transplantbillsfan

Again... the "moderates" got more than double the votes of Bernie in 2 of the most left leaning states democratically. Those 2 states--2% of all voting delegates--do not a Democratic nominee make. And even in those states Bernie underperformed. But have your fun. The nominee is probably not Bernie.

Good stuff (pun intended) Star was a lot better than we give him credit for this past offseason

Wow. Guess people really read things how they want to, huh? Bernie Sanders is the presumptive Democratic nominee???? Geez I told myself I'd stay away from this place for a few months at least because I knew there would be inevitable ridiculous overreactions in the first 2 of these contests, which are likely not going to be the first 2 contests at some point in the near future because of how poorly these 2 states represent the Democratic party demographically. 2 things: 1) Crediting the Republican primary for voter turnout in democratic numbers is pretty hilarious. Voters can't vote BOTH Democrat and Republican, so I have no clue what the hell some of you are thinking. I could see you crediting Trump, but not in a positive way. Voters will turn out in primaries as voters will turn out in the General (in greater numbers) because Trump is President... so you're right there. Afterall, as posters like @Deranged Rhino will note, New Hampshire primaries are exceeding even 2008 levels. so, there's that... 2) Bernie as the presumptive nominee???? Look... I will vote Sanders or Warren if they become the nominee but I don't prefer them and I really don't think it will be them. Bernie won 60% of the state in 2016. Right now he doesn't even have 26%. The 3 moderates (Pete, Amy, Joe) more than double Bernie's support... and that's a big deal. It is still soooooo early in this Primary season, but 2 of the most left wing candidates have underperformed in states a lot of people thought they'd win handily. There's good reason it will likely be one of the moderates as the Democratic candidate and even the most liberal of Democratic states are seeing that... it's all about beating Trump in November. November... 8 months away...

Wow. This thread has turned into a crazy analytics argument. Some very simple facts: 1) Josh Allen's upgraded OL still needs to improve because Allen was tied for having the least amount of pocket time in the NFL at 2.3 seconds per dropback. His legs keep him (and the team) alive, but our OL (particularly RG and G) needs to give him a clean pocket to throw from... because in general when he has a clean pocket, he's accurate. 2) If all our WRs actually caught the balls the NFL tracked as drops (these are not passes that you can put on Allen) his completion percentage would be 65.5%. 3) If you also discount Allen's spikes (these are counted as incomplete passes but obviously aren't and are typically good or at least neutral plays by the QB) his completion percentage would be 66.2%. 4) If you also discount throwaways, for which Allen got a lot of heat for NOT doing in his rookie year, his completion percentage would be 71.6%. 5) If you want to keep spikes and throwaways and drops because all QBs have them, fine. What if we made his drop percentage equal to the WRs in Atlanta, who were the best in the NFL at not dropping the football? Now Allen's completion percentage is 64.9%. Would that be considered "good" for our 2nd year still-raw QB? 6) "Giving us the most surehanded WRs in the NFL is unfair!" you say... Fine, how about our WRs are as capable of catching as Lamar Jackson's were in Baltimore, who had the 7th lowest drop percentage in the NFL. If that were the case, Allen's completion percentage would be 62%. Is that a promising improvement for him? 7) Or what if we were just in the middle of the pack... like let's say our drop percentage was Washington Redskin level, instead. Okay, now his completion percentage is 60.7%. Would those so critical of Allen here view that with optimistic eyes? Surrounding Allen with talent is very simply the first and most obvious answer. It started last offseason but the OL clearly needs time to gel, Dawson Knox needs time with a jugs machine, and Allen needs another #1 WR. And yes, Allen needs to work on his game this offseason. But anyone who watched Allen this year and thought there wasn't some wildly promising improvement in his passing from his rookie year is also probably someone who doesn't think kittens are cute.

You 100% believe Josh will be better next season but although he'll 100% better you don't know if he's an NFL starter????

Let me know how it is as you get further in. Joe Hill is Stephen King's son, so it's got me tempted after I watch a couple other shows. I'm trying the free trial of CBS All Access. I did it for Picard, which I'm loving. But I also started Evil, which is great just 2 episodes in.

