RocCityRoller

As an oldster can I offer Reed and Lofton?, I won't go back further. I do think Diggs, Brown and Beasley may be our best trio though.

Thanks, I didn't miss too much today. OK with Thompson and Joseph going. Good college/ role players, didn't translate to the NFL. I appreciate the update.

Fair enough, I think Adams is only 'ok'. He misses too many games IMO. I'm one of those folks who believes availability is an ability. But then again I am a manager in my role. To get back to our Bills, how great is it now that we are arguing about players being cut for a better roster? Honest question, was anyone cut Friday other than the 2 on Defense?

Not sure how this became a Davonte Adams thread. All I was saying is that after an ok DA as a #1 GB has nothing. Robert Foster has value there. He also has value to Philly and SF. I'd expect RF to sign with any of them after tomorrow if Beane can't get a 6 or 7 for him.

Egytptian gods. It's a black power thing. I could take you to my hood, but we would both be uncomfortable there now.

Rumor has it you don't wear underwear

LOL wear boxers! I'm in a stupid pissing match about how good Davante Adams is in another thread. I suggested GB/SF/Philly could all use Robert Foster as a WR#2 WR#3 now. Somehow it became a pissing match about DA and JB. No where did I imply JB was better than DA even though JB has 2 x 1000 seasons while DA has one, all the while JB has been on 3 teams and DA only with Aaron Rogers. I digress JB was awesome last year. More than he gets credit for. Top 20 Receiving season for Buffalo last year. He is now #2! This team is loaded!

who wouldn't like Eric Moulds! He was a HOF talent wasted here. I'm only teasing you some. I think DA is an ok #1,but misses too many games. 1 1k season with Aaron Rogers, really. But now he is great? Questionable. He is great in the endzone/ red zone, but how much of that is Aaron Rogers? Buffalo had JB and improved. GB did not. GB could use a Robert Foster these days, which was the point of the OP

JB has more 1k seasons. Would GB gain by trading for Foster? Yes, Yes they would. That is my point. See the forest for the trees.

Availability is an ability. The same could be said about John Brown. GB was ok with Davante, Allison, MVS, etc.... Buffalo had Jon Brown and went out and got Stephon Diggs. JB has 2x1k seasons, DA has 1. Similar # of seasons. JB did it among 3 teams, DA has 1 in the same # of seasons with 1 QB. Buffalo improved at WR, GB did not. No one talks about JB as a #1 WR, but DA is. It's ridiculous. By that logic, Buffalo now has 2 #1 WR

He is a good WR1, not a top WR1 IMO He is ok as a #1, not a top tier #1 IMO. He has 1 x 1000 yd season in 6 seasons in GB. John Brown has the same number of 1k seasons in one season in Buffalo.

I wold sign the guy now. He throws a tighter rope than Darnold or Jackson. He is an improvement over what we have now at backup QB. I wold have to think Buffalo and it's process could get through

I hated Josh Rosen in the draft. I really did. I'm surprised he did not give up yet for tennis. But now I see the competitor in him is very, very angry. We have the process, will he take to it as a backup? Josh Rosen does not want to fail.This is the time to get Josh Rosen IMO.

I'm with you 100% JB was a better than advertised #1. He grew into it, actually became a #1. Then you add Diggs.....

JB quietly put together a top 15-20 Bufffalo Bills WR season. He is pretty good.We do not appreciate him enough. JB has good hands.

Thanks for the comment. When Buffalo signed JB I thought it was only as a deep threat ploy. But wow, JB is a terrific hands catcher of the football. He made some of the best rip catches I've ever seen in a Buffalo uniform. His size limits him some, but if JA is willing to rip to him if open then go for it. Add in Stefon Diggs, now JB is on CB#2 and this could be nasty quick. As much as I love the S Diggs move (and I love it 100%) it opens up the whole offense. I think J Brown will feast this year, because he is a small but complete WR. 75 REC/ 1200 yds./ 8 TD as #2. Sneaky Play.

