Mikie2times

Would it sound funny to you if you heard Mayfield or Darnold were traded for a first? To me it would. Does the market view the three that differently at this moment? I don't think it does.

I don't know, those Redskin and Cowboys teams. They were exceptional, the whole NFC was, but I also don't disagree with a thing you wrote. I don't know WTF we were thinking with Wright. That was an Era of stop the run first and we had a high flying offense. Last exposure point you would want on defense is a team that can chew clock and pound. Phil was a very good run stuffing DE, Bruce underrated in that area, both perfect for a 3-4, then Wright was just out of place and made no sense. I can't imagine the difference Teddy would have made on that DL. I also agree about Marv. I do think Marv was a great leader of men, he brought people together in rare ways. I don't dismiss that. I don't think we go 4 straight without him. As far as X's and O's, wasn't his thing and we were out coached.

Outside 1990, 90's Bills just weren't ever as good as who they played in the Super Bowl. The AFC was pathetic, we didn't choke, we just weren't good enough.

You have your football purists, then your analytic types. Then some people hang out in the middle. As an example, I think most here look at the drought ending team as very limited, at the same time they look at last years team as much more deserving. I would certainly agree with that and the advanced stats from Pro Football Outsiders and Pro Football Reference do as well. With that being the case most people see last years team as the best squad we have had since the 2000's. The 1999 Bills could have another thread dedicated to a similar topic, so lets just cut it at 2000/last 20 years. The 2004 Bills get dismissed rather easily here based on the loss to the "2nd team" Steelers in the final game. It's generally a purist argument "if you can't win that game you aren't good enough to make the playoffs" case closed. It's easily forgotten that while Tommy Maddox might have started that game, many of the Steelers starters played a full game and many of the back ups went onto have outstanding careers almost immediately after. That was a good Steelers team we lost to and we didn't play a clean game. We started 2004 with an 0-4 record, we lost Week 1 on the final play of the game on a miracle catch by Ernest Wilford and Week 4 on a FG by the Jets in the final minute. Over the next 5 games we went 3-2, it was at that point we went on arguably the most dominant stretch of 6 games in Bills history going 6-0 and outscoring our opponents 228-89. Closest margin of victory was 10. The 2004 Bills were the highest rated team by Pro Football Outsiders in the history of it's ranking system to not reach the playoffs, well ahead of any Bills team the last 20 years and rated only behind the 64 and 90 Bills using Pro Football Reference rating system. None of these systems care for the early 90's Bills as much as we do (maybe justifiably so). If you don't like those kind of stats what jumps out the most to me is who was on this team. It seemed to have sprinkles of all types of acquisitions and eras. Left overs from the not awful late 90's, like Pat WIlliams and Moulds, then a lot of our higher profile FA's/Trades that decade like Bledsoe, Spikes, Fletcher, Milloy, Adams. Some of the solid home grown players of the drought era in Evans, Reed, Schobel, Clements, Moorman, and McGee. Even some of the major trades we let go in McGahee and Peters started on that team. We led the league by a considerable margin in special teams that year. Bledsoe always had his limitations and would have stopped us eventually. He gave us 20 TD's and 16 INT's. Having said that about Bledsoe, you could make that same argument as it related to Josh and his 2019 season. As far as talent, I see more on the 2004 squad vs our 2019 group. It doesn't always come together. I will likely circle back and also review the 1999 team in the next few weeks. Another overshadowed squad based on Johnson/Flutie and MCM. In most analytics sites, one of the top 25 defenses of all time.

We can talk about this with avoiding discussion of the president.

I certainly agree with your first point. I also agree that it has been more wide spread the entire time (which is why I was/still am inclined to think the mortality rate was always likely lower than reported). I disagree that the data is inconclusive. It is very much conclusive that cases are rising. Under no situation can you have a rising denominator and a rising % without it being statistically significant. We could have been only testing people on Ventilator's at first and now testing people with Popsicle's. If the % is higher and the total is higher, it's statistically significant. How you feel about that data, shut downs, shutting down again. That's all personal opinion. I've bounced back and forth on that topic. Go full out Darwin, rip the band aid off, only the strong survive, save the economy vs flatten the curve, bleed out slow, preserve as much medical resources to save lives as possible and the economy gets crushed. We decided to do a little of both. As it was said in Breaking Bad, half measures rarely work. We needed to go all in early with one of the two options but we missed that window. Now we will bleed out on both accounts.

