BigBillsFan

4 yr $205 mil and $150 mil guaranteed. I don't think his agent will want him in a longer contract as contracts will continue to rise.

And just a great guy to boot. Hard not to root for him right now. Very happy for him

35-27 Chiefs

Will he be able to hold on every play in Buffalo?

Maybin and it's not close. 2nd was Whitner. I never liked the 1st round busts who acted like they were kings without a crown.

Yes but the top guys that do do it without the nonsense, it's through their play. People get paid to be winners. The guys who focus on brands before performance do the worst in both. Want to make Jordan money? Play like Jordan, the brand will come later.

The entire idea of building a "brand" as an athlete is repulsive. We love them for their competitive fire and performance, not how they act for social media and if that's the future sports is dead, it's just a matter of time. My father is a boomer ? but unfortunately common sense and loving a team are dying off.

Whaley's last ditch effort to save his crappy pick of EJ. He just thought if EJ looked passable he could keep his job. Now all 3 of them are off the team.

I'm a bit disappointed in that comment, almost sad. Ryan Denney made Chris Kelsay All-Pro in case you forgot. It was the Bills love of DEs in the 2nd round. How romantic.

Reading comprehension is not your strongest suit so let me try this again. The capped words are to help you focus. Your question was to give you advances in science and medicine WITHOUT public money. I gave those to you. Now did the gov't fund some immunotherapies after they were advanced WITHOUT public money? Yes, but those advancements were invented WITHOUT public funding. The public funding was to enhance the research given to the FTC but the advancement was done WITHOUT public funding. If you struggle with that let's try this again... 1.Dr. Smith discovers a cure using immunotherapy WITHOUT government funding. 2. Dr. Smith has to send said studies to the FTC for stage approval WITHOUT government funding 3. FTC receives such studies and then uses that basis as the hypothesis to use governments to research such claims and statements that were invented WITHOUT government funding You changed the goalposts from "Give me 1 example" to "If the government funded something in the future and gave money to research then it doesn't count." Sorry, that's not YOUR argument. That's revisionism and the quintessential definition of moving the goalposts.

I've read that too. I'm curious to know if it's a static area they consider catchable. I saw a few passes the board was screaming DROP that very few WRs could catch, and even then not consistently. Knox and Singletary are the only blatantly violators throughout the season.

I did before so I'll write it shorter and clearer and I'll give you 2 in case you want to argue one of them.. Immunotherapy was developed privately. Spyglass was developed privately.

You do realize that's 100% on Josh right? DiMarco was not his only target, it's the target the QB chose. Daboll never said... "Ok on this play Josh wait for the fullback to run down field and when he's double covered throw a jump ball."

Just read your own quote and you’ll find it cleverly worded to aggrandize public spending and minimize the truth. I’ll break it up for you… 1st quote: “researchers found that American tax dollars helped fund the basic research that went into every single one of the drugs approved by the Food and Drug Administration between 2010 and 2016…” So they didn’t invent or innovate, they increased funding for research and only for drugs which were approved. So #1 they didn’t innovate the research, they only added to it, #2 they only gave funding after approvals and only for drugs. Immunotherapy is not a drug, although the FDA might label it that way to help monopolize the process for larger companies. People forget the synergy of large corps and big gov't. People like to polarize the debate but they both suck. The question is who does what better. Also FDA approval is only for big pharma companies that can afford the approval. To get stage 4 funding for a drug costs $25 million. This is the FDA and Big Pharma colluding against our health to stop innovation from smaller scientists and doctors. Continuing… “including several cancer immunotherapies.” Does it say how many immunotherapies they helped fund after the research was done? Did it explain who developed and innovated? Of course not, this is written by someone purposely to obfuscate. I hope that helps.

You do realize that almost every piece of equipment at a hospital from your head to your toe is created with private companies right? Almost every major advancement in joint treatment is done by a private clinic. Most all medical equipment. Immunotherapy, PRP/schelerotherapy, etc.. Spyglass technology alone is revolutionizing the medical field. It's 1st application was gallstones and now being applied to the heart.

A rock solid B draft that could be an A if Oliver turns into a great player. So far he's erratic, but his talent cannot be questioned. Ford will be fine as a guard but there is no way I could ever see him being a RT. His footwork just can't take the top level guys consistently. Knox is a real unknown, and Singletary was a home-run

They had a scheme and an identity and they got those players that fit. I think they've done that on defense, but have failed do that on offense because they don't have an identity so how do you know you have the right players?

I'm not disputing advancements come from universities in the realm of research, but to think equipment (as one example) comes from universities isn't true. Universities focus on research, their methodology of research comes from equipment (private), and most innovation comes from private companies. I'm not going to push for Big Pharma as the mode to heal the world, in fact I don't like it. Journals of medicine are forced to push their "studies". Still they've made advances no university is near producing. The point is it's not a clean "private bad" "public good". I don't like a lot of the private parts of the medical industry, but to make it in a tight window of "private companies" is silly as most of the funding for universities does not come from itself, but manufacturing and innovation. Poor countries for example have no such innovation for that reason, and poor socialist countries like Cuba are proof you need both.

Yes because the greatest advances to medicine have been done without the market, in fact socialized medicine is the biggest reason today for the advancement in science.

At least we were consistent in our efforts ?