I should have started this thread in the doldrums of summer, but PPP has been captivating this year with COVID-19 and an election and all. Has anyone else been watching the 2019 highlights or games? John Brown was a beast last year as a minor WR FA signing. When Buffalo signed JB I thought 'one trick pony', of deep speed and not much else, but I was very wrong. JB was a very good hands receiver able to snag many more zesty JA passes with his hands along the sideline than I thought. He was a much better 'hands' WR than I imagined. John Brown went 72 REC/ 1060 YDS/ 6 TD last year.That is a solid stat line for any WR #1. I went back into history to put it into perspective. We have had Andre Reed, Eric Moulds, Lee Evans, Frank Lewis, Golden Wheels Dubenion and others catch passes. Where did J Brown fit into history last year? It ends up pretty darned well. I don't know if you realize that JB's 1060 yards receiving in a season is 14th all time for the Bills player in a single season. JB's 72 receptions last year is also 14th all time among all players in a Bills season. His 6 TDs on the season puts him in league with Reed/ Lewis/ JD Hill for a regular season. When I looked at people with 30+ receptions in a year he was also in the top 15 for yards per reception in a season. By any metric J Brown had a top 15 Buffalo Bills all time WR season last year, and we don't discuss this at all. I was wrong on JB, he is a very good, quite complete WR. Stephon Diggs is a better version of John Brown, but is like John Brown. Buffalo is going to be a real handful next year. We might have smurfs, but this is going to be a lot of fun. Beasley at WR #3 in the slot is ridiculous because JB and Diggs on the perimeter is a nightmare. Safeties will have to play back. JB is a complete, and very fast WR, JA learned that last year. Diggs is JB 1.5/ Nastier to cover. Go ahead and put your #2 CB on JB and your #3 CB on Cole Beasley. Someone should be open. I'm happy we got a bruiser at RB. Some nasty to go with the glitz. Z Moss will be a household name by season end. Mark it now. He fell into the perfect situation this time, and it was with the Bills. D Singletary is an ideal 3rd down/ change of pace/ or late drive killer back. He is an ideal scat back. I think back to Cincy with J Hill and G Bernard. If Kroft can remain healthy, and/ or Knox can improve... watch out. JB doing his thing as a WR#2 should be fun. Diggs may have more receptions, but Brown may have the yards if JA is willing to rip it. I was wrong abut John Brown. He and Diggs are a nasty 1-2 to deal with. Beasley underneath is a whole other nightmare. I'm cool with Kroft/ Knox at TE and Moss/ Singletary at RB.

Me too. He has the size, speed, hands combo you want in a WR 2 or WR3. We have the LUXURY of Diggs, Brown and Beasley. I don't think Foster has the complicated E-Perkins system down. Put him in a more simple offense or with a more established QB and watch fireworks. We are at the point Bills nation where good players, who do not fit the system, or culture may be let go.

SF/GB/Philly all make sense. Their off season moves all bombed out due to injury or questionable draft day decisions. Say what you want about Foster, he has a 6 game stretch of tape that looks really good on a bad offense. And he has some speed. As John Madden used to say, 'Speed Kills'. Buffalo has J Brown and S Diggs, plenty of speed. Davante Adams is clearly WR1 in GB (says something about GB WR,) Would you rather have M. Valdez Scantling, Allen Lazard, or Geronimo Allison as your #2? Lazard and Allison failed to get separation. They are slow. MVS has been all name and no production. Foster is at worst WR #3 on that team today, and maybe #2 on physical ability alone.

I said this last year when AZ wanted to move him. I wanted no part of Josh Rosen as a starter in the draft. I'd happily take him as a backup. Buffalo may be his best bet to stabilize his NFL career. With JA in control he can be backup #1, but with JA's playing style he would never know when he would be called upon. He would have to remain mentally sharp. Rosen is no dummy, but I don't think he has the heart/moxy to be a day 1 starter, but he is too bright/ proud to bomb out. He also still has a chance to play against Darnold and resurrect his career here, if he wants it. I'd love to bring him into the QB room, now that JA has established himself as QB#1.

Actually I could see a WR needy team like SF/ GB/ Philly ponying up a 6 for Foster.

so 11 pages in who was cut? I could see Robert Foster to GB and thriving.

