SoTier

I was thinking that the Texans got royally fleeced on the Hopkins trade, and this trade seems to confirm it. I don't know what the thinking was behind the Houston-Arizona deal but it smells of desperation. The analysts on NFLN all seemed to be perplexed by the reasoning behind it as well. It's like the Texans made a complete 180 degree turn: last year they gave a fortune in picks in order to acquire talent and seemed in "win now" mode, and then at some point last season, they decided that they were going to do a rebuild instead, so they started trading away some of their best players. The Hopkins trade seems a continuation of that.

Mea culpa. Thanks.

I think those who want to eliminate SS are extreme right wing ideologues, only a few in politics but more found in academia and among political commentators. I think that a lot of younger people (I'm 70, so lots of people are 'younger') seem to believe that SS is irrelevant to their futures because they're convinced that it won't be there for them when they retire. I've even gotten this kind of passive, defeatist view from people in their early fifties. Because they believe this, they don't make it clear to politicians that raiding the SS trust fund is NOT acceptable to them. The people who do hold current politicians accountable for keeping SS fiscally sound are older voters. Older voters vote regularly, and politicians, knowing that, are wary of upsetting us. Younger voters can't bother to vote regularly, and politicians act accordingly.

It's not that prices would rise -- it's that most people -- especially those that are most likely to have the most need of SS in the future -- would simply fritter away that money away on immediate wants rather than saving it. Moreover most people lack the financial discipline that's necessary to save for their retirement starting in their twenties with their first full time jobs, and too many people who do start saving early lack the financial knowledge and fortitude to invest wisely over the long term -- too many seem either unwilling to invest stocks or too willing to buy into "get rich quick" schemes. A great many younger people prefer to buy a nicer house or a new car or take a pricey vacation rather than contribute to their 401ks, sometimes even when their employers offer matches.

The article you quoted said that they reached an agreement with Smith. It didn't say that he signed a contract. There is a significant difference between agreeing to contract terms and actually signing the contract.

They might agree to a deal but they can't actually sign a deal until after they are drafted.

No college player can sign with any NFL team until after the NFL draft. Bruce Smith was the #1 over all pick in 1985, which the Bills owned because of their crappy record the previous season. Flutie was taken in the 11th round (#285) of the LA Rams. I think that Smith rejected the WFL as an option, so the Bills drafted him, but he couldn't have been signed before the draft. First round draft picks holding out into some time into TC was very common before the rookie salary cap went into effect about 2010 or so.

I'm not a "draftnik" since I don't follow college football, so I'm not going to tout taking a particular player. That said, I'm good with the OP's plan. The Bills need 2 more good WRs and at least 1 better RB (read that as reliable playmakers) than they had last year. However they acquire them, FA or the draft, is fine with me. Allen can't improve without weapons, and the Bills aren't winning many playoff games without a significantly improved offense.

When my father retired in 1982, his pension from his employer of more than 20 years was all of $95 a month My stepmother's pension from the same employer was $105 a month. When my dad died, my stepmother's SS dropped and she lost that $95 a month, so her income dropped quite substantially. Luckily, the house was paid for and they had had savings. If both were alive today (dad would be 103 and stepmom would be 95) their combined pensions would still be $200 a month, no "inflation protection". Many, many older retirees with these kinds of outdated small pensions could not survive without Social Security and Medicare. Younger people who are always whining about social security should make it their business to demand that their Congressmen and Senators protect Social Security and Medicare by seeing that both programs are adequately funded to insure secure income and decent medical care for current retirees and future ones -- which will be themselves at some point in the future, especially as medical/health advances continue to increase the average life span. Contrary to popular myth and political ideology, these are two government programs that work and shouldn't be sacrificed for short-sighted immediate gains.

This is exactly how all pension plans work, whether private industry or government. Retirement benefits, primarily pensions, are based on earnings. The highest paid employees get biggest pensions while the lowest paid get the smallest pensions. Company executives who make tens of millions of salary annually retire with huge pensions and/or retirement benefits while other employees of the same company may end up with pensions worth only a few hundred dollars a month -- and many companies no longer offer pensions at all or even offer to contribute matching funds to 401k plans.

