2021 Bills vs Twitter

[GunnerBill]

1 minute ago, appoo said:

 

The base personnel look for the All Pro team should be a legit 11.  They have 2 Zs and an X in 2020.

 

Yea the same with the 5th DB. You very rarely get an actual nickel (or dime) in that spot. Not sure I completely agree with you but I get the argument.

[appoo]

26 minutes ago, GunnerBill said:

 

Yea the same with the 5th DB. You very rarely get an actual nickel (or dime) in that spot. Not sure I completely agree with you but I get the argument.

Definitely a fun football debate to be had on this.

 

On the one hand - are you really going to have 3 WRs on the All-Pro team, and have Cole Beasley on one of them instead of Tyreke Hill?

 

The other argument is that there's no one better than Cole at slicing open defenses from the slot, and it's a unique skillset quite different from the Z or X WRs.

[dave mcbride]

On 7/25/2021 at 12:31 AM, transplantbillsfan said:

 

I love Beasley and prefer him on the team... but I also think our WR corps would still be very good without him if Diggs, Sanders and Davis were our top 3 WRs. Plus I think Allen is going to start becoming that QB who elevates another WR or 2 into surprise production territory.

 

Beasley can simultaneously be a great slot WR and too much of a headache to keep on a team with some good talent in the WR room... and I think that is the case.

The thing about Beasley is that he seems to have a fantastic mental connection with Allen. He knows how to get open as well as anyone in the league and Allen always seems to have an awareness of which option he'll take on the many option routes he runs. He is extremely valuable to the offense. Sanders can play the slot, but the Bills are better off if he's basically mirroring Diggs on the other side of the field (he's a similar player to Diggs, which is great) with Beasley coming out of the slot. That presents a brutal matchup to NFL defenses.  

[Royale with Cheese]

5 hours ago, dave mcbride said:

The thing about Beasley is that he seems to have a fantastic mental connection with Allen. He knows how to get open as well as anyone in the league and Allen always seems to have an awareness of which option he'll take on the many option routes he runs. He is extremely valuable to the offense. Sanders can play the slot, but the Bills are better off if he's basically mirroring Diggs on the other side of the field (he's a similar player to Diggs, which is great) with Beasley coming out of the slot. That presents a brutal matchup to NFL defenses.  

 

I think we should get Ertz if Beasley is out.  Ertz is an under the radar guy....not much has been talked about him about going to Buffalo.  

Edited July 27, 2021 by Royale with Cheese

[dave mcbride]

On 7/23/2021 at 2:37 PM, GunnerBill said:

 

I am not sure I would call a false equivalency "racist" per se but it is an extremely ignorant false equivalence and an extremely bad look. It is not a comment he should be making. End of story. 

I have been very critical of Beasley, but I take issue with your argument here. In the US, the terms "majority" and "minority" are not always tied to race. In fact, nearly the entire Bill of Rights is about protecting minority rights from majorities--in ways not really related to race at all. It's a discourse that runs deep in American politics, and people who are very religious (and Beasley seems to be very religious) are very invested in protecting minority religious rights and talk about it all of the time. Not surprisingly, the issue of majorities vs. minorities distinct from race is one of the dominant themes in US constitutional law. Beasley may have had race in mind when he wrote this, but it's just as plausible that he was thinking about the concept in its Bill-of-Rights sense. And seeing "minorities" and "majorities" in this way is hardly rare or obscure in American life. It literally comes up all of the time in law and politics. Whole American colonies were started by religious minorities fleeing majorities. 

Edited July 26, 2021 by dave mcbride

[Prospector]

3 hours ago, dave mcbride said:

I have been very critical of Beasley, but I take issue with your argument here. In the US, the terms "majority" and "minority" are not always tied to race. In fact, nearly the entire Bill of Rights is about protecting minority rights from majorities--in ways not really related to race at all. It's a discourse that runs deep in American politics, and people who are very religious (and Beasley seems to be very religious) are very invested in protecting minority religious rights and talk about it all of the time. Not surprisingly, the issue of majorities vs. minorities distinct from race is one of the dominant themes in US constitutional law. Beasley may have had race in mind when he wrote this, but it's just as plausible that he was thinking about the concept in its Bill-of-Rights sense. And seeing "minorities" and "majorities" in this way is hardly rare or obscure in American life. It literally comes up all of the time in law and politics. Whole American colonies were started by religious minorities fleeing majorities. 

This is an amazing and well articulated response! I couldn't have said better, and would probably have been suspended in the process! nicely done!

[Hapless Bills Fan]

3 hours ago, dave mcbride said:

I have been very critical of Beasley, but I take issue with your argument here. In the US, the terms "majority" and "minority" are not always tied to race. In fact, nearly the entire Bill of Rights is about protecting minority rights from majorities--in ways not really related to race at all. It's a discourse that runs deep in American politics, and people who are very religious (and Beasley seems to be very religious) are very invested in protecting minority religious rights and talk about it all of the time. Not surprisingly, the issue of majorities vs. minorities distinct from race is one of the dominant themes in US constitutional law. Beasley may have had race in mind when he wrote this, but it's just as plausible that he was thinking about the concept in its Bill-of-Rights sense. And seeing "minorities" and "majorities" in this way is hardly rare or obscure in American life. It literally comes up all of the time in law and politics. Whole American colonies were started by religious minorities fleeing majorities. 

 

Not that it’s Germaine to the main point of your excellent post, but per his twitter Beasley says he is not religious at all.  

He seems to think he’s scored a clever point here but I’m unsure what he believes that point to be.

 

 

[SCBills]

3 minutes ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

 

Not that it’s Germaine to the main point of your excellent post, but per his twitter Beasley says he is not religious at all.  

He seems to think he’s scored a clever point here but I’m unsure what he believes that point to be.

 

 

These blue checkmark types like Jason Clary are insufferable.  Some of the most obnoxious people in the internet.  

[GoBills808]

3 hours ago, dave mcbride said:

I have been very critical of Beasley, but I take issue with your argument here. In the US, the terms "majority" and "minority" are not always tied to race. In fact, nearly the entire Bill of Rights is about protecting minority rights from majorities--in ways not really related to race at all. It's a discourse that runs deep in American politics, and people who are very religious (and Beasley seems to be very religious) are very invested in protecting minority religious rights and talk about it all of the time. Not surprisingly, the issue of majorities vs. minorities distinct