fergie's ire

I wonder if there are any veterans, not subject to waivers, who have one of those "wink, wink, we're cutting you but will re-sign you in two days" deals. Mancz would fit the bill, right? Maybe put Stevenson on PUP and sign him....and someone else to PUP for a punter?

You forgot about Blakshear.

But if a DB makes an interception that I could have made, he would have been in the Super Bowl last year.

My impression of the incident. Finishes his route and looks over at McDermott who gives him wink. He immediately grabs his leg and starts sreaming, "AHHHH, My LEG, MY LEGGGGGG....I need to go on IR, coach."

They can cut to 53, then put anyone who is banged up on part-year IR and then add a punter.

Blech!!! (Okay, I don't really care about uniform colors, but I need something.)

Can we have some cuts and some more 53 man roster speculation to go with it? The nice thing about cutting Araiza is we can move on to the regular season...and I'd love to get some other info to give us something else to talk about. Come on, Beane...cut some guys.

This is from a Callifornia legal blog: "One of the common defenses is to make an argument you had a belief the victim was not a minor at the time of sexual intercourse. Maybe you believed they were over 18 but were wrong. A good-faith belief the alleged victim was over 18 is a defense to statutory rape." link So, the issue is "good faith belief." If you pick someone outside of high school as classes let out and you claim, "Well, I didn't know she was 18, you would lose. The example is typically given of a venue that requires entrants to be 18. If you pick someone up there, it is reasonable to believe they are 18, even if they aren't. OR, a college party where you expect participants to be college students and you expect college students to be 18....would seem reasonable. Now, I think the Bills made the right decision and there is a lot troubling about the case. However, to see that under CA law he is automatically guilty if she was under 18 is factually incorrect.

I was just getting ready to post the same thing.

I'm not watching the Bears. They look worse than the Jets.

They can. However, they can't, for example, cut him because he's unvaccinated. McDermott got in trouble for suggesting that he might do that last year. You can cut someone for no reason. You can't, however, cut them for any reason. Some reasons will get you in trouble with the union...and this might be one of those.

Can we agree to use Araiza and Barkley? "Matt deserves Attaboys" does not sound great applied to Araiza. About 4 times in the last 24 hours my brain has misapplied a Matt and given the story, it's not good.

The dots don't connect for me and I don't see a lot of discussion on that. Sitting the only punter on the roster (even though for a pre-season game) seems to be a more drastic move than cutting him. They said they had conducted an investigation and they knew about the accusation before they released Haack, but suddenly "it seemed wrong" for McDermott to play him? They could have trotted him out for a few punts, waited until Tuesday, said they had learned more or thought more and just released him then. But why did McDermott lose sleep, not play him, and seem visibly shaken? That seems weird to me. In thinking about it, I came up with a scenario that WOULD connect the dots but it is rampant speculation with zero evidence. I know some people hate that kind of thing, so if you are one quit reading. Imagine the Bills here what the plaintiff is claiming and find the story unbelievable (in both senses of the word). They decide that there's nothing there and cut Haack. Meanwhile, Araiza has bragged to his teammates about pulling a train on some high school chick. I know that it sounds crazy that someone would do that, but there are those who think even their monstrous acts should be admired by "those who get it" and that it is locker room talk. Given the character of guys on this team, they don't get it, are appalled, but are conflicted about sharing something from the locker room. But then it comes out and a player feels compelled to go to McDermott and now those "unbelievable" acts are confirmed and he just can't put a player who would do that out there. Again, rampant speculation, but their are some weird dots here and such a scenario would connect them.

I prefer an umlaut over the O. Otherwise it sounds like oven.

Oh.....but you do (or will). Never mind.

Crayonz?

They step out on the field and hold them up when TV is in commercial. Put them down and step off to signal that TV is back covering the game.

Can an anus fall out? Invert maybe, but fall out? Can't see it....and don't want to.

I think Sean McVay killed the need to play in games to "get the rust off" or for sync purposes. His first year as head coach he played NOBODY in the preseason...was really the first to do that. Everybody was mocking the idea saying that his players would be more likely to be health and fresh but they would NOT be ready for that first game. It would take a few games in a new system to make it work. They won their first game 46-9 and the "I'm not playing my starters in the preseason" movement was launched.

I agree with all of this in a general sense, but did you watch that video? MAN!!! He pretty much chucks Nelson into Matt Ryan.

I don't know. It would be a surprise...and one pre-season game is not a great sample...but he has skills that would make it tempting to keep him. He looked great on returns. His route running and catch skills also make him a good Cook replacement should we need one. That would seem to be the Duke Johnson role. Keeping him might also mean needing to cut Moss. Coaches may want a power runner...and Moss looked good in that role yesterday...but Blackshear seems to be more of the kind of back they want in this offense. If he and Shakir can man return duties that would also be another issue taken care of. It's going to be interesting who they keep.

Or nobodies who see the field only to throw 5 interceptions in a half?

I love linguistics so, yeah, pretty much.

It is a real word unless words only count as real if used by DWEMs. From Oxford Languages: dweeb /dwēb/ noun DEROGATORY•INFORM a boring, studious, or socially inept person.

Hey dweeb, I think you forgot one.