Rochesterfan

I think this is spot on. You can get Tua/Mac Jones - a guy you can win with, but if at your pick you also have the elite traits guy and you pass - ala Herbert last year - that is significantly harder on the fan base. The amount of questions that the front office fields and the need to try and build a successful offense to make up for the pick - pulls focus from what you need to do. The drafting of Tua and success of Herbert caused Miami to overplay and have to pull Tua several times trying to get into the playoffs and the entire thing was a mistake. The Miami staff got caught up in competition and it cost them and now they are trying to build the offense and so far it does not seem to fit the QB they have that is risk adverse and throws short with anticipation.

Over the years - I would say mainly defensive players. My 1st choice would be Ted Washington (such a mountain of a man). Then probably Sam Adams/Pat Williams. Mario Williams would be my DE beating out a guy like Schobel. I would also love Winfield as the CB - I can’t imagine him with White and the way Winfield could tackle - Holy Cow that would be an elite pairing. Offense is harder - not a lot of guys beat out what we have. Probably Moulds would be #1 and we have had a ton of above average RBs - which lead to nothing in the win column. I would probably look at a Fred Jackson as he would be a great fit. A guy like Eric Woods on the O-line would also fit nicely. The most obvious fill in would be at TE and there is not even a guy to choose during that time.

I already switched to Ossai - no way should we waste a 5th year option on RB. Better Etienne than Harris, but only by a smidge. Both would be wastes to me.

Yep - try that if your a women in the South and see how it works. Southern men are up in arms that someone may suggest that a vaccine must be taken, but god forbid you are transgender or a women - you can even speak to your doctor about certain things unless the men in power allow it. Freedom is funny in how some people in power decide if it impacts them versus women, transgender, people of color - their freedom seems less important.

About time - hope they throw the entire book at him. Wish they could take his past into account - 7 years is not enough for the damage caused. BAC = 0.113 - complete Jackwagon. Hope this speeds up the money to the family.

I’m hoping 0 - with the teams on the schedule give me 17 Sunday 1pm kickoffs. I don’t need the hype and prefer a nice routine. Most likely 4 - with a Thursday, a Sunday night and 2 Monday nighters.

I’ll start with - couldn’t this have been part of at least 2-3 other threads about getting Pitts - like the dumb trading with Atlanta at #4 thread - it surely did not need an additional lamp thread on its own. As stated in other threads: The Bills offense was elite last year and TEs rarely transition to the NFL and make any difference in year 1 or even year 2 - especially highly targeted TE in the top 10. They typically reach JAG level by year 3 after being sub-par for years 1-2. This coaching staff rarely use rookies to a big extent because of analytics suggesting their drop off after 8-9 games - so Bills rookies especially have little to no impact until the second half the season when they start to get limited playing time if they earn it. I doubt Pitts sees the field more than 3-4 plays a game until half way through - where if he earns it - maybe that doubles. I don’t think he sees enough plays to be a difference maker year 1. The Bills offense and Josh Allen have been a WR driven team and we have 4 strong WRs to spread teams out. I am not sure adding Pitts changes that meaning Pitts fills the roll Knox played - H back blocking out of the backfield to provide time and dump off route - which is not the strength and usage you want from Pitts. Cost would be stupid to go get a TE. They bust at a high rate, have a low transition rate to NFL ball, the top tight ends in the league were all later round picks and even UDFAs - there isn’t a TE from top of the first round that is not grouped in with the rest of the average TEs and if you figure you are most likely moving into the top 5 and definitely top 10 - you are giving up #1 and #2 picks (and more) in the next several drafts - plus potentially other young players that teams may covet. in the end I doubt Pitts helps the team mostly because of what you give up and the slow transition. He appears elite, but by the time he is helping your offense - you are getting hurt by the lack of talent created in the lost picks and players. Hard No.

Well - we have more time in FA both before and after the draft, we have the draft, we have Star returning, we have Harrison Phillips returning ( struggled early, but got better as the season progressed), and if needed trades. So no I don’t pin any hopes on Star - I pin my hopes on Beane continuing to work on the roster right up to and in to the season. He will continue to address what he and McD feel the roster needs and we continue to get better with fewer and fewer holes. Currently on the roster you have Star and his back-up in Phillips - plus a guy in Butler that has done 1 technique as needed. I will be worried if we get to late November and we are constantly getting run on and have a losing record, but right now it is not even a hole - just a question mark.

