Mr. WEO

it has nothing to do with being part of that coaching tree. Rivera gets canned during or after this season

RG recovered from his injury. Turns out he was a flash in the pan.

This is more likely. Anyway, Diggs said all the platitudes expected of him today, all cliches were mentioned. Issue is put to rest with this (non revelatory) performance.

He should be peeved he didn't take their previous offer. These guys are dumb. What's the point of paying an agent?

Too many bums on that list. Allen has a few more years before he's "done at 33". Let the guy play his game.

So….paper tigers?

It means 4 teams didn't want him on their roster. His stats explain why. Those aren't my "presented stats"---they are this guys career stats. Even the Bills--the only team to give a real spot, couldn't find hardly any situations where he was needed. In the end, they concluded he wasn't worth keeping. They saw more of him than any poster here who claims he was a promising playmaker. Go tell your stories to McD and Beane. Tell them why they are wrong.

Rivera is on the coaching tree SB list for a win as a player (not coached by Reid)?

not me bro! I mean they had to pay this guy whatever. But not exactly eye of the tiger right there... 1 playoff game where he and his team choked away a 20 point halftime lead....to Trevor Lawrence (despite his 4 ints)!! After going up 27-0, here are all of the Chargers subsequent possessions: punt, FG, punt, end of half, punt, FG, missed FG, punt. Tons of yards and TDs (regular season) though...

As for causation, t's not what I think, it is what medicine knows. I am simply telling you want the current medical thinking is. Why do you keep attributing this to me? Is there a correlation between type 2 DM and sugary drinks, etc? Yes, I have already stated this. It's not causation. The mechanism of insulin secretion and function is well understood. It is not deranged by eating a lot of candy.--it's exacerbated by eating a lot of candy. Your doctor telling you not to have sugar laden food is giving you good advice. If he's telling you that your past eating habits made you a diabetic, he's wrong. Tell him to contact the ADA for some educational material he can review. A lot of doctors want to blame their patients and their behaviors for their problems. Metcalf isn't in the group most at risk---overweight sedentary individuals. He limits his risk of developing DM by staying fit and of appropriate weight, not by limiting his sweet tooth. I don't know how else to tell you this. Anyway, anyone looking at Metcalf can tell you that that bit about his diet is something he made up on a jock podcast.

injury settlement/cut

You are reporting survey studies. I've already said that lots of diabetics don't modify their diets to help control the diabetes they already have. This study also confirms this. This study makes no claims that sugar laden foods cause diabetes. Also, this study says subjects were "free from diabetes at baseline"... based on a questionnaire. Diabetes isn't diagnosed by asking someone if they have or think they have diabetes. Also, this study found only 6% of their patient population developed diabetes despite 338k person years follow up. Reported incidence of type 2 DM in African American women 55 and older has been estimated as high as 25%. The sugar drinkers in this study developed DM at a lower rate than exists in the general cohort. Anyway, here's another one for you: https://www.bmj.com/content/363/bmj.k4644 "Eligibility criteria for selecting studies Controlled intervention studies of at least seven days’ duration and assessing the effect of different food sources of fructose-containing sugars on glycaemic control in people with and without diabetes were included. Four study designs were prespecified on the basis of energy control: substitution studies (sugars in energy matched comparisons with other macronutrients), addition studies (excess energy from sugars added to diets), subtraction studies (energy from sugars subtracted from diets), and ad libitum studies (sugars freely replaced by other macronutrients without control for energy). Outcomes were glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c), fasting blood glucose, and fasting blood glucose insulin. Data extraction and synthesis Four independent reviewers extracted relevant data and assessed risk of bias. Data were pooled by random effects models and overall certainty of the evidence assessed by the GRADE approach (grading of recommendations assessment, development, and evaluation). Results 155 study comparisons (n=5086) were included. Total fructose-containing sugars had no harmful effect on any outcome in substitution or subtraction studies, with a decrease seen in HbA1c in substitution studies (mean difference −0.22% (95% confidence interval to −0.35% to −0.08%), −25.9 mmol/mol (−27.3 to −24.4)), but a harmful effect was seen on fasting insulin in addition studies (4.68 pmol/L (1.40 to 7.96)) and ad libitum studies (7.24 pmol/L (0.47 to 14.00)). There was interaction by food source, with specific food sources showing beneficial effects (fruit and fruit juice) or harmful effects (sweetened milk and mixed sources) in substitution studies and harmful effects (sugars-sweetened beverages and fruit juice) in addition studies on at least one outcome". If you still have a problem with the "myth" (not mine) of sugar causing type 2 DM, why don't you bring it up with the ADA? I've included their layperson's handout: http://main.diabetes.org/ws/ADM/MRC_ADM_2018_Myths.pdf "On behalf of the millions of Americans who live with or are at risk for diabetes, we are committed to helping you understand this chronic disease. Help us set the record straight and educate the world about diabetes and its risk factors by sharing the common questions and answers below. If you’re overweight, will you always develop type 2 diabetes? Being overweight is a risk factor for developing diabetes, but other risk factors such as how much physical activity you get, family history, ethnicity, and age also play a role. Unfortunately, many people think that weight is the only risk factor for type 2 diabetes, but many people with type 2 diabetes are at a normal weight or only moderately overweight. Is diabetes caused by eating sugar? A diet high in calories from any source (including sugar) contributes to weight gain and weight gain increases your risk for type 2 diabetes. Type 1 diabetes is caused by genetics and unknown factors that trigger the onset of the disease. Type 2 diabetes is not caused by sugar, but by genetics and lifestyle factors." That's probably an easier read...

