Dukestreetking

Here's the de rigueur, PGT schadenfreude via the opposing fan forum.... I swear, this was 3 posts in a row. P1: Both Josh Allen’s arms falling off might be the only chance we have. P2: Only if his legs fall off, too. P3: He would just win with his feet...

Hah, can you imagine: "Ladies and Gentlemen, here's Oliver Anthony with Rich Men North of Richmond!"

But when, when are the actives announced? //s Sorry had to do it. It amazes me how this is asked every GDT.

Fav moment (~4:41) is Kincaid's downfield blocking on the Cook flat. He's successfully engaged w LB#5 then--in a flash--he turns and dumps S#25 right on his flippin' a**, and gives him a FU staredown. Sorry: I sequenced some screenshots but they would not load...you should really check it out.

When I was in-country, and Patreus was ISAF commander, he was known for eating shrimp and quinoa. All well and good...but wtf Dave? It's a freaking war.

...and speaking of Motor (sort of), saw that Z Moss had a nice little stat line: 18/88/4.9/1TD Not to derail the thread, but can anyone advise how he looked? Didn't see the game.

I don't like Maddy Glab. The whole thing is a**-hat ridiculous, overblown. That's all I can say about that.

Good point. I'd also like to see them study Pats** scheme v TH. Didn't see the game but held him to 5/40.

I get that, so kinda fair point. Not perfect comparison but, for year+, I was an on-air analyst for a network. Did many live "hits". Before/during/ after a hit: segment producer, director, reporter are all speaking into your IFB. I was so worried about a hot-mic I would usually just nod or shake my head. Rarely would I say anything. So you do have to be careful. That said, I feel this is way overblown, given the setting and verbal context. (Note: not a LAMP... just trying to convey a rough analogy from my experience.)

V: maybe I can pick you up a bit... Listening to wgr while driving yesterday. Virgil (from somewhere) called in...he was well-spoken, clever, and made an interesting, incisive point. Immediately, I thought: hey that must be "our" Virgil. So, you got that going for you....

Coach: spot on w all of your analysis, including re Wigdor. Many thanks. Brief thought to add: The case theory, per Statement, is strange: NFL as a "system"--owners, coaches, corporate, media leadership--is discriminatory, and profoundly centralized. Simplistically put: because the system is so, my employment was not re-newed, I was harmed during my tenure, etc. Textually, they are linked. And here's the things that support my theory of systemic bias: Gruden, my own management, Pegula, etc. Given this, I would think he has to "prove" a preponderance of the beams and cement exist (i.e., allegations) in order to demonstrate the superstructure (i.e., system). I could be wrong, but that's the way it presents. I won't get into the Causes of Action. Anyway, I believe it's a flawed overall strategy. There's a skinnier way to get from A to B. This is to say nothing of the fact pattern issues. @Bob Jones I'm not a lawyer but b/c of my background in a certain field, I review these all the time for case and deposition strategy/tactics, blah, blah.

I hope The Whisperer can get this guy back.

Yes, correct. Sorry, I was rushing and was going to say "having/had". I hit the edit button but forgot to include the change. Nevertheless, the larger point remains: facts IN the Statement of Allegations do NOT say--at all/precisely--how or where the racial statement took place (meeting or not), nor does it provide context. Emphasis on what is actually in the Statement, not on what is being reported. Why is this important, in terms of the overall Statement? It's a tell. See, for example, the preceding Sec C, which is sequenced, detailed and precise regarding the interaction with J Jones (I realize this was a direct conversation). Obviously, the lawyer is an advocate for her/his client so I don't expect an argument for the other side. But, in fantasy land, the Statement should/could say something like: "Following the meeting, Mr Trotter-as an experienced reporter--obtained further information and confirmed the Pegula statement from Unnamed Reporter. Mr Trotter and the UR subsequently had additional, direct conversations about the matter, etc" The problem: the above is not in the Statement; it is implied, and obtusely at that. TLDR: I'm only making the point that there are holes that will be exploited. Who knows how it turns out. Ok, I'm done, but thanks. Too much time on this already. Geez, this board sucks you in...

This is the correct reading of the allegation, tortured though the (original) wording may be. That is, attendees were Shield employees. Rather odd though: para 128 effectively states that Mr Trotter was IN the zoom meeting, but did not himself hear the comment. If it was a zoom call (virtual, of course) how precisely was TP having a (side) conversation with the unnamed reporter, who was also in the call? Yes, possible, but details matter. I only quickly reviewed...but there are many similar leverage points in the complaint that any reasonable defense lawyer will attack. Please note: I'm only making a cold-hearted evaluation of the stated fact pattern. I don't know what is true or not.

Indeed... and I recall you mentioned similar concerns during preseason. Very prescient my friend.

Could not watch last night but, in keeping with the board zeitgeist, I'll add a meta-complaint: Why does every swinging D feel compelled to start their own thread? Some are well-established posters, so I get that, but otherwise...holy crap, it looks like Custer was here. Ah, it's probably just me. Now, get off my damn lawn.

@oldmanfan How do you decide when to do The Thing? You know, the thing... Realize it's already up thread. Just wondering, b/c it's my fav part of PGDT.

Holy crap E, that's a serious deep cut reference. Well done sir.

An aside: a former Bill (fairly well known) is a financial planner for athletes, and doing quite well. He told me that he saw too many players pissing away their money--plus he had a college internship at a financial institution--and thus he got into this market niche.

Well done Beck: Spiro Agnew has entered the chat.

I've read all posts. And I agree: I made alcohol-driving mistakes when I was younger. BUT, no matter how drunk, I had an inherent sensibility not to drive 156mph on surface streets. That, gentleman (and @muppy), demonstrates a fundamental character flaw. Last: I do appreciate his remorse. But, frankly, and I don't like to admit this publicly... but I too have killed, and to this day I have remorse. Not about the enemy deaths: no, never. But rather to those brothers/sisters I may have let down by not doing more. Bottom line: there is killing and then there is straight up murder. In war, God does not guide the musket or pull the trigger, even though you make your own decisions in a chaotic, ambiguous landscape. Obviously, this was not war. In the civilian world--as all should know--decisions Ruggs made stand in much sharper relief, the "rules" more coherent and known. And, by that standard, it is eminently clear that the sentence was too lenient. Ruggs should have more time to reflect on his decisions, regardless of alcohol, and fully understand the context in which they were made.

I suspect he bought a ticket on the Toradal train.

Holy crap LA...great call on Mickey's last name. Never knew that.

17's best camera hit, by far: the "Welcome Back Canada" piece he did for Bills PR team.* Great natural presence, good comedic timing, funny voice imitation, etc. Harness that, and this kid could go places. His corporate ads still seem a little....stilted, I guess. * sorry, tried to embed the YouTube link but can't get it to f***ing work

I thought we were starting a GoFundMe for our good man? (I always think of him as 00Mike for some reason).