JoshAllenHasBigHands

A 10 year extension for the most part benefits the player over the team. The exchange was likely less in per year guarantees in exchange for extra years. The total may still be high, but the total is always an irrelevant number anyway.

I'd imagine that was a different cba, right? Either way, I did not know that. Wild.

The deal has to be tied to the salary cap, right? Otherwise this would be insane, for both parties. How do you take into account what the cap is in 10 years?

I didn't think the cba even let you do that.

For my work, I have gotten to spend a good deal of time with the Director and the Chief Administrator for a New York Nursing Home. In our down time, we would discuss the Nursing Home's handling of the coronavirus. They described Cuomo's leadership, and specifically his instructions to nursing homes, as "criminal." He said that the only thing that saved them was that the local hospital refused to discharge COVID patients, so the Nursing Home did not have to accept them. It was really interesting to hear.

That was some deep analysis. I would have never understood why you thought I was wrong if you hadn't told me as much. I am especially compelled by your detailed, evidence-based analysis.

Gotta love American politics. New York city was the situs of the worst coronavirus outbreak in the WORLD, and somehow the Governor that oversaw that train-wreck is praised for his "leadership."

I've literally never suggested that BB wasn't a better coach than McD. The point continues to evade you.

Wow

I love the condescending “huh” followed by a comment that completely misses the point. Embarrassing every time. McD is 0-6 against BB. McD can go 0-8 against BB and still win the division. One does not equal the other. It therefore does not follow that them not being able to beat BB means its still the same old Bills.

Well, "the Bills being the Bills" is an epithet the Bills earned when they went 17 years without making the playoffs. Getting there twice in three years definitely flies in the face of that reputation. If the discussion was whether the Bills can beat the Pats, that would be one thing. But that isn't the question. So, yeah, plenty to contradict that statement.

I don't know how not to love Shaunnessy.

If the Bills didn't have the highest drop percentage in the league, and instead they were just middle of the road, Allen would be over 60%, and we wouldn't be having this debate.

That is the answer to a question that wasn't asked. The point is that his completion % increased, demonstrating that accuracy can, in fact, be learned and improved upon. The fact that most above average NFL QBs begin with lower completion percentages than they end up with should make this point painfully obvious. Yet, here we are, there are still people disputing the point. Bingo

Draft value is a stupid concept. If you couldn't have gotten the player later than where they were taken, then the value was exactly right.

These polls are always tough because no one ever considers how much longer they have him under contract. He's completed two full years of his rookie deal, diminishing his value. Plus, he isn't a franchise QB yet, though he could be. I guess I'd go 2nd rounder.

I feel like BB has signed a number of big name WRs over the years who just didn't "get it." I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if Cam didn't "get it," especially with the limited learning curve. Boy I hope that is the case. We will see.

Really? Like, are you asking for examples, or do you just dispute that NFL offenses vary in difficulty?

Let's keep in mind that their perennial OC, McDaniels, drafted Tebow to be the QB of the future. Cam is a much better QB, though he has lost his ability to run. I think McD knows just what he wants to do with Cam. In addition, McD built an offense for Brady--the quick passing game; there is not reason to think he doesn't have other offenses in his bag. That said, it will be a competition. I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if he gets cut. No meaningful training camp, barely a month or two to learn the offense. I just don't see him getting acclimated quick enough.

Milano was great two years ago, but just ok last year. He was the weak link on the run defense. He got smmmmoked against Philly. It was always his gap that was being exploited.

That is a spicy take. Dead wrong, but hey, shoot for the stars man.

I'd be right on board with this if not for California.

Yeah, but its about the team. The team is better off with him at MLB, which is the point I was making that you cut off...

Your point only makes sense if you are quibbling with the conclusion that between 2% and 7% of the population has/had COVID-19. That is to say that because there was an above average number of confirmed COVID-19 cases in LA County, then it follows that areas where the diagnosed cases is lower the actual infection rate is also lower. I don't disagree with that, but it also isn't what I am saying, nor, I think, what the original poster was saying. The supported claim is that if x=diagnosed cases, than 10x=the actual infected rate (I don't know if its 10x, 11x, etc. I'm just picking a random number). Thus, if the confirmed infection rate in Houston is .1%, then the actual infection rate is 1%; if the confirmed infected rate in Chicago is .2%, then the actual infection rate is 2%; etc. That conclusion holds, regardless of the geographical region. It also means that we can safely assume that substantially more people, all over the country, contracted COVID-19 than we currently know about. THAT is how science works.

So what the study demonstrates is that the true infection rate is several orders higher, as a percentage of the population, than the confirmed infection rate. In other words, although they only had X confirmed infections in LA County, the actual number of infections in LA County was 10X. This comports with what we know about COVID-19, which is that a substantial portion of infected patients either never develop symptoms or have very minor symptoms, prompting them to never go get tested. As to the point about the study not applying outside of LA County. Well, that is just stupid. That is how all science works; every study; every theory. Studies are considered reliable when they are based on principles that are applicable to the entire population, such as this study. Sure, the exact figures may vary, but the conclusion does not: a substantial percentage of the population contracted COVID-19 but were never officially diagnosed.