Mike in Horseheads Posted November 22, 2019 Posted November 22, 2019 19 hours ago, DallasBillsFan1 said: You may be technically correct, but I always thought and recognized AWOL as the proper term ... that is, if you want the reader to understand the gist of the post. Therefore, AWOL would be a better choice. Furthermore, the Sci-fi series that started in the late 60's is called Star Track ... not Star Trek. All these years I thought Star Track was a racing show. 1
Gugny Posted November 22, 2019 Posted November 22, 2019 Woods was my favorite Bill during his tenure. True professional. Hope all is well with him and kudos to the Rams for a) giving him the time and b) respecting his privacy. 2
klos63 Posted November 22, 2019 Posted November 22, 2019 1 hour ago, timekills17 said: There is no "permission to be absent", per se. Certainly if you have a formation/meeting/etc. your supervisor can approve your not being there - but that's for a part of the day. If it is a whole day or more, you'd need a pass or leave form. Even if retroactively. ---Note this is based on Army regulations, specifically AR 630-10. The Manual for Courts Martial (MCM) and other components may differ slightly, but not significantly. Even when traveling between job locations (Permanent Change of Station) you are on a leave status signed by your commander. It sounds rough, but it actually protects the military member in case of an incident. They're covered under military medical and/or insurance because they're on authorized duty - even while on leave or on a pass. Anything other than a short term (i.e. few hours vocal) or officially on leave or pass signed by their commander, and they are AWOL. AWOL greater than 30 days can be classified as desertion, and have significantly different consequences if during peace vs. war. Not to argue semantics, but as stated earlier there is no "AWL" (Absent With Leave) in the military. Also as stated - that's leave. Your duty status is "Leave" of some sort. I wasn't referring to the military, was referring to Woods situation where he apparently was given permission to leave the team. But I really don't care that much. 1
WhoTom Posted November 22, 2019 Posted November 22, 2019 1 hour ago, timekills17 said: Not to argue semantics, but as stated earlier there is no "AWL" (Absent With Leave) in the military. As long as we're being sticklers for detail, let's remember 1) that the NFL is not the military and 2) most of us knew what the OP meant by "AWL," especially after reading the article. 2
timekills17 Posted November 22, 2019 Posted November 22, 2019 (edited) 6 hours ago, WhoTom said: As long as we're being sticklers for detail, let's remember 1) that the NFL is not the military and 2) most of us knew what the OP meant by "AWL," especially after reading the article. 6 hours ago, klos63 said: I wasn't referring to the military, was referring to Woods situation where he apparently was given permission to leave the team. But I really don't care that much. 6 hours ago, WhoTom said: As long as we're being sticklers for detail, let's remember 1) that the NFL is not the military and 2) most of us knew what the OP meant by "AWL," especially after reading the article. Concur. Was speaking to the people who were debating - some incorrectly - the discussion of AWOL. If the shoe doesn't fit, don't wear it. Woods, as far as we knew/know, was away with team approval. The only reason I can see why the discussion of whether he was "AWOL" was because that term is misunderstood. If you understand the term, obviously he wasn't absent without (leave)/authorization. Assuming you've burned enough brain cells to have read the entire thread (and I apologize to you if you have), you'd probably understand why I attempted to correct people's misuse of a term that they obviously aren't familiar with. However - there is no AWL. That acronym doesn't exist. And I didn't know what OP meant. I initially assumed it was a typo for "AWOL" as well. And if we're being "sticklers for detail" (i.e. correcting people's misuse of a term so we have a shared understanding) I didn't say AWOL or any other military definition has any bearing on Woods NFL career. I was correcting the use of the term - which, I agree, is not applicable as I would assume the NFL does not follow the DOD judicial system. Edited November 22, 2019 by timekills17
OldTimeAFLGuy Posted November 22, 2019 Posted November 22, 2019 ...over play...kid is a baller and I'd expect him to be nothing but straight up with McVay......
