The Red King

...wish I was making it up. Thanks for that helpful tidbit, except this post is questioning why the Browns are given a free pass while the Bills have to prove themselves, so it is Bills' relevant. ?

Following free agency, I hopped over to nfl.com and saw an article on whether or not the Patriots were still the favorites. Poking through the comments though, I saw no mention of the improvements the Bills and Jets have made, most noting the AFC East will be a cakewalk for the Pats. Okay, I get it, improvements on paper are one thing, but you gotta show improvement on the field. At the same time, one analyst mentions the Chiefs and Browns as competition. And the official website poll asks which team is the best in the AFC. The options are the Pats, the Chiefs, and the...Browns? ? Not the Chargers, not the Steelers, not the Ravens...the Browns. Yes, the Browns have improved since last year, but they went 7-8-1, a losing record. How do they get included in "best of the AFC" discussions without having to prove anything? Last year was no different, despite going 0-16, some people were picking them to make and even go deep in the playoffs! I guess I'm just wondering why teams like the Bills and Jets have to prove themselves and the Browns, who have been categorically/historically worse then them get a free pass and become the sexy favorite?

Alright, too many posts to properly quote off my phone. @Foxx, guilty, and I apologize for it. @3rdnlng, point taken thank you, I'll keep an eye on things and see how things (and people) work here. There are several intriguing topics here as-is. As for this one, I fear we veered off-topic, and in regards to the original post I think I stated my case as best I can, so I'll likely bow out here. But just here, not PPP. Like a gas bubble after a spicy meal, I will rise again. But for now, I think it's cough medicine and bed. TTFN!

If you're going to assume I am a diehard dem supporter, and my dislike of the electoral college is party-driven despite my saying otherwise, I see no reason to waste my breath. Youve already drawn conclusions and my words are falling on deaf ears. If nothing else I have to thank you both for being such perfect examples of party-centric partisan, if they ain't for us, they're 'gainst us mindset I mentioned earlier. Yes, by all means keep believing everyone that opposes the electoral collage must be a pesky Trump-hating democrat. I'll be over here, not jumping to assumptions. Thanks. I have a thick skin, and love open debate. I'm not arrogant enough to think my political beliefs unshakable. At the same time, I have little patience for fanatisism, and will disengage from a discussion if I feel I'm hitting it head on. If someone doesn't actually take the time to read/listen, why bother continuing to craft well-thought out replies?

...yeah, you're definately not actually reading what I'm typing.

Go and show where I said Trump isn't the president, or didn't win legitimately. Go on, I'll wait. In the meantime you might pass my post where I said the opposite. Let me be clear. I don't care who wins any given presidency, I oppose the electoral collage for reasons given. And I opposed it before the 2016 election.

I take issue that an individual's vote carries different weight depending what state you live in. It is a system that forces canidates to focus only on battlefield states.

Are...you even reading my posts? Or did you just (incorrectly) assume I was a headstrong dem and started spewing random propoganda? People like you scare me...

You're making assumptions. Things evolve, and systems evolve with them. If I recall correctly, slavery was legal when the US was founded, and women were not treated as equals. I think I'd rather trust a system that is properly evaluated for the internet era we live in, rather then rely on something because it's how our pa did it, and their pa, and...

Um...yes? Never said it was a problem that favored one party or the other. Just that it was a problem overall.

Specifically the all or nothing nature. If you live in a state with a heavy lean to one color, your vote carries less weight then if you live in a battlefield state. A system implemented to force canidates to focus on small states as well a big has somehow morphed to one where canidates only focus on a handful of key states.

Agreed. He won the election. I have my own (poor) opinions on the Electoral Collage, but it's still the current system.

Thanks. Fighting bronchitis, so I was a bit more terse then I should have been. I apologize for that. I think what I hate seeing most is hypocracy, people condemning one person for doing the same thing in another the absolve. That goes both ways. Depending on political leanings people are quick to throw out "witch hunt", yet if it were someone else of opposing leanings, they'd be first in line with torch and pitchfork. Many people here that say this whole thing is a waste of taxpayer dollars would be singing a different tune were it Hillary who tried to buy the team. That's the point I was trying to make.

That list you posted, that doesn't copy when quoted, that for Trump or Hillary? ?

Well, attempted crime then, at the least. We do that for other criminal acts that fail. Attempted fraud, blackmail, murder, etc...

Yes. Why does it have to be one or the other? I abhored both canidates in the 2016 election. Saddest part is, I neither canidate could have won against anyone else. Just because I hate a good number of things Trump's done (still waiting for the mexicans to pay for the wall...) doesn't mean democrats past or present get a free pass. I'd be tickled to see Trump and Hillary in the same cell, tbh.

What scares me most is the fanatical partisan opinions here. Either you support Trump, in which case we should be demanding a wall (Weren't the Mexicans paying for it?), and any inquiry into Trump is harassment by democrats who should just leave Trump alone, as the man can obviously do no wrong...or...you support the democrats, everything Trump has done has been wrong and likely criminal, and anything he proposes should be shot down. There is no middle ground, not even a pretense. That being said, back on point, if there is the possibility a crime was commited, in this case fraud, it should be investigated regardless of whether Trump is President or just a shoe shine boy. Crime is crime.

Ever since the realignment the schedules are fixed. Each division plays an entire AFC division and NFC division. That's eight games. You play six games against divisional rivals. That brings it to fourteen games. A team's remaining two games are against the teams that finished in the same place in the two other divisions in your conference you're not playing. The AFC and NFC divisions you play rotate year to year, and the home team flips. Last season, Buffalo played in Green Bay. Four years prior, we hosted them, four years from now we'll host them again. No conspiracy at all. The entire schedule is dictated by a formula.

Biggest comeback in NFL history. Super Bowl champ is an honor shared with every other SB champion. Only one team pulled off a 33-point comeback. Or are you going to try and throw shade on that, too?

This is why we need a monster pass rusher. I think our secondary can make plays, but when opposing QBs can set up lawn chairs, sip iced tea and read a book until someone comes open...it ain't gonna matter who's in coverage.

He had receivers that dropped an inordinate amount of catches, never fought for the ball, and tripped over the goal line coming out of the endzone at Wyoming as well? ?

Bruce, hands down. Our defense is actually pretty damn good, but the most glaring weakness is a lack of pass rush. Add Bruce (in his prime) to that defense and it could be legendary. Force the QB to get the ball out quick, and into the hands of our secondary, the thought gives me shivers.

So, the plan is to not give the developing, top ten pick QB all of the first team reps throughout training camp and preseason so he can form bonds and timing patterns with all the new offensive weapons we're hopefully bringing in? Instead we're going to waste starting reps and potentially a draft pick on another QB? Do you honestly think any other QB on the roster, or any other QB we would draft in a reasonable round could dethrone Allen as the starter? If they don't, all you've done is take away development from him. ...of course this is the point where you insist even a seventh round QB could take the starting job from Allen, and I roll my eyes and rightfully discard everything you've said.

Remember, the NFL is all about player safety. I'm sure after this result that Kiko will realize it's not worth taking a similar run at QBs going forward. ...honestly, someone is going to take this chump out, and the NFL's gonna act shocked and come down hard on the person who does it, in a typically hypocritical move to deflect blame from themselves.

At least call and kick the tires. The Bills haven't had a dominant pass rush since...how long has Brady been around, again?