leh-nerd skin-erd

The quote referenced is from one of the parties to the lawsuit. This may well be true, but certainly could be out of context or an outright lie. It certainly feeds into the charicature of the greedy robber baron stomping on the throat of the little guy. I agree the NFL is in trouble with these lawsuits. The storyline is tailor made to pit the hapless guy in the trenches against bigFootball. I fall into the camp of seeing the truth a somehwhere in the middle, and wonder at a guy coming back and saying "I took 20 pills a day....look at what they did to me.".

#dagrassyknoll

Agree with your post, and the post from Kelly T. Dogg that sparked your reply. The other dawgg doesn't like the trade, and that's fine, but I read a couple posts where he called the trade 'reckless'. Call me crazy, but the trade appeared to be anything BUT reckless. In fact, it appears to have been considered, designed and executed flawlessly by the front office. Time will tell if it was the right choice, but that's the same for every draft every time every year. Seems to me Whaley et al have a plan, have faith in EJ and are trying to build a team around him.

We clearly out-maneuvered them in 2014 by giving them a 9th in exchange for their 4th, no?

one of the problems with living in a sound bite world is that absent context, just about anything sounds sorta dumb. obviously, you read that as bold for the sale of boldness. you might be right. i read that, and look that the totality of what they have been trying to do and see it as being bold to improve the team, win football games, and get to the playoffs. i'm happy to stipulate that rb is a bean counter and the overall financial health of the team is always a consideration. bottom line--the guys in charge felt like they made a sensible deal at a reasonable price. i would not want the guys in charge operating in any way other than that...though i reserve the right to keep my pitchfork, tar and feathers close at hand.

you're cherry picking facts to build your argument backwards. Cousins is picked to back up rg3 In case something bad happened, and something bad happened. Thereafter there's plenty of controversy surrounding Shanahan's handling of the situation, including his desire to get rg3 back on the field quite possibly much earlier than he should have been. Taken as a whole, the Shanahan era came to what was a very necessary end I'n a relatively short period of time. I don't wish that upon petine, but this particulary story is a peculiar one to choose to point out a forward thinking coach.

Great story, but it's important to consider all chapters in a book before predicting the outcome. For instance the story of the Titanic would read like this: Chapter I: They built this really cool boat. Chapter II: They said it could never sink. Chapter III: Lots of people believed them. Chapter IV: They had a really nice time. Chapter V: Leo DiCaprio banged this hot rich girl. Chapter VI: Holy crap they hit an iceberg. Chapter VII: Lots of people died swiftly, yet painfully. The End I have the miracle draft and playoff run of the Shanahan Washington Redskins as Chapters I thru IV, and Shanahan's post Playoff run as head coach as chapters VI and VII.

no, you're wrong. you turned the other cheek. you forgave. this is the very essence of strength, and you sir are a virtuous man. you're...a...role model. i mean, does all that make more sense when you forgive the guy who stuffed your hand a wood chipper? yeah. but how often does that actually happen to regular guy from Webster? better off taking the lead on this and showing others the way. huh, look at that, you're a leader, too. thanks man.

in fairness, you likely weren't lobbying for Wannstadt's scheme last year, and he was brought in because our defense blew chunks before that...then Petine came in and while improved---he left. so, two changes were necessary because we sucked, one because the DC was acknowledged and given his next shot. would you have promoted from within, or brought in a scheme specific coach, and if so, who(m)? while like most i wanted to see Petine x2, that wasn't meant to be. i love the fact that they are bringing in a guy with an agressive mindset, whatever that really means. At a minimum--he seems to be a coach that encourages his guys to play with passion and a mean streak. i'm with RealityC--i'm going to relax (at least until it's time to hurl another remote through the flat screen).

there are 275 nfl teams to root for between Buffalo and Oregon (and there's a good one there, too, i hear) and the real questions is....what twists and turns happened in your life that make you care?

and that's all well and good, and i'm not disagreeing with you, non-heavenly one. they could have made a mistake here, or thought they got someone for a fair buck when in fact they didn't. time will tell, and sam monson will be off doing his thing with the next batch of fa signings. but to be fair--if you're looking for commentary supporting the move, you have polian...and the only one that truly matters, that of the bills. he's certainly not an expensive signing, relatively speaking. put another way---is the thought that no one was eer going to sign the guy...or sign him only for vet minimum? the fact remains..sammy mons keeps moving and we'll know soon enough if the signing of Chris Williams by the Buffalo Bills was a fair deal or sucked some'in awful. he's here, they chose him, that's what they saw. marrone's degree is a master's in line management (or so they say), so let's see what happens.