I agree with everything else you wrote but here we diverge. One of the qualities of measuring one's arm was by the competition they played around. "Could they throw that against better compeition?" would be a measure of one's arm talent. Teams only drafted out of the 1st round on prospects who weren't NCAA Div I non-power talent. Their arm talent was comprised not merely of how powerful they could throw it, but how they did against CBs who would later be in the pros. Wentz & Big Ben broke the mold, but the reason why people stay with convention is because the convention works. https://www.sbnation.com/college-football/2018/4/2/16913670/josh-allen-wyoming-nfl-draft-college-schedule-strength-opponents How Josh Allen compares to previous 1st-round QBs from non-power conferences Year Player College rating College yards/throw 2000 Chad Pennington (Marshall) 157.6 8.6 2002 Patrick Ramsey (Tulane) 126.0 6.8 2002 David Carr (Fresno State) 151.2 8.3 2003 Byron Leftwich (Marshall) 150.9 8.3 2004 J.P. Losman (Tulane) 129.8 6.8 2004 Ben Roethlisberger (Miami, OH) 151.3 8.3 2005 Alex Smith (Utah) 164.4 8.9 2008 Joe Flacco (Delaware) 137.8 7.5 2014 Blake Bortles (UCF) 153.8 8.5 2016 Paxton Lynch (Memphis) 137.0 7.4 2016 Carson Wentz (North Dakota State) 153.9 8.4 2018 Josh Allen (Wyoming) 137.7 7.8

Here's a list of other raw QBs drafted with more experience in college and all of them failed: Jake Locker Blaine Gabbert Christian Ponder Kyle Boller All of them were fast and raw. All of them would have done better if the team didn't have to rely on them. If all of them had a great defense, and a great running game they would have stayed around much longer. Having a defense like ours and the coaching we have on defense means we can develop Allen into an athletic game manager. Basically what I'm hoping for Allen's peak is the athletic version of a Brady in year 2002: nothing fancy but doesn't lose the game on hero ball and good is good enough. Even with stat creep I think we could win even with those stats. I don't expect that by year 3 either, maybe year 4 or 5. It doesn't take much to have a winner of a QB if you let them develop. Where most of them get exposed is their inability to adapt to blitzing and move the ball when the game is on the line. Allen is better than all of the above in his ability to run with the ball and he has Herculean abilities to extend plays with his feet. It will all come down to whether or not he can throw the ball when blitzed. The top QBs weren't all physically gifted, but all of them learned how to win more than lose against the blitz. That's what we need to see.

I happen to watch a lot of football. It's the last sport I watch a lot of as I get older. Glennon had a better arm than Allen in terms of mechanics, accuracy and pedigree in college. He lacks Allen's Zeus gun, but Glennon is no slouch in arm strength and had a far better history in college with yards, TD, and experience. He threw for 200/yards a game with 19 TDs in 13 games as a rookie. In other words if you had 3 good WRs and you wanted to see who could hit them in stride as a rookie Glennon would win every day. The same could be said for Landry Jones. I agree with you QB inflation is real, but getting caught up into it is false. As QB inflation for the top prospects become more of a set standard, so do the amount that fall that aren't as prized: Prescott, Watson as examples. There might have been no way that Allen stayed on the board past the 1st but we've seen this before and it's hard to have a raw QB typically pan out. I can't think of the last raw QB that entered the NFL with the expectations of a 1st rounder and turned out ok. Maybe I'm wrong, I'm open to the contrary.

What? Losman bought a house in Buffalo, cleaned the streets, and loved the city and had an amazing desire to be better. His heart/dedication/blah blah could not be understated. This is the Losman debates rehashed: he's a 1st rounder, he has heart, dedication, skill, and a nose ring. Back then everyone screamed how much he's trying/learning/progressing It's irrelevant, all that matters is that you can do it. Study 24/7, practice, but doing trumps learning. What gets me is he's a raw QB. He should not have been drafted in the 1st round. A raw QB learns on the bench and learns over 2 years. If he was drafted in round 3 or later people would be more objective. Mike Glennon was a project with far less athletic ability, but a better arm. Look at his rookie year, it looks like Josh's this year minus the running.

Accuracy for a QB cannot simply be measured as target X and throw to X. That's true if the object is static. This week's probowl QB competition, as well as years past, shows you QBs aren't that accurate with few exceptions. Watson was horrible, Jackson was horrible. Both have 66 & 69% completion rates. Completions and accuracy are mostly a dynamic component: WR is running and I throw it here it's enough to what's given by the coverage vs I need to throw it precisely in his arms when he's standing still Most completions are to moving people and now it's a question of dynamic prediction of where to throw it. If you throw it harder and flatter your margin of success goes down than with touch which allows adjustments by the QB. Montana, Young, and Rodgers are masters of these passes arching passes. If you like the NBA compare the 3 of Bill Lambeer vs Steph Curry. It also translates to the stiffness in the arm motion. Marino had a stiffer delivery than Montana because Marino had a bigger arm and threw flatter. Bledsoe and Farve had comparable arm strength (I wanted their long ball competition) but Bledsoe is relaxed and Farve thew the crap out of it. Allen has a combination of Zeus's arm strength with a Bledsoe like motion: compact and efficient. The problem is the type of receivers we have are quick and fast and not the perfect type for players who aren't accurate in tight windows for dynamic elasticity to make a completion. WRs who can use their body to shield areas, have high catch areas, etc.. On the other hand our WRs are quick enough to gain separation in smaller areas to let Allen throw it softer in a zone to allow adjustments. Our TEs are not competent IMO to help bail out the QB. I think we need both for Allen: both the tight window big body WRs who use their body and are large targets which allow him to throw his flatter ball, and hopefully give him targets like Jackson to throw those softer passes to allow adjustments where accuracy isn't the main concern, it's throwing it in a window to allow adjustments.