BadLandsMeanie

The first thought I had was he wanted to do it to show that NFL players have some brains too. People always calling them stupid.

No. I would not consider for a moment bringing him in until he actually does something besides blab and talk and jabber that there has been change. He has done Zero, nothing at all. And he pretty much stole his paychecks from the Browns. Nope.

I don't have any trouble with your viewpoint. We just have a different take on it. I think the Jills add fun to games when I am there. There is a good hour of games where nothing happens at all. So that time is when I like the Jills doing their thing. For you they add nothing and I am ok with too. What I didn't like is the whole business of they are ugly, they are (my word) slutty, they are causing trouble (the Bills caused most of the trouble here), they are being forced to shake and shimmy in scandalous clothing, and so on. Much of what was said is mean spirited. That is what annoyed me. And last it isn't political, it is cheerleading. That is all it is. But as far as I like them and you don't particularly like them, ok, no problem there.

NAME ATT COMP PCT YDS AVG YDS/G LONG TD TD% INT INT% SACK YDSL RATE Case Keenum 481 325 67.6 3547 7.4 227.4 65 22 4.6 7 1.5 22 136 98.3 NAME ATT COMP PCT YDS AVG YDS/G LONG TD TD% INT INT% SACK YDSL RATE Tyrod Taylor 420 263 62.6 2799 6.7 169.5 47 14 3.3 4 1.0 46 256 89.2 It is confusing to figure this stuff out because statistically at least Keenum had a much better year than Taylor did. And the Vikes went 13-3 and won the division and a playoff game. Versus the Bills 9-8 and a loss in the wild card game.. I know the Vikes have better receivers but is it that clear cut that Keenum isn't any better than Taylor?

No I figure whatever "cred" I have on the board is taking a hit from this thread. Because I am disagreeing with most everyone. Not everybody is in here though so I think the damage won't be so bad. I was following the flow of conversation but about the question, if I had to guess, and I do. I would guess they won't have Jills any more. A pretty good angle you came up with outta this. Not bad. Not bad at all!

We should have a fug off and see which of us wins

Well the Jills were always dancers, not models. That being said they were about 150,000 times better looking than I am. So I think they were very pretty indeed. And I am just guessing of course, but from how you talk, I bet you are one ugly mug. Am I right? I got a suggestion for you. If you don't like personal insults, don't start with them like you did. Now run along skippy and you can carry on your argument with the imaginary me you have created in your mind.

Your summary there bears only some coincidental relationship with the reality here. And I have seen enough of that sort of thing you wrote over the years to recognize it for what it is, even as it is now clothed in progressive Democratic type wording. It is the same message as any overbearing "Christian" clergy of whatever denomination of the past. In the current day, you sound quite like a modern day Irainian Mullah. Different wording same thing. You want to impose your view, which is twisted, on to others, and you are impenetrably convinced that you are both right and "good." You are morally correct. And the young women who want to do this, are "jiggling their money makers". Cheerleading as the Jills did it is a celebration of youth and beauty. And the young women enjoy doing it, as they should. They are cheering for our team and participating in the biggest event we have around here. They are VERY good dancers. They wear plenty of clothing for any normal person to be ok with it. Your line about forcing people to do things your way for their own good is as old as time and it is always a lie. It is about your personal power and self aggrandizement and there is Nothing moral about it. And there is nothing wrong with being a pretty young woman. Even though your sort has been trying to insist that there is in one way or another for at least a thousand years now.

If your testicles descend and you mature and grow into a healthy balanced man with some perspective, you won't look at it in such a stupid childish way.

These Jills threads make me uncomfortable. NOBODY else on the whole board likes the Jills? NOBODY else enjoys how they dance and bring beauty and spectacle and a sense of an Event to the game? NOBODY else likes women around except as a target they can have sex with? It makes me feel like Bills fans are nasty, mean spirited, and abnormal. I like women and I like how the Jills dance and cheer because they are so good at it and it is fun and pretty. That used to be normal. Now I am in some strange category of my own. And it makes me uncomfortable.

For my part, I am not taking the bait here in this thread, or from protest participants and supporters, or from President Trump. In my view, that is because I can think and control my impulses so that my activities are directed in a way that benefits me and that reflect how I want to conduct myself. No amount of explanation seems to be effective or desired. So I will leave that out. So what I will do is watch the players, owners, the league and some proportion of fans on both sides be trolled and manipulated and if it starts to bother me I can just tune all that out.

Well, I was making more of a joke than it sounded.

Ok. But how about you leave the cheerleaders the eff alone during my lifetime?

That's not creepy at all.

Thats the first funny thing i have seen you say. Got a LOL out of me..

Of course I would like the Jills to come back. Is that you in your icon picture?

Well, you can see what I said when I wrote there. It is plain enough. An I did not say what you reworded it into. Which is why you needed to reword it I guess. Thats not very insightful. Everyone who posts here has too much time on their hands. You make good sense. If the team owners says he will do what he can for somebody, that carries quite a bit of weight. I remember that joke. It wasn't very nice but it was funny.

Thanks I didn't know that. Also, Russ Brandon's title includes the word "Partner"? Holy cow.

He might not be able to get rid of overdorf, or russ brandon, yet. I think he is just chipping away maybe. People do it that way. Chipping away at the foundation.

