Mark80

With hundreds, if not thousands of programs over the years, what type of characters are not trite and cliched to some degree?

I don't know what these guys are talking about. I like the show, everyone I know personally that watches it likes it too. Is it as good as the first season, no, but it is still good and much better than most of the other crap on tv especially during the summer. It's like they want answers for the entire season in the first 4 episodes. The bike cop? I'm sure he's going to come into play somehow, patience is a virtue. But, judging from BBs take on QBs the last few years, I can see how we could disagree on a lot of things! Go back to watching CSI Davenport, I'm sure those are still exciting.

I don't know man, he ran all over Michigan State, Wisconsin, Alabama, and Oregon State. The best 4 defenses he faced. The first 3 especially are always stop the run first type teams regardless of who the QB is. In the beginning of the year he just wasn't getting the touches, once he started getting the ball he was pretty damn effective.

Agree, Hackenberg is extremely overrated in my opinion. Unfortunately for Cardale, I still got JT winning the job. Cardale really didn't do that much to win those games in the playoffs, that was the Ezekiel Elliot show. He really only dominated the Wisconsin game. Me, I'm have been and still am on the Cody Kessler train. Reminds me of Brees. A bit smaller, with a bit less of an "rocket" arm, but accurate as anyone and makes very few mistakes (and plays against very fast tough D in the Pac10). He didn't have a single bad game all last season and PROGRESSED instead of regressed from the previous year. And, to top it all off, he will most likely be around it the 2nd round. Don't be surprised though, if when all is said an done Jared Goff is the fist QB taken.

No, I never said anything of the like. In fact, I said that I support Incognito despite his past issues as I am all for a person changing and being allowed second chances, heck even third or fourth depending on the level of their transgressions. However, I feel that the organization that person is a member of when acts like this (as I can only assume they are based on the released info so far) they need to cut ties for the reasons I stated in previous posts. Does that mean banishment from the NFL? No. Does that mean the Bills shouldn't consider taking him back a year down the road? No. But he needs to be fired now and given time to prove that he is not that man and learned from the incident before I want him employed by my favorite professional sports team. Again, this is all assuming that he was the aggressor and really did what was charged.

I'm sorry, but for most professional occupations this is the case and is even more so for ones that are public facing. The NFL is the most popular sport in the country, is blasted all over TV, engages in numerous community activities and, thus, is very public facing. I should have been more specific.

Character flaws and physical abuse of women and children are two completely different animals in my opinion.

If I got arrested for hitting an underage kid, you can be assured that I would be terminated from my job. I expect the same result from a high profile, high paying job with the Bills as well. The Incognito issues, to me, are not the same. What he did was before he was a member of the Bills and people can and do change and do deserve second chances. But here, this occurred under the Bills employ and he should be terminated if he is guilty unless he was shown to be acting in defense of himself or his son (not sure of FLA laws concerning self-defense defenses in cases involving battery of a minor but it is conceivable that they may not exist as an option, thus he could still be found guilty).

But at least they have hockey in the desert and have spent over $600M on a stadium that has achieved less than 60% attendance capacity in its 3+ years (and judging by the stands, actual attendance and it's corresponding impact on the surrounding area is much, much lower).

All of this blabble and you don't even provide one of these "indicators" to prove your point. Funny. You ask for a link from another poster and provide no link to support any of your claims. Funny.

Hopefully he knows how to drink responsibly. That school is one of the biggest partying schools in the country. Too many parents don't teach their children how to drink responsibly before they go off to college, ignoring the inevitable, and that is when drinking becomes dangerous. Congrats though, that's very cool.

Hey, isn't that the guy that Peter Gammons would say was going to with the Cy Young award every season and had only one season with an ERA below 4.00 (and only 3.85 at that)? Those are hideous.

Baseball - Athletics Yellow Alternative, Pirates Throw Back Style Alternative, Royals Light Blues. Hockey - Blackhawks, Canadians (as much as I hate them, it's a timeless sweater), Minnesota North Stars Football - Chargers baby blues, Bills (even if I weren't a Bills fan), Bears NBA - Hard to say because a lot of them change so often, but I've always liked the 76ers style and I like the new Cavs retro look.

Actually, for an average size man it's literally 2 and a half beers.

The stupidest thing I have seen on here in a long, long time.

Alright, I'm fully on board now. That shootout scene was great.

