JohnC

Isn't that better than someone threatening to kick him in the nuts?

I respectfully but strenuously disagree with you. Changing drug laws with respect to weed is steadily happening all over the country. In the not too distant future there will be a change in league policy moving in the direction of leniency toward the drug. What is holding up the change in policy is that the league is trying to use this issue to extract concessions in other areas. https://www.theringer.com/2017/8/1/16095328/nfl-marijuana-pain-management-collective-bargaining-4d940deee498

Now is the time to communicate with Boyst. Dropping a load while your fingers are doing the talking is productive multi-tasking. Versatility is a valued attribute whether you are a city slicker or live on a farm. ?

Is that why some of your responses are so shiiiity?

I disagree. Odds are that when the next contract is negotiated there will be a more lax policy toward marijuana. As more states legalize this particular product the likelihood increases that the league will have a much more lenient approach to weed. As I stated before the NBA doesn't test for this particular product. It hasn't hurt their standing.

Gurley is in a different situation than some elite backs who entering contract years because he is younger than most of them. He is still in his prime and capable of being a workhorse. There are few backs that fall in the category of elite players and yet still have plenty of life left in them. For backs such as Elliot, Fornette and him the pay scale/paradigm is shifting and will benefit them. With these type of high cost backs you will get your money's worth from them if you have a top-shelf OL that allows them to display their big impact talents. If your OL is mediocre you are wasting your money and not getting the return worth the investment. You may disagree but the Rams are making a smart move locking him up securing his dynamic services.

My take on Tyrod with respect to his influence on the OL is that he had more of a positive effect enhancing the running game than he did in the passing game. The defense had to have players shadow him because he was such a potent running threat. They couldn't stack the line because he was so mobile and could change his direction and scoot through a gap. With respect to the passing game because he wasn't adept at making quick reads and quick releases he placed more pressure on the OL when pass protecting. Let's remember that three starting players (Glenn, Incognito and Wood) are off the roster. Over the past two years Incognito was our best blocker. I wish they would have kept him for another year instead of squeezing him with their reduced contract offer. (Sometimes more is going on internally than we are aware of?) In general, this OL doesn't look very impressive. That is the consensus opinion of most people who follow the Bills. And collectively our running group is very uninspiring. If you take an overview of our offense it obviously tacks much potency. It's apparent in McBeane's rebuilding project that the emphasis was on the defense. That's fine with me----you can't redo everything at once. For me I'm more concerned about the rebuilding than I am about a record in one year in the midst of that process.

The league is without a doubt leaning toward being more permissive toward weed, not less. As more states make it legal there will be fewer reasons to be stricter on this particular issue. It is widely accepted that weed is not a performance enhancing drug compared to drugs that do actually enhance performance, such as steroids and growth hormone drugs (HGH). The stance the league is taking toward this drug is changing to being more permissive. The league and the union have been negotiating to finding a common ground moving toward being more lenient than more strict on this issue. The NBA doesn't include testing for weed in its drug protocol. It hasn't hurt the popularity of the league. Whether one's feelings are pro or con towards weed society is inexorably moving toward being more accepting of it. http://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/10927282/renegotiation-nfl-drug-policy-reduce-marijuana-punishments

Excellent assemblage of players. I'm predicting that Aldolphus Washington will be traded. Not that he is bad but there is an excess at his position. What a rebuilding team needs is some hits on some unexpected young players. I'll be watching Conor McDermott to move up the ranks and become a swing tackle. If Streater can stay healthy he should be a contributor to the less than sterling receiver corps. Banging your head will not make you a better thinker!

Don't be defensive about being a tweeter. You are in touch while I am not. I'm a dinosaur who should be dismissively ignored. Are you aware that Ben Simmons is hooked up with one of the Jenner girls? ?

