leh-nerd skin-erd

He looked like the dimmest of wits when questioned initially about being a cheater. The fact that he's basically a corporate brand in and of himself allows him access to the best legal minds money can buy doesn't necessarily change that. At the end of the day, what starts with an issue about common sense, fair play, decency and emotion (OMG, he had his guy pull the balls and deflate them in an attempt to win football games???) boils down to two corporate heavyweights swinging heymakers in the courts. Money always talks. Whatevs.

I agree with your premise on why they chose to move on from Fred. But why would angels descend on the backs of unicorns? That makes no sense.

Don't kid yourself. It's been one long mostly uninspiring game for 15 years.

Probably just that Watergate is finally starting to bother him. I'm sure he'll be fine.

He likely had to agree not to kill the family at a later date. I'd definitely demand that as a part of any so-called settlement. The devil is in the details.

Great. Now we gotta put the kid on paid leave too? #punchedaminorintheface

Gisele is a dimwit. Legitimate self absorbed dinwit. Even looking that good, the shelf life on dimwittedness has expired. But you're correct on the rest.

These are the guys you want to speak to in the future. TB has appeals, TB is rich beyond their wildest dreams, and these chumps are indef suspended by the team? Wondering why that is when the whole thing was caused by atmospheric conditions....but TB is hanging them out to dry.

One if the funnier posts on page one included this tasty gem: "We want to see this fought tooth and nail and we do not care what it costs us.". I understand the passion for the game but sometimes these guys have to get out of their grandma's basement and get some sun on their face.

And bend his fingers forward?

Your first response was the most salient offered. "What happened to the kid"? Great question, and I don't know the answer. I don't know if he had developmental issues, poor parenting, troubled childhood or anything else, I just know that he pointed a gun at a police officer--a married guy with kids of his own to raise--and the police officer didn't shoot him, he talked him down. I'd suggest in that encounter, the officer WAS that kid's White Knight. This man was elderly, so it happened a long time ago, but is there any doubt that had he protected his own life and discharged his weapon, that in todays environment there wouldn't be CNN van camped outside his house running an endless loop about lives mattering and he should have fired at the kids leg? I'm not a gun enthusiast and have met cops I didn't particularly care for, but some of this stuff is pretty basic. The emotional fall out of the young boy being shot is understandable and tragic, but it doesn't change the fact that these things happen. I have no clue what you're trying to say in your second note. Criminals are militarizing so the police should...not? The police taking sensitivity training will result in like-kind de-escalation in the criminal ranks? My opinion? Continue to denigrate the police, encourage disrespect by treating every f'ed up police encounter as something that is the rule instead of the exception, and watch for the anarchy in the streets. I can meet you part of the way, there's noting wrong at all with acknowledging bad law enforcement and it's good for all the rest of us.

How presumptuous. My point of view was shaped by my life experience, and my experience tells me there are times you want The Easter Bunny on your side, sometimes you want a bit more fire power. I see that distinction, and personally, I think it's your limitation that you see the only logical conclusion therefore is that I'm all for a return to the days of Tammany Hall. I understand the concept, Kings, Bishops and knights of black and white. Just like "Who Moved My Cheese", It makes for a great 1-2 day off-site seminar at the local Courtyard by Marriott. You can even learn some things, too, and I'm all for that. And I agree with you in the extreme, there are those in law enforcement that should not be there, I just think when you paint with as broad a brush as you seem to on this issue, it reveals a flaw in your vision. I had the pleasure of speaking with a retired city police officer the other day. At his wife's urging he told me a story about a 14 year old juvenile who pointed a gun at him and threatened to shoot him, and how he talked the kid down by telling the kids mother that if the boy didn't put the gun down, he'd shoot him. I didn't get the opportunity to ask him if he considered himself a white knight, or the kid a bishop, or the kid's mother Mayor McCheese. He was grateful that the kid listened, and he got to go home to his own kids. I think today, absent a body camera, that cop has a potential problem if that goes badly as it often tragically does. Here's the cool thing about the way I look at the world though...when kingdomality effectively changes the way law enforcement professionals are recruited, trained, and compensated, you won't have to ask for my acknowledgement that you were correct, I'll be the first in line to say "Well done Exiled!". For now, I'll stick with it's an evolving but imperfect system, sorta like the world it serves.

My God they can package and sell anything these day. Putting aside for a moment the aryan-centric theme here, when my life is hanging in the balance during the home invasion, send me the cop voted "Most likely to cap a psycho with a head shot" by his fellow graduates at the academy.

