LSHMEAB

It's almost impossible to quantify Star's contribution, so the discussion is largely academic. I'm sure he does some things well. Probably occupies a few blockers more often than others at his spot. Obviously McDermott thinks relatively highly of him as a player. I would say in some ways, Star represents my one gripe with McDermott's defense; I would rather not have 1 out of 11 defenders not even asked to make plays. I'd prefer a more aggressive defensive line. A stud pass rusher would go a long ways to solving the issues the defense had last season in terms of sacks/TO's, so we'll see what happens.

Eh. I think Murphy was probably worse. Like I said, they were intentionally not aggressive during the 2018 offseason, but they needed to snag a few. I don't think they found any gems. Doesn't mean the overall direction isn't solid, but those two guys were not quality signings.

The Bills hired McDermott based primarily on his ability to coach defense. Of course they liked his presence and message, but his area of expertise is defense. It would only make sense that if the Bills made a good hire, which they did, Carolina would fall off and Buffalo would improve.

Someone would probably give him a one or two year deal for a couple mil per, but he certainly wouldn't be a FA "prize." The regime has done a tremendous job, but Star just doesn't bring enough to warrant that kind of deal/at all. His play had already fallen off in Carolina prior to the signing. I think they were trying to be judicious that offseason to really open up tons of cap space, but needed to make a couple moves. So they went with Star who had familiarity in McD's scheme. It's ok to say one particular move was a mistake.

Agreed. I'm personally far more sold on the coaching staff maximizing roster talent than I am the roster construction(thus far). We'll see how things progress, but this is an important offseason for Beane. I get what's occurred thus far; they made the conscious decision to gut the roster and "start over." You can't argue that they've collectively produced far more than any Bills regime this century. But can they field a championship roster? Time will tell.

He doesn't. 8-9 mil for Lawson? Not a single chance in the world. Phillips is the inverse of Shaq in terms of what the board expects they'll receive. I wouldn't be shocked if Phillips could be had for less than 7 mil/per, which would definitely be do-able. Teams are going to be awfully leery of those 5 FULL SEASONS of nothing prior to 2019. JMO.

Good post. The Havana reference seems a bit extreme, but I understand your perspective. As to the Dems, they have certainly not behaved as Super Geniuses(Sorry, but that sh** was hilarious). Point I'm making is that with Sanders, at the very least, the Dems and the left wing media would have to talk about issues; as would the right; I know they're prepared with Havana and Castro, etc. With Biden, it's gonna be full on TDS. You wanna know the truth? I think a lot of these people WANT Trump to win. There is a very thin line between love and hate.

Yeah. I get where you're coming from because we've been his B for like 60 years. Part of me still feels like even if Barkley had lead the Bills to a TD in the first game, Brady, after playing like TRASH, would have lead NE right down the field for a TD to beat us with no time left on the clock. The last time we beat him, we were fortunate in that they ruled Fred X down at the 1, allowing us to run out the clock. I'm convinced he would have not only lead them to a game tying TD, but the Pats would have gone for 2 just for fun. I just don't think he has any gas left in the tank and it's psychological at this point. And I'm by no means someone who doesn't respect what he's done or thinks he's a system QB. I consider him the GOAT. But even a GOAT eventually falls off the cliff.

Assistant Head Coach or Assistant TO the Head Coach?

For starters, sub 4000 yard passer is a bit disingenuous. He was like 22 yards short of that mark on a team that primarily ran the football. He lead the league in 4th quarter comebacks. Yes, he had weapons, but he was also playing on a run first team. We can talk about weapons, but what about systems? In his 2 starts in 2016 with NEW ENGLAND, he threw for 502 yards, 4 TD's, 0 picks, and a 113 passer rating. My opinion is that Brady is running on fumes and will continue to deteriorate with every start. Merely an eyeball test analysis. His body wants to stand strong in the pocket and deliver, but his brain is forcing him to tuck as it knows his body can no longer withstand hits. He never had the greatest arm to begin with, and can ill afford to lose any velocity. He's losing velocity with every start. The Brady of old would have made some of the scrubs he played with look like stars. He's no longer capable of doing this and I don't believe a better supporting cast would make him elite, especially NEXT season. We'll see what happens. I would love to see him back in NE, but that's just me.