Ethan in Cleveland Posted November 23, 2019 Posted November 23, 2019 On 11/21/2019 at 9:51 AM, Over 29 years of fanhood said: Of all the ones that got away, he’s the one I most wish was still in Buffalo, and I belive would’ve fit the process. Gilmore is a better player, but Woods is number 2 on the recent list of ones that got away
Cripple Creek Posted November 23, 2019 Posted November 23, 2019 On 11/22/2019 at 8:30 AM, timekills17 said: Not to argue semantics I don't think that phrase means what you think it means
Over 29 years of fanhood Posted November 23, 2019 Posted November 23, 2019 3 hours ago, Ethan in Portland said: Gilmore is a better player, but Woods is number 2 on the recent list of ones that got away Gilmore might be the better player in a scheme that demands press man coverage. In McDermotts defensive scheme he’s an expensive unnecessary skill set. In fact, if I recall it might even be a misfit because he may not have been an elite zone defender. Woods with those precise intermediate deep crossers paired with josh would be a match made in heaven
aristocrat Posted November 23, 2019 Posted November 23, 2019 one of the best contracts in the league right along with john brown
OldTimeAFLGuy Posted November 23, 2019 Posted November 23, 2019 1 minute ago, aristocrat said: one of the best contracts in the league right along with john brown ...LOL...remember when he signed with the Rams and his deal was thought to be "excessive"?.....hell, I'd bet it is LESS than what Pegula pays the Rockpile Beerman today.....
purple haze Posted November 23, 2019 Posted November 23, 2019 On 11/21/2019 at 9:58 AM, Mark Vader said: I feel the same way. He was one of the receivers I wanted from that draft class. I get the feeling that he did not want to be here when his contract was up. I don't know about that. I got the feeling he wanted to be paid at a certain level (a level his stats indicated he should be paid at in comparison with his peers.) and the Bills did not agree with that price.
Mark Vader Posted November 23, 2019 Posted November 23, 2019 4 minutes ago, purple haze said: I don't know about that. I got the feeling he wanted to be paid at a certain level (a level his stats indicated he should be paid at in comparison with his peers.) and the Bills did not agree with that price. Probably, still I think he was very interested in going back to California.
thebandit27 Posted November 23, 2019 Posted November 23, 2019 7 minutes ago, OldTimeAFLGuy said: ...LOL...remember when he signed with the Rams and his deal was thought to be "excessive"?.....hell, I'd bet it is LESS than what Pegula pays the Rockpile Beerman today..... It was right where many of us projected it would be. Between Marvin Jones and Mo Sanu, who signed a year earlier.
freeagentqb Posted November 23, 2019 Posted November 23, 2019 AWOL = Absent without official leave UA = Unauthorized absence Heard both terms during service. Not really sure of the difference. Did a tour of duty as a corrections officer in Camp Pendleton brig 1967
thebandit27 Posted November 23, 2019 Posted November 23, 2019 On 11/21/2019 at 12:58 PM, Mark Vader said: I feel the same way. He was one of the receivers I wanted from that draft class. I get the feeling that he did not want to be here when his contract was up. Meh, the "he didn't want to be here" card gets played way too often IMO. He's like everyone else: he wanted to maximize earnings. Had Buffalo offered him $1M more per year he'd likely still be here. JMO of course 1
OldTimeAFLGuy Posted November 23, 2019 Posted November 23, 2019 6 minutes ago, thebandit27 said: It was right where many of us projected it would be. Between Marvin Jones and Mo Sanu, who signed a year earlier. ...yet reasonable, right?.........
timekills17 Posted November 23, 2019 Posted November 23, 2019 3 hours ago, Cripple Creek said: I don't think that phrase means what you think it means You're not too quick are you? Obviously the whole discussion was semantics. Sigh.
Cripple Creek Posted November 23, 2019 Posted November 23, 2019 36 minutes ago, timekills17 said: You're not too quick are you? Obviously the whole discussion was semantics. Sigh. and yet you ended your thome with the words "not to argue semantics" but, I'm not too quick even heavier sigh
purple haze Posted November 24, 2019 Posted November 24, 2019 14 hours ago, Mark Vader said: Probably, still I think he was very interested in going back to California. Sure. If going home is possible why not? I just don't think it was as set in stone as some believe. Bills weren't proactive with Woods. Sign players before Free Agency starts or pay the consequences.
Recommended Posts