I understand that a writer has to be creative to make things interesting...but implying they never watched any tape on the guy--literally or figuratively---it's kind of cheesey. Riiighhhht----no one could ever possibly see it differently than you, an esteemed writer from PFF. You know what? I had Sam Monson from PFF rated 17th out of the internet bloggers I rated, and I only rated 11. I have him at -.66537. On the other hand, I don't get wrapped up any more on what a guy from PFF or Rotoworld writes because it's largely irrelevant to the fact that THEY thought he was worth it. he's one of our guys now, my assumption is that they have a plan for the guy and they didn't just throw a dart against the board. oh--and I definitely support guys who write positive pieces about players who actually do sign here--that's totally different.

Again--still trying to figure this out from your perspective. If they tag him and pay him the $8m, get 16 games out of him, he plays hard, that's good value. he walks next year. they already tagged him once, so it seems they thought he was tag-worthy and were willing to move forward. you can't dismiss the fact that he missed an awful lot of time. do you tag him at $8m if you know 2014 goes the same way? i'm not talking about he goes out, plays and gets injured, i mean the murky underworld where he has questionalbe injuries and has trouble getting on the field. if they opted to lowball him--or, from their perspective, pay him max value for what they think he's worth, well, we wased a lot of time and energy as fans on something that was never going to happen. that would suck.

did they send the right message last year? if so, why isn't it working? byrds are rats with wings. fly...fly away little clarice...

which means that they should let him walk, no? i don't think you pay a guy $2m more than you think he's worth because you have cap space. i don't even think you tag a guy for $8.4 when you figure he's going to potentially sit 8, 9, or 10 games. i think the bills organization is rightly criticized for years on inpetitude, and perhaps byrd's thought is 'screw 'em, thime to go'. if so, you get what you get. on the other hand, it's become failry clear to me that it's not as simple as "pay him" or "tag and trade'. if it was that simple, it would be done, one way or the other. my read---they understand intelectually that it makes sense for a player to have a long term deal v. a franchise tag, but from where the rubber hits the road---they guy was late to the practice field, missed a large part of the season and it still cost millions. perhaps they feel he was dogging it, and while understandable last year...why bash your head against the wall all over again? Why go down that road when you can see itn playing out that way again? as for byrd--the compassionate human being inside of me understands what he's thinking, and it's far from personal. the football fan side of me thinks if he goes after they offered him a substantial deal that seems to make sense--he's a mercenary and it's a waste of time to think any more about it other than to wish him bad football mojo wherever he goes.

My man, you're a passionate soul and that clearly comes through. I'm sure you're a pretty good guy, too--gay straight or otherwise. On the other hand, if you swap out some of the concepts and replace them with some others, you would have been on horseback during the Crusades. here's my problem with the whole discussion. some folks are gay. some folks are not. some folks are religious. some are not. some gay folks are religious, and some not-gay folks are not...and so on. i'd make the argument that the baker in the story doesn't see his religion as a 'choice' any more than any gay person thinks he or she had a choice. i think people expose their biases in their inability to see the fine distinction between what appear to be two totally contrasting points of view. here's an example where you wrote "so long as those views don't cause any harm.". here's my question to you: "Harm" to who(m)?". Put another way...should the baker be compelled to violate his personal and deeply held religious beliefs (and thus be harmed) so someone else is not? In our quest for a perfect world order that celebrates diversity, we sure like to see everyone painting with the same color crayons on certain social issues. Oh--and not that it matters, but as a baker, I'd think that all green is good and it would be nice if the guy was able to reconcile his personal beliefs with the joy he might well bring these two individuals just trying to make their way through the world like anyone else. but..if he could not...so be it. the market tends to fix those things one way or the other.

Working perfectly! Assuming this isn't a jimmy Fallon scam, it would not surprise me to hear the league wanted to go down this road. I think if they could find a way to stamp out human nature, all this stuff could work. And, rap music, too, you'd have to dial it back to that first-ish one by...the "something" gang? I remember 'hip hop hippidy" and then a blur. Speaking of sensitivity and whatnot...would they penalize you if you offended religious types with a few G-d's? Or that's all cool? The way players congregate in the middle of the field after a game, and thank The Lord for God given gifts seems you might really offend quite a few players and common folk alike.

Sounds easily enforceable, and there is no possibility of controversy.

you speak with great conviction, which is admirable. on the other hand, mixing phrases with "impossible to believe" and "i'm sure he felt" and "evidence now suggests" all speak to the fact that you're making up your mind based on your interpretation of the precious few facts at your disposal. in other words, you're guessing, which is fine, but it's still a guess. i submit some more reasons that marrone might have chosen to go in a different direction; hilliard made a pass at his wife/hilliard said he looked fat in those jeans/hilliard wanted out/hilliard falsified his resume/hilliard got caught dipping his pen in the company ink/hilliard said ralph is cheap. excellent post gb. to clarify, my point was that given what we know as fans, it could have been hilliard got sassy because of marrone's decision, or marrone might have been upset with hilliard's performance. truth is, we speculate but don't know. you said it more eloquently.