Including New England. (Ducks for Mr. Weo's incoming fire) I would honestly hate this trade because I think Jimmy G would make New England a much tougher out both this season, and in the future. Really, really don't want to see this happen. There's a whole lot of recency bias in the assessment of Jimmy G; he sucked in the second half of the SB, which means he sucks.

Meh. Still not cutting it for me. They better be willing to part with Chad Greenway and Matt Birk if we're gonna give up this kind of capital. Birk still has some gas left in the tank and I'm not sold on Morse. Greenway could easily fill Lorax's role. Even then...MAYBE. They throw in Jared Allen to fill the edge role and we're in business.

Absolutely. There were "reports" that NE was willing to give Brady 30 mil to stay, but that was a month ago. I also believe that offer was completely a Bob Kraft production. Just speculation, but I think it's entirely possible BB implicitly hinted to Tom that he wanted to move on. We shall see. I don't think we'd be seeing any of this if there really was a 30 mil offer and BB and Tom were on the same page regarding next season.

Yeah. Could be old. I'm not in the business of ridiculing a guy for a less than stellar physique; I'm sure plenty of QB's have excelled without six packs. Just sayin; he stuck out like a sore thumb in that pic and not because of the "other" factor. Also somewhat ironic given that his new OC is Pill; (loved seeing him get a shot at the end of his time here FWIW, but not exactly a role model for someone trying to slim down). I don't care for Mayfield and he's not on the Bills so I have no rooting interest, but I think there's still a "decent" shot he develops into a quality starter.

Love taking a shot on tweener type in the 6th round (Vosean Joseph). Still believe he's gonna be a player. Just not sure about investing high picks in these guys. It's an interesting thought and football is shifting both offensively and defensively in that ballcarriers/passcatchers have become much more versatile and safeties/LB's have become intertwined. I just feel like you can wait a bit for these guys because teams around the league are not necessarily willing to give up premium picks for tweeners just yet.

Not sure, but based on that pic, Baker's fitness plan is definitely not working thus far.

I'm doubting the Raiders and Niners as well, but I don't think NE wants him back. You'd have to think the Titans are the odds on favorite to land Brady.

Very good info regarding the cause of the astronomical costs of college, though you'd have to explain how the government profits from the student loan scam/program. You clearly possess a great deal of knowledge/data/statistics. But one could quite EASILY use that information in an argument in FAVOR of eliminating the middle men in both higher education as well as healthcare. None of it really runs counter to the progressive agenda. Also, if there was a single insurance provider(Medicare), you really don't believe they'd have greatly increased leverage against big Pharma? I reckon they would. The U.S. CONSUMER is subsidizing the rest of the world in terms of drug costs. Why is that? You think Pharmaceutical Companies are out there doing God's work taking L's and offsetting that by ripping US off? Doubt it. Pretty sure they just take advantage of the only industrialized nation without a single payer HC system. As to the minority quip, I was just assuming that's where the conversation was headed. Yes, I know what happens when you assume. Finally, it really doesn't matter at this point; we'll see how Trump fares in his second term.

The Bills are in a PERFECT position to take on Foles contract to offset the capital they'd have to give up to acquire Yannick. PERFECT position. JA doesn't strike me as the kind of kid who'd be worried about Foles contract.

I would just say that I'm not exactly sure how government intervention has affected the cost of higher education. Ok. Train of thought. Policies that favor admitting more minorities. Got it. I guess it depends on one's perspective of that policy. But if you're a fan of the Office, you'll see quite clearly that the "promise" of free college creates tremendously higher graduation rates among minorities. Scott's Tots had a 96 percent graduation rate, far surpassing that of the school average. I kid. WRT healthcare, I hold big Pharma accountable for the astronomical cost of healthcare/prescription drugs. I get it. They do their R/D in Cali, so the rationale is that we should pay 10 TIMES the price of what they charge in other developed nations. That's absurd. These are precisely the issues Bernie is/was running on I personally believe they would would be a net positive for the country. But we've had that discussion and you made some very strong counterpoints; didn't change my mind, but offered a fully rational explanation as to why it WOULDN'T work. At any rate, Trump has been re-elected tonight. Instead of debating Universal Healthcare, we'll be talking about Burisma from the right and "restoring the soul of the nation" from the left, whatever the he## that means. Democrats appear to enjoy losing elections. Dad sounds like a "grinder." That's positive slang for hard worker who never quit.