Hey Warcodered, I generally like your posts. And yes I drew some bad conclusions. Guilty as charged as above to Greybeard's post. I did draw some fruit juice comparisons (apples and oranges) to lifetime death rates. Guilty as charged. You don't like the tested vs population conclusions I made, even though I went worst case scenario. Fair enough. Those I will defend. I'll use a card analogy to do it. Who has been tested for COVID in the USA? Is it a random sample of the whole population, or a skewed segment of the population? We both know it has been a skewed sample and that it is not random, it's also not unique (1:1). Many people have had multiple tests, often positive, then confirmed negative by antibody testing. Are the false positive results ever removed? No they are not, they just add up, right or wrong, regardless of test type (viral vs antibody). Those counts make the news, never corrected or broken down by type, or frequency of those tested. When tests were in short supply for this new virus who was being tested? Those with symptoms, and those caring for the people with symptoms and positive tests. It was a smart use of limited tests, but those results did not, and do not represent the entire population (symptoms, age, co-morbidity and exposure). Knowing the results of an entire population is called perfect information. That does not exist in the real world. Look at political polling. A sample is drawn and then inferences to the whole population are made. That is what I did, others have done the same.. Why do I think the results from the tested sample to date are skewed heavy to COVID(+) results, and are thus 'worst case scenario?' In a full deck of cards lets assume a King or Ace of any suite = a COVID+ test (15%). An Ace of Spades = a COVID Death (2%). Both are higher than actual known results, but it's an analogy. Let's roll with it. If I take six decks of cards (312 cards @1 per 1,000,000 people) and make one Euchre deck of 24 cards (9+ value cards only, one of each suite) and set all of the other cards to the side (NY & NJ approach), and ask you to bet on the odds of you, or any player, drawing a King or higher from the Euchre deck alone, will the odds be higher of drawing a King or Ace in the Euchre deck or the remainder deck? You and I both know that the odds of drawing a King or Ace are much higher in the Euchre only deck. This is akin to drawing conclusions of positive COVID test results from a compromised population (NY/NJ) instead of the entire population. Let's add the positives include viral results, were double tested, and end up negative, but are not removed from the 'positive' count. A biased sample can not be used to extrapolate to an entire population. (why does that sound familiar) But I digress. That is like saying 20% of American soldiers in a war will die = 20% of all Americans in war time will die. It is ridiculous. This is the issue a lot of people have and are voicing. More so now than ever, and I welcome them in asking questions.We should be asking questions because things have gone too far. The media is reporting odds beginning from a stacked deck and government has made intrusive policy from it. All of the 2's to 8's are on the sidelines in the remainder deck, while only some of the 9's to Aces are in the mix making decisions. Meanwhile the Jokers from all the decks are causing havoc. Only now do we realize the 'Jokers' were also shuffled into the deck by 'the casino.' I guess you could say, a lot of policy makers are not playing with a full deck, and jokers are wild. A lot of people are forced to play, but are looking at the rest of the cards on the sideline and asking why the deck seems stacked against them. What is worse is that many of the 'Kings and Aces drawn' were nines and tens in reality (false positives). But the count for false Kings and Aces is never reduced. 'There is always a 'crisis to solve.' The counts the CDC and media keep compiling and stating started from a stacked deck (biased testing those most at risk), and never corrected for dealer error (false positives) or accounted for type. The media keeps telling us to play with the hand dealt to us (restrictions and closures), though the odds were stacked from the beginning. Easy enough to cope with in a secured gated mansion, or a $10 hand of black jack, but secured mansions have private security and black jack is played with a full deck. The COVID game asks players to play with a stacked deck out of fear of the Ace of Spades, and even as you lose you keep playing out of fear. Where does the stacked deck offset the odds of a business closure, home foreclosure, eviction or the unemployment many will have to deal with as a result? Those are only the financial stakes. For a while the game was played with house money ($600 fed stimulus/ week) as long as you bought in and played the COVID game things were cool, you were playing with house money. But the comps have run dry, and the players at the COVID table are few and far between. The casino better have a side bet for a back cover to angry losses when the rules change again, because eventually even that bank will run dry. It is true, there are 5 sets of kings and aces in the unknown pile of cards (unknown sick in the population). We can't forget that, they are the 'sick' among the population. They are mucking around with the 2-8s and other unlucky 9 to Queens. Be smart, wear a mask, if not for yourself then for others. Distance if you can. But let's also remember, a lot of those Kings and Aces are red, positive for past infections, recovered and not current. This is herd immunity. It is also true 5 Aces of Spades lurk in that pile, but that is the draw of life. No one escapes the Ace of Spades over enough time. As more people get tested, the 2-8s will get shuffled into the dealer mix. The odds of the dreaded K-A draw will drop, and so will their power. The counts of hands dealt will go up (tests) but the ratio of K-A draw (positives) will drop. I sad a long time ago in another thread we will see @20,000,000 infected and @200,000 dead. I still stand by it. It's terrible, but 4 yrs of flu compacted into one. Nature gives, and takes away. Swine flu infected over 40,000,000, and killed about 20,000 with barely a peep. Then it disappeared. If someone suggests a virus will disappear they are called a charlatan now. As people question the rules of the emptying COVID table games the rules will change again and we will find out there are two types of testing. Not all Kings and Aces are the same because red kings and aces mean different things than black kings and aces, and some people test for one another or both, so stats get tricky. I am guessing in November if 'the Casino' wins the rules will change again. Then new the rules will be: Black King or Ace = sickness, potential death Red King or Ace = life and health We have this under control. Continue as you were. Why? https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/cases-updates/testing-in-us.html Black King & Ace: Viral tests tell you if you currently have an infection with SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19. A positive test result means you have an infection. For more information on viral tests for COVID-19, see our Viral Testing page. Many of theses tests, rushed though FDA guidelines are prone to false negatives, but are reported on daily. False positives are rarely removed from CDC counts, and almost never redacted by media. Red King & Ace: Antibody blood tests, also called antibody tests, check your blood by looking for antibodies, which show if you had a previous infection with the virus. For more information on antibody tests for COVID-19, see our Antibody Testing page. this count is never isolated from viral positives, it is counted with the viral 'positives' despite leaning to 'herd immunity' and recovery. The rules to the narrative keep changing, but seemingly in one direction. Heaven forbid anyone challenging it. Even the CDC says: About the Data These data are compiled from a number of sources. Not all tests are reported to CDC. The number of positive tests in a state is not equal to the number of cases, as one person may be tested more than once I'd also like to point out CA has the most COVID (+) results with 665k positive results More than TX, or FL or GA or NY or NJ. How much time did they have to prepare since WA was the first state in the union to have a COVID breakout in February? Won't see it on CNN, MSNBC etc.

