JoshAllenHasBigHands

Based on the contract numbers, none of these guys appear to have been brought in to be "marquee players"

So you gonna pretend to ignore the QB situation? Can you guess who the QB was last year for most of the ten games with under 30 yards? What about in the year before? And who was throwing to Antonio Brown?

I realize you are probably a troll, and that is your prerogative, but I'll give it another shot. What move would suggest for FA?

His game log says otherwise. I mean, the stats are what they are.

So who would you be bringing in and at what price?

That is awesome of you to say. And, for what its worth, I've been guilty of the same thing.

Also, this response is why I don't talk politics any more. I mean, you don't really even know what I think (I oppose the border wall, but I also think the Democrats' tactics on Trump are counter productive), and you just in the most condescending way, without the slightest bit of engagement, went straight to an insult. Like, what is the point? This is every reason the political state of country is so terrible.

Sick burn

The fact that border wall funding was supported by the Democrats until Trump started suggesting it tells you everything you need to know.

Adding a piece in FA works. Trying to rebuild your corp through FA NEVER works. The Jets have rebuilt their corp group, I just don't see it working.

After all these years of free agency, and all the examples of exactly what you point out to me, it is a wonder to me that people put so much stock in FA.

Free Agency is the worst. Either you over pay to get your guy, and the fan based is pissed you over paid. Or you don't get your guy, and the fan based is pissed you didn't get your guy. Meanwhile, almost universally, Free Agents are historically not that good, and they rarely make the Pro Bowl, much less the difference between a winning and losing season. Its a real damned if you do, damned if you don't situation.

I didn't realize we were short on cash?

I've heard the guy on barstool a few times, I know what you mean. But he is still a businessman. Its about the money and what his guy wants. If the money is similar, it will probably be the Jets. But if the Bills are offering enough extra, his fandom won't affect his client's decision.

I don't think the draft chart is going to have any use in this draft. It doesn't look like there is a strong market to trade up. I think teams are going to have accept less than in past years to trade back.

Lol

This is wild. You haven't offered a single citation. You have talked about the research you did. I am in awe that you consider this "demonstrated as such." Truly, disturbing that you consider that a citation. Moreover, I explained why that research was unreliable, and why you were looking for the wrong thing. All ignored. I even gave you the citation to case law discussing the exact issue. More pertinent information ignored. It is wild to me that are this thick.

The Giants are going to want much more in compensation than the Steelers did, I think.

I realize you are trolling me at this point. But the truth is, you obviously aren't a dummy. But you are always going to be much further behind than where you could be going about things the way you do. Being oppositional, even when confronted by overwhelming evidence and someone who obviously knows more than you about a particular topic, will always hinder you.

People in glass houses shouldn't throw stones... Typos happen, I feel like its an unwritten rule on message boards they get ignored. Maybe not.

Sure. Tell you what, I'll go back to advising employers with 100+ employees on their employee policies and procedures, including MJ drug testing, and you can . . . well, I don't know what you do, but I'm sure its something that makes you significantly more qualified to think you are right.

Not really. It isn't always so obvious that someone has no personal experience on a topic they feel so comfortable sounding off on.

1) That is because the protections for legal off-duty activity are not specific to marijuana (in most states). If you look for a statute specific to marijuana you will not find it. You have to read the legalization of marijuana in the context of existing statutes that protect legal off-duty activity. Courts that have addressed the issue have held that while it is legal at the state level, it is not legal at the federal level, and is therefore not entitled to the off-duty activity statute's protections. Thus my point that if MJ was legal at the federal level, it would be protected in some (including NY) states. 2) The same principle outlined in 1 applies to 2. The protection for medical MJ, however, has to do with protections of the Americans with Disabilities Acts and other state statutes that require employers make reasonable accommodations to medical conditions and treatment. However, again, because marijuana is illegal at the federal level, it is not considered a lawful treatment entitled to ADA protections. Thus, employers can test for it. 3) I have mentioned this several times - that is what I meant by "on-duty exception." Basically, the conclusion is that you don't know what you are looking for, and that is why your research is incomplete.

But again, that is only because MJ is illegal at the federal level. If MJ was legal at the federal level, employers in states that have legalized MJ, and protect legal off duty acitvity (like New York) would not be allowed to test for MJ (barring an on-duty exception). I'm really surprised you are arguing with me on this. This is sort of akin to an anti-vaxer arguing with a pediatrician about vaccines. I have wildly more expertise on the subject than you. At some point, you just have to trust that I have read (and understood) the law much more than you.

You strike me as someone who has never cheated or been cheated on. You just seem to have a complete lack of awareness on the subject.