I will miss Randy Ribbeck. I actually didn't even know his name until today. It was comforting seeing him at camp year after year. He gave me a sense of continuity. Come to think of it he's the only Bills staff at camp who does anything besides stand around during practice. They will probably need two people to replace him, at least during camp practices. Obviously I have no idea why they fired him. But I will say it is just plain stupid to say he was the source of some kind of leaks. The so called big "leaks" of the past have been stuff that could only have been known by Pegula, Whaley, Brandon, and the head coach. Unless they just blab and blab like idiots which you never know. So let's not blame the equipment guy, So lets stop with the stupid stuff about this man being fired for being a leaker which y'all just made up on the spot in case anyone didn't know you were prone to saying stupid and mean things when a man is down. Now we know. I have no information why he was fired. But the way the world works most of the time says he was fired because he is getting older and statistically is more likely for some kind of ailment that will could put him out of commission for a month or two. Also he is not beholden to the new regime. Control freaks like to have hired everybody. That way everybody is in their debt and also is the "type" of person who they want around. Last , 50% chance the job will go to a friend of McD or Bean's like they did when they got rid of Byrd and hired the guy McD went to high school with. Those are the everyday reasons things happen in every business every day. And that is probably all this is.

Damn. If that was it I bet I'm next

I just wanted to say how much I agree with you here. Handling of a QB is very important and the Bills did a rotten job. Many teams do a rotten job at that. For Losman I have a specific memory. The year they handed him the starting job I went to 1/2 to 3/4 of the open training camp practices. He had issues that it was plain to see he wasn't yet ready to be the starter. Then between the close of camp and the season opener the reports were all that he was looking very good and had the wrinkles ironed out. I remember being really surprised at the start of the season, that he had the exact same issues still. The same ones from camp, that they said he had cleaned up, were still there. What they had done you see was that they lied. Like I say I was surprised by that back then. But I learned something about football teams and front offices.

Im not one to be critical of someones extra work and quality post. But I can't resist. Your rankings would be better communicated if they were laid out in a simpler clearer way. It is too mathy and too messy. " The criteria used were completion %/10 (to put in the same numeric scale), Y/A, and TD/INT ratio. Here are the rankings, THE ORDER IN WHICH THE QB WAS DRAFTED, and his draft position, going back class by class: 2016: Prescott (8th QB, 4th round, Pick 126), Goff (1st QB, Rd 1 Pick 1), Wentz (2nd QB, Rd 1 Pick 2) 2015: Mariota (2nd, Rd 1 Pick 2) Winston (1st, Rd Pick 1) 2014: Garoppolo (5th QB, Rd 2 Pick 62), Derek Carr (4th QB, Rd 2 Pick 36), [both these guys fail 1 criteria: Teddy Bridgewater (2nd QB, Rd 1 Pick 32), Blake Bortles (1st QB, Rd 1 Pick 1)] 2013: no "yes" hits. Glennon scores highest (3rd QB, Rd 3 Pick 73) 2012: Wilson (6th QB, Rd 3 Pick 75), Cousins (8th QB, Rd 4, Pick 102) Griffin (2nd QB, Rd 1 Pick 2) Foles (7th QB, Rd 3 Pick 88) Luck (1st QB, Rd 1 Pick 1) Tannehill (3rd QB, Rd 1 Pick 8)" Take this in particular "The criteria used were completion %/10 (to put in the same numeric scale), Y/A, and TD/INT ratio." I kind of get it but wha...? Is this replicatable by the info you give here? How are these things weighted? How does your scale here compare to other more popular rankings? Now I will go back and sit and think and try to figure out what the heck you mean here. It's monday morning and my brain is slow but I think even in a wednesday afternoon I would need a few to get all the meaning out of this.

Ok on the clarification part. I can see where they would be up to speed on the vets. As for the hyperbole, you kind of make my point for me. But first let me clarify the language. "....but show me another mistake they can make, that can take 15 years to fix, and I won't worry as much about the QB choice!" Note that I said can take 15 years to fix. I didn't say it can take 15 years to make another mistake. Getting to your post, they didn't fix Lossman with Edwards, right? And they didn't fix Edwards with EJ. And they didn't fix EJ with Tyrod. The trouble is, getting someone new is a gamble. Not a sure thing. It is easy to miss and hard to get it right. Say the odds are 50-50 drafting a top guy. You can miss twice at 50-50 odds easily. So at the timetable of doing that every 4 years one could surmise it takes you 3 times if the luck isn't good, which is 12 years worth of trying to fix it right there. The bottom line is drafting another guy isn't fixing it. And yeah maybe 15 years is a slight exaggeration if you have a team run by normal people who don't constantly do stupid things. But it is understandable since the Bills have been trying, if it can be said they have been trying to fix it, since Jim Kelly retired in 1996 which was 22 years ago.

Hey Im no expert but we disagree. I think Tre White is worth a pretty high first round pick by himself, because he isn't a gamble. We know how well he transitioned to the NFL. He is a Pro Bowl caliber player already and he makes chump change compared to what he is worth. Add the two later first round picks to that and I think its a very tempting offer. Really, the thought of it horrifies me. I think we lose a lot. The only reason i wold consider doing it is because we could maybe get a good QB at last plus use our second rounders for a couple hopefully decent lineman.