What I have heard over the years is that Wilson traded Lamonica because he had an affair with another player's wife. I don't how true that was but it seems consistent with how Wilson ran the team. I think that Lamonica would have failed in Buffalo. The loss to the Chiefs in the AFC Championship (for the berth in Super Bowl I) was the Bills' last hurrah and ushered in 2 decades of misery for Bills fans which were only broken by Lou Saban's short lived return as coach (1972-the first 5 games of 1976) and the Chuck Knox regime (1978-1982) until Bill Polian took charge of the Bills in 1986. Between 1967 and 1985, the Bills were mostly uncompetitive with the rest of the NFL. Wilson didn't like paying top money for quality players, so the Bills drafted primarily based either position (lots of DBs in the first round) or whether a draftee would accept the Bills' low ball salary offers in the first round. In the 20 years between 1967 and 1986, the Bills had the #1 pick in the entire draft 4 times (OJ Simpson (1968), Walt Putulski (1972), Tom Cousineau (1979), and Bruce Smith (1985)), 3 top 5 picks, and 2 top ten picks. Simpson and Smith both held out a long time before finally signing with the Bills. Cousineau chose to play in the CFL rather than for the Bills. Jim Kelly (the only QB taken in the first round during this period) chose the WFL over the Bills.

This is a simplistic excuse. No QB, not TB12 or Rodgers or Peyton or Montana, can be realistically be expected to have offensive success without adequate protection and good weapons. Teams don't make, much less win, the Super Bowl without having at least decent offense, defense, and special teams. To an extent, the Bills success depends upon Josh Allen's improvement -- and he certainly needs to improve -- but that is not a "get out of jail free" card for Beane and McDermott. The Bills need to put better offensive skill players around Allen. They need to maintain their defensive excellence. They need to upgrade the depth on both sides of the ball. They need to acquire and/or draft/develop playmakers. I agree. I think that except for drafting Allen, Beane (and McDermott) have treated the offense like a red headed stepchild. They devoted considerably more resources to the defensive side of the ball than to the offense. They seem to have far more acumen in evaluating defensive talent than offensive talent. Their supporters have given lots of reasons for that, some valid but many simply excuses. My take is that if this apparent neglect stems from a philosophy that values defense far above offense, then all the continuity in the world isn't going bring the Bills many playoff wins. They cannot put Allen out on the field with 2 decent NFL caliber WRs and 1 decent NFL caliber RB and a bunch of scrubs masquerading as skills players and expect the Bills to compete with the likes of the Chiefs, the Ravens, the Steelers, etc.

I don't think the problems on offense stem from philosophy. I think the offensive problems result from a lack of offensive playmakers which limits the options the coaching staff has to respond to injuries or defensive adjustments. The Bills essentially had one QB with two reliable WRs and one reliable RB. The rest of the skill players simply failed to consistently make plays, so if Brown or Beasley or Singletary were taken out of the game by the defense or by injury, the Bills had no reliable alternatives. What made the Chiefs and Niners so successful in 2019 was that when opponents shut off one thing their offenses did well, they had very real, very dangerous alternatives.

I think that some posters misunderstood the analyst's criteria. He's basing his picks on play/production vs cost. Poyer is best because he's played great at a bargain price. Lotulelei is the worse not because he's played so poorly but because he hasn't played well enough to justify his big $$$. In that context, I think he's probably spot on.

Success in the NFL is measured by wins, especially in the playoffs. The Bills haven't won a playoff game since 1995 or 1996. New England, Baltimore, and Pittsburgh all have as many or more Super Bowl victories as the Bills have playoff appearances in the last twenty years. Last year's team had some unexpected gifts -- the injury to Roethlisberger and playing the Titans before they swapped QBs come to mind. They once again failed to beat the Patriots in two tries. They did win 10 games but then they went one and done in the playoffs because they couldn't score late in games when they needed to. I'm not dissing Beane and/or McDermott because they've done a decent job, but I'm not ready to annoint Beane and/or McDermott as gods for only doing marginally better than some of their predecessors at this early point in their tenure. Measured against what other GMs/HCs around the league have done in their first three years with other organizations, Beane/McDermott are not all that impressive. This is the thing for me. Do they give Allen the support he needs to be truly successful if he's good enough? Are they smart enough to use their cache of cap money wisely to bring in the right players and then draft the right players to make the offense better? The Bills may make the playoffs but they aren't winning many playoff games without a significantly better offense. This is 2020 not 2000.

