JoshAllenHasBigHands

It is weird that you made my response to Rochesterfan about you. I clearly wasnt talking to you. Self-involved much?

The percentages are of the total number of DUIs. In other words, 27% of DUI's are committed by people between 21-24, 26% by people 25-34, etc. You are interpreting the percentages as indicating what percentage of the age group is committing DUIs, that is not the original claim.

Mr. WEO is the king of doing quick google searches and copying or repeating the search results preview, even though he clearly doesn't understand what he is saying.

People are wrong all the time. It's not a big deal. It's fine how wrong Mr. WEO is. To watch him so ferociously and confidently defends something that is so obviously wrong is absolutely mind numbing. I mean that seriously. I can't even wrap my head around it. I walked away from this board for a solid three months or so. It was great. Mr. WEO seriously arguing this gibberish is every reason I left.

Wow. @Limeaid To your point, get a load of this.

Mr. WEO is a classic example of someone who is smart enough to look up statistics, but not smart enough to understand them or wise of enough to accept he doesn't understand them. He is why we have anti-vaxxers, global warming deniers, etc.

None of those things make my original point less true: "to extrapolate that all 22 years continue to drink into their adult lives, because there exists adults that drink and drive, is, frankly, nonsensical." Now, obviously there is recidivism. However, the neither means that people who drink and drive at a young age will continue to do so into adulthood nor that one must be caught drinking and driving before that behavior ceases. In fact, the facts you cite actually go the opposite way: they imply that after people are caught drinking and driving, they are less likely to do so in the future. Also, bizarre literally means "very strange or unsual." When I say that your claim is "by definition" the opposite of "bizarre." I am being literal. "Frequency" quite literally makes something bizarre or not bizarre.

A "bizarre excuse?" Age is literally the first thing out of people's mouths when these sorts of stories come out! The fact that the "excuse" is typically the first response to these situations makes the "excuse" by definition the opposite of bizarre. You are missing a breathtaking amount of context when you say "This is a man of 22. 32 and 42 and 52 years old do the same thing." It is, on its face true. But, to extrapolate that all 22 years continue to drink into their adult lives, because their exists adults that drink and drive, is, frankly, nonsensical. Now, it is true that he may not have been one of those people to grow out of that behavior, neither of us knows, but to suggest that he absolutely would not have grown out of that behavior if he had not been caught is at best wrong and at worst ignorant.

I did lots of dumb stuff when I was 22--stuff that could have gotten me in legal trouble---that I don't do now. I grew up, and grew out of those behaviors. To think he would not have changed unless he got caught is equally parts silly, immature, and ignorant. It just sounds like something really judgey 17 year olds say.

Doesnt matter what the coaches think. What do the players think? How do you think hell handle it if he thinks otherwise? How will that affect the locker room? The media? The fanbase? That is a trainwreck waiting to happen.

If the question of who you want to be your back up is based squarely on skill and ability, Cam is the obvious choice. But there is more to it than that. Other issues include their presence in the QB room, relationship to the team on the whole, and ability to not become a side show. Cam is better, but its unclear he is so much better his talent would outweigh the sideshow he would become and impact he would have on the QB room.

How do you go from a poop emoji to this well-measured response? I mean, I still think the phrase is ignorant (because you never know until you know - its like trying to predict the future), but at least I do not feel like I'm talking to a loon.

Hard to argue with this.

I would NEVER use such an ignorant phrase. No more excuses means you also are going to ignore all context. Like, really? Ok. Lets say JA's top 3 WRs, the entire O-line, and both starting RBs get injured week 1. Still no excuses? It is an absolute, and it is ignorant garbage. Sorry, I think people that think that simplistically are ... well, I'm sure you get where I'm going with this. Also, you want to know how I know you didn't read the articles? They have nothing to do with JA, excuses, or anything of the like. The articles were citations to a point I was making that less practice harms O-line development. If you read the articles, you would have known that saying, "I too feel Josh has 'no more excuses,' even after reading those articles" is nonsensical. You would have known to go deeper in the thread to figure out why I was posting those articles.

That's part of it, admittedly; however, its eacerbated because they don't get the practices necessary to teach them the new technique. I cite to several articles below that say as much. Its a generalization that just always seems to come true.

Practice =/= preseason games. Coaches care about practice. Fans care about preseason.

Yes, opinion articles that quote coaches and personnel people around the league. Tell you what, find one article quoting a coach that says the decrease in practices doesn't affect players, and I will admit I am wrong. Problem is, you can't. Now, by processes of deduction, since we know that all the commentary says that decreases in practice = poor O-line play, and because no one says the opposite, we can conclude that the former is a widely held belief. Basic logic, homie.

Tell me more... https://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/ct-nfl-offensive-line-crisis-20170913-story.html https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwiDkbrH17DpAhVEK80KHSgYBaEQFjAAegQIBBAB&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.theringer.com%2Fnfl%2F2017%2F11%2F2%2F16596392%2Foffensive-line-crisis-league-midseason&usg=AOvVaw0jOne0FW9jieVNnk1uUyCw https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwiDkbrH17DpAhVEK80KHSgYBaEQFjABegQIBRAB&url=https%3A%2F%2Fbleacherreport.com%2Farticles%2F2463172-lack-of-offensive-line-development-in-nfl-falls-on-league-coaches&usg=AOvVaw0Kj-ja5AAzaX2NWBC5iyTu https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=3&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwiDkbrH17DpAhVEK80KHSgYBaEQFjACegQIARAB&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.washingtonpost.com%2Fnews%2Fsports%2Fwp%2F2017%2F09%2F13%2Fthe-nfl-has-an-offensive-line-crisis%2F&usg=AOvVaw2HO4xqBLr2e41vxq-45Zty

I have found that the type of people that say things like, "no more excuses" are also generally not well read. I wouldn't be surprised if you had never come across this bit of commentary.

You not wanting JA to have any excuses does not mean that the practices do not matter. They do matter. For example, it is widely considered that the stark decline in O-Line play is directly correlated with the decrease in padded practices.

Teams also play a lot of zone on Allen, because he can run, so they are always looking forward (instead of at their man). Post-snap misdirection just doesn't work the same.

They won't. And they aren't going to get one of those big ticket guys. I don't think it would be worth the investment, and I have a feeling they feel the same way.

Maybe, but that's a lot of money for a guy that has never gotten more than 10 sacks. And its not like he didn't have help.

They have their 3 WRs. They are invested in Knox. After that, the only upgrades would be on OL. There, we have Morse (obviously not gonna replace him), Spain (who they paid to be the starter), Dawkins (The franchise LT), Ford (who is now exiting his rookie season). Maybe they could replace Feliciano, but its not like the available upgrades would really make THAT much of a difference. I guess they could also use an RB2, but that seems like a prime draft candidate.

I would rather $10 million Trent over $20 million Clowney or Ngakoue. After that, are there any other impact guys that would be worth cutting Trent for?