You and I are in accord that Marrone did a good job with the Bills. The one trait that his teams were noted for was that they played hard for him, even when outgunned. He was a tough coach and while he was here his players responded to his hard ways. However, the problem with a coach like that is how long before the players get tired of the ogre act. Players are more tolerant when things are going well. However, when things are not going so well then what was tolerable before becomes less tolerable. My view of Marrone is that he is an old-school, meat and potato type coach. From a strategy standpoint he is not going to outsmart you. That's not what he is capable of or aiming for. What he wants to do is out-tough you. Marrone took a big risk in opting out in Buffalo. The risk paid off. He is in a good situation in Jacksonville. On the other hand he has to be careful because he is is now working for a tough Irishman, Coughlin, who is not going to take any BS from him.

Marrone not only didn't have confidence in his GM, he had open disdain for him. He didn't want his career to be dependent on him because he had little faith in him. From Marrone's perspective the qb situation that he was left with was untenable and intolerable. He was right! The lassitude toward the qb position that the GM exhibited was not only a career crushing mistake, it was both perplexing and weird. The moral of the story is: Self-sabotaging is self-defeating.

You have descended to the depths of the tawdry world of twitter. Are you the go to gossip guy to find out who is cheating and screwing who? Inquiring minds what to know!

If you recall the Charger game in San Diego the opposition was demonstrably a better team. Their defense overwhelmed our OL and throttled the offense even when TT was in. Rivers is a probable HOF qb who played exceptionally well in that game. I'm steadfast in my belief that the visiting team was not going to win that game. As you noted the team recovered from that controversial substitution and went on its way to remain competitive for the rest of the season up to the point of making the playoffs. That's exactly my point! Although that substitution received a lot of attention it had no bearing on how the team performed for the rest of the season. Maybe that change rallied the team to get behind the veteran qb? If that is the case then the substitution had the unintended consequence of making the team more determined to play better behind Taylor? This coaching staff made a decision to make a change at qb in the hope that it would spark the offense. It didn't work out. The HC rather quickly went back to Taylor. So I don't see why this episode is given so much attention.? When all is said and done the Bills traded Taylor and kept Peterman. It's obvious that this staff was not committed to Taylor. And that to me is a very understandable and reasonable position to take.

I believe that when McDermott took over it was with the intention of being involved in a three to four year rebuilding job that included not only the roster but also the organization. I still marvel at what he accomplished last year with such a thinned out roster. The wrestling coach is intent on getting his type of players/guys and dispatching those who weren't on board with his vision. Getting into the playoffs last year with that roster was a tremendous achievement. I still believe that they are at least two to three years away from being a serious team. From a record standpoint there is a good probability that it won't match last year's record. But the trajectory is clearly upward.

If the company was prospering I have no doubt that the inauthentic outrage that he created with his "potent" word would have been handled differently. I believe even with the tsunami of criticism from the social media he would still be associated with the business if the company was thriving. The storm would have been handled by the PR boys and the controversy would have faded. When you are in a position of strength you are better able to weather the storm. When you are in a position of weakness you are more likely to get flattened by the storm. The star on a team who spouts out ignorant comments gets more allowance than the replaceable backup up who spouts out less ignorant comments. The all-star salesman at a company who brings in a tremendous amount of business is going to be disciplined less harshly than the less productive salesman. Life isn't always fair.

The fundamental mistake that Whaley made was not making it a priority to address the qb position. It appeared that he was going to use a first round pick on a qb in his last year but he was too late because he lost his authority, and then let go. You listed the playmakers that Whaley assembled. Without question they were good. But especially for the receivers their talents were not maximized because there was a void at qb. Wood playing with Goff is revitalized; Wood playing with TT was invisible. This franchise didn't have a legitimate franchise qb for a generation. That should have been his priority from the start. That avoidance on the issue was inexcusable and perplexing. Few people will disagree with you that the Rex hire was a fiasco that set this franchise back. The owners are to blame for that. But maybe the irascible Marrone would have stayed if he had a competent qb to work with. The rebuilding process was started when he took over and it seemed that it was advancing under him. However, the qb issue clouded what he wanted to do and made him consider the buyout even when things were moving in the right direction.. I'm confident that if a capable qb was in place he would have stayed. His leaving the job reflected his lack of confidence in Whaley. With respect to the roster that McDermott inherited it was clear right from the start that he was going to not only remake the roster but remake the organization from top to bottom. That's why he was hired by Pegula. It wasn't to implement incremental change but to completely rebuild the organization from the front office, to the roster to the restructuring of the cap. Whaley wasn't a bad GM but the bottom line was that he wasn't good enough. The McBeane tandem is an upgrade from what preceded them. In the short term there are going to be struggles but I'm optimistic in the not too distant future.