Fair enough. There are many, many people who squander money, which leads to poor, self inflicted outcomes. There's no doubt about that. But what about people saddled with medical debt because they were uninsured OR had insurance that didn't cover certain procedures? Also, why didn't your parents pay 100k for a 4 year degree? I'm not discounting your points, but there's more to the story.

This has always been my fear. I actually prefer kiosks to people and it makes perfect fiscal sense for Wendy's to utilize it. But what happens, LONG LONG term, if robots are doing virtually everything? I just don't know, but I suppose we'll cross that bridge when we come to it.

Over the long haul, and this predates Trump, folks are generally earning less (adjusted for inflation) than their parents. Nearly half of American's don't have 400 BUCKS in case of emergency. I'd also posit that the state minimum wage laws play a large role in the growth at the bottom. On the flip side, it's also true that the increases are reflective of a tightening labor market, which is a good thing. I remember your post regarding quality of life and how it's better now due to readily available, relatively inexpensive technology. It was was interesting thought and has quite a bit of sway. I'm skeptical that this particular trend will continue, but the numbers you cited were by and large accurate. I'm not going to change my economic views, but facts don't lie. The elephant in the room in the coming years will be automation. I don't think anyone has a firm grasp on the implication there.

Your recollection is a bit off. I stated that MANY find him wholly disqualified to be President and many find him awesome. If you'd like their reasoning, Google is your friend. The guy was literally impeached so there's clear, empirical evidence that MANY find him wholly unqualified. I didn't support the impeachment, nor do I much care about a few phone calls with Zelensky. BUT, this particular thread isn't really about Donald Trump. You implied that there was some robust middle that would determine the election in RESPONSE to my assertion that non voters were far more important. At any rate, we're talking about the D primary; Biden is the candidate for those who believe there's this soft middle just looking for a return to normalcy. The beltway crowd STILL doesn't understand Trump's popularity and would like to wish it away. Sanders is a huge departure from status quo, for better or worse. My opinion is the anti Sanders folks, who probably agree with most of his policies, UNDERESTIMATE Trump's political strength. They believe some run of the mill candidate like Biden would surely win because Trump is a "bad man." I disagree with their take. Workers in the fracking industry are probably not at the extreme low end of the wage scale. I'm talking retail employees and fast food workers.

He has a propensity to say and do irrational things (like using a sharpie on a map for God knows what reason). I find it amusing and inconsequential, while others find it troubling. But overall, everyone knew who Trump was prior to the LAST election. What happened? He won. The notion of a Biden nomination would change nothing. It would be a repeat of the "vote against Trump because he's a bad guy" failed Clinton campaign strategy. Sanders supporters, by and large, couldn't care less about Trump or his "unconventional" behavior. My hunch is that Sanders would bring in a great number of "dumb" first time voters as well as a tiny number of "dumb" disaffected Trump voters who believed he'd significantly increase their personal fortune. We're talking about voters on the low end of the socioeconomic scale irrespective of race. This is especially true in rust best states like Michigan, Ohio, and PA, which still face mass exodus and poverty. They gave Trump a shot because he was a champion for the little guy. The unemployment rate has ticked down, but wages remain relatively stagnant. The middle, as described by the media, are folks looking for a return to normalcy. There is not a single person who'd change their vote based on Trump's behavior. He's the same guy. But again, this is political tit for tat; you responded to my post citing a robust "middle" and I still don't see it. It appears as though you're using this as an opportunity to tout Trump, which is cool, but doesn't really address the point at hand.