The relevance of the past two seasons with Marrone will be determined in the next 1-2 seasons without Marrone. On the other hand, to your point, if Marrone shackled him, I'm not certain stats alone would point to him being more or less a shackler in either year. Ohbyeah, and f marrone.

What a sweet kid. Plays for the Bills and still believes in God...

The narrative, as some believed, was that Williams was in Marrone's doghaus and at some point, it was just personal. That never made sense to me. Why would a coach looking to build his resume through wins-losses keep the most talented guy of the two off the roster? What was in it for him? I'd think a coach who makes it to the top of the NFL, with a team struggling offensively, would absolutely put the best player on the field. this explanation makes sense, and would explain why a guy who went for 80 yards once might seem to be the guy at that moment, but maybe not be it so much for the other 59 minutes of the game. then again, maybe given DM's desire to build a resume to have him actually move backward on the food chain four tsteps, maybe he did botch it all and Orton is a convenient scapegoat.

this article was almost unreadable. it's like a bad jason bourne novel, weaving salary cap considerations, dead money, potential contract extensions next year, and play on the field to support the premise that the fins are best positioned to challenge the pats? What on earth does dead money have to do with beaing the pats come September? I have come to despise these guys who opine that someone was drastically overpaid, like there's a sensible rhyme or reason to this all. salaries in the NFL are the very definition of fluid. if you want to write a 'management overpaid' article, do it. if you want to write a "dolphins have more talent", do that. my humble opinion is absent getting a non-existent legit franchise qb to shore up the O, you'd be hard-pressed to argue that the signings made by Buffalo haven't strenghtened the Bills substantially on paper. the addition of Rex on D (and he acknowledged same) and Roman on O on paper make this team stronger. Not sure how you write that article, though, and not even mention the loss of wilfork as a key piece of the defense. still, this is absolutely true--the Pats rule the division until someone takes 'em out. obnoxious.

But Aaron---isn't he telling you he needs him...or at least wants him? Why else the push to sign him?

I'd suggest Hughes is integral to the defense as it stands now--contributing to the ability of other players to play to their elite level. More importantly, that's the way the guy with a stellar reputation for building elite defenses sees it as evidenced by the desire to retain him. I love the message this sends whether it works out or not. Other players will be signed, you've got a very good OC to work the other side of the ball, let's see how it plays out.

the expression that seems to fit best here is "dance with who brung ya.". nothing is guaranteed, but if they stand you up at the goal line, you still have your timeout for a pass play. if they hold you out, it wasn't meant to be.

I know where you stand on all this having read your posts, but think you're wrong on this 7 years ago, it really would have sounded like sour grapes. I think his point is given the latest pats controversy, it's fair to wonder. The interesting part for me here is the number of players/ex-players saying the same sort of thing.

The head banging guy in your post is perfect. It applies to this whole thing: "It is no big deal" "Everyone does it" "it didn't matter, the colts got blown out" "Brady didn't know" "Belechick seems to be telling the truth" The balls were checked and they were fine, they were subsequently checked and they were not fine by a fair amount. The league was notified of a potential similar issue in November. You have all sorts of former players, immediately recognizable names, who use some variation of "this ain't cool.". When was the last time that happened, including spygate? Jesus, here's something crazy. Yeah, we did it, but we didn't think it would be such a big deal. NFL is bound to look silly here.

I'm with you on this one. The rules rejects the minutia that the nfl counts as law. We'll flip a coin, winner gets choice, both teams get the ball unless one scores 6 first, but if the first team scores 3 first they win if the other team doesn't score 3 or 6, but if they score 3 we keep going until someone scores again. Both teams possess the ball once. High score wins thereafter. Green Bay collapsing in the final minutes is not the point. Besides if you can cover on special teams; or kick the ball out of play, your defense has a chance to stop all scoring. If you can't stop a team from going ______ yards, you don't deserve to be there.

this is pretty simple in my opinion. if they didn't deflate the balls, it's much ado about nothing. i hate the pats but find this one a stretch. if they did, they are the dumbest smart people in football. the nfl is on the ropes, constantly being battered for things like ray rice/ap, drug use, spyagte, bountygate and many calls have come for Goodell's head on a stick. to do something as silly as deflate footballs in violation of a pretty simple rule is assinine in this environment. it lends to the conpsiracy theorists, the officiating issues, and the general feeling that the game is tilted one way or the other. if they did it, i'd look for a substantial penalty from the league. this happened on the national stage, one of two important games, and if the NFL isn't embarrassed by it all, they have lost all perspective.