Sometime in this season the staff is going to get a look at Allen. It's not a question of will they make the switch but when will they make the switch. The first half of the schedule is brutal. So I don't see him getting playing time then. By the second half of the season he should be better prepared to take the snaps.

In the case with Dennison and his desire to make a qb change that dramatic change doesn't come out of the blue. What the OC was seeing in the games and in the film room were the same things that McDermott was seeing. McDermott who had the ultimate authority to make that change was willing to go along with the recommendation because there was a substantive basis to the recommendation. In the example of of your own experience as a manager in a wide ranging organization it is impossible as a boss/manager to know how everything should be run. You have to delegate and trust your subordinates. (As you noted.) However, if a manager at a lower branch wants to make a dramatic change in policy then I'm sure you would ask some probing questions and consult with others if need be. My point is that even if Dennison wanted to make a change McDermott as the HC would certainly not casually go along with the OC's desire unless there was merit to Dennison's position on this critical issue. I believe that there was a legitimate basis for Dennison to want to make a change. The decision didn't work out. It was quickly changed by the HC in the game. In retrospect, although it is not unfair to say that the outcome of the decision was disastrous the end result from how it impacted the season was inconsequential. In my opinion the record the Bills had turned out to be the same whether the decision was made or not.

I'm not saying this specifically about the Papa John case but saying this in general: Social media has altered how we communicate and receive information in some respects to the detriment. We have lost the ability to say stupid things without disproportionately being punished. The result is that this fear of repercussion has stifled dialogue. Very often when actually listening to someone's contrary view you find out that it isn't such a crazy notion. If you are truly listening you can realize that there may be a kernel of insight that you originally didn't consider. What's often lost is that although you may disagree with the point you still can acknowledge that there is merit to the point thus opening up an avenue for a dialouge. Too often it has come down to not even allowing legitimacy/respect to an opposing position because it is an opposing position. When the fence becomes too high to talk over to the person on the other side then we become stuck in our own fortresses. John Schattner became a liability for the company. So he was dispatched. However, his mistake wasn't what he said because in a private setting the context of what he said and meant would have been understood. His mistake/blunder was that he didn't understand the nature of the volatility of the setting of a public discussion on a very fraught topic. He should have known better.

When your board of directors believe that you as the face of the company is a detriment to the business they are involved in it shouldn't be surprising that they take an action to disassociate the business from you. Sometimes what you say is not what you intend to say and mean. However, when you are a public figure associated with a well known business what you say is also associated with the business. Schattner does have freedom of speech. No one is curtailing what he can say. That doesn't mean that what he says doesn't have repercussions, not only for him, but from the board of directors point of view on the business that he also represents. There was a simple calculation here by the directors: Are you an asset or liability in your role? It's obvious what their decision was.

You are getting carried away and acting as if disagreement is a personal assault. You are wrong.

Kaepernick didn't advance his game from his first couple of years. He went by the wayside. You liking him makes me more confident in me not liking him.

I have a simple rule of thumb that has proven to be successful. The qbs you are for I am against. The qbs you are against I am for. It is a method that has an exceptional record of success.

Allen and Mahomes are on my favored list. Kaepernick is not. Regardless of position if you don't advance your game when you are in the league you will not be on my list. If you were you will be quickly deleted from it.