If your point is to say that it has a lower mortality rate than previously expected, I have thought that was the case for some time but that is still very much open to further data. Lag period on deaths and who is being infected (is the recent surge in just the sub 30 demographic? If so, obviously you won't see that many deaths now, how about a month from now after they spend time with parents and grandparents?). Regardless of who is getting infected they're mingling with all the people that impact the rate of deaths. A nearly perfect correlation exists long term with death and infection totals. Go figure. You're banking on that changing? If your point is to say it is reducing in cases and not accelerating, that is not correct. Even using your own logic, before we only tested the sick and now we test a much larger subset of people in addition a much larger amount of people. So testing a small group of sick people vs a large group of healthier people and as a % you would expect the latter to have a higher %?

Last time the US saw a 7 day moving average positive test % at 6.4% (current) was late May and we averaged about 400,000 daily tests at that time. Now we are averaging over 600,000. You don't need a Harvard degree in statistics to do the math. If it was actually getting better as tests increase the % would be going down, certainly not flat or up. As a country it is increasing as a % from it's low at 4.4% in mid June (500,000 test average) and across 4-5 states it's absolutely sky rocketing. Here is your web site. https://coronavirus.jhu.edu/testing/individual-states/usa Look at Arizona, Texas, Florida, among several others. Ohio, which was one of the most aggressive shut down states in the country is now seeing the same data trend in much smaller numbers as are plenty of other states that nobody is paying attention to yet (I live in Ohio that's why I'm commenting on it). But give Ohio time, I'm sure those small numbers won't be very small in another month. Rising %'s against rising tests is a very bad trend.

Well said. Trump is the QB of this country and Covid-19 is the largest political challenge since the housing market crashed. Game was on the line and he decided to give the ball to his RB so he could criticize him for hitting the wrong hole if he needed to do so. He just didn't have the stones to be the QB. He viewed all outcomes for him in that role as negative so he handed it off. Sometimes you have to pick the lesser of two evils. Irony is for him he always viewed Covid as lose/lose, but had he just successfully managed it measured against how other countries have performed he would have crushed the election.

While the NFL is entertainment for most it's employment for some. Lots of employees were forced to come back or never left environments that made them more susceptible to infection. At that point the employee can make a not so easy decision on what they think is best for them, remaining at that company or leaving. It's on each player, coach, and team member to decide whats best for them. My bet is nearly 100% of the NFL would participate in a season. If a person does not wish to participate they don't have to. If that's the case then I guess the question becomes does the NFL have some type of moral responsibility to protect people who aren't requesting protection?

I think that stat is a bit flawed, some areas are experiencing higher positives in younger demographics. Further, death rate trails positive rate considerably. If you want the most clear outlook, % positive tests. Yes, Trump was right, more tests, more positive totals. But the % movement should be decreasing against a stable or rising test rate if you want validation that cases are actually declining.

We are a far from a lock to win the division or make the playoffs. We needed 4 fourth quarter comebacks last year and played one of the top 3 easiest schedules in football. If people think the Patriots will be an easy out this year, they will be much better than most of the teams we earned wins against last season and the schedules is night and day in difficulty. It's also nice being the underdog, which we no longer are.

Like I said earlier, NFL needs to take the opposite approach of the rest of the leagues. All of which have basically thought of every conceivable way to not let it spread, yet it inevitably does. Plan failed, then they pull back. The NFL will still take similar precautionary measures and do everything possible to eliminate spread, but they have to go in expecting high infection rates. Expecting the potential for some loss of life <= some players will deal with complications that result in loss of life. It's a very low probability outcome, but enough get it, the math guarantees at least some will have serious cases. Coaches, others, also fit into this. Again, is it this that far off from what most businesses and employees are dealing with right now? I watch gas station attendants and grocery store clerks come in contact with 1,000 of people a day for minimum wage. Lots of people face increased risk vs having enough money to live on a daily basis. If the NFL wants to take the same approach and I think they will, then that's a choice they have. I also think, like many employees, the NFLPA and it's players would rather make the money and take the risk. They know most players have a very limited window to earn this type of money and I'm sure the majority would risk infection for the ability to do so.