I tuned in for the 2nd half. Looks like our NCAA tournament hopes are out the window. What happened to Hughes and how many games should he be out?

When did I say my position changed? My position remains that Trump will lose. But that doesn't mean I'm not nervous about the election. You're a Bills fan. Surely you can understand that recent successes and failures influence our feelings of confidence or lack of confidence. That doesn't mean those feelings are valid. I think this is funny because aren't you the one who's said time and time again polls don't matter with regard to Trump. Awfully convenient that you suddenly put so much credence in them. Who the hell do you think I'm putting my faith in exactly? You need to get a grip. My thoughts and feelings about Trump have remained the same--that he's a crooked, hypocritical megalomaniac who cares more about himself and his public image than anything or anyone else (among other things I don't feel like typing, but the guy's tried pretending he's of Swedish descent for God's sake when his family is ver much German... all for the sake of appearance)--well before he was elected President. I had hopes he would change my opinion and he did... He's worse than I thought he was. That opinion has been shaped by me. Not the media. You're going to have a lot of what you perceive as moments in the upcoming months, but November is what matters, not February.

You do understand why Democrats would naturally be nervous, regardless of any candidate on the ballot, right? But nerves don't translate to who wins. In fact, have you even considered that nerves could have the opposite effect you think they will? That people are so nervous that Trump gets reelected that it gets MORE people to turn out rather than less? And before you point to Primaries as indicative of voter turnout, speaking for myself, I won't vote in the Primary this year because I know I will vote for whichever Democratic candidate is elected in November, when I will show up to cast my ballot. I suspect I'm not alone in this sentiment.

And this has what to do with the fact that you said the Bills might get a 3rd round pick for Allen. To reiterate, Beane got the 1st pick of the 3rd round for Tyrod Taylor. You believe Allen would be less coveted than Taylor. That's delusional. https://www.azcentral.com/story/sports/heat-index/2018/05/02/arizona-cardinals-nfl-draft-quarterback-josh-allen-josh-rosen-z/574999002/ Never any guarantees, but Cards drafted 10th Turrible analogy. Again. This wasn't the EJ debacle. Allen was getting drafted in the 1st round. Again. Yours is the analytics argument. I understand it because it was what I looked to before the draft and why I hated the Allen pick initially. But the analytics argument really just doesn't fit with Allen. Further proving to me there's just no point discussing this with you as you are absolutely dead set on the notion that analytics prove everything.

"I'm the most moderate one on here" is immediately followed by "To this point, he's been a terrible QB" Can't make this stuff up...

And that's exactly the point. Before we continue, can we all acknowledge that Allen was going to be drafted in the 1st round regardless of whether the Bills drafted him or not? The truth is, it's highly highly likely he would have been taken by Arizona at 10 because he was reportedly the QB they wanted and they were "heartbroken" they couldn't land him https://www.azcentral.com/story/sports/heat-index/2018/05/02/arizona-cardinals-nfl-draft-quarterback-josh-allen-josh-rosen-z/574999002/ If you can acknowledge that, then this is no longer similar to the blunder of drafting EJ Manuel in the 1st round. It will also be an acknowledgement that MULTIPLE scouts and GMs across the NFL scouted Josh Allen, did thorough enough background checks into his history, and viewed him as a 1st round QB prospect. That's something you're clearly dismissive of, but it matters. So, why did multiple GMs and scouts covet a guy hated by the analytics crowd? The answer seems to be exactly what we've been talking about. Can you please find other QBs in the last, I don't know, 30 years similar to him in terms of background and personal history (from unrecruited to JuCo to small D1 school with relatively mediocre stats) who was drafted in the 1st round? While you look and struggle to find those examples, I also challenge you to go back and research Allen's personal history to further help you find those numerous QBs you seem to believe parallel Allen. I hated the Allen pick when we drafted him because of pretty much exactly what you're arguing. No QB like Allen in college has ever gone onto a successful NFL career at QB. That's the analytics argument. As others have said, Josh Allen is the true test of scouting vs analytics.

