Rocky Landing

To the bolded quotes: An argument could be made for the former, but I certainly agree with the latter.

Is that true? It strikes me that the sophomore year is when many players have their biggest slump.

Obviously, his draft position means a lot less after his rookie season. Also, IIRC, his big selling point when he was drafted was not that he was a big playmaker, but that he was the most NFL-ready WR of his class. That has certainly not proven to be the case. I believe you're right that he is very likely to make the roster. But, I think that says a lot more about how thin we are at WR than anything else. I have to think that most other teams would not value him the way we seem to, and if we dropped him today, is there another team in the NFL that would pick him up?

I have a hard time considering Zay Jones a "veteran." Although, I suppose, it being his second year, that would qualify him as such? And, considering his performance last year, I certainly hope he isn't a "sure thing." He should be fighting for a roster spot right along with Reilly, Foster, et al. As for Kerley, and Holmes, I don't think they are guaranteed a spot either, although I do think they have a leg up, and are certainly veterans.

The possibility of a UDFA making the 53 is always a compelling story this time of year. The hype has less to do with his ability, and more to do with the notion that someone with so little experience could become a decent NFL player. I've been following DeBeer for these reasons, more or less. It helps that it's a position of such acute need. And, if our staff can find these sorts of people, then that gives us hope and confidence in "The Process," as it were.

Good luck. I'm sitting on a deck in Hawaii as I write this.

I think we have a crystal clear understanding of your agenda. Between the bolded statement above, and your admission that you were predicting the Bills would draft Peterman, you have pretty much shown your hand. I mentioned earlier that this reminded me of the EJ debate. But, the EJ fanatics had a lot more to go on than you. Don’t expect a lot of company on your crusade, which I predict will be short-lived.

The move? No. The results? Yes.

This conversation reminds me of the EJ years. Except, of course, EJ was a better quarterback, and there was more to argue.

Maybe you didn't notice, but Taylor actually earned the starting spot.

Gerhard DeBeers. Pretty unlikely, actually, but he’s a behemoth with some serious athleticism. Would be very cool if his learning curve were steep enough to actually make the 53. Were that the case, he could really develop into something special.

So, you missed the Chargers game?

Starting Peterman to see if he can be a backup, because McCarron won't want to be one a year from now, is insane. If that were the reasoning at OBD, then why the hell would they have signed McCarron in the first place? And, putting 100% of the blame on the coaches for Peterman's historically bad football is disingenuous, at best. That was Peterman out there. He had his chance.

If McD makes the same mistake he made in Los Angeles, and starts Peterman just to see if they have a viable backup for the following year, I may literally throw up.

I lost a significant amount of weight a couple years ago on diet, and exercise. I have since learned not to talk about it with people, because, like taxes, and childrearing, just about everyone is a #*@&ing expert.

That could certainly be, although one would assume he would then be listed as a center. I'm just wondering if maybe he isn't as good as people seem to think.

He's certainly been popular on this site, and most have said that he did very well covering for Wood when he was out. But, I have to wonder how he was behind Ducasse, and Miller on the depth chart as a guard? What did McD see that others haven't?

Seems about right, if you ask me.

I would happily take McCarron, if you want to make it a three-way wager.

You're failing miserably.

Will you stop with the straw man arguments?

I gotta believe that they're going to be moving people around, and trying different combinations before they find one that works the best. Guessing it's going to look pretty ugly for while. Maybe a long while...

Well, I don't know a lot of details about the meeting, but I'd be surprised if there weren't more than a few lawyers involved who specialized in labor disputes, civil rights, and protected class litigation.

I will say that I don't see this as either a first amendment issue, or one of patriotism, or legal issues. It's a labor dispute, and yes, employers most certainly have the right to dictate OTJ behavior. That doesn't come without caveats, however. There is a famous case with Disney, and a Muslim employee who was denied a job because of her religious requirement to wear a Hijab. Disney, obviously, has very strict dress codes. But, the SCOTUS found that Disney couldn't maintain a dress code, without accommodations, that disproportionately affected a protected class. Race is obviously a protected class. Could the argument be made that this NFL policy affects African Americans disproportionately? Or, could the argument be made that the policy was enacted, specifically, to affect the behavior of African American players? I wouldn't be at all surprised to see this policy challenged on these grounds.

To insinuate that the statements that Trump has made, and the effect they have had, was not a part of this policy change is naive, at best-- more likely disingenuous.