BullBuchanan
-
Posts
5,892 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Gallery
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by BullBuchanan
-
-
24 minutes ago, 3rdand12 said:
This year is what Beane bet upon. He knew what he bought.
Let us All hope he can make Beane look smart. be best for everyone really.
Even my friend Bull : )
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.
-
Just now, formerlyofCtown said:
9 before the injury is the important one.
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? -
Just now, formerlyofCtown said:
Trey Flowers is getting 18 mil a year after a 7.5 sack season.
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. -
Just now, formerlyofCtown said:
Im really starting to realize what the Bull in your name stands for.
Still hoping for an original thought. Don't live down to my expectations. -
1 minute ago, RocCityRoller said:
that is sunk money, it's gone
he looked fine when available last year
I'm not a fan of signing players with an injury history. (Kroft, Murphy etc) but tell the facts.
Pulling numbers out of thin air is for amateurs.
Trent Murphy was signed to a mid level DE contract. Trent Murphy failed in year one relative to his pay.
He was also coming off of a bad injury.
Trent Murphy's cap hit is 6.5 should Buffalo cut him, it's 8.7 million should they keep him.
What do you think DEs that can get 6-10 sacks a year go for?
He needs to be better this year. If in camp he can not, cut him, or sit him on IR, pay him this year, free up space and bring in the next man up.
I wanted Winovich or Fergusen bad in the draft for just this reason.
I'm no Murphy fan boy, but he looked good when available, and is not breaking the bank.
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.Just now, formerlyofCtown said:He has already done it in his career. So please tell me how you came to your percentage. Id really like that info.
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. -
Just now, formerlyofCtown said:
And if he puts up 8-10 sacks this season are you going to admit that youre an idiot and that other posters are laughing at you.? I think he is a good player if he stays healthy. It was a gamble and still may pay off.
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.
-
Just now, RocCityRoller said:
Wow....
https://www.spotrac.com/nfl/buffalo-bills/cap/
Trent Murphy's total cap hit is 8.7 million. Dead cap is 6.5 million.
How do you inflate it to 11 million?
Do you work for CNN?
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?
-
2 minutes ago, formerlyofCtown said:
Because we got two guys where we need to see what we have.
Its one season dude and everyone knew he was recovering from an injury. That would be why we got him so cheap. There are risks when you look for a bargain.
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.
-
On 6/16/2019 at 4:51 PM, Rocky Landing said:
I think I know who you’re talking about. But, name names.
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.
-
1
-
-
58 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:
I read it -- it's gobblygook. You laud national sovereignty while deferring to "the people of the world". You don't like the term global order, but it's cleaner and more honest than "people of the world." You propose that countries are teams and humanity is the league -- making countries subservient to "humanity" (aka a global order of some kind). All the while laying out how you don't really believe in borders or nations being able to control who comes and goes. Then you cap it off by saying "as long as they let me have my liberty" you're cool with it.
Then you hold up the EU as the prime example of something to strive for. Literally the embodiment of globalism.
I don't say any of that as an insult. I am trying to understand your position and get you to elucidate it as clearly as possible so there's no misunderstanding. You've claimed to know my opinions without ever discussing them with me or asking me about them -- I don't like to do the same. I like to get to know who I'm conversing with to have a better conversation. The tone is not hostile -- I treat this place like my local bar, happy to drink and shoot the bull about anything/everything without it getting personal. And as an adult I'm more than able to have friendships/relationships with people whom hold different opinions than myself, even on controversial subjects.
From your words and comments it's impossible not to conclude that yes, you're a globalist. Yes, you're a socialist -- though I'd love to hear more about what makes that nuanced. I'd even love to hear more how socialism is in any way compatible with your individual liberty. Socialism crushes individual liberty for the greater good. It's fundamentally incompatible with liberty... so that leaves me to draw one of two conclusions:
1) You don't understand what socialism actually is --
or,
2) You don't really value liberty as highly as you claim --
Again, not insults. I'm not trying to put you down by stating that. I'm pointing out the inconsistency in your stated principles. If I'm mistaken, please expound/explain how. Add some context.
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.
55 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said:I’m not sure what that means but you’re welcome to believe in whatever faith floats your boat as long as it has nothing to do with redistributing other peoples money.
like taxes?-
2
-
-
1 minute ago, SoCal Deek said:
You’ll get over it by the time you get to ninth grade. It’s a lot like acne.
I figured religion was like that for most people. -
2 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:
You've yet to offer any other alternative other than: globalism good, individual sovereignty bad.
At least have the balls to identify yourself as to what you truly are, or admit you're ignorant of what words like liberty and globalism actually mean in reality and practice.
2 hours ago, BullBuchanan said:
Not sure I'm following your fictional scenario. I believe in countries whole-heartedly in that the country we live in should act in the best interests of the people within it. I view countries as nothing more than the government equivalent of a team. As part of that team, everyone should share in the highs and the lows, and the manager is responsible for making sure we're on the correct trajectory. However, I believe that ultimately it should be far easier to go to a country that has ideals you support and play for that team.What I get from most on the right is that they don't really believe in the concept of countries, because they don't have any interest in supporting their teammates.
I also don't view other teams as the enemy, because our ability to win doesn't depend on their ability to lose. As long as they let me have my liberty, they can have theirs. I have no interest in assassinating foreign leaders and installing fascist dictators in their place.
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. -
3 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:
Just remember what the mass surveillance state is used most for -- it's not used to monitor and track terrorists as often as it's deployed (by multiple actors) as a tool in economic espionage/warfare. Spying on trade deals, using blackmail to coerce unwilling parties into deals, et al. That's rampant in the EU/5 Eye nations, including here.
So ***** those jobs and the people who are employed in those fields -- don't fight to keep them, don't fight for the working people of the country. Let them die off and get shipped off to other countries to help their poor and working class while you bow at the alter of globalism as if it's an altruistic agenda.
#deepstate confirmed. -
32 minutes ago, plenzmd1 said:
I am not so sure about this. If you are an out of work programmer, you are a not a programmer, you are a hack.
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.-
1
-
-
14 minutes ago, Gary M said:
https://cis.org/Report/Costs-Immigration
FTA:
GOIRA estimated there were 550,000 illegal aliens in Texas in 1992. They paid $290 million in state and local taxes and generated state and local service and assistance costs of $456 million, for a deficit of $166 million. Applying the lower estimate of the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) of 350,000 illegal aliens in Texas, GOlRA estimated total costs and revenues at $313 million and $183 million respectively, for a deficit of $130 million.
You should read the rest of the article. It's interesting. Especially when compared against data that's 25 years more recent.
-
3 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:
You haven't. You've shown over and over you don't understand what it is. It's like those who come down here claiming "I used to be a republican but not now" who never were.
Watch:
What? This is nonsense.
"You don't fight for a first down by going through tackles, you fight for a first down by letting them tackle you and giving them the ball so they have a first down. "
Theres a shock. Proposing subsidies for people to be underemployed.
Who pays? The people do -- the same people who are being gutted economically by your mentality are also asked to carry the burden of subsidizing corporations moving the work force off shore.
No one is just saying that. I'm pointing to WHY those jobs went away. It was because of a push for globalism by our own politicians and business leaders -- at the expense of the country, not for its benefit.
You are okay with this because you "believe in Liberty" while proving you do not.
We've reached the limits of your comprehension regarding this topic. You either can't or won't read correctly.
You must have heard about globalism recently and were just waiting for a place to name drop it, because it has no bearing on this conversation.
You sound like the kind of person that's shocked when they need a new roof. Plan for the future, guy. If you aren't taking preventative steps for the future you're behind. -
2 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:
Dozens of them.
Pretending borders is an arcane concept is not being honest.
The EU has found a largely successful solution that still needs work, but has kept their economies heavily viable in a way they otherwise would not be. -
2 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:
I am only filling in the blanks you've left unanswered. You won't answer who is going to be governing this globalist paradise you're espousing where people can freely enter soverign nations (without borders or a process), jobs shouldn't be fought for, and your political "enemies" are cast as ones who hurt others because they want to.
