Buffalo Barbarian Posted August 27, 2014 Share Posted August 27, 2014 Ohhhhhh, so this is what Marrone and Whaley were fighting about. Marrone; "You called me gay!" Whaley: "No, I said I called Gay." Marrone: "Why'd you call me gay?!" Whaley: "No, we signed Gay." Marrone: "You signed Michael Sam?" Whaley: "No, we signed a punter, Jordan Gay." Marrone; "I'm not gay." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guffalo Posted August 27, 2014 Share Posted August 27, 2014 "Gay to receive the ball" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1B4IDie Posted August 27, 2014 Author Share Posted August 27, 2014 (edited) I would have thought Jake Dombrowski won the punting job. Long kicks with good hang time , what happened ? He had long kicks. I don't know about hang time. I commented a few times that the punts were long line drives that out kicked the coverage. They looked like hail marry passes more than punts with good hang time. I guess we will see if this Gay guy is any good at hanging his balls out there so they can be received in the rear of the punt coverage. Edited August 27, 2014 by Why So Serious? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HamSandwhich Posted August 27, 2014 Share Posted August 27, 2014 He had long kicks. I don't know about hang time. I commented a few times that the punts were long line drives that out kicked the coverage. They looked like hail marry passes more than punts with good hang time. I guess we will see if this Gay guy is any good at hanging his balls out there so they can be received in the rear of the punt coverage. HAHAHA! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted August 27, 2014 Share Posted August 27, 2014 I would have thought Jake Dombrowski won the punting job. Long kicks with good hang time , what happened? No idea. Hell the 49'ers released a guy (Colton Schmidt, who wasn't going to beat out Andy Lee) who led all punters in pre-season in net average, albeit on only 7 punts, who I'd rather have. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miyagi-Do Karate Posted August 27, 2014 Share Posted August 27, 2014 No idea. Hell the 49'ers released a guy (Colton Schmidt, who wasn't going to beat out Andy Lee) who led all punters in pre-season in net average, albeit on only 7 punts, who I'd rather have. I think there is a real anti-analytics view when it comes to punters. Teams, like the bills, seem to prefer the security of a vet over the big leg of a rookie-- even if the stats run counter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MRM33064 Posted August 27, 2014 Share Posted August 27, 2014 (edited) There's simultaneously one thread about the relative benefits of one (aging, fungible) punter over a different (younger, fungible) punter and another thread about how we have too many (!?) QBs. Yes, we are Bills fans indeed. Edited August 27, 2014 by MRM33064 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maybe Someday Posted August 27, 2014 Share Posted August 27, 2014 OBD is searching for any players named Jordan. Player searches also include Kobe, Magic and any other NBA greats. Looks like Morman may not be a forgone conclusion. I had it as one of my top 6 concerns. Morman is kicking everythinng short and we're losing field position as a result The guy was our best player of the 2000s, at least you could spell his name right. Maybe we should have been drafting punters instead of kickers these past few years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Real Buffalo Joe Posted August 27, 2014 Share Posted August 27, 2014 We should see if the Patriots are open to trading that Brady guy on their team who punts. Moorman for Brady. We should see if the Patriots are open to trading that Brady guy on their team who punts. Moorman for Brady. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CountDorkula Posted August 27, 2014 Share Posted August 27, 2014 The guy was our best player of the 2000s, at least you could spell his name right. Maybe we should have been drafting punters instead of kickers these past few years. HE is also a punter. Where the less he is on the field, that generally means your team is doing better. I dont care who my punter is, if he cant do his job, cut him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zow2 Posted August 27, 2014 Share Posted August 27, 2014 Don't discount the fact that Moorman is an excellent holder for FG's, hey it matters for something. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ed_Formerly_of_Roch Posted August 27, 2014 Share Posted August 27, 2014 I think I should get a job selling used cars. As long as we stop before Jordan Knight. if that's true, I would say that he's been doing a good job. I'm a lefty but have more power kicking with my right leg when I play soccer (less accurate though). This is crazy. So, he's been out-kicking dombrowski in practice with his off leg? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clippers of Nfl Posted August 27, 2014 Share Posted August 27, 2014 The guy was our best player of the 2000s, at least you could spell his name right. So what? Maybe we should have been drafting punters instead of kickers these past few years. Did you add the So what? Oh no, that was me! Bring the rings = spell name correctly. No playoffs for 15 years = everyone's name will be spelled wrong. Moreman sucks. I prefer the Gay guy since he's Gay. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DefenseWinzChampionshipz Posted August 27, 2014 Share Posted August 27, 2014 (edited) Marrone post game interview: Chris Brown: "So how did Jordan look in the preseason finale?" Doug Marrone: "Obviously gay is good. If gay wasn't good I wouldn't have him. He pushed real hard in a short period of time. I was pleased." Edited August 27, 2014 by DefenseWinzChampionshipz Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orton's Arm Posted August 29, 2014 Share Posted August 29, 2014 We'll have a Gay old time Prior to the 1950s, the word gay didn't have anything to do with sexual orientation. It meant "happy, carefree, celebratory, unconcerned with others' approval." Then in the '50s, leaders of the homosexual community decided they liked that word, and wanted their group to be associated with it. They started calling themselves gay, because they thought its suggestion of innocent, carefree fun had better connotations than other words used at the time. No word can have both a sexual/scatological meaning and a non-sexual meaning. The sexual/scatological meaning always dominates, and drives out the non-sexual meaning. That's what happened to the word "gay," which is why the original meaning was lost. To the best of my knowledge, there is no word in the currently used English language which means exactly the same thing "gay" meant before it was commandeered by the homosexual community. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PO'14 Posted August 29, 2014 Share Posted August 29, 2014 Prior to the 1950s, the word gay didn't have anything to do with sexual orientation. It meant "happy, carefree, celebratory, unconcerned with others' approval." Then in the '50s, leaders of the homosexual community decided they liked that word, and wanted their group to be associated with it. They started calling themselves gay, because they thought its suggestion of innocent, carefree fun had better connotations than other words used at the time. No word can have both a sexual/scatological meaning and a non-sexual meaning. The sexual/scatological meaning always dominates, and drives out the non-sexual meaning. That's what happened to the word "gay," which is why the original meaning was lost. To the best of my knowledge, there is no word in the currently used English language which means exactly the same thing "gay" meant before it was commandeered by the homosexual community. The Bills are Gay! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyst Posted August 29, 2014 Share Posted August 29, 2014 Prior to the 1950s, the word gay didn't have anything to do with sexual orientation. It meant "happy, carefree, celebratory, unconcerned with others' approval." Then in the '50s, leaders of the homosexual community decided they liked that word, and wanted their group to be associated with it. They started calling themselves gay, because they thought its suggestion of innocent, carefree fun had better connotations than other words used at the time. No word can have both a sexual/scatological meaning and a non-sexual meaning. The sexual/scatological meaning always dominates, and drives out the non-sexual meaning. That's what happened to the word "gay," which is why the original meaning was lost. To the best of my knowledge, there is no word in the currently used English language which means exactly the same thing "gay" meant before it was commandeered by the homosexual community. so are gays in to scatological play too? I thought that was just for weird creepy straigh guys? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bangarang Posted August 29, 2014 Share Posted August 29, 2014 So we signed this guy for literally no reason at all? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YoloinOhio Posted August 29, 2014 Share Posted August 29, 2014 I am laughing so hard at this thread I have tears running down my face and apparently woke up my kids. Thanks, I needed this. Omg. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts