finding a way to not treat you. Saying competition between companies leads to having a good system might be true on paper but it hasn't worked out for a lot of Americans.
Taking care of your health is one of the most important things you need in your life. Its also possible in a nationalized system to give people incentives to stay healthy. Its possible to lower single payer rates on non-smokers and people who maintain personal health.
As for nationalized systems don't work look at Canada they wait on lines for hours to get treatment. We are America why can't we have a great system for everyone or at least a good system for all. Why are the only options a good system for some or a bad system for everyone?
Another thing to keep in mind is that estimates place 39 to 57% of our heath care costs are already being paid publicly so we already are picking up the tab on a huge chunk of the cost in the current system.
-
Hey Tim what is Trent Edwards rep around the league? How do other teams coaching staffs and high profile scouts view Trent? Do they feel that Trent's high completion percentage and low INT total are a product of smart decision making or more conducive to him playing more cautiously?
I feel that any good QB needs to have 5 things. 1- Accuracy very few good QB's have below 60% completion percentages.
2- Low INT totals because turnover diff is huge in the NFL 3- Scoring TD's 4- Playing well in clutch moments and 5- Staying Healthy.
Trent has the first 2 and has shown signs of number 4. But 3 and 5 he still needs to prove and 4 he needs to prove on a high level. Do other teams feel he is a legit QB or is he not respected around the league?
-
On offense the big candidates are Trent and Lee Evans (Good player could be a great one with TO). Dark horse candidates are Shawn Nelson and Hangardner. Hangardner could be the Center we always needed and Nelson is another guy who could take advantage of TO and Evans on the outside.
On Defense the top candidates are Poz and McKelvin both young guys who are going to be asked to do a big role. As for dark horse candidates are McCargo and George Wilson. Wilson could be asked to start and could hold down the position. McCargo could step up he seems to be trying to turn around his career during this offseason and might be asked to step up if we need more size up the middle.
-
sounds like the transcript from monday night football
Actually I just followed Mark Schlereth around for 10 minutes. Another laughable note on NFL Live they had two commentators who thought Brett Favre was a top 10 QB currently in the NFL and one went as far as to say he is CURRENTLY a top 5 QB. To me Brett Favre is a mid level QB at Best.
-
Well Atlanta last year were the epitome of the 8-8 average NFL team over achieving. They got in game luck, stayed healthy, and got added production from unexpected sources.
See Atlanta had a below average defense who got lucky with timely turnovers and had bad games when the offense had good games. Their offense was boosted by unexpected production from the rookie QB and their new RB as well as an offensive line that played surprisingly well.
So the health of their team, the luck of their defense, and the unexpected production out of their offense propelled them into the playoffs. This year they added Tony Gonzales to their offense and they revamped their D. They added a first round DT and Mike Peterson to their front 7 as well as replaced 5 of their starters on defense.
So their Defense is younger but not necessarily better (At least not this year). Their offense should get added production. Now as far as this year goes the Falcons are once again in that 75% of the league who are 8-8. They remind me a lot of the Saints who have a great Offense but not a good defense.
Odds are the Falcons will not get as lucky again their defense is still not that good (they are younger and might get better in time) but their offense should get better (Gonzales and the added experience of the QB) so up against the Bills I would say its about the same talent wise.
2009 Offense
in The Stadium Wall Archives
Posted
A generic look may be more conducive to only having 1 legit wide receiver over the past 5 seasons. Hope fully with TO we open up the play book a little more and get Evans and TO better looks. Also keep in mind running good routs isn't always some sort of crazy up and in route. Routes that are run effectively look more exciting than the same routes run by worse players. Just keep in mind the opposite of conservative isn't Stupid.