Yes, this is key. In this day and age it is exceptionally rare for no public funds to be used. The question is how much are we willing to give and what assurance do we have that we are going to see benefit out of those funds. This can be in the form of some sort of revenue sharing with the venue / concessions / parking or what Pittsburgh did with guarantees regarding increased tax collection in the areas surrounding the stadium. I don't see Mr. Pegula as having any chance of "holding the team hostage" and threatening re-location if he doesn't get a vastly one-sided deal, but you really never know. We just need to make sure that we are not putting ourselves into a situation where we are ignoring the real issues of the city in order to have a top of the line stadium. The city of Miami got completely owned in the Marlins stadium deal and they still have basically no attendance at their games at all. I mean, some of the perks that went into that stadium (that hideous statue in center field for example) are just completely laughable. I would be infuriated if something like that went down here. By no means am I trying to say anything negative about what they have done up to this point. They are city saviors. I'm just saying what they do concerning a new stadium will either further that legacy or put a significant dent in it. I'm expecting and hoping its the former.

Interesting take on this issue by John Oliver on Last Week Tonight last night. Thought it may be relevant to post since we, undoubtedly, are going to be having these debates in the very near future. While I certainly appreciate all that Mr. Pegula and his family have done and are doing for our city, I think the real man is going to show when it comes to these negotiations. Is he going to expect us to contribute hundreds of millions of dollars for a new stadium when there are still many pressing issues in our city and region that could use that funding when he is one of the richest owners in the NFL or is he going to open up his pocketbook, once more, and truly be our knight in shining armor? Some of the owners in this video must have gone to the FIFA school of negotiating to get some of their deals done (I'm looking at you Miami and Phoenix).

Classic.

It's form boys, top form!

Interesting. Serena was still only 17 at the time and undoubtedly not in her prime quite yet and Venus was only 18. Neither had won a major yet. But I found it pretty interesting how he was talking about how they just weren't used to the amount of spin that was on the ball and how much ground he could cover. I'm sticking with my original thought on this. No way Serena ever beats a top 20 guy, rarely could beat a 20-50 guy (which may be impossible after reading that), occasionally could be a 50-100 (maybe rarely now), and could beat guys ranked over 100 consistently (maybe occasionally now). Venus, however, was never quite as impressive as Serena. I don't think she could beat any ranked male except for on the very rare occasion. On a side note, watching the Semi's today I just find it unbearable to watch matches when one of the players is screaming on every single shot. Even someone as hot as Maria. It's just so annoying. I liken it to all the timeouts / fouls / commercials at the end of basketball games. Something that annoys me so much that it really affects the amount of the sport that I will watch.

It's not really a debate of who's better of the two, Serena is clearly the best. It's a debate on who was the most dominate and in that context you have to take into account their competition as they faced it in their times and Court's record is just more impressive to me than Serena's. However, if she played from the 80's on she probably wouldn't have won a single one! But with that being said, I still firmly believe that Babe Ruth is the all time most dominant athlete. Would hit more HRs than entire teams, was one of the best pitchers in the league before he turned into an outfielder, and heck, he even stole home 10 times in his career. Completely revolutionized the game like no other athlete in history, all while boozing and partying more than you or I could ever dream and without ever working out. Now that's impressive!

Wow, that's a pretty lofty statement. If by "decent" you mean professionals in general, well, yeah, maybe she could consistently beat some of them men ranked in the 100s, occasionally beat a guy ranked 50-100 and rarely beat a guy 20-50. But no way in hell she is beating a top 20 male player. It's a completely different level of play. There is a reason they are separated. Heck, she's completely exhausted after a 3 set match, the men still have 2 more to go potentially. People thought for a minute that Michell Wie could hang with the men in golf too, or that Danica was going to be a successful nascar driver...we all know how those have played out.

Margaret Court won 24 Grand Slam singles championships in the 60s and 70s and basically retired at the age of 31 to have kids (and retired temporarily during in the middle of her run because of a kid and came back and won 3 in 1973). And let's not forget about her 40, yes 40 doubles and mixed doubles Gland Slam championships. Serena has won 20 at she is 33 now and doesn't have any kids. Now, no doubt Serena would spank her in both of their primes, but dominating their own times, Margaret has to be seen as the best. But Serena is amazing, no doubt.

My main reason. Got to have a couple pints at the Cavern Club a few years back. Very cool.