WhitewalkerInPhilly

I am reasonably certain that if it is something important to him, he would ask before he signs. Of course, we could lie to him and then draft a guy, but that tend to sour you to a lot of agents and it's not a great long term move.

I would actually be ok with Bradford starting for a year, with the expectation that he would be gone the next year and if he gets injured our rookie steps up. I think the biggest problem is that he really doesn't want to be a backup. He really resented Wentz being drafted, and sources said that he wanted to be a starter, and that he felt like he was a starter. If it is obvious that he is just going to be benched the moment a rookie is ready, I doubt that he bites.

This is unfortunately accurate. I am the other friend in that conversation.

Oh, I know. I just posted something to the end in another thread. EVERYTHING I have seen indicates that they fell in love with a guy, and have a deal in principle where they are rather sure that they are going to get him. It still doesn't take away the sting that Peterman, even before the league year begins, is our current starter. The pain is just too great. Yes, I think he is THAT bad.

*projectile vomits* Man, that was a fun Friday night out, what did I miss? Oh, Peterman is our starter Oh god, just kill me now... On another note, I see B-man is in favor of this. If PPP didn't convince me, this certainly does.

Dude, I find myself agreeing with you a whole lot, so extra belated welcome for coming here. I have to think that the Bills have an in-principle deal in place. I really don't see anything else to explain it. Like you mentioned, they keep making deals by signing cut FA before free agency. They have, at this point, six draft picks in the first 3 rounds. They just got rid of their bridge QB. In my mind, nothing about this suggests that the Bills are content with waiting until 21 to take a QB. I think they like someone, and are willing to spend to take a chance on him. There was a report out (unconfirmed of course) that the Giants were willing to deal for our two firsts in 2018, our first in 2019 and Glenn. If so, this makes perfect sense: we get a rookie QB without too many dire holes. We have enough cap space to pick up a few solid mid-level FAs on days 2 and 3 of the the FA carnival to reinforce the WR and LB group. 2nd and 3rd round is a great time to shore DTs, LBs and RT and C. We turn over a decently prepared work in progress to a rookie, and see where your weaknesses are. Then, in 2019, a LOT of dead money comes free and the Bills are in the position to spend bigger to fill in the gaps. It's a structure pretty damn close to what the Eagles did in 2016 and 2017.

I can work with this. There is a lot of speculation that the Browns will take Barkley at #1 overall, and it looks like the Giants looks like they want to run with Eli for one more year. #3, to take our pick of a QB? I can work with that.

Excellent work by the Eagles. They are heavily cap strapped, and were likely going to cut him anyway. Getting anything for him would have been nice. The curious thing is that the Eagles secondary was already looking stacked between Darby, Mills, and Sidney Jones working back from his Achilles.

Yeah, I had forgotten about that too. He's the kind of player that you hate when he's on another team, and loves on yours. That said, I don't know if he's the right fit. We traded Darby because we allegedly didn't need a great man corner. I honestly don't know the money he is looking for. I'm not ranking him coming here is a high likelihood, but I said that same thing about Vontae. If we get him, our secondary would be legit.

Don't get me wrong, I would absolutely take Watkins back but I really don't see him doing it. He made some comments that he was unhappy here, and he wants to get PAID. I don't see Beane cracking open the piggy bank for him.

I agree with most people that we are probably going to pick up a late rounded to go in. It sounds like Ivory's contract is front loaded and contract driven.

He's a pretty good complement to Shady. My only worry is that's a decent amount of money for an older RB

Wow. I had not realized the extent to which the Dolphins were over the cap. They are already over by $8M before the draft and free agency opens if Landry does indeed sign the tag. They are going to need to get rid of some decent players.

I don't mind betting a couple of bucks, and putting that they were wrong in their About Me for a year. The wager being whether or not Tyrod is on the roster as of June 1st.

Roscoe had a couple good years with us. I remember him on some of those returns.

I wouldn't mind picking him up though. I think those things can be very useful to a creative offense, possibly using him as a hybrid running back every once in a while to keep them guessing. I think you could get something going with K. Benjamin as the #1, Zay and Holmes as 2 and 3, Austin as a situational 4th, and a rookie burner to stretch the field deep.

And you are willing to bet on that?

By 2019? Definitely. By the end of the 2018 season? very likely. I am still not surprised if he is with us through training camp at the least.

There was a report out there that it would take our two firsts, Glenn, and a 2nd next year. If so, it's pricy but I would absolutely pull the trigger if the Bills think they have their man.

I'm fine with that. My argument is I've been seeing the people going"you can't take away my guns, that's an inalienable right and a horrific government overreeach" being totally cool with people dragging their interpretation of a 6000 year old mythos (which is totally endorses daughters liquoring up their dad so he can impregnate them out of wedlock) which is to why they should be able to dictate other people's medical decisions.

Funny how it was very clear I was referencing your witty Bon Mot about cutting up babies. But if you want to talk about private organizations that fund politicians to advance their agenda let's take this back to the gun control part. What sums of money has the NRA sunk into politicians so they can keep protecting their bottom line? You guns that actually kill people. Compared to the organization who prevents STDs, and gives pregnant Women Health screenings. I can see how you would be confused.

, FYI it is prohibited to use tax dollars on abortions. So when you complain about it being the federal government's decision, you already won. People have to use their own money. When you talk about getting rid of Planned Parenthood funding what you are talking about is getting rid of the things that stop abortions. Like contraceptives and Medical Care. So the only reason for your little Jihad is that you don't like it, and you think you should get to impose your religion on everyone else

No, no, I am very much against moving without due process. But it is interesting to hold up yet another example of him being unfit to run a High School Mock UN, never mind the nation. Hell, he probably thinks Mock UN is when he goes into the UN and makes decides to do a comedy roast.

I'm going to break this apart by each separate I agree that it's a problem. But you are also neglecting the issue of scarcity and impulse. If you have to go through a black market, one with effective policing, to get what you want, and it costs more as a result, it deters a quick, spur of the moment "Imma shoot my guns". Of course, we can't get rid of all of it. There are too many in the market to stop shootings all together at this point. But if extended magazines require tens of thousands of dollars to purchase, and you have an effective, well trained and funded ATF arresting sellers who do it illegally, maybe we at least reduce the number. BTW, what is this "You people" you are referring to Well, that's fine. Except, under the current legal definition, a fetus isn't a person. it's a medical procedure. We don't FORCE people to give blood to dying patients, because we have bodiily autonomy. So yes, the federal government does fund health clinics. It also has backed insurance programs. But by your logic, I should be able to go to say, "Well, it's too bad your child has cancer, but my imaginary buddy Steve thinks that your daughter should die of it. Because I sincerely believe this, I'm sorry, the doctors aren't going to be able to treat her. She's probably a whore anyway and likely deserves it" Said like that, I should be dragged out of the hospital and beaten to a bloody pulp. But somehow when pro-lifers say, "Well, she shouldn't have been such a slut to get knocked up. Who cares if its a life threatening medical condition, a life is a life" that is somehow more legitimate.

I feel for you man. I might seem like a lefty loon to some of the people on here, but I was legit looking for a better, more conservative option. Most conservatives I know in person are real people, and they tend to have specific complaints, and while we disagree at the end of the day I know where they are coming from. Some of the Trumpers though man...