Sorry - that is not at all what they are saying. The study looked at increases seen 2-3 weeks after the game in the community and compared that rate to the same time frame in areas outside of the surrounding stadium as a control. They did not look at numbers and say because this is an NFL city with a game we saw larger numbers. They study is also not saying the game caused the spike they did not come to that conclusion at all because the available data to show causation is not available. What they stated was when looking at the positivity rate in the NFL city and near surrounding areas - where the staff, local workers, and majority of the fans are - they compared the changed rate compared to areas outside the surrounding area. What was noted was that the area around the stadiums that allowed >5000 fans saw an average larger uptick in the positivity rate 2-3 weeks after the game than either other cities that did not allow fans or the surround areas farther away from the stadium. Those increased rates were not there when games without fans were played or the games were on the road. They made a conscious effort to not blame the games as the spread could of been caused (as they state) in pre and post game activity. The area saw a larger increase in people gathering - dinners, tailgating in some cases, hotel stays, bars, use of Uber, use of GrubHub, etc and the link to the increase could just as easily be caused by those variables. The epicenter of the increase was the fans gathering for the game and the link was pretty much undeniable, but the Research team from Alabama was very careful to state they have no way of knowing where the community spread occurred- only that the pattern was repeated over and over - those NFL communities that allowed large number of fans saw these episodic rises that corresponded to the games that were not present at other times.

Just watching when the Bills defense was at its most effective both late last year and in 2018/2019 - the 5th DB needs to be able to cover a TE and still get off blocks to make plays out wide on RBs. Hybrid with size and speed. The Bills were most effective with Milano and Edmunds both over the “A” gaps on either side of the center. 2 DTs (Oliver and probably Obada this year) on the outside shoulder of the guards, and Hughes and Addison at DE. Essentially 6 guys across the line of scrimmage and you bring 5. The 5 remaining DBs need to cover lots of space with WRs and TEs and pick up flaring RBs. They were really good at TEs in 2018 + 2019, but struggled against RBs in screen situations. Last year they were better against the RBs, but the TEs ate them alive. I would love to see that hybrid speed player to fill out the defense and this year with the decrease in talent at TE we will see - the numbers should look better just based on schedule, but that is a critical role that we seem to be missing- especially with Marlowe a FA.

The issue is that the study purposefully says none of that. It goes so far as to say they can not even conclude that the spread occurred within the stadium and did not rule out the pre and post game activities. They also specifically call out that the mortality rate although increased is very difficult to pin to specific dates due to the fact that those rates are not consistent to infection date. Some increases in mortality are seen at 3-4 weeks and other times it is 5-6 weeks or more. I do not read it as a scare tactic or to try and get people in line. The researchers were looking into the gatherings and looking for trends and the trends were fairly limited and obvious. You have large groups coming together - you saw more spread.

I think this all plays into the Bills decision. He was never even close to 100% and you could tell even when they moved him to center - he struggled to pick up guys on his injured side. If you think about what the expected starting line-up was: Dawkins, Spain, Morse, Mongo, Williams and the fact that those 5 guys never played 1 snap together. Then you add in that Ford was #3 guard, Winter (late add) was #4, and Ike was the #5 guard to start the season - the Bills spent a large portion of the late season and playoffs with a #4/5 guard next to Dawkins and a less than 100% Mongo next to Williams - not surprising they had some struggles.

The reason it was not useless is the 2 comments directly after yours - NYT fearporn for a study they were not involved in and did not print and claims there was no spike. The Bills playoff game was safe and could not have lead to a spike. Those two comments are the exact reason it was done and why they did not draw specific conclusions. The games were done in a safe effective manner, but the community and surrounding areas were impacted.

It was not a report - it was a retroactive study and yes that is the conclusion that large gatherings caused increased COVID numbers in the community. The epicenter was looking at NFL games with fans versus without fans and the differences in community spread. Yet people argue still now that it was not an issue. The research team also tried to find if certain protocols were better and limited spread as some games did not show the same increases, but there were not enough common denominators between limited spread and larger spread to say that. The goal was to determine did it have an impact as you would expect it to - even with the protocols in place and where certain protocols more or less effective so in the future you know what might work. That data was inconclusive because without DNA sequencing info - they could not state the spread occurred at the game or in the surrounding community before or after the game due to behaviors (or just dumb luck). In the end - yes it is not real useful because it was just a retroactive data study based upon local, state, and CDC numbers within communities. No one ever said it was more.

They don’t make that judgement - which is the same reason they do not state the game itself was the reason for the spread. The game was just the epicenter to bring large groups together. They specifically state the spread could be due to factors outside the game, but the large gathering of people changed something in the community- because there was an increase not seen following games with no fans or weeks with no games played. That suggests since the NFL is a weekly league it was not the actual game, but a function of the gathering. The study tried to put no cause to the increase. They also tried to look at certain games with fans that saw no increase and find out what was different, but no rules stuck out - so they could not conclude that team A was better than team B - just that in some cases no major increase was seen.

