Beck Water

Oh, Sheesh. Can't we just enjoy a W?

The Chiefs have a very strong defense this year, especially against the pass. Historically against the Bills, they've schemed to take Diggs away and force Allen to be patient and take the underneath throw. I miss a lot watching broadcasts, but I would expect when people start analyzing film they'll find that the Chiefs D was like "OK, Allen has Diggs and no one, so we'll take away Diggs". Allen was certainly trying to hit him. Oooooh. I love it when you talk dirty like that!

Oh, Come Now. Are you honestly going to try to make a case that everything in Dunne's article is "truth"? I'm sure he didn't make it up - he had sources - but a lot of what he recounts his sources saying is not factual, it's their interpretation or opinion about things with Dunne's own interpretation and slant added in. Yes, he's a well respected journalist with real credentials and impeccable training. But, as reporter, friend, and former Dunne mentor Chuck Pollack points out, Dunne is now a private enterpreneur using direct sale of subscriptions to his content to make a living. There are plusses and minuses to that. If anyone here hates Dunne, or even is criticizing his writing, it's not because he "tells the truth". It's because he crafted a long form piece in which, to some, opinion and interpretation advanced to the level of character attack. Some of the anecdotes (which I'm sure occurredl) are NOT a good look for McDermott. But to give 25 (or however many) sources a platform to vent what seems at times to be personal animosity towards a former employer - to some of us, that's not a good look either. Same principle with Sullivan - it wasn't that he "told the truth", it was that he beat the drum of an unrelenting negative slant unremittingly, culminating in a social media complaint about the press box food (with photo of one area) - which was countered by other reporters posting photos of the full spread. That was a pretty clear metaphor for what Sullivan's writing had become: a close-in critique of negative aspects, ignoring the context of the full picture.

Reid almost certainly hasn't read the article(s) and has no idea what he would need to defend McDermott from or how. All of these coaches are strongly focused and have tunnel vision during the season. This is where IMHO Dunne's articles stood in the light of good journalistic questions that need to be asked. The real issue for Pegula and the Bills isn't whether or not McDermott has said something stupid or used stupid examples in the last 4 years or whether, as Wawrow said "people have issues with former boss; story at 11". It's whether he puts his players in the best position to succeed; whether he's made (and is making) poor game day decisions and defensive playcalls that have hindered the Bills or even cost the Bills games. Where there are problems, has he identified them correctly and identified good solutions? That kind of thing. Whether he sleeps in the facility or doesn't, sits around chewing the fat and smoking cigars with Josh Allen like Daboll did, or does/doesn't want his assistants getting too friendly with the players they coach are largely besides these points.

They're human beings getting dings and bruises during a long season. The Titans were "revved up" for us on Tues night football because they were getting slammed in the National Media. The Bengals were "revved up" for us because supposedly the Bills were 'dissing' them by selling tickets for the next game (never mind that they were doing that too). In theory, the Bills players could be "press is dunking on us, Let's Show Those SOBs". But I don't think it would be specifically support for their coach, more like "Buffalo vs. Everybody" Circle-the-Wagons attitude.

Hey, @EmotionallyUnstable , are the bolded our rooting interests?

I don't know if Dunne has a 'pre-existing beef' as such, but fired Bills Director of Player Personnel Jim Monos does a regular report for him so they're apparently tight, and he's said to be close to Bills CEO Russ Brandon (who resigned or was forced to resign after an internal investigation) and fired Bills General Manager Doug Whaley. None of these guys have found NFL work after the Bills moved on from them. He also hosted a podcast with former Bills WR Isaiah McKenzie who was "beefy" - he was benched by McDermott, felt he wasn't used or targeted appropriately last season, and finally was cut after the signing of Deonte Harty. One line of thought is if your friends and associates have beef, you're more likely to have beef. The Bills didn't credential Dunne as media, but technically he isn't media - he's an independent 'content creator'. They don't credential the Cover1 guys and other independent 'content creators' either. Some may think that's unfair, but there are some differences - reporters who work for media like TBN, AP, etc are supposed to have journalistic standards where they have multiple sources and verify, and editorial ovesight as a 'check and balance'. I think this standard is actually a bit 'loosy goosy' with some media who are credentialed, but that's the theory. Anyway, the point is, Dunne isn't being singled out, this is apparently a consistent Bills policy.

This seems to be a strange take. Daboll left to take a HC job, a promotion. This isn't the usual meaning of "went through".

Throat cancer. It literally brings a tear to my eye to see him talking so clearly (he had part of his jaw removed and had to re-learn how to talk)

Bingo. We concur. I'll even go further: the piece might have been more effective at elevating that question for discussion, without all the ancillary stories that, given the wording and slant, seem to reach the point of character attack. The real question the Bills have to address, is whether McDermott's in-game decision making can improve, and whether he can develop himself as a team coach, not one who focuses on defense to the detriment of offense sometimes. I just posted a link from a Jim Kelly interview over in the KC game week thread. I thought it was interesting that Kelly specifically mentioned in-game decisions as needing to be better. You're entitled to your opinion, of course, but in mine, I think the degree to which it was slanted and seemed personal distracted from that very germaine and topical and important question.

