billsfan1959

I stated my point. Twice. It was a pretty simple concept to grasp. Not sure why you want to be a d*#k; however, if that makes you happy - by all means, carry on... Cheers...

What can be heard in the clip is pretty clear and I doubt @The Bills Blog can hear anything in it that the rest of us cannot. There is simply not enough there to put the statements in any real context. My point was that, without context, any analysis is nothing more than pure speculation - and why would anyone choose to speculate that it is something to be concerned about?

We can't take away anything from what Allen says in that clip, one way or the other. He says, "Once you turn, I'm going to put it right on your body." We can hardly make out anything Beasley says and have no idea what the conversation was leading up to it. Kind of pointless to analyze a statement with no context to it.

I think they will achieve some level of success this year (at least a playoff berth). However, the dark side of self-centered personalities always seems to emerge and, inevitably, create a problem (1) in sustaining any long term level of success, or, (2) when things do not go as well as expected. And the Browns seem to have more than their share of those types of personalities. I do not wish the team any ill will, yet, I find it hard to root for anyone who cannot exhibit any sense of humility or perspective.

I have to admit the video made me cringe. Not the part where he jumps with his daughter. The part where his 6 year old daughter is standing sure footed at the edge, while he almost crawls out to the ledge and then, once he finally gets there, making sure his earplugs are firmly in place...

I agree the call wasn't even close and, for the individual teams and the NFL as a whole, it is a multi-billion dollar industry. I'm not sure I would support the suit if it was filed by the team, even if legally justified, because, once that precedent is set, where does it end? I prefer the game stay on the field. However, for the fans, it is still a game and I certainly do not support any suit of this nature brought by a fan.

Honestly, I think it is like the perfect storm. IMO, Brady and Belichick are, arguably, the best ever at their respective positions and complement each other's strengths very well. If you remove either from the equation, I don't believe there is ever the sustained level of success we have witnessed.

Haha...Ah, those dramatic breakups...

I've always been an avid fan of my teams and, like all fans, have experienced my share of misery over bad calls (in the crease goals, forward pass laterals, etc.); however, in the end, it is all about a game. Leave the courts to spend their time on real issues.

He can actually be both. I think he has achieved the first and has the potential to achieve the second...

Raised in WNY. Left to seek my fortune and fame in 1977 and have faithfully followed the Bills from many different locations around the country. I live in Wake Forest, NC, now, which is the land of college basketball.

He didn't even get it out of the stadium...what a p#@$y....

Always appreciate your posts, Gugny, and I didn't get the impression you are anti law enforcement. I think there are far too many instances of people either justifying every police shooting or condemning every instance of police use of deadly force, particularly when the victim is a minority. Every situation is different and should be thoroughly investigated in an unbiased manner. While I did utilize statistics to show how relatively rare these instances are, it certainly does not mean they are insignificant or that there are not problems / issues that should be addressed. Healthy skepticism is a good thing, and, some might argue, a necessary thing. Unfortunately, it seems to be very difficult these days to have, as you say, mature dialogue. The environment in this country seems to be one of ideological rigidity and hostility - to the point of toxicity. Too many people taking extreme stances and aggressively attacking anyone who believes differently. Must be a sign of the times... Cheers

