Mr. WEO

This is his last year. I don't see how they give him a new contract.

the whole lot of them are punters...

Sham surgical trials aren't done for obvious ethical reasons, for the most part. The benzo test wasn't asking how they affect performance of the skills games, but the effect on the games as it relates to the concurrent MRI images. Comparing to a cohort not given benzos would have not been meaningful, as that was also me before I was drugged. Certainly being injured leads to missed games and losing starting roles and teams moving on. That would be reflected in the decreased performance metrics they listed. The inference is that, if the player isn't back to preinjury performance level, the team will likely move on. But let's say you matched with an uninjured cohort by age, position and number of snaps before injury. The null hypothesis is that the dropoff in performance for the injured player is no different than the noninjured controls? That the injured players were as likely to have a dropoff if they were not injured? While randomized controlled studies are "gold standard", not all queries lend themselves to this type of study. And certainly uncontrolled "before and after" studies are well known and accepted in the medical literature. Faulting the editorial review of this paper by this journal (some have here) therefore, is not appropriate. They understand the limitations of such a study--but they obviously see it as valid and congruent with other published similar studies on the same topic (referenced)

They did know what the player's performance was (no study can look at what it would have been) before the injury. They compared it to the same player's performance after the injury. Is your null that these ACL torn players would have had these drops in performance anyway...because so many guys wash out of the league anyway? The data accounts for draft position and pre injury AVS. One of the studies showed the higher drafted skill position players had the largest drop-off in performance. It's like any performance study. Measure baseline performance at a complex task. Perform an intervention. Measure their performance at the same task after the intervention. Did the intervention (injury in this case) affect performance. It wouldn't make sense to compare too a control group without an intervention. As a med student long ago (for $120), I volunteered for a study where I did puzzles and memory games, then was given IV benzos (or was it morphine) and had to do the games again (they were also doing MRI on my brain before and after. They were looking at the effect on my performance...as well as on my MRI. Each player is their own control. Their results then were split into position, draft point, Etc.

You would be comparing guys who's careers were obviously limited by their injury with guys whos careers were limited by not being good enough to stay in the league. I don't see how that's valid. The question is what effect this injury has on a players subsequent performance. Nothing "happened" to your proposed control group. If, by chance, such a study showed both groups were out of the league after the same career length, you certainly couldn't conclude the injury had no effect on the career of the injured players. It seems clear from all evidence that most of these guys don't come back to their pre injury level of play.

did bad lady go away?

The next deal always makes the last deal look like a bargain.

The control in tis study is the injured player before injury. What would they be comparing if they included non-injured players? The variable is the injury: does it affect the play (function as an NFL player) going forward. Maybe breaking down by age would have given more insight. The "average player career length" data aren't really useful as they include any guy who signed a contract or got a check. There's a ton of such who never make it onto a week 1 roster. So all of those players who quickly wash out after training camp would render any "control" comparison meaningless--and not appropriate to answer the question the study was asking.. The exclusion criteria for the study would eliminate rookies and any player who never played another game. The latter number made up 12.5 % of the entire pool of NFL ACL injuries in the time period (only 6 seasons). The study did note the different outcomes found in different positions and noted their draft position, as well as, interestingly, BMI (the average BMI was over 30: "obese"). It's not a bad study. It shows that players, overall, aren't the same after the injury, but there is variability among different player positions. Scrolling through the paper's references, there's this re: draft position and skilled vs nonskilled players position: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/2325967117729334 "The overall RTP rate was 61.7%, with skilled players and unskilled players returning at rates of 64.1% and 60.4%, respectively (P = .74). Early draft-round players and unskilled late draft-round players had greater rates of RTP compared to skilled late draft-round players and both unskilled and skilled undrafted free agents (UDFAs). Skilled early draft-round players constituted the only cohort that played significantly fewer games after an injury. Unskilled UDFAs constituted the only cohort to show a significant increase in the number of games started and ratio of games started to games played, starting more games in which they played, after an injury." here's another: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S074980631830238X looked at ACL injured vs. "controls" re: post injury snap counts, etc

mind blown....

who has this much time to weep over such things?

