JohnC

Yes.

As a boss you are tough but also fair. That's all one can ask for. By the way are you calling me a prick??? If you are do you mean it in a positive way?

Yes. I'm confident in saying that if Peterman makes the Oakland roster you will not be happy. Life can be so unfair.

Is your most used phrase at work: You are fired?

McDermott and Gruden both disagreed with your judgment on this particular player that you loathe. I believe that there is a backup role for him in this league. Apparently some coaches in the profession also believe so. Let's wait and see how this plays out.

If a long termed contracted goalie is instrumental in helping your team be a Cup winner or a seriously contending team for an extended period of time then the signing would be worth it. There are ways to mitigate the downside of a long term contract such as front loading, buyout clauses and simply being judicious about who you offer the extended contracts to. If a player is over 30 and signs one of those bonanza and extended contracts then the risks increase. However, if a player such as Jack signs one of these deals when he is 22 then you are actually getting a bargain because the salary scale typically goes up each year. No one is forcing an organization to sign these types of contracts. It's not a bad strategy for some teams to not sign their star free agent and instead allow the player to leave and then use that salary amount to procure a player or two to add to the roster. In essence the decision to pay out or not has as much to do with cap management and analytics. No one is forcing an organization to pay out to keep a player or bring in a player. If the deal doesn't make sense for you then you go in a different direction. It happens all the time.

The notion that a coach would keep a player because he is a good guy makes little sense. The coach has an interest in assembling a roster that is not only in the team's interest but also in his best interest. The wrestling coach put him in the roster. It didn't work out. So he was let go. Another team and coach brought him onto his roster. He is being evaluated like any other player. If he earns a spot then he earns a spot. The argument that he is keeping a more worthy player of the roster makes little sense because if that peculiar logic is applied then every player on the team is keeping other worthy players off the roster. This isn't a complicated issue. A coach/s evaluate players. If they want to put the player on the roster then it is done because they believe that the player earned the roster spot. Most of us agree that Peterman is not a starting caliber of qb in the NFL. That doesn't mean that he can't carve out a useful role as a backup.

Again, We shall see if Peterman can carve out a niche as a backup. For those who have proclaimed him to be the worst qb in the world you should be aware that he is still in the league.

History doesn't not always determine the present and the future. I was not impressed with Tyrod as a starter. However, as a backup he is carving out an extended and lucrative career. I'm hoping that you and Gunner will be wrong about his survival chances in the league. We shall see.

Peterman is never going to be a starter. His limitations are obvious mostly because of his arm strength. That doesn't mean that he can't play in this league as a useful backup. Kirby and Gunner go crazy when I say it but it wouldn't be surprising to me that he has financially enriching career as a backup. I hope he survives and prove the mocking critics wrong.

Florida went out and spent a lot of money on Bobrovsky who was a free agent. Was he worth the contract? To Florida he was. If the organization believed that he was going to be a difference maker then he was worth the money to them. The same reasoning applies to Tampa with their expensive signing of Vasilevskiy. The Lightening are certainly a cup contending team. If they believe that he is going to provide elite goaltending on a consistent basis then he is worth the contract. The amount of the contract isn't the challenging issue. As you imply it is the length of the contract that is the big issue. If you make a bad judgment on a player (regardless of position) with a long contract that will be debilitating. There are a variety of ways to build a good team. If an organization decides that their goalie is going to be one of their anchor players for a long time then I don't see a problem using a larger portion of one's cap for a superior goalie.

Thanks for the write up and report. Your work is appreciated. ? I'm interested in following Singletary and Knox during the camp and preseason. I wouldn't be surprised if they moved up the ranks and contribute this year. I'm very comfortable with Barkley as the backup.

The below link is a Buffalo News article somewhat about Skinner and the additions to the roster. The article didn't offer anything new. It was noted that the additions were added without much cost. An interesting issue for this team is whether to keep the top line in tact or split it up to bolster the second line. My preference is to keep this superlative line in tact and do your best to cobble a respectable second line together. Hopefully, there will be more secondary scoring from the lower lines. As others have pointed out the main issue of interest for this offseason is whether there will be a Risto deal or other deals. I would love to see some genuine second line talent added to the second line. We shall see. https://buffalonews.com/2019/07/25/buffalo-sabres-jeff-skinner-jimmy-vesey-smashfest-toronto-nhl-news-2019/

What's fascinating about Saban is that his sideline crusty persona of an old school coach masks the fact that he is very much a new school coach in that he is constantly searching for better methods. While as a coach he is at the top of the mountain he is not complacent and willing to stay in his comfort zone. He is confident enough to not only be willing to be receptive to what other coaches are doing but also confident enough to bring them onto his staff. Who would have thought that he would add the juvenile Kiffin to his staff and give him much authority as an OC? It was predictable that they were going to have a turbulent relationship, and they certainly did. But the older coach knew that there were things that he could learn from this immature outsider. Eventually, the inevitable departure materialized with both coaches gaining from that experience. (As I said in my first post that short interview segment with Will Cain revealed an intriguing side/s of Saban that I wasn't very much aware of. He has so much more substance to him that a lot of people are not aware of because it is masked by his public style.)