Youre not interested in Liberty. You can't even define it.
Jesus christ. Did you hit your head on something?
I've defined it in every post I've made.
I don't believe you "fight" for jobs by trying to prevent others from taking them. i believe you fight for them by equipping your team to take on new ones. You can try to 'make the wishbone" great again all you want, but history shows that evolution is always the best path. Now if you came out with a calm and rational plan that said something like, "hey it's 2019 and fossil fuels are dying. We still have a lot of people whose livelihoods depend on it though. We should provide some subsidies to make sure they continue to be employed and also use the bulk of that to train them on wind and solar farm operation" I would be all the way in.
Instead what I get is a bunch "Dey took er jerhbs!" And that's useless. It helps no one.Those jobs are still going away and those people are just going to be more behind when they do. -
5 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:
Yet you don't think the country should fight to keep jobs here, and are in favor of the multiple (terrible) trade deals and agreements which outsourced our manufacturing base to other countries in the name of a "global order".
Using your analogy, if countries are just teams, then who is the league? The global order?
I'm not on the right.
But this is totally erroneous. The "right" does more to help their fellow citizens than almost every other political group through charity work, and yes, religious organizations.
You're a walking contradiction now, which is what I'm getting at. You don't seem to understand what our liberty is based in, and how it's threatened by promoting the globalist agenda you're parroting.
Liberty requires:
* Freedom of speech and thought
* Privacy
* Due process
* Equal justice under the law
All things under assault by the push for a globalist world order. The same order you're advocating for - either without realizing it or without comprehending the origins of the ideas you're espousing.
I'm not in favor of trade deals like NAFTA, no. They were put in place to help corporations and hurt everyone else.
Right now, mankind is the league.
You're on the right of me, by about a billion percent.
The right helps people who they want to help and they try to hurt everyone else.
You keep tossing around the term globalist, but you don't seem to know what it means and keep trying to convince me I believe in things I dont. Just stop, it's tiresome.
"World Order" lol. gtfoh-
1
-
-
Just now, Deranged Rhino said:
That's all a dodge to the actual question asked. You claim to believe in liberty -- while espousing globalist nonsense and anti-religious takes. So I'm trying to better understand how you define yourself and your views.
Do you consider yourself a globalist? If globalism is inevitable as you state, how does that impact your views on liberty? Who sets the rules in a globalist society? Who governs?
Not sure I'm following your fictional scenario. I believe in countries whole-heartedly in that the country we live in should act in the best interests of the people within it. I view countries as nothing more than the government equivalent of a team. As part of that team, everyone should share in the highs and the lows, and the manager is responsible for making sure we're on the correct trajectory. However, I believe that ultimately it should be far easier to go to a country that has ideals you support and play for that team.What I get from most on the right is that they don't really believe in the concept of countries, because they don't have any interest in supporting their teammates.
I also don't view other teams as the enemy, because our ability to win doesn't depend on their ability to lose. As long as they let me have my liberty, they can have theirs. I have no interest in assassinating foreign leaders and installing fascist dictators in their place.
-
1
-
-
1 minute ago, Deranged Rhino said:
Do you consider yourself a globalist?
In the definition you're likely after, probably not, but I think it's completely ignorant to ignore the impact the the world economy has on the people within it and how we must adapt our way of life in order to compete and thrive.
I've worked with people all over the world every day for the last 18 years, and probably will the rest of my life. They face the same challenges we have, do or will. You can try to stop immigration and outsourcing, just like they tried to save the steel mills in the 50's. The math just doesn't work and progress stops for no one.
If you don't figure out a better way, someone else will, and I like fight for things that move toward that better way. The days of getting a job or a career at 18 and riding that to retirement are long done. I've had 7 jobs in the last 12 years, and that's the new normal. basic programming will be the new Ford assembly line worker, Coal Miner, or Steel Mill in 20 years. You can either bemoan it or you can figure out what's next.Just now, Hedge said:
exactly.
-
2 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:
Globalist nonsense.
(again, not something one who believes in liberty espouses)
Why wouldn't they?
2016 NFL Draft
in The Stadium Wall Archives
Posted
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.