The “big deal” is that the increase infection rate was not necessarily the people that choose to go to the game and accept the risk. The increased rate was in the surrounding community. The study does not make a conclusion that people at the game necessarily spread the infection amongst themselves. The conclusion was the gatherings lead to more people in the area: potential waiters/bar workers, grocery store clerks, security, testing personnel, hotel workers, Uber drivers, food delivery (Grub Hub), parking attendants, concession workers and vendors, etc. - all were part of the contact tracing and the gathering of >5000 fans saw this group of people infected more frequently than when no fans were present. The people at the game chose to go and accepted the risk - the others impacted were just doing their job, but their job put them in higher contact with people that chose to go and did it without their choice or acceptance. They did it because they lived paycheck to paycheck and had to go to work. If the entire increase had just been confined to those that chose to go - then you are correct, but the issue is the collateral people impacted and then the secondary and tertiary people infected by them. The study is dumb because the findings were fairly easy to know before hand as any large gathering be it riots, political gatherings, or routine things like birthday, weddings, and funerals- all showed increase spread, but it needed to be done to confirm the thoughts and see - could large outdoor gatherings of fans really not lead to increased community spread.

I agree, but even in this thread the “common sense” is not believed - so they wanted to review the data to see the impact and verify if what makes sense occurred or not. They did it with available data from the states/CDC and without trying to judge the overall place of infection - just the root cause. It should be nearly non-controversial, but yet people laud it as a NYT hit piece or blast the Lancet as a bad source - when neither was involved - they are just the conveyance of the info. For those of us in the medical field - I find this type of study and data fascinating and think the tragedy of this pandemic can lead to whole new understandings based upon what we have learned. The fact that we have gone an entire flu season with almost no flu (or colds or RSV) at all confirms older theory’s about prevention.

I am 100% the other way - I think Beane has done a great job through FA to get the team ready and anything that happens in the draft is gravy for the upcoming years. I do not expect the draft to have a huge impact on the 2021 Bills. Conversely - the Dolphins, Pats, and especially the Jets have huge holes that they still need to fill and so they have a ton of pressure because they need these picks to improve the team or they are falling further behind.

The conclusions are logical - we test everyone with symptoms for flu and Covid - we still see a ton of Covid positives, but we are still tracking with under 100 flu positives for the season. This has by far been the lightest - least active flu season in the last 40 years and the difference is our behavior. Last year we would see more positive flu tests each day than we have seen this entire year. Just because you don’t get it doesn’t make it wrong.

Why would you say it is bull - it is perfectly reasonable and sound and fits exactly what should come out of a data driven study like this. They stated that they could not link the direct cause - they can see when the stadium allowed >5000 fans that the stadium and surrounding neighborhoods saw a spike in cases in 2-3 weeks and this occurred several times in several locations. All of the underlying other factors in this situations may have been different - weather, holiday, openness/closeness of the region - these were all different variables that impacted the rates, but the general data showed consistent increases in the neighborhoods around the stadium beyond similar neighborhoods outside the area. The study makes it clear that they are not saying all or even most of the spread occurred at the games themselves - they stated that the gathering of people to attend the game lead to other large gatherings associated with the games that were not present in those same cities (or other NFL cities) when fans could not attend. You specifically highlighted the part - it is not clear transmission occurred in the stadium, or get togethers like tailgating or traveling to get to the game, or these individuals congregating at home before the game - which includes practices such as dining out more frequently the night before, hitting up bars that might be open, etc. What the data showed was when no fans were at the game the numbers around the stadium and in the surrounding areas were consistent, but when >5000 fans were allowed - you saw spikes in the immediate areas that were not seen in the same surrounding reasons. Second because teams allowed limited family to attend without tickets - those numbers were nearly impossible to determine and therefore the could not be used - whereas regular fans you could follow because they still listed attendance numbers. They tried to be as consistent as possible, but I am sure if you could provide them with exact numbers of friends and family allowed into games that had no fans they could re-evaluate the data, but since that number was never recorded - the data behind it is useless. Lastly you complain that they decided not to do a mortality study based upon their findings when in reality that would be nearly impossible because the mortality rises at a much different rate and would vary. They can look at region’s mortality rate and probably see spikes 6-8 weeks after a game and assume some of the spike was due to the gathering of fans, but as with overall mortality rate - it would be spotty and they didn’t feel it added to the data. It is no different than any post event model that looks back at these types of things and they were very thoughtful in the approach. The things you complain about are things they purposely thought about and realized although the data supports this - it is not a direct thing. They are only suggesting that in numerous instances after games with fans areas saw spikes and the game seems like the driver - whether it was at the game or someplace else they could not tell. That same caution plays into why in the cases where a spike was not noted and fans gathered - they do not have enough info to say what those sites did right. Did this stadium maintain better cleaning, we’re the parking lots better patrolled, without knowing the exact reason for the spike you can’t provide an exact reason for no spike when teams did well. Overall - I do not understand why this study would make people mad or upset or complain at all. The conclusions are all logical based upon the data and the study assigned no blame to stadiums or said that anything was their fault. The study broke no new ground as it is quite obvious that large gatherings were the driver of the illness from the beginning. The only thing this showed is that the NFL games with fans provided an emphasis for more large get togethers than NFL games with no fans. Flu deaths are way down because the same things that limit Covid limit Flu (and many other things like colds that lead to pneumonia. The actual best data for effectiveness of masks and social distancing is the lack of flu this year. It shows exactly how effective that strategy is to contain air born illness.