I respect your opinions and discussion you two have been having. I just wanted to add a couple of thoughts: The issue of compliance and control: The number one issue in law enforcement shootings is non-compliance. First, It is critically important in any face-to-face encounter, for any individual to follow the commands of the officer, whether it is an arrest situation or not. It is for the safety of BOTH. When an individual does not comply, he or she is placing the law enforcement officer in a situation of having to make split second interpretations of movements Second, during arrest situations, it is even more critical for a suspect to be compliant in order for the law enforcement officer to gain control of the suspect. Control means handcuffed. A suspect is not under control even when he or she is standing or sitting calmly. Any arrest situation has the potential to turn violent in an instant. Most officer deaths in these situations is from NOT following through in handcuffing the individual and mistaking "calmness" for "not posing a threat." The issue of police shootings: There are, literally, hundreds of thousands of interactions between law enforcement officers and civilians every day. Think about that. Between traffic situations, Investigations, respose calls, etc., etc., etc., there are between 50 - 65 million, face-to-face, interactions per year, and approx 7 million face-to face interactions between law enforcement officers and African Americans [Police-Public Contact Survey (PPCS) - Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS)]. In every law enforcement jurisdiction in this country, the vast majority of resources are devoted to those areas with the highest crime (particularly violent crime) rates. There are tens of thousands of interactions every day and night in those areas in which the potential for escalation is very real - and they disproportionately involve minorities. That is because those same areas, typically, happen to have higher minority populations as well, which, is more of an indictment on social and economic policies in this country than on the police. There are over 10 million arrests every year (FBI Unified Crime Report). That is over 10 million instances of a law enforcement officer taking someone into custody, an event that, by its very nature, has the potential to become emotionally charged. There are about 1000 people killed by law enforcement officers every year: 45 percent white men (about .000003 of all interactions); 23 percent black men (about .000007 of all interactions), 16 percent Hispanic men (about .000007 of all interactions), and 5 percent women - and about 25 percent of those killed are people in mental distress. About 4 percent (about 40) of all people killed per year are unarmed and about 40 percent (about 16) are African American. Every reputable analysis conducted show the overwhelming majority of police shootings are justified,even in the unarmed situations. Some of them are not. When they are not, then those individual officers need to be held accountable. There are almost a million sworn law enforcement officers in this country and, as a whole, they are better trained, more highly educated, with a more thorough hiring process than ever before. Despite the rigorous hiring methods, there are going to be some bad people - just as there are in every other profession and every population. And, despite the level of training, they are still human beings who are tasked with sometimes making instantaneous decisions in unpredictable circumstances. I understand the perceptions in this age of 24 hour a day, politically charged, news cycles; however, to say that law enforcement officers are "trigger happy," "mowing down young black men," "institutionally racist," etc., etc., is statistically nonsensical. Is one unjustified killing too many? Of course. However, in reality, it is going to happen. That is just the result of the sheer number of interactions and the unpredictable nature of human behavior in emotionally charged situations. In each instance in which an unjustified killing occurs, the officer(s) should be held accountable. What should not happen is indicting an entire profession on the actions/events that are both rare and conducted by a miniscule percent of law enforcement officers.

So, a fan of the Kansas City Chiefs polled the fanbase of the Denver Broncos about the QB of our team, and decided to start a thread on our board to let us know that the Broncos fans basically think Josh Allen sucks... Did I miss anything?

There is no doubt that his legal team did their job, while the prosecution got caught up in playing to the cameras, and the judge allowed the courtroom to turn into a circus. You are probably right in terms of the textbook example of jury nullification; however, I'm not so sure most of the jurors bought into reasonable doubt - but, I could be wrong on that. I don't believe the defense convinced most of the jurors that Simpson didn't do it, as much as they did a good job of portraying the LAPD as racist, corrupt, etc... - thereby, creating a choice for the jurors: convict Simpson and let the LAPD go unpunished, or acquit Simpson and punish the LAPD for a long history of egregious behavior.

I have investigated / analyzed more homicides over the last 35 years than I care to even remember. Having grown up idolizing O. J. Simpson, and from a professional curiosity perspective, I watched most of that trial and paid very close attention to the facts of the case. So, the answer to your question is, (1) Acquittal does not equal innocent, (2) there was NOT a lack of evidence of guilt, (3) there were no "equally plausible" suspects and (4) yes, I have concluded, based on everything I know about that case, that O. J. Simpson killed Nicole Brown and Ron Goldman. It was a text book example of jury nullification. That trial started as a murder trial and ended as a referendum on racism within the LAPD. That is just my opinion; however, one, that I believe, is reasonably arrived at. You are welcome to have a different opinion.

Personally, I don't know how anyone, who is aware of the brutality of that crime, could have any interest in (1) any thoughts Simpson might have on anything outside of what he did and why he did it, or (2) providing him a platform for self promotion. Graham is welcome to interview anyone he wants; however, IMHO, laughing and joking with Simpson about twitter and football trivializes what he did. Graham is better than that. Again, IMHO.

Interesting that he feels the need to put something like this out. I guess his insecurity is part of what drives him, even after all of his success.

I think it started that time he ate 50 hard boiled eggs in an hour on a bet. Or am I thinking of Cool Hand Luke?

Shouldn't he be sharing his story at Overeaters Anonymous?

I have a sibling who has been a lifelong addict, in and out of prison, abandoned her own son, literally stole our parents life savings, pretty much used, manipulated, and/or hurt everyone she has ever encountered (or who tried to help her), and generally has left one long path of destruction in her wake. I have never been in trouble, served in the military, retired after a long, successful career in law enforcement, raised three children who are all educated, productive members of society, and continue to be successful as a consultant. So, does this reflect well, or not reflect well on our parents?

Production is often the benchmark we use; however, production comparisons of two athletes under completely different variables doesn't necessarily provide any meaningful insight as to which one was truly the better player. It just means one athlete was more productive within his/her set of variables than the other athlete was within his/her unique set of variables.

It is nothing more than guesswork: Two different players, playing in different positions, in different schemes, in entirely different circumstances. Could be that the stats are reversed if roles are reversed, or not. Two great players and a fun discussion. However, in the end, like all comparisons of great players, it just an opinion wrapped up in guesswork.