I saw this, not a death nail, but the writing is on the wall. In order for the NFL to play, they will have to take an open position on players getting infected. That is to say, they will do everything possible to prevent it, but the language they use and approach they take has to be in acceptance that some if not all teams will deal with it. Since the rest of the business world is dealing with similar issues, perhaps not as challenging, but in some sectors, perhaps even more so, I think the NFL will let it ride. If somebody dies, which is possible, if not probable, even at a low fatality rate, lord knows what happens, but again, is this much different than the challenges many Americans face returning to work? Countless employees across the country are working for peanuts and no more protected than the players would be. It’s going to get interesting.

If you factor in QB, I think by 2021, we will have the most dynamic 1-2-3 combo in the league, all pups still. Singletary will be an elite back and Moss is an amazing compliment to his style. Then Josh is the 2nd most effective QB running the ball in the NFL. I'm not saying this group is at that point yet, but that's what I expect by 2021. Any 1-2-3 and the argument can be made for Lamar, but I need to see 2 consecutive years. I'm just not bullish on him yet. So frequently exposed to injury threat and it's always the 2nd year the Defensive coordinators catch up (I don't count his 2018 season as far as DC's scrambling, he was average, 2019, he killed you, if the Central coaches don't catch up they know they can't compete). They will give the rest of the league a blue print prior to the half way mark, maybe sooner.

I'm a white male, my girlfriend is black, my brother is a police officer. I'm not an authority on this topic, I can just share what the hell has been going on the last few days from these various perspectives. My girlfriend is from a predominantly white area, she is highly educated, she has flat out said multiple times she does not know where she fits in society. She feels her own people do not accept her and she will never be fully accepted by white people. When we first started talking about this I had no idea how sensitive the topic was. I mean we joke about race constantly. What I learned from this is if religion and politics could make a baby and form the mecca of all things you don't throw your opinions at recklessly this would be it. I have given up any attempt to FULLY understand how she feels. I never will and never could. I'm a white male. It is that simple. This is not even remotely about a flag to black people, they do not feel in anyway that they're dishonoring former military. If you understand that, great, if you don't understand that, great. All sides of the coin are free to express themselves. Brees is a public figure, he could have chose to stay on the sidelines if he wanted, he chose not to. I'm sure some people are happy he did express his opinion, that said it should not be the least bit surprising the black community roasted him in doing so.

Loved the interview, love Josh. I hope he can learn. A takeaway I had from this which might not be popular is a concern that he can't actually change. He sounds VERY self aware, which I love, without that you don't even have the ability to change, but at some point the change actually has to occur. If I make a mistake and can articulate what it is and why I made it but I keep repeating the mistake....... that's my fear from this interview. I'm not talking about accuracy either more "hero ball" as we saw at the end of the Houston game. His OC was very clear Josh has had multiple opportunities at Wyoming to learn to not play "hero ball". That over the course of the 2017 season, it was basically an entire crash course on the topic. He displayed a look in talking about the Houston game, disappointment/frustration would be the best word to describe the look. Like "Damn it Josh, when are you going to learn". Then he want onto to say Josh spoke with Wyoming QB's on zoom some time after the game, openly talking about the Houston game and acknowledging his mistakes. Ok, so Josh is aware not to play "hero ball" but he was also aware of it prior to the Houston game. It's the 4th quarter of the AFC championship game. Do you trust now is the time he actually learned his lesson? I hope so.

I'm generally a homebody but not to this extent. I would like to get out, do something a little different, enjoy the weather. That said, I still think going to any location with a decent amount of traffic or population density (bars/restaurants) is not a good idea for me right now. I read a lot of articles on drive in's making a comeback and it made a lot of sense. I probably land where a lot of the US does right now, not coiled in fear and not pretending it's spring break either (those seem to be the only things the media is latched onto at the moment). Any external activities that can offer peace of mind with the ability to get out would be highly attractive right now to a lot of people. It's a smart idea, might fail. Still like the thought process.

