BullBuchanan

Just leave the stadium alone. It's perfect for the market. The only thing they need to do to sell more tickets is win more games. Buffalo needs to focus on improving their economy if they want to replace their blue collar clientele with box seats and PSLs.

Elway and Brees are easily top 6.

Browns coast to a division crown - lock of the century, of the week.

It's just a story to cover up how the logos are crooked. Man, what piss poor execution. Nike following the Gibson model it seems.

That story is as old as sports. Jim McMahon was another, and you could even make a case for David Carr. I'm sure it would make for a fun 30 for 30, but it's not exactly a big deal if you don't remember that version of a guy from 70 years ago.

I'm 32 and have watched every NFL film I could get my hands on, as well as books about the old days of the game. I've never even heard of him until now. He must not have been as big of a deal as the OP makes him out to be.

Who exactly would he be throwing those 4000 yards to? If every receiver on the team posted a career high I'm not sure it would be enough.

Pretty much. Comparing having a spot on the Bills roster is very much a different thing than the fact that the four teams that all played in the conference championships all saw enough of ex bills players to have them in their line-ups. These are all incredibly well runs organizations, while ours has been a dumpster fire for decades. We also had players on most of the semi-finals teams as well.

Why do people here count players that are playing on other teams as misses? The Bills had A LOT of former players in the conference championships last season.

I absolutely "hope" that it works out, but year after year I see Bills fans hoping that major glaring issues can be hoped away. It's one thing to put a sound and rational plan into place and hope it's finally enough. It's an entirely different thing to throw ***** at the wall and see what sticks. That's my issue with Beane. As much as I like him going out and getting upside guys like Duke Williams and Sills, I just don't see attention to detail paid on players signed to big money contracts or positions of need. Murphy is one of those noodles on the wall.

I'll happily take 4 if you think he'll hit 9 sacks again. Do you think they'd push so hard for Ziggy Ansah just to be a rotational player if they actually believed Murphy was who they thought he was?

Consistency and availability. He put up 7, 6.5, 7.5 and I'm sure if he's getting that based on a lot of tape and analytics showing he's capable of far more. Meanwhile Trent has 2.5, 3.5, 9, and 4 and happened to be 2 years older at the time of his deal with one year less of league inflation. I'm not saying that $18 for Flowers isn't outrageous, as I think it is, but he's also a vastly superior talent. Kinda Apples/Oranges.

Still hoping for an original thought. Don't live down to my expectations.

He's being paid a contract as a 10 sack per year guy as he's not. Worse yet, he's not healthy and the Bills either knew that and paid him anyway, or they didn't and they're incompetent. You pick. And at what point did he look "fine" last year? If you pay for a car over 3 years but you don't get to have it until the second year do you still consider it paying $300 a month? He ate up our cap and wasted a roster spot for a whole season. Because You don't predict future results off of statistical outliers. If you take away his one big contract year you get an average of 3.33 sacks per year. If you don't want to do that because it was a real season he played in where he got 9 sacks, you end up with Albert Haynesworth. The kid just isn't starting material.

I will absolutely do that. There's an approaching zero percent chance that happens. He's a 28 year old one year wonder. So far the bills have paid him over $500k per tackle. Killer ROI.

Well we paid him 7.5 million to not play last year. It might even be worse by the time he misses half of this season. Want me to break it down per snap?

Cheap? In what world is $7.5 million dollars for a guy that couldn't play, who averages 4.5 sacks a year, cheap? They got baited hard and everyone else is laughing at them.

Well, at this point they're paying him $11 million dollars a year, so he damn well better be less useless than he has been. This is easily the worst signing of their tenure. This guy should have been on a one year-vet minimum prove-it deal, but leave it to Beane to pay the max. If he was on a one-year deal last season he'd be unsigned right now.

Brown and Beasley? I expect them to spend considerable time in the injury tent.

The Bills already took my hopes and dreams, why not gold plate it with giving away all of my money and possessions too.

I just don't know how far I have to reduce it. Look: you clearly have a lot of information, but I'm concerned you aren't really processing that information. You've got some weird hangup and fascination with "globalism". If I had to bet, I'd put money down that you'd have a nice long take on George Soros and the Trilateral Commission too. The EU acts as a federation that protects the interests of a strong Europe as a whole. It doesn't have an army, or a government. It just manages things that become untenable when you have so many countries in such a small geographic location like civil liberties, corporate operation regulations, sanctions, work visas, border policy within the EU, and helps with trade agreements. Most of the people that don't like it in the EU tend to be pretty similar to American republicans and fit the same socio-economic profiles, and so that makes sense to me. It's helped stabilize regional economies and ensures that people can work where the opportunity is while still calling their country home. It would be really hard for Luxembourg to reign in Facebook and Google, but when they have the backing of the EU behind them they can bring them to task. That's a net good. A universal currency is highly convenient. The positive impact they've had on maintaining the Good Friday agreements is massive (Which Brexit under the current non-plan puts at risk). It's not "globalist" in some sense that some mysterious and spooky New World order secret government is waving a shadowed hand over its puppet states across the globe. It's shared cost and shared benefit for shared objectives, goals, and principles. If you want to define it as multi-national corporations ruling the world and racing employment to the bottom, that's a completely separate and unrelated discussion. I'm generally not a fan of corporations as they exist today at any level. If you want to define it as globally open borders, i would say that I'm in favor of knowing who's coming and going on a visit, or the immigration process needs to be anywhere near the laborious process it is today. In the US, green-card applications are backed up to 2008. That helps no-one, citizens, immigrants or otherwise. If you want to define it as a homogeneous set of values or political processes, well that's a whole thing. What do you want? Edit: I'm now wondering if by my references to liberty you think I'm referencing a Libertarian point of view. I'm not. Not at all. I pretty seriously disagree with most of that. However, I believe very strongly in social liberty. I'm not a big social justice advocate, because my general approach is "you do you" I think that as a country we have a duty to ensure that people within our population are not oppressed, but we don't have a duty to enforce that everyone likes everyone else or what they stand for. The more litigation/law side of it comes in with: freedom for and freedom of religion, no permits for you to put a garage on your own property, the destruction or the military industrial complex and the corporate prison system, etc. If you want to do something that only affects you, or the repercussion to someone else are exceedingly rare or a mild nuisance, I don't think there needs to be a law to stop it. Laws should be built around core-shared values and a lot less ticky-tack bs. like taxes?

I figured religion was like that for most people.

Here ya go. Seems you missed it the first time except you replied to it, so i can't help you much beyond that. I'm probably most closely aligned with being a socialist, but it's more nuanced than that.

#deepstate confirmed.

Generally speaking I agree with that, for now at least. The problem is that short-term job loss can effect people in this country in a pretty extreme fashion over a short period of time. Our general "yay for me, **** everybody else" approach tends to hit most people at least once or twice in their life whether it's medical, housing or employment related. Over my career in tech I've seen it go from a highly niche "nerds required" field to more of broad industry where maybe a bootcamp can get you by to be a low-tier programmer, sysadmin, devops etc. My only point there was just that jobs that are currently considered to be high skill are probably going to become more and more low-skilled over time, and we should all be preparing for the 10,20,30 year evolutions of those fields. When mobile programming was brand new it was a nightmare and required a ton of knowledge and competence. A short 10 or so years later, children can do it.