Saban was interviewed by Wil Cain for a SEC segment. Saban was bland as usual until he was asked about the issue of leadership. He then lit up and became animated and starting talking about the books he has read and is currently reading on that topic. Off the top of his head he listed four to six books on that topic. When asked who were some of the people who best exemplified leadership he said Winston Churchill and Roosevelt because he led in a period of economic calamity and during a war. You can't have the extended success he has had in such a competitive endeavor without possessing the depth and intelligence to adapt to a business that constantly changes on and off the field. What Bill Belichick is to the pro ranks Saban is to the college ranks. Although he may have a bland persona he was both illuminating and fascinating.

You have unappealing impulses that need to be curtailed. Being poor may be impoverishing but it builds character.

The phone call tape was reviewed. My understanding is that the phone call tape was an abridged tape call. It didn't provide a full account of the phone interaction. Hill had an extensive interview with the league office and explained how that tape was not a full accounting of that particular call. This case was certainly a high profile case. It was not superficially examined. The investigation took a lot of time. The evidence was inconclusive enough even when the standard for proof was not extremely high. Yet the league came to a decision that they knew in advance would draw the ire of a lot of people who had preconceived notions about the case and the player involved. They did what was right; they acted on the evidence they had to work with.

What was so opaque about the process? How was case this handled differently from other high profile cases? Whether fans trust the system isn't the issue. The issue is whether a fair and robust investigation of this case occurred. It did. You might not like the outcome but the case was judged on the evidence that was gathered. How else was this case to be handled?

With respect to the highlighted segment I respectfully but strenuously disagree with your view. There is no doubt that Hill is a top tier receiver. But he is also the poster child for thuggery and aberrant behavior. This unsympathetic hoodlum is not the type of person that the league wants to offer leniency to. Quite the contrary. He is an easy target to harshly discipline and demonstrate to the their various constituencies (players, management, fans, advertisers etc.) that bad behavior will not be tolerated. There was one problem that stopped the league from holding him to account: They didn't have the evidence to make a determination to punish him. Is he really guilty or not of what he is accused of? I don't know. What is apparent is that after an exhaustive investigation by the public and league authorities it couldn't be sufficiently proven. If that is the case then the league did the right thing by not punishing him.

From a PR standpoint the incentive for the league was to punish Hill who had a disreputable reputation. That would have been the easy thing for the league to do. There was a recording of a threat made by Hill toward his girlfriend. But there were reports that the recording that was presented by the girlfriend was not complete and didn't fully reflect the situation. This case was fully reviewed by police and by the league. Hill was extensively interviewed by the league and gave his version of the events. Let's face it, Hill is not a sympathetic character. He is a reprobate. He is not the type of character that is going to be given the benefit of the doubt when accused of a transgression. But after an exhaustive process the league concluded that it didn't have enough evidence to discipline him. This was an evidence based cased that in the end the league couldn't come to a conclusion that his actions warranted a punishment. The easy thing to have done is punish this unsavory and unsympathetic character even without adequate evidence for PR reasons. They didn't take the easy out. They acted on the evidence on hand and made a determination. That was the right thing to do.

I don't understand your position. The local authorities investigated the child abuse domestic abuse case and couldn't come to a conclusion as to who was responsible for the injury that the child sustained and also the domestic violence aspect of the case. The commissioner's office has its own investigators that not only can review the police investigation but also look into the case themselves. They could not prove that Hill was guilty of anything even with their lower standards of determining guilt or culpability for such offenses. Does that mean that he wasn't guilty? Of course not. But how fair would the process be if a judgment was made not based on the evidence even at a lower standard? It is not unusual for the authorities to investigate a case/s with conflicting parties and not be able to make a determination as to who did what. The commissioner extensively interviewed Hill. And they concluded that they couldn't determine that he did what he was accused of by his partner. Why would you believe that the league would have an incentive to favor him in this case? It's the opposite of that because of his history of problems. Even with a besmirched reputation which would have made him an easy target for the league the league didn't have enough evidence to conclude he did what he was accused of . With respect to the highlighted segment I agree with you that the league doesn't have much tolerance for domestic abuse and is sensitive about appearances in that area. However, if there wasn't enough evidence at a lower standard than a criminal standard then it would not have been reasonable/fair for the NFL to punish him because that in itself would have been an example of a tainted process.

Let me help you to heal. Focus on the cross and not the bulging package.

@plenzmd1is religiously devout who likes to exhibit his bulging package on the beach while he seeks to convert people to his unique brand of thinking. https://www.ebaumsworld.com/pictures/fat-people-in-speedos/213876/

Be careful. The twitter Nazis are in a state of frenzy. A father and daughter are sharing a thrill experience. And the moronic mob's response is for the Klan to mount up with their torches looking for a lynching. What is demonstrated here is that idiots can be both silly and stupid.

The attached WGR link is a 19 minute segment talking about the Sabres and making projections about the roster. In the second half of the segment the guest, Peter Johnson from NHL.com, discusses the rest of the division and the challenge facing the Sabres going against teams that also have improved. Florida is the team that he believes is going to step up. There is nothing exotic about his comments other than it is a fair depiction of where this team is at. https://wgr550.radio.com/media/audio-channel/07-20-nhlcoms-pete-jensen-sneaky-joe