I was overwhelmed by the fonts, honestly. I should have grabbed the lp from the basement. Besides, since I'm old enough to have the album, I should get a pass on any typos. Here's hoping marrone's on the right track. I'm running out of time. I

this is a classic 'all other things being equal' response. using your logic that 'he assumes that it's fine with his HC', in a perfect world i'd assume you're right--all other things being equal. rationally, i'd think members of the team follow the rules set out by the coaching staff, so, since stevie did what stevie did, he's of the mind that it's all good. i don't see that application here at all, especially given sj's actions in the past. it seems to be fairly common knowledge that stevie goes off the rez every now and again, are we to assume he does so with the understanding that the coach is on borard with it all? problem is, all other things are not always equal. dareus and his apparent lack of respect for meeting times...how can that be explained or rationalized? seems pretty simple to me. meeting starts at 10. you showed up consistently at 10:17. did he assume that was fine with the coach too? as for the other things posted...i don't know who has inside information and who doesn't. seems to me as likely that marrone let hilliard go because he whiffed on rogers ("Doug, too much work and the kid's a total f-up) as it went some other way. I have no idea other than it just is what it is. in the end, marrone will succeed, or he will not. i could care less if he hired his brother's girlfriends uncle's cousin to be wr coach if he wins games or not. i find it implausible that marrone--or any coach---would go out of his way to hire someone he knew was likely to fail simply because they play canasta together every other friday night. i think he hired him because he thought he could do the job, though who knows, maybe the guy was his thrid choice and the first two said no. one more thing--in the end, we all want proven coaches who are the best at what they do. that's natural. at the same time, shanahan boots it in washington, joe gibbs redeux was bad, spagnola and schwartz are two examples of hot hand defensive coordinators that most fans would have welcomed as their 'new head coach'. it's all a giant crap shoot. i'm with the brave lion.

with all the molecules zinging around in the world, bouncing into/off of/around each other, there were two guys in the league who ended up sitting out the season due to a bullying scandal. one guy says one thing, the other guy says something else, the league investigates, the team deals with it and blah blah blah. my general rule of thumb: when someone else has a problem, why make it yours?

check, check and double check. it's not my place to suggest what the OP's original intent was, but I've felt that inconsistency from officials game to game has given some NFL games a very WWE feel. I know rationally that the fix is not in, I know rationally that no one is out to get me--but we don't love the game for rational reasons. but--based on where i am at this point as a fan---i get very pissed off when that let 'em play/don't let 'em play question comes up. call the frigging penalties. don't call b-s penalties, but don't call 'em sometimes and let 'em go others. i understand that officials make mistakes or don't see everything that we can see in super slow-mo, but some of the stuff is, in my opinion, unprofessional. i was pulling for denver, but agree seattle was the best team out there for 60 straight minutes. good point on john fox--denver looked unprepared pretty much across the board. that said--let's assume for a second that the penalty is called on the seattle defense when the receiver is intergfered with. At that point, it's early, denver has a first down and maybe theya re still in business. football is an emotional game, and when everything seems to being going against you, it's becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. anyway, misery loves company so i'm on my way to a sporting event where one of my friends will be, he's a denver fan, i get to bring that up.... so everybody wins.

seems to me you have your experience as a coach and it allows for a different perspective than some other folks might have. my assumption is that what some see as inconsistency you simply view as part of human element of the game. i've read the various comments over the past few days...i don't see where the OP said anything that rises to the level of 'tomfoolery' at all. he said there are inconsistencies in the way games are officiated, and for him, it ruins the experience. i'd hazard a bet that if i asked 100 nfl football fans if the officiating was consistent week to week, game to game, i figure 90 of them would say it was not. the most common example...."Gosh, it was great to see them just let 'em play!". I recall the great marv levy referring to an official as 'an overly-officious jerk'. bb's complaints about the play in carolina, his comments about welker taking out talib..aren't those just examples of calls he thought should be made, but weren't? taken a step further--the seattle td set up by the pass interference call was absolutely the correct call. a short time later, broncos still in it (in retrospect, probably, the equivalent of a guy still having a chance to survive just before he falls into the wood chipper), driving, and the seattle dback pretty clearly cutting off the receiver route with no flag. no pi, no hold, no nothing. We're not talking in the trenches, we're talking a play with two guys near the ball and no one around them. Missed call? Judgement call? Let 'em play? the nfl should cringe when someone makes the comment that the game was exceptionally called, or when some announcer says they 'just let 'em play today...". the goal should be to be consistent week in, week out. if, as some have suggested, seattle built their team with the understanding that they'd be overly aggressive play after play because the officials won't call penalties on every play---they should be penalized play after play if the rules suggest they should. word.

Here's the reality for all you EJ apologists. If you can't accurately predict the career trajectory of a qb after 73 minute playing time of regular season football in his rookie year, well, you ain't paying attention.