The Big Cat

Being positive does not preclude you from being critical.

This is a good joke, don't care if you like these guys or not: VRENTAS: People assume your schemes are identical but… REX: They’re not. They’re fraternal.

Lord almighty these guys talk a big game. This interview should have EVERYONE on this board thrilled. With all the **** they're talking right now it's going to lead of one of two outcomes: Our defense is going to live up to the hype and we're going to roll: banner day for the OOO They won't live up to the hype, finish in the middle of the pack or worse and lose their jobs: banner day for the NNN Lord help us and our offseason sanity if we have another injury plagued season and end up somewhere in between.

Exactly. Why Vet has decreed that these "street" agents can only become "competent options" through "wishful thinking" is the part that has everyone a little perplexed.

Especially when you consider Sammy, Woods, Clay and McCoy will all be featured in the offense before them. What are we really looking for here?

I hear you. When you move the offense through him on Madden, you can pretty much move the ball at will.

Extrapolated over 16 games, the last quarter of the season for Sammy would have gotten him fourth on this list, three ahead of DT @ 172. His most targetted game was week 17: 15 To put that in perspective, in Julio Jones' most targetted game of 2016 he got 20 looks. And over the season, including that game, had six games of 15 targets or more. Only twice did Jones get single-digit targets. Only four times did Sammy get double digit targets. Something would have to change quite a bit for him to be on this list. But I share your hope. It would also mean quite a deal to TT's "development," I reckon.

Agreed.

While true, while a guy's draft position is no indicator of his success (shall we post all the high picks who did turn out, though?), that's not really a rebuttal to his point which was to upend BillsVet's (predictably) bogus claim that they were all UDFAs or street agents. But I guess we're just referring to all FA's as "street agents" now so we can prove how dysfunctional our personnel department is...

We'll see if he does better in 2016. I'm hopeful he does.

So you don't have any thoughts to share on the player?

That was your point? Okay. Not sure why I expected something...anything, really.

Well, when his premise is based largely on the guy not making big plays. Help me understand the point you were attempting to make. Was it about me? Or did you have something add to the conversation that's about a player for the Bills.

Is this where we debate the utter fooey of that stupid list? I was squarely in the camps of CJ and Stevie being fan darlings whose reputation far outpaced their production. But I didn't write them off after 12 games. And I have no intent of doing so for Shady. I'm not saying he'll be a superstar next year. But it certainly wouldn't shock me if he was. EDIT: According to that stupid list, he's the 6th best back in the league. And he only played 12 games.

much easier to justify when your quaterback is making less than most backups, too the packers shant be paying shady money for a back any time soon (0.66% of THEIR cap goes to lacy)

Wasn't a critique of yours, more one of the current state of affairs round here. Love the work you put into posting all the stuff relevant to discussions here.

This will change the minds of precisely zero people in this thread.

/thread

The NFL WAS sued. It's a done deal. It's over, settlements are being paid. Where you're categorically wrong is over WHAT. Not because the NFL hid the fact that it's a dangerous sport (what Whaley) said. It was specifically over their treatment (or lack-thereof) of concussions and their impact on players and relevance to the game. You have repeatedly conflated this with what Whaley said and you are entirely wrong to draw a correlation. Period. EDIT: But let's back up. You're willing to bet? What are you willing to bet? That the NFL will sue Doug Whaley and the Bills over this? Please state your wager. Ding ding.

Exactly. The fact that the "legal" side of this has been hammered to mush by fans clawing for a reason why this would be significant does not suddenly make it so.

The list of things said/done prior to this as an admission of the game's safety (or lack thereof) is virtually endless. No "legal implications" exist because there's NOTHING new about what he said that could spawn legal action.

WHAT ARE THE LEGAL IMPLICATIONS!? Seriously. Please explain how this is a unique reveal, such that LEGAL disruption is warranted. Please, please, please, please SOMEBODY substantiate this entirely empty claim that has been repeated damn near a dozen times in this thread for affect.

People also seem to be glossing straight over the fact that Whaley "PERSONALLY" played the sport himself. At the University of Pittsburgh.