Economic models never deal with reality because they assume that everybody reacts economically rationally to every situation. Philosophical political models also fail because they don't account for human emotions. Economic and/or political ideologues are great at spewing wonderful sounding ideas -- and visiting misery on millions if they get opportunities to actually put their ideologies into action. The twentieth century saw that repeatedly.

I didn't vote because I need to see more success on the field. I don't care that the FO looks "competent". That means "nothing", especially when looking at a short time span of three years. Tom Donahoe looked "competent" three years in as did Doug Whaley. Beane and McDermott have looked good so far, but unless the team takes the next step -- winning playoff games -- then they aren't significantly better than predecessors.

In this case, just consider the source. Lewrockwell.com has been predicting the collapse of the US dollar -- and consequently, the world economy -- for all of its decades-long existence. It advocates an alternative economic system that's similar to Adam Smith's in Wealth of Nations, which was written in 1776. It supports a return to the gold standard and totally opposes any government intervention in the economy, which makes it a favorite of radical pepper types who hunker down in their bunkers (or would hunker down in their bunkers if they could only get off the internet) waiting for "the end".

Oh, just stop with the "we can't afford to acquire talented players" bull manure! The Bills have $82 million in cap space, so they can certainly afford to upgrade the team, especially when it might mean the difference between another one and done in the WC round team and a Super Bowl appearance. If Beane is the GM that so many on TSW claim he is then he'll be able to bring in the right FAs on good contracts that will enable the Bills to take the next step this coming season -- like actually winning a playoff game -- not wasting another two or three years or decades making excuses. Other teams -- Kansas City, New Orleans, Baltimore, Philadelphia, Minnesota, not to mention New England -- all manage to regularly win playoff games, including conference championships and even sometimes a Super Bowl, by bringing in key FAs on good contracts. Dawkins and Milano aren't going to get huge pay days. They are second tier FAs -- solid players in the right situations -- but not going to break any team's bank unless they're up against the cap. White is the real deal but he's a CB not a QB or an edge rusher and the best DBs come a lot cheaper than QBs or edge rushers. As first rounders, Allen and Edmunds have two more years to prove what they are worth as FAs as at present, they are both worth picking up their fifth year options. Without upgrading the offensive talent around Allen, the Bills will never figure out if he's a $10 million a year QB or a $30 million a year QB. The same is true with Edmunds on the defensive side, although top LBs cost about half what top QBs cost.

Seriously, ma'am, are you washing all the bags for your entire block every week? I think I could wash more than fifty reusable cloth bags in 1 load in my washing machine. Moreover, I didn't realize a person could get e-coli from a putting a box of crackers next to a sealed chunk of cheddar next to a non-leaking carton of milk next to a bottle of V-8, next to two cans of mushroom soup top by a box of tissue and a bag of Ore Ida shoestrings. I guess I learn something new every day even at my age. Your arguments are coming from the same place the dire warnings of the anti-seat belt crowd about the dangers of being trapped in a burning car by a seat belt: Hysteria via Exaggerationville.