Good post and yes, we sound like we have similar takes on some things. My two issues, primary issues, campaign finance reform as well as Wall Street reform (Repeal of Glass-Steagall) have led to horrific consequences to the systems overall balance. At one point I identified more with Democrats but still have some Republican views. In time they just both blended into a melting pot of the same BS. As I said, most of which you describe better than me. I have no earthly clue how the US stops this cycle. For me, it's not Democrat or Republican, it's the system. I am the voter you described in why Trump won. Like you, Obama twice, couldn't do Hillary nor Trump. I see similar attitudes playing out among people like ourselves throughout this next election. It's hard to evoke passion to vote based on dislike of the opposite party. I very well could sit this one out again, but it's possible my frustration over the complete mockery of the presidency is enough to cast a vote for somebody I really don't believe in just to prevent somebody who is even worse from winning. As you point out, that is just another vote towards establishment politics which I'm certainly not endorsing. I just hope this pattern of keep blowing it up doesn't land us in an even worse position. As this is occurring, these blow it up presidents are nominating Supreme court justices, creating policy, and lets face it, while not establishment politics, certainly advancing the agenda of income inequality. I love capitalism, but it's dangerous with the level of greed that can come with it and the ability of that greed to infiltrate all forms of the way decisions and policy are made. We have reached a point in which the scales are so deeply tipped, I don't know how we get back.

You tagged my on the last one and I will again concede. You speak much more eloquently than I at how he has won the votes of the disenfranchised. That said, aren't we all just pissed at this point? I mean, we don't know how to break the cycle. So much damn money is floating around it can't be broke. Our solution is basically dropping a second atomic bomb on Hiroshima. Who is the next one up? Is this going to go the way of celebrity presidents? I feel like the movie Idiocracy is playing out before our eyes.

I'm independent, but your first statement......"He's in the White House for a reason". Ok..... Clinton was a god awful candidate and Joe Biden will be next. Masses are A$$es. Trump won the election based on excellent marketing, branding of his name, and further dividing party lines. All the while being afforded the ability to say literally anything because nobody could ever pretend to fact check a human being that embellishes at the rate he does. While having the privileges almost no american receives he managed to fail at almost everything he has ever done outside of a TV show and branding his name. His name is so well branded with success it makes citizens think he has at some point in his life been successful in business, which is not true in any capacity. By any practical measure he is an utterly horrible business man. They actually had to make a fake set for the Apprentice because his actual office was so deplorable it wouldn't work. Moving along, he somehow wins votes from people who don't make a lot of money and are very pissed off about the income disparities in this country. That said, Trump would never help somebody or put measures in play that help people in a sub 75k income bracket. Why these people vote for him I don't know. He's rich and they also want to be rich? Break the status quo and turn it into the WWE? If you make 100k+ I get it. He helps your bottom-line and every candidate pretty much sucks, so if that's the case go with the one who benefits you most. At this point I would just settle for somebody that is presidential and doesn't spend half his life on Twitter.

Fair

Trumps a disgrace along with his gathering of poor inbreeds. If you make 100k plus I can tolerate why you might vote for the guy, but that's about it. Joe Biden is a moron limp crotch but at least he will be around smart people, listen, and behave presidential. Unfortunately what I just said means we will likely get 4 more years of twitter king.

As some have pointed out you have to make Andre one, but as far as talent, it's very close. Moulds is extremely underrated and one of my favorite Bills of all time to watch. Really no holes in his game.

Well said. Now the players do have a powerful union. So this could lead to a very ugly situation. As another poster mentioned, I see no practical way to accomplish this by cutting players to get below the number. It would have to be a reduction as a % of the the total cap spent. So if a guy make 16 million, now he makes 8 million. That is unless you want the open market to just take over at which point roster turnover would be inconceivable. Hell, I wonder if teams would even opt to carry a full roster if that's the case.