Hey Greybeard I did provide the link to the 'odds of dying' from the source, just in case I missed something. And since I was trying to make some comparisons we could wrap our heads around in a rational light I took your criticism and wanted to double check on my source, the National Safety Council. I had fact checked them with a few other sources. (most cited the NCS so that did not help) I owe you a debt of gratitude. The odds of dying shown at the end of my post are USA Citizen 'lifetime odds of dying'. That is not what I searched for, and the landing page of the source notes the odds of the 'US Population' dying from 'x'. It sounds like a trivial point, but lifetime vs in a year is very significant. Your numbers on car crashes is correct. 35-45k a year from 2014-2019, that factors out to the lifetime odds I noted and drew a comparison from. I knew then you were right. I looked into their direct source which was a 200+ page dissertation. Buried around page 40 or so, they have annual rates, and lifetime rates. The initial source could have been interpreted as annual odds, but they cited lifetime odds. When they noted a 1:1 odds of death I should have picked up on that point. The info about population, tests, and % vs tested and % vs population I stand by. That all came from the CDC and was in line with Johns Hopkins. I also stand by the magnitude of testing done in the USA in response. I was too eager to point to some comparative odds this early on. We don't know lifetime odds for COVID, which right now would be much higher than a car crash. It's kind of pointless to further murk up any point I was trying to make about relational odds until CDC/ NSC has the full picture for 2020, and then only look at probabilities for deaths only in 2020. Thanks for providing good info I could check on. I'll have to add an edit note in my OP to show those are lifetime odds. And don't think the irony of my crack about stats isn't missed! I'll have to have a shot or two of bourbon before continuing my ANOVA about Alumni Giving, College Major and Age of donor... sigh...

A brilliant young woman is running for a congressional seat in the Baltimore area. Her name is Kimberly Klacik. She is pulling no punches with long term Democrats in the district. Telling the truth. Her video summarizes everything I have tried to share here, but so succinctly.