I don't think you know what you're talking about. Allen's best throws have come under pressure Honestly, as much as we want to talk about Allen fixing his mechanics... I don't think mechanics matter at all if you're throwing accurately. Allen has the arm strength to get the ball where he wants it to go regardless of platform. He just needs another offseason and more muscle memory. And yes, he should work on mechanics, too.

The Bills would obviously be able to get at least one 1st round pick for Allen if the Cardinals got a 2nd and a 5th for Josh Rosen. 2 1sts and 2 2nds is a stretch. One 1st and one 2nd is possible. Still can't believe someone said he'd only fetch a 3rd

You're delusional. The Bills got the 1st pick of the 3rd round for Tyrod and Allen would be coveted more than Taylor. You have a very jaded perspective on Allen.

Yeah the Burrow to Allen comparison in terms of level of play might be apples to oranges... but the very fact that you acknowledge that a Joe Burrow can "click" proves the point. What is it about Allen that you don't think he could do the same? Allen's situation is extremely unique historically. That's the point. It seems like you're trying to use analytics to prove Allen will fail. The problem is that analytics require multiple data points. With the uniqueness of Allen's situation, those aren't there.

What???? Dude, it's only probably in the last 15-20 years that young QBs have specialized in one sport and gone to all these QB camps. It's only recently that these rookies are coming into the NFL really good out the gate. Like QBs of previous generations, Allen just needs time... and even so, he's ahead of most objective expectations. So you believe the example of yourself proves your point? I really really don't mean this as an insult mods, but maybe you just weren't good enough. And there's not anything wrong with that. It's just a very small percentage of people who have the combined emotional, mental and physical (especially) aptitude to play a professional sport, especially QB, which requires more of the emotional and mental than most other positions. Allen stated himself that his injury in his rookie year was a blessing in disguise. He came back after that injury looking noticeably better than he did before it. And then with a full offseason under his belt, he improved again and looked even better than he did in the 2nd half of his rookie season. I don't understand why you believe he's hit some sort of wall.

This is actually pretty decent to watch. Guess I'll invest my loyalty early in the Guardians since they're the NY team. Who's everyone else rooting for?

I know people are dismissive of him, but I really think he makes the roster next season. Whether it was vs 2nd or 3rd stringers in the preseason, his God-given talent was obvious. He might be at the bottom of the roster, but I think he makes it. Not saying he will... just think he does...

It's based off a Stephen King novel. If there's a season 2, I'll be really upset.

Fantastic show. Loved the book. So far the series is pretty true to the source material. Great cast. I friggin love this show. My wife and I are cracking up so much as we watch. It definitely qualifies as an "absurdist comedy," though.

He got a lot better from year 1 to year 2. Let's see what he does year 2 to year 3. It's 2 years into a young, extremely raw QB's career and you already think it's time to draft a QB???? Sheesh. Welcome to the age of instant gratification.

Revision down of more than half a million jobs over a year span for "the Trump Economy." Trump's averaging 34,000 fewer jobs per month added over his first 3 years vs Obama's last 3 years.

https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2020/02/06/economy/trump-obama-jobs-comparison/index.html During Trump's first 35 months in office, the US economy has gained 6.69 million jobs. But during a comparable 35-month period at the end of Obama's tenure, employers added 7.96 million jobs, or 19%, more than what has been added since Trump took office. The average monthly gain so far under Trump is 191,000 jobs. During the last 35 months under Obama, employers were adding an average of 227,000 jobs a month. ... And Trump's job record is not unique. A gain of more than 6.7 million jobs during a 35-month period has been common during the 80 years that the Labor Department has counted jobs. There are hundreds of overlapping 35-month periods of better growth on record. At this point in his first and only term, Jimmy Carter had enjoyed a gain of about 10 million jobs. Employers added 8.5 million jobs during the first 35 months of Bill Clinton's term and 7.6 million jobs during the first 35 months of Lyndon Johnson's tenure, even though the labor force at that time was less than half the size of what it is today.