dave mcbride

I don't disagree that the trendlines in upstate NY are worrying, and there are a lot of factors involved, including state policy. (That said, don't discount weather for older people; it's a HUGE factor in population flight). But the problem with the argument is that NYC has higher tax rates, is more heavily regulated, and is a more difficult business environment to break into than any other place in NYS. Yet it is booming, and its population has increased significantly over the past 25 years, from around 7.4 million to 8.623 million. Other high tax/high regulation states like Oregon and Washington are booming too, and near the top of the annual population growth list. I guess my point is that blaming state regulatory policy just doesn't make a lot of sense to me. There are too many factors involved, and why some regions decline and others thrive is a really complicated issue. To be fair, I don't doubt that misguided local policies play some role (Christ, the fact that they don't have an 8-lane bridge to the economic heart Canada--just across the river!--is outrageous).

NY is doing pretty well, driven largely by high-tax NYC, which generated roughly 3/4 of a million new jobs in the last 12 months. So I don't really understand your point. As for why the Derby plant is closing, New Era has a new business model that focuses more on branding and isn't tied to hats. It wants a manufacturing facility that can handle that. Derby ain't it. There is also the union issue, although New Era (somewhat implausibly) denies it played a role.

No. I simply inferred that your post indicated that you hadn't actually read the piece, which focuses on manufacturing process mismatches. NYS's unemployment rate is 4.1 percent right now (NYC's is 4.0), which is roughly average for the country.

You also need to factor in that they have the worst starting field position (32nd) of any defense in the league - that is, opposing offenses are closer to the opponent's goal line when they start their drives against the Bills than anyone else. The Bills D is first in yards given up per drive, 4th in time per drive, and 5th in plays per drive. They are also second in net yards per passing attempt allowed, which is an incredibly important stat. Sounds like top 5 to me.

You should read the story before making claims like this.

He has caught 18 of his last 25 targets (72 percent).

He's a valuable asset if surrounded by more physically talented receivers. He's a good route runner and his hands are winning me over.

Irrespective of the topic here, Barkely probably earned himself another 5-7 years as a backup in this league yesterday.

Have you not watched Allen highlights? He clearly has a cannon on the field too. That td throw in preseason against Carolina was blazing.

They fielded a team with a LOT more speed yesterday, and it clearly made a difference. Speed kills.

He can’t do it more often because he’s been working with terrible talent. Daboll is not the problem.

The eyeball test?? Really? Vick ran a sub-4.4 40 time (allegedly 4.33) but come on. He doesn’t compare to Allen, who hit freaking 66 at the senior bowl. Favre supposedly hit 63 and people didn’t think it was toppable. Vick threw 60 max on his best day (which is good!). His speed and cutting ability separated him from the pack, especially when combined wih a genuinely strong arm.

He literally has broken every record. He was throwing 92 in high school as a pitcher, and he wasn’t a travel player robot who had been trained for speed since the age of 8. It was natural.

Allen has a significantly stronger arm than Vick.

I like McDermott as coach despite the offensive problems this season.

Agreed, but how often are teams getting to the red zone? The Bills' D is 3rd in the league in yards given up per drive and 8th in plays per drive. https://www.pro-football-reference.com/teams/buf/2018.htm A huge problem for the D is that the O is 31st in turnovers given up.

Is it factually one of the worst in the league? That is an honest question. I don't know the answer.

One came after a long return on a punt. That was a short field.

Well, if they don't win it all, going 14-2 is a pretty nice consolation. Even if they don't win it all, though, they put themselves *in position* to win it all. They are currently as good as any team in the league. They may lose to a good team like NO, but it's not because they're worse. If they play each other 4 times, my guess is that they go 2-2.

It only seems bad to people who overvalue draft picks (as I think many do). He helped get them up off the doormat last season, and while didn't have a ton of catches, he had a lot of TDs and a high ypc. That's important for an offense.

He did miss almost an entire game with a routine quad/hamstring issue.

He has definitely looked pretty solid. Nice to see him coming around. He's a likable player. And he's up to #26 overall among all DEs (right and left) according to PFF: https://www.profootballfocus.com/nfl/players/shaq-lawson/10653

He also got a gift with a phantom facemask call on a sack on a second and 30 play. Instead of 3rd and 32, they got a first and subsequently their only td. Goes both ways.

If they're bad next year (2019) and are in that 4-12 region, they won't deserve further support. I hope their plan works out, but I'm worried because their current offensive foundation is so abjectly terrible. I don't see how you fix that in one off-season. Outside of possibly Allen (the jury is out) and Dawkins, I don't see any promising players on the entire unit. I suppose Jones might work as a middling starting-quality #3, but that's it. When there's a big step forward, it's usually built on an already-existing foundation. The Bills don't have that.

I believe -- and have long believed -- that they should have kept Taylor as an insurance policy. The fact that they believed otherwise only tells me that they were wrong, not that my thinking is irrelevant. Based on recent track, Taylor is a much better player than Derek Anderson too. I also believe that bottoming out to the deepest abyssal level is not a recipe for success going forward. As I've said elsewhere, bad often stays bad if it gets bad enough. And then at a certain point, it's on to new management. And -- no offense -- I'm going to ignore your advice. I'm in for the long haul no matter what happens.