As I said, he essentially, per the recent article, offered her money to now say something opposite of her previous testimony. If he was in the right, he wouldn't have (allegedly) paid for that--instead he would have let his countersuit against her and her lawyers play out, as he was seeking punitive damages as well. Now her lawyers are saying they will use the offer as an "awareness of guilt". We''ll see what happens.

I "pulled" it from a basic PubMed search. It was a meta-analysis of current papers looking at the link between added sugars and development of diabetes. It shouldn't surprise you that drinking a lot of sugary drinks, for instance "is linked to" type 2 diabetes. Many diabetics eat and drink what they want no matter what their BG or HgA1c levels are. That's not causality. What you are describing is a myth--and it is called as much by the American Diabetes Association, Diabetes UK and the Joslin Diabetes Center. Type 2 is the result of inadequate production of or sensitivity to insulin. Your CDC reference is a great plan for people most at risk for developing diabetes...sedentary, overweight adults. Obviously Metcalf isn't in that group, so what I said at the top (eating candy isn't going to make Metcalf a diabetic) stands.

The franchise tag has steadily increased. I've already pointed out that there are 2 RBs currently making a higher average annual than Barkley's ask...... Bell was offered a crazy good, overvalued deal. He turned it down because he was stupid and overestimated his value compared to the market. After that, everyone took notice (owners, GMs anyway). Current RBs haven't learned this lesson. For 2 million dollars over the life of a contract, Barkley was saying "F-you" to his team and his teammates. Instead, he's just signed a 1 year deal for 800k more than the franchise tag. That's dumb.

The Bills did all of that for you and cut the guy. Twice. So did 4 other teams...in 4 years. They are pretty silly, right? Silly af, in fact.

The point was that you take a long term deal--even if the guaranteed is not what you wanted. Bell is the cautionary tale that Barkley isn't able to understand. Those were the numbers.

he took 9 sacks in the Rams game! ok, so maybe 2-2. In the San Fran game, the Bills lost because the offense could not score a TD after the first 8 seconds of the 2nd Q---including 1st and goal from the 7 at the end of that Q--RJ threw 4 incomplete passes in a row (an extra down due to penalties offsetting). Bills D had been punishing Young for 3 Q's, sacking him 5 times. SFO turned it over 4 times. Then Steve Young Steve Young'd. RJ was a bum.

I can't comment on what people say they see, but I have certainly already posted how Barkley is crucial to the Giants Offense--and therefore their success, such as it was, last year.

Settle down... "We conclude based on high quality evidence from randomized controlled trials (RCT), systematic reviews and meta-analyses of cohort studies that singling out added sugars as unique culprits for metabolically based diseases such as obesity, diabetes and cardiovascular disease appears inconsistent with modern, high quality evidence and is very unlikely to yield health benefits. While it is prudent to consume added sugars in moderation, the reduction of these components of the diet without other reductions of caloric sources seems unlikely to achieve any meaningful benefit."

"Cook's initial offer of $800,000 came with a requirement that Trimble sign a sworn affidavit denying abuse claims, the document said. But Trimble has already testified under oath that Cook physically abused her."

Nearly 3 times as many pages as carries last year--his most impressive stat.

he paid her to recant testimony she gave under oath.

lol---say what?? The Bills were 1-3 rolling into Indy. He had 2 decent games with yards over 200 and 4 TDs total (and took a stunning 12 sacks--9 in one game) Flutie came in early that game and they won. They would go 8-3 with Flutie.

he had 113 snaps in 3 years. Appeared in 7 games. 6 tackles. You must have quite a sharp eye for scrubs.