I missed your original reply because it was gone before I returned to this site. No matter. Here's my thoughts on the "research" you presented as well as some of the comments made by some other posters. The numerous articles under this topic mostly cite the same article, often at second or third hand. It may be that the study's emphasis was misplaced or misinterpreted by the authors who used the data for their articles but I doubt that. In her quotes, study's author seemed convinced that she had "proved" that the bans are "bad". The most serious flaw with the study is that it doesn't account for volume of sales. I don't know what percentage of trash bags sold in the US are 30 gallon or higher, but my guess is that they make up at least 80 of the sales just from looking at story displays. For easy math, say that 100 represents all trash bags sold. 80% of that is 80 bags. Now, if that the sales of the large bags jumped 120% then that increase would be terrible ... the total bags sold would jump to 196, with 176 of them being large bags. A 120% increase in the small bags would yield an 24 bags however, so it's not quite as drastic ... but not all of the small bag market share went up by 120%: the 13 gallon bag sales increased barely 10% and the 8 gallon bag sales topped out at about 80% increase, so the 120% increase was for only 1 small segment of the total bag sales -- and at the end of the study period was trending downward. This study doesn't look at the differences in what happens to the vast majority of single-use plastic bags vs trash bags. Trash bags generally wind up in landfills. Single use plastic bags that are used for trash or thrown into trash bins also generally wind up in landfills. The bans on these bags aren't aimed at those. Landfills aren't the best thing in the world but it's better than single use plastic bags littering the environment and causing problems. The first word in the phrase "reduce, reuse, recycle" is reuse. A single reusable shopping bag can be used hundreds of times, significantly reducing litter in the environment and space in landfills. Some of my bags have got to be approaching 1000 uses as they're more than a decade old. Unfortunately, voluntary efforts to reduce the use of single use plastic bags haven't produced good enough results. The reuse and recycling of single use plastic bags have also failed to significantly diminish the unwanted presence of these bags in the landscape, waterways, sewage plants, etc. Unless you have some kind of leakage in your shopping bags, they do not have to be washed weekly since most of foods purchased in supermarkets come in packages of some kind, including fresh produce which can be put into small plastic bags. Look at the bright side: if bans on single use plastic bags increase the demand for paper grocery bags, the prices paid by recyclers for paper may increase, which would be a boon for all the Cub Scouts and other organizations doing paper drives. ?

I lived in Nebraska for two years in the 1970s. I was never actually was in a tornado, but they occurred in rural areas around Lincoln. A big one hit suburban Omaha the last year I lived there, killing three people. Some precautions: #1 - Get a house with a basement and outfit a corner (preferably in SW corner) as a "safe room/area" -- no windows/no wall shelving/seating/possibly a strong wall separating it from the rest of the basement. #2 - Build/install an in-ground storm shelter for a home without a basement. They are now available as prefab units. #3 - Invest in a NOAA emergency weather alert radio that can be programmed for your area. #4 - Take every tornado warning seriously, and get your family, your pets, and yourself to your shelter ASAP.

I second this. They are in desperate need of playmakers at WR, RB, and TE plus they could use upgrades along the OL. They simply don't have the offensive support for Allen to enable him to become a proficient NFL QB, and without improving their offense significantly, they really can't be competitive in the playoffs.

Are you talking any position or specifically WRs? Some positions are not considered valuable enough to warrant spending a top five or top ten pick on. Teams frequently don't start using their first round picks on interior OL positions until later, so the bottom half or third of the first round frequently produces Pro Bowl guards and centers. OTOH, it's pretty clear that QBs taken in the bottom half of the first round aren't likely to find much success. Right off, I can think of only 4 QBs taken at #16 or lower since 2000 who have had real success in the NFL: 2000 - Chad Pennington; 2005 - Aaron Rodgers; 2008 - Joe Flacco; 2018 - Lamar Jackson. I think if you look at success and draft position without regard to position, you are probably right that there's not a big difference in the number of busts from positions 1-10 and positions 22-32. However, that's a very simplistic and unrealistic view because some positions are considered more valuable, and the best prospects at that position get snapped up early even if they aren't as good prospects as other players at positions that aren't valued as much and are, therefore, much more likely to bust.

I think that's a false perception that results from the fact that we often focus on the first round guys who bust but ignore the second rounders who do the same. The further back in the draft a player is taken, the more likely he is to fail to become even a solid NFL player much less a star playmaker. A lot of it is perception, too. People remember the highly touted first rounders who crash and burn and the handful of Day 2 or Day 3 guys who become Pro Bowlers but the players outside the first round who don't pan out don't even make a blip on people's radar except for maybe personal reasons. Case in point is Zay Jones; the only reason we even recognize his name is because he was a 2nd round pick for the Bills who busted. On the matter of trading up in the draft, IMO, I'm okay with trading up to get into the top third/top half of the first round but I think trading up in later rounds is a waste of resources because of the increased chances of faiure.