Thanks for this - totally love looking at the roster. 1st thing is that if training camp opened - we are ready - we have starters and depth set before the draft - nice feeling to have lots of options. 2nd thing - very surprised at number of LBs and OL signed and lack of DBs - especially as we run a lot of 4-2-5 - wonder if part of the bigger, faster, more physical is a bigger change to philosophy and the return of more traditional 4-3 looks? 3rd thing - I think I really like this roster heading into the draft - very similar to last year - I really like the added depth at QB and OL compared to guys like Winters we brought in late last year. I think there is still room for talent that can knock some vets off, but it is also a roster ready to go if needed. I still think between now and training camp - we will see the draft and UDFAs, but I would expect 1-3 more signings of cut players or guys that are still free and some more chaff being separated from the wheat. Some of these bottom of the roster guys (maybe even a veteran or two) might not make it to camp if they can get the right fit.

It was not a NYT study. It was a study lead out of Alabama and published in the Lancet. The NYT is just linking to the Medical Journal. The study did not appear to look at attendees versus non-attendees and made no judgement to that fact. What it stated was that the communities around the NFL stadiums saw spikes that did not correlate to the rest of the areas and those spikes appeared 2-3 weeks after each game with >5000 fans. The study as far as I saw did not state that the game itself was the cause of the spread - only that it is note worthy that these increases occurred consistently after more than 5000 fans gathered at games. It was not seen in communities after games in which fans were not present. The study believes (as you would expect with this illness) that the gathering of the large number of people whether in the stadium or in the travel and activities surrounding the game - dinner, bars, tailgating, waiting in line, dealing with security, grocery shopping the night before, etc. all could lead to spread with the game as the epicenter - the force bringing the people together - I did not see the original author trying to state the game was a bad thing - just that the data suggests an increase in cases surrounding the game. It is no different than the huge spikes seen after Thanksgiving and Christmas because more people travelled and got together. The different risk factors are irrelevant - they fact that NFL games and fans may have lead to a spike should not be a surprise.

Without doing DNA sequencing on all of the positive samples - they can only ever prove a Suggested link. What you see is spikes in and around the NFL stadiums (many different stadiums not just an over all link) and those match the timeframes of the game. Of course there are numerous factors that could lead to surges, but the most common link between the increases that occur in certain communities around NFL stadiums and not in other unlinked communities is the gathering of the people. It is exactly like the argument about Sturgis Rally in South Dakota - numbers spiked all over the northern mid-west with an obvious root cause, but without genetic markers and testing it is only a link - not a causal relationship. It makes complete sense and does not mean the league was wrong - it shows how easy it is to spread and how bringing in 5 - 10,000 people to watch the game has impacts outside of the stadium. It is not necessarily proven the spread even occurred at the game - it was just focused with that event as the epicenter. The increase could be people coming into the area and eating out, more people getting gas and shopping at the local “Wegman’s” or other store, it could be the increased gathering of local staff to handle the flow of people, there are many aspects that could lead to the increase, but the big thing that changed week to week was the fans gathering even in reduced numbers and those fans and staff coming in contact with multitudes of others around the game. That pressure was not there when there were 0 fans and limited staff as was shown during the study.

It is no problem and I know Sal knows all of this as he has talked about it on his various WGR duties. The issue tends to be space for context. It takes more than a simple Twitter box to explain - especially with context. I do feel for Wade because he seems like a very talented and fun guy and I would love to see more of him, but the NFL (especially on a Super Bowl contender) can be heartless and there is just so much more to being a RB (or any position) than can be learned in 1 preseason. His age now starts to catch up, but it is obvious that his teammates love and respect him and even though he may never get to play a true NFL down - he got to spend time with a bunch of teammates that make the entire experience. He can bring that back to the UK if he can’t go further, but at least now he has some more time to learn.

Since you dredged up this old thread - my guess is Josh signs first and for more. Unless the Ravens get a deal - I would hold off and use the 5th year option on Lamar. My guess is if/when they come up short again - Roman is gone and you will see a more traditional offense come in and they will want the 5th year option to see how he adjusts. I don’t think the Ravens are upset with Jackson - I am not sure if they know he can be the future in a more pass friendly offense and they are struggling to become more pass friendly because WRs bail wanting more targets and his athletic nature combined with a stout defense piles up wins in the regular season.