GG

jw doing his homework on the new coach. Great job.

What kind of moronic logic is that? Israel is nominally a Jewish state. Palestinian disagreements with Israel's policies are rooted by the insistence by Israel that it remain a Jewish state. So how is criticising a party's desire to remain Jewish not be considered anti-Semitic?

Point was that Pegula gave the expected non-answer answers, instead of stonewalling Murphy. But he did provide a few details about the organization and offered a few parallels to oil drilling operation. Didn't learn much new, but also didn't sound like a total dufus, which TBN likes to portray

The exchanges also illustrate the second rate stature of TBN. Maybe some of their scribes need a journalistic refresher that if they don't get a satisfactory answer to a dysfunction question, they're not going to get a better answer by asking the owner again directly if there's dysfunction in his organization. Smart journalists can get the answers they need by properly framing the questions. TBN just wanted to badger their point without any indication that they wanted to really dig for a good answer. Pegula's spot on WGR was a perfectly fine appearance by the owner to say nothing new of substance.

Did Alex Spanos give a PC to explain McCoy's firing? Did Kroenke? Were Pegula's answers worse than Yorke essentially telling a reporter to F-off because you can't fire an owner? Is it worse than Maras lying about Coughlin's retirement directly to the press? When I look at these things, I try to find important content, not how the message is delivered.

But don't complain when the answer is a stonewall

Again, they're being pilloried over not being media savvy and not on the content of their non-answers. No one is discussing the possibility that he doesn't want to touch the Tyrod & Rex questions because of legal implications. Both cases are probably in the lawyers' hands right now, and it doesn't do the franchise any good to be blabbing about it to TBN. From a fan's perspective, how much more information would we get if he answered about: Rex, "The team was not moving in the direction we wanted it to, so the coach and we agreed to part ways" vs. "It's a personal thing" Tyrod, "He is under contract right now. He had a procedure last week. We'll see how his recovery goes" vs. "It's a personal thing" If I were in their position, I'd be tired of the amateur hour questions that always pop up. From a fan's persp

I hate, hate the guy's body language.

If you want to be argumentative and think that Whaley was totally in the dark based on his answers, go ahead. The more plausible answer is that Whaley didn't want to deal with the questions, but is clearly not savvy enough to deflect them. Maybe he should adopt a page out of Belichick's or Trump's book in how to deal with reporters he doesn't like?

It was OK. The critics rated it much higher than it merited.

That is blatantly clear by the types of questions that were asked.

Surprised we haven't seen the Senator chime in yet.

Not quite. Made the playoffs with Christian Ponder Then the bottom fell out thanks to the Cassell & Ponder combo. BTW, Percy had his best moments under Frazier

Is this the addendum to the Rooney Rule?

Tyrod will be looking for starter QB money, which LA won't pay. If not, his best bet is to take another $10 million/yr deal in Buffalo

Same guy - Overdorf - negotiates the contracts.

Ha ha

Bills and Tyrod contract situation made its way into The Economist's Game Theory blog. Nothing we haven't heard before, but looked at from a business publication perspective.

The plane has to go to Buffalo and return to Boca anyway.

Not Tiberius. It's Thirdborn, from his hiatus.

Ah, the old I'm just trying to get a rise out of being a troll argument? Got it.

I'm trying to make sense of your logic. Please explain your thinking that if the rule isn't needed, and Lynn is only interviewing to check the box, would he not get the interviews otherwise?

Yet, your responses are what it's about, because you haven't been arguing that the rule should be abolished, but arguing that Lynn is only interviewing because of the rule. So if the rule was abolished, then Lynn & others wouldn't get the interviews, right? Not much of a contradiction in your reasoning, is there?

No, not exactly. Evolved minds can discern a difference between a qualified candidate and a check the box candidate.

Can somebody please get this f'ng tandem bike out of my office?