BOGOHO

Nope. He said Diggs could be traded because the Bills can't afford to keep him. No one else had suggested this. Yeah a lot of posters still strangely claim that Beane was someone who Pegula noticed on a list of GM candidates given to him. lol

well about that... https://blacksportsonline.com/2022/02/biils-stefon-diggs-had-two-women-in-same-hotel-in-different-rooms-on-valentines-day/3/

No Tyreek Hill money??

This article can't be accurate. I read right here that since Cam Akers recovered from a torn Achilles in 5 months, all ACL injured players come right back to full function.

I don't know them, so I can't hate them. I just don't think they deserve my money unless I choose to buy a ticket. It's a very simple concept. You would be wrong again...but this has never deterred you in the past. You've always been one to badmouth Bills fans.

yes!

I don’t know how else to make it simpler for you. NYC money and federal bonds funded the vast majority of those public commitments, not the state. The states contribution to Yankee stadium was 115 million, no more. If Erie county was putting up 600 million instead of NYS , your argument might have some cogency. But they aren’t, so your yankee stadium is absolutely nothing like the cash being handed to the Bills stadium. Nor was the MetLife financing remotely akin to PSE building the stadium and getting it all back in “breaks”. You’re making this up. I can’t argue against fabricated facts. Good luck

6' 3"? 4.3 40? He could be the next Darrius Heyward-Bey! Think how the Bills could handle Valparaiso with this dude!!

Are you saying the Bills may "aggressively try to move up in the draft"?? hmmmm

Again, this is incorrect. I'm not going to repost the article (one of several easily found via google) that spells out the NYS contribution to each of these stadiums. The majority of "public money came through federal and NYC tax exempt bonds. State cash was a small fraction. For Yankee stadium it was "$115 million, including $61 million for parking garages, $32 million in construction and mortgage recording tax savings and $4 million capital replacement reserves." And Metlife was built on land owned by NJ and as they did put millions into improved area infrastructure, including highway work (which benefits anyone who has to drive in the area), that stave's real contribution was giving up parking and concession revenue. NYS and Erie are putting up $850 million for construction, plus another 160 million for maintenance and periodic improvements. 1.1 billion. You can keep saying what you're saying, but that won't make it less incorrect or more convincing. If NFL money "grows on trees" in LA, why in the almost 30 years since there was a team there, despite the fact that 2 teams have moved and 2 more have been created--- none of them moved to or began in LA? Wouldn't any billionaire owner want to pluck the all that money growing on all those trees? It was there for taking, yet none of them wanted all that money? The Seneca settlement is between a sovereign tribal government. WNY has zero to do with that.

This is THE ONLY guy Beane has no 1 year contract for??

Scroll back... It's not about getting "a discount" as a taxpayer (but it would be nice to get that back in smaller taxes, such as on gasoline); it's about better ways to spend the money. Using it to pay off a billionaire so he doesn't move his sports team should be way down on the list. Or let Buffalo pay for it.

There's a difference between paying a relatively small amount out of pocket and "financing it themselves", right? So why bring that into your argument? We are talking about paying proportionally more for a building that they will essentially be the only tenant in---and which is ONLY being constructed so that the Pegulas (and, less so, the other owners) can make some more money. Every team that will be sold will be sold for the highest amount ever. So what? LV put up the second highest public funding for a stadium ($750 million), but the Raider still had to put up 1.1 billion. PSE will skate by with a couple hundred million. People here are moaning about the stadiums downstate, but if they were serious, they would be calling for Erie County, not the State, to be putting up the bulk of the public funding (say...600 million), as that was the model for the Yankees, Mets, etc. Let the locals, the ones who, besides the Pegulas, get the benefit from the asset pay for the asset.