To be fair, I don't know that Dunne cherry-picked fired or dismissed former Bills. But, he has to go out and independently persuade people to talk to him. And, typically, people who are "salty" are more interested in having someone give them a voice, right? Then there's the fact that who knows how many people Dunne talked to overall - people who were "I had fun playing for Buffalo, nothing really bad to say about it" aren't much of a story.

Just to be clear, in the post you're following up where I said "yes he was charged:, I was talking about Justyn Ross. Re: Von Miller: Did I mishear, or did Beane say something to the effect "I think this case is going to be open for a while"? The prosecutor has a doozy - 911 call, any police statements or evidence, victim statements at the time, now alleged victim allegedly recanting and saying there was no assault, it's just a big misunderstanding, and an alleged perpetrator who is wealthy and high profile. It's A Lot. I don't think the NFL is intentionally treating low- and high-profile players differently, but if they're taking the stance "no charges" = "no exempt list", since high-profile players typically have more $$ thus access to better attorneys and therefore, prosecutors may be more reluctant to just charge them, it effectively seems that way.

Um. Two of the four paragraphs in my post were about bail. " "Further down it says "The magistrate shall allow the person arrested reasonable time and opportunity to consult counsel and shall, after determining whether the person is currently on bail for a separate criminal offense and whether the bail decision is subject to Article 17.027, admit the person arrested to bail if allowed by law." Now it doesn't say that the law only allows the person arrested to bail if they have been charged. It would go against common sense that an arrested/not charged person could not obtain bail, while an arrested/charged person could obtain bale - but, to paraphrase what I said to Muppy, "these are legal proceedings. I'm expecting them to make sense. That's my mistake. That's where I'm going wrong." "

Not at all; peer-reviewed scientist (not clinician) objects to being doxxed on a football fan site, where scientific credentials (not to mention my home address) are not at all relevant to assessing my POV on football fan topics. Thank you for your kind words. We agree that this piece was a substantial investment of time, and that time is money to Dunne as to the rest of us. This is how Dunne makes his living and feeds himself and his family. And, whether coincidence or not, the timing of the release likely maximized interest - and thus, potentially, money through subscribers. I don't think it was frivolous or shoddy, but it does seem pretty clear that Dunne is not simply serving as a conduit for others anecdotes and opinions, but either 1) shaping what he gathered to support his own POV or 2) inserting his own POV that was shaped by the opinions and anecdotes he gathered. I can't tell which. Probably to some extent, both. And I don't think we can rule out shaping a POV to maximize controversy - and thus, potentially, money through subscribers. As you say, it was an investment of time, and time is money. Dunne had to collect his own sources and persuade them to talk to him. One way to do that is talk to a handful of guys, and they each suggest you talk to a couple guys, and so forth. It wouldn't take long to build up a large number of sources that way, but it would be pretty easy to slide into a collection of sources that pretty much serve as an echo chamber, reinforcing the same POV. And, if current players and coaches don't generally want to talk to him, especially during the season, many of his sources will be former coaches and players. It leads to, as John Wawrow said, "People have issues with their former boss: story at 11".

Thank you very much for your research and for sharing this. It does go against what's said on a number of other legal sites. On the other hand, many of them are not specific to Texas. This document is: https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/Docs/CR/htm/CR.15.htm You might notice the description of a warrant of arrest does not mention charges being filed - simply that it must name the offense of which the person is accused, and that further down there is a statement "IF charges are filed" which implies that a warrant may be issued without charges and the charges are separate Further down it says "The magistrate shall allow the person arrested reasonable time and opportunity to consult counsel and shall, after determining whether the person is currently on bail for a separate criminal offense and whether the bail decision is subject to Article 17.027, admit the person arrested to bail if allowed by law." Now it doesn't say that the law only allows the person arrested to bail if they have been charged. It would go against common sense that an arrested/not charged person could not obtain bail, while an arrested/charged person could obtain bale - but, to paraphrase what I said to Muppy, "these are legal proceedings. I'm expecting them to make sense. That's my mistake. That's where I'm going wrong." So I'm left unclear, based on the above Texas Legal Statutes site, whether your DA friend and legal subreddit advice are correct here 🤷‍♂️ I've been actually hoping to draw out one of our site lawyers/jurists to weigh in since it's well known the best way to get correct info on the Interweb is to post wrong info, but so far No Joy. You're certainly not wrong in that it is in the league's interest to obfuscate here

It's published and accessioned in Medline and PubMed. But I ain't telling you my name. Sorry.NotSorry.

