mjd1001

Neuroscientist wants the NFL to investigate Josh Allen’s apparent head injury, despite the QB passing a concussion check https://www.cnn.com/2024/10/08/sport/josh-allen-buffalo-bills-chris-nowinski-spt-intl/index.html

Something needs to be done for what? I'm not happy with the last 2 games for sure, but once they went with trading Diggs, making other cuts/roster moves, I accepted this year as a 'cap reset yet'. My realization, my expectation, is that this year is going to be a little bit tough--do the best you can--and things get better next year. I don't want them trading major assets, I don't want them taking another step back right now in terms of 'future cap', to a short term fix. Don't get me wrong, I do not want them to lose, I do not want them to do nothing at all, but improve the team the best you can without doing anything major that is 'outside the plan' for this year.

He's not as bad as I thought/feared. I don't think he's great, nor do I think he's awful. Rather listen to him broadcast a game than play in one.

I have felt the same way about Mahomes and Allen, and although things seem a BIT different this year, I'm still feeling the same: -Overall, especially in 'must win' or 'must score' situations, they are both great, but Mahomes is a bit better. But again, in 'most' situations, Mahomes has the slight edge still. -"Peak" Mahomes, vs "Peak" Allen, both playing at their absolute best, Allen is better. Allen at his absolute peak makes his offense unstoppable no matter what you do.

When someone says that, I always think of Rocking in the Free World by Neil Young, or of course Born in the USA by Springsteen. Both songs are almost 'prostest-level' songs about what is wrong in the country, yet because the chorus is memorable they are often used as uplifting songs, especially at political events or at sporting events between nations.

I usually do and I kinda do like watching it alone. 3 out of 4 games I watch alone. The times that I don't, I prefer if its with someone like me, someone who will watch the game, talk about a good play vs a bad play, notice things. Watching games with anyone who just screams and yells, swears at anything bad and high five about anything good, or who demands players be benched or coaches be fired.....those are the people that I absolutely do NOT want to be near during a game.

Not really any one team. Basically, the team that the media is hitting us over the head with. When I hear about the current 'hot team' that the commentators can't stop talking about, are they the 'greatest ever'....stuff like that. I don't really hate teams and root against them for who they are, nor players. Its basically just whoever is 'over-hyped'

True, I would be. Financially I think I'll be fine no matter what. Its just disappointing. Its like, having to choose between 2 really bad choices...when at least one party (Republicans) potentially have policy on their side that I actually like, just give us (yeah, there are a lot of us that feel this way) a decent candidate from your side to vote for. We don't need someone special....the Republicans (historically, I don't want increased tariffs) have policy on the side I want. I'll vote that way with just a decent candidate. It shouldn't be too hard.

I'll agree with you almost totally. When I speak to/with people who support him and I say that I don't, they almost always come back with "you listen to cnn or msnbc too much". Nope, thats not true at all. I actually watch his interviews, I read what he says directly. And I agree with your conclusion. I really do not like Harris or Biden all that much. If Harris gets elected, I'll survive. I won't like it but I'll be OK. Hopefully we'll get a split congress so not much of consequence will happen for the next 4 years. But its Trump....the only way I can say it is give me a different republican candidate. Someone who doesn't ramble like he is losing his mind with age. Someone who isn't triggered by talk about 'crowd size'. Someone with some dignity, someone who doesn't resort to juvenile name calling. Someone who will talk about conservative POLICY they want to implement and do so more by saying why they want to do it and less just complaining about the Democrats. I'd LOVE to vote for a republican like that over almost any democrat...but Trump? He is the absolute opposite of just about any of those things that I look for in a leader. I don't want, nor need, an 'alpha male' as president.

I posted this in another thread here but it might be appropriate to post it here: "Interest rates slashed to help economy Fed's dramatic action lowers target on key short-term rate for the first time in 4 years - to 4.75% - and signals more cuts could be coming. By Paul R. La Monica, CNNMoney.com editor at large September 18 5:03 PM EDT NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- The Federal Reserve cut the target on a key short-term interest rate by half of a percentage point Tuesday to 4.75%" That article is not from yesterday, it is from 2007. https://money.cnn.com/2007/09/18/news/economy/fed_rates/index.htm Seem famaliar?

So, a month and a half later from when this thread last had a post: Here is an article from Sept 18 (today being sept 19, a day after the fed cut rates by 50bp) Interest rates slashed to help economy Fed's dramatic action lowers target on key short-term rate for the first time in 4 years - to 4.75% - and signals more cuts could be coming. By Paul R. La Monica, CNNMoney.com editor at large September 18 5:03 PM EDT NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- The Federal Reserve cut the target on a key short-term interest rate by half of a percentage point Tuesday to 4.75% Here is the thing. That article is not from yesterday, it is from 2007. https://money.cnn.com/2007/09/18/news/economy/fed_rates/index.htm -On the same exact date in 2007, the fed cut rates by 50bp, the same date they did this year. -In 2007, stocks rallied hard in the days after the cut. This morning, stocks are looking to rally hard after the cut. I'm not going to repost or restate everything I (and others) have said in this thread, but look at the above posts, the parallels between 2007 and 2024 are really really strange.

When Diggs gets traded, like many diva type players, he'll be on his best behavior Initially. Combine that with a high skill set and he was good for the team for a couple of years. This year... And last year... It didn't seem like he was behaving all that well. We don't know for sure but it doesn't appear as if Josh Allen was pounding the table to keep him here. Add to that some age and a declining skill set and it's probably good. They made the move.

I disagreed with the above 2 to begin with: -The offensive line was not great last year. They had some good games run blocking, but also some games they couldn't do anything Run blocking they certainly were not great to me. And Pass blocking? I think most other QBs other than Allen would have been sacked a lot more. -Poyer and Hyde, you could see they were losing a step over the last couple of years. Last year was even worse. A lot of what you lose in their 'experience' I would rather make up with some added athleticisim.

Agreed. A lot of people read a thread, and if they have an opinion they post it. That leads to a lot of posts. There are others that are on these forums probably close to as much, they read the same threads, put as much thought to them...and they DO reply if something new is to be added to the thread. If they are repeating what someone else said, a lot of those people just don't post. They read as much, they add MEANINGFUL participation almost as much. They just aren't here to run up the 'post count'.

For all of those saying Hill's civil rights were violated....I don't think that is true, at least according to a couple previous Supreme court rulings. There may be a gray area in the law, the law may not clearly define this exact situation, but that is why we have court rulings, and in this case the Supreme court that ruled the officers CAN remove him from his vehicle. Having deeply tinted windows that the officer can't see through, its a grey area but yes, the police have the right to do what they did.... Two Supreme Court decisions allow police officers to remove drivers and passengers from a car during a traffic stop. Now, there are ways the police officer can escalate the above response to their request to roll down your window. If an officer feels threatened or that the traffic stop can be handled more effectively, they can order the driver and any passengers out of the vehicle. The U.S. Supreme Court decision for Pennsylvania v. Mimms (1977) says officers can remove the driver from a vehicle during a traffic stop. The court’s decision in Maryland v. Wilson (1997) concluded that passengers can also be pulled from a car during a traffic stop. Both of these “intrusions” are thought of as “matters of course” and are not considered violations of the Fourth Amendment. As such, let’s say you only crack your window 1/4 of the way down and refuse to roll it down any further. The officer might just continue the traffic stop without further comment on the window. Alternatively, they might find this suspicious or discomforting to their safety. Regardless of the officer’s sentiment, they can’t search your vehicle without probable cause. However, they can order you out of the vehicle to continue and complete the traffic stop. You can find this ruling various spots on the internet, but here is just one easy one to find: https://www.motorbiscuit.com/how-far-roll-down-window-traffic-stop/

But what if is windows was illegally tinted so they could not see inside? In that case do they have the right to demand he keep it rolled down? As others have said, it can be a safety issue for the officer, if the window is tinted too much he can't see if anyone inside the car is reaching for a weapon.

And others have said, it appears he rolled up the window because he wanted to call his agent right away and reached for his phone. Suppose the cops could see a TINY bit though all that tint....its likely they couldn't see he was reaching for, or using a phone, but they COULD see he was reaching for something. From Hill's point of view, hes 'too dumb' to think from anyone else's point of view other than his own. He thinks 'all he did' was reach for his phone, but from the officers point of view, Officers have been shot when someone inside a car reaches for a gun that they can't see. It has happened.

Yeah, from a cops point of view you pull someone over they keep the window rolled down, especially if it is tinted that dark. The moment that the window is rolled back up I would order them to roll it down. It only has to be rolled up for 2 seconds where you can't see what they are doing inside the car to give them enough time to grab a weapon. The cops were aggressive, I'll say that, but I would not, for one second, blame the cops for wanting him out of the car when he rolls up a dark tinted window and won't roll it back down immediately when they ask.

30 minutes of the best of the best marching bands. They get 5-6 minute each...put on the best show possible. And I'm not joking, some of the 'shows' that some marching bands put on are pretty damn impressive.

The more popular a team gets the more it brings in the casual fans. They team stays successful and gains even more popularity, and even MORE fans who never followed football want to join the party. I lived in Boston from the late 1990's through the middle-late 2000s and I saw this there. Listen to WEEI and the Pats talk (when they were bad or average) had some good callers and bad callers, but overall more good than bad. As the Pats got better, more and more of the bandwagon fans started to participate, and, nothing against more people becoming fans, but, those bandwagon fans weren't exactly that schooled in the sport...hence you got a lot of bad callers. I see this here with the Bills the past 5 years. I see it on this very FORUM over the last 5 years. I don't think its more complicated than that.

If you are, then you are just outright wrong. Personally I do not like Harris and a lot of the policies she is pushing. I also don't like the idea of Tariffs that Trump is pushing. So I'm stuck in the middle, feeling no candidate represents what I am looking for . But, when someone says who they support, and then no matter what anyone says, they have answer for it...well, its just hard to take a discussion with them seriousley..if their candidate of choice can do little wrong. I came to this forum hoping for a bit of debate back and forth, but its very hard when some people view things so one sided, and have to result to insults, laughing emojis, name calling when someone doesn't agree with them (remind you of anyone currently running for office?) See my above post/reply So when you can't have a serious discussion, when someone says something you disagree with, result to insults, name calling, acting like a 3rd grader throwing a tantrum....is that all you have? Apparently so. I am not a left wing lie spewer, if you actually looked at many of my posts here or on other social media, I have criticized a lot of the policies of the left also. Yet if your ego needs that boost of calling me that, even though it isn't true...well...small minds get boosted by small actions I guess. The 5-year old level name calling. Accusations without knowing the views of who you are talking to...cute little threats....I see acting like the obedient little lemming your leader has so well trained you to be...just like pavlov's dog.

People who have money tend to want more money. The laughing emoji you have is best suited to be laughing at yourself. Lets see, a guy who is very rich who's actions show he is always wanting more money, will say things he admits himself are too optimistic about his company that tend to inflate its price, a guy who has a bit of an ego and likes being known as the richest person in the world....that guy makes a deal with a potential presidential candidate to get more business, more money, more attention..... -or- Rich guy with an ego says he never cared about politics and all of a sudden does...and the fact he might get a lot of support for his businesses from the above candidate who he now supports...that is just a coincidence. Occam's razor leads me to think its the former of the above, not the latter.

-Or- Trump came to me looking for support. We had a conversation, and if he wins, lots and lots of business and money are going to flow my way and I really like lots and lots of money.

It seems like most people want to argue on extreme side or the other on Jackson...either is bad/below average or he is a legit hall of famer and the best (if not top 2) QB in the league at any time. Can't the truth be in the middle? He is overall a good-to-very good QB, with exceptional physical talents that, at times, allow him to pull out a game that most other average-to-above average QB's cant? When you take everything into consideration..the stats he puts up, his win-loss record, his record in the playoffs, his great plays, his bad plays...it averages out to him being good, maybe very good, but not elite? Personally I think he's top 10 in the league. Not top 3, but probably in the 4-8 range. I think Allen is better and I'd rather have Allen, but that doesn't mean Jackson is a bum either (or even below average).

I think I'm going to watch this game differently than about any other game I can imagine in years. I'm really trying to not go in with any pre-conceived notions. WR's being thin? Potential problems in the secondary? Basically, anything past history has taught me, or training camp has taught me, I'm not going to think about. Just observe the game. I notice that before a game is even played, in the past I would 'think' what I liked, or didn't ilke about the roster and then go into the game looking for things to support my view. Maybe its because I took a step back and didn't pay attention to camp too much, didn't really watch the preseason games...Not sure exactly why. But I'm going to just watch the game and have an opinion AFTER the game, not look for things to support an opinion I generated before it.