Dunne? Ty Dunne? Is that you? 😄 Just kidding. I write reports. I write for publication. Last paper I wrote had 32 referenced sources and was so dry and technical you could place it in the desert and have it blend right in. Journalism isn't my thing. However, I feel I have some idea how journalists operate because I chat with them on occasion. Here's the thing: Ty Dunne is technically an independent contractor now. He isn't writing for AP or for TBN which have standards for sourcing and verification in what they publish (Source: discussion with TBN sports editor Josh Barnett and AP reporter John Wawrow). Upthread, I quoted an article by reporter and former Dunne mentor Chuck Pollock who points out that if Dunne were writing for a newspaper, there is no way he could have published a piece like that based on so many anonymous sources. So, writing independently gives Dunne great power he wouldn't have if he were writing for a publication. "With Great Power Comes Great Responsibility" as Spiderman's Uncle Ben said repeatedly. What Dunne wrote is, in journalistic terms, an opinion piece or opinion column. He has sources, but he's not simply a conduit; he's not limiting himself to the "testimony of others". He's mixing in his own slant and interpretation and using the sources to illustrate and support it. That's not necessarily a bad thing, just a style of journalistic writing. Several people upthread have gone point by point through fair-use excerpts and shown this pretty conclusively. But, that you don't recognize this and refer to Dunne as "a conduit" and say "the testimony belongs to others", casts some doubt about your own understanding. I wouldn't argue that it was 'released to inflict damage'. I don't know or pretend to know Dunne's motivations. Dunne himself said in public interviews that he rushed completing the article after the Eagles game because he felt that close OT loss illustrated many of his points. I think releasing it at a nexus point in the season, has the potential to maximize the interest it generates, and thus the traffic to Dunne's site/subscribers. It's pretty clearly in Dunne's financial interest to release it now, but I don't know for sure whether financial interest motivated him, either. Releasing it now also has a high potential to cause damage to the Bills season, but I can't tell you if that was a motivation or collateral damage.

We'll apparently do it as many times as necessary. I grant you that the media is not writing in a way that clarifies the distinction but "facing" a charge, means to the media, "according to what you're said to have done, these are the charges that could be filed against you." not "you have been charged with these crimes". It's kind of an unclear way of writing about it. But Miller has not (as far as I know still) been formally charged with a crime https://www.nbcsports.com/nfl/profootballtalk/rumor-mill/news/von-miller-has-no-comment-on-felony-assault-charge same article See the distinction they're making "facing" vs. not "formally charged"? It's the same one the NFL is making, like it or don't (and there are things to like about it) I'm not sure what CBS news item you're looking at but some of the ones I've seen are even worse for blurring the distinction Again: Arrested on suspicion does not equal charged Police can arrest you when they believe (and get a judge to agree) they have 'probable cause' that you committed a crime (arrested on suspicion) Charges have to be filed by a prosecutor or a Grand Jury If he were being arrested and charged it would be "arrested on charges of...." He can also be charged without being arrested, and issued a summons to appear in court to answer for the charges At which point we are going way over my paygrade. But that's the distinction the NFL is making

No, Peterson was not at the "same stage Von Miller is at" (being arrested. Peterson was indicted by a grand jury Sept 12 and placed on the exempt list 5 days later. The league has said they will wait to act until/unless there are charges. That's apparently their standard for "exempt list" This has been explained multiple times up thread. The bottom line TL;DR is: Police can arrest someone they have 'probable cause' to determine to have committed a crime. This is different than charges, which are filed by a prosecutor or by a Grand Jury. A person can be indicted or charged without being arrested A person can be arrested without being charged (anyone who is arrested can plea for bail) Don't believe me? ==> Google

The difference is right in the headline of the linked article in the post. "Charge against Chiefs receiver Justyn Ross upgraded to felony in domestic violence case" See the key word "charge"? Ross was charged. That's why he went on the "exempt" list.

We are in entire agreement here.

Jerry is such a Rosebud. Ralph fired Bill Polian, despite the pleadings of Marv Levy, because, as Levy recounted Ralph to have said, "I just can't get along with him", over a period of 3 years Ralph said so in an interview at the time published in TBN, I think

Yes, he was charged. In November he made a deal to misdemeanor "disturbing the peace", pled guilty, and was sentenced to a diversion program for 1st timers.

I believe in the Tooth Fairy, Santa Claus 🎅, the Easter Bunny🐇 , and that Ty Dunne in fact just happened to randomly finish this story and decide to put it on his site 3 days before one of the biggest games of the year. In fact, someone upthread posted about an interview Dunne did, where Dunne said that he hurried to finish the article and get it out after the Eagles game because reasons. I'm feeling too lazy to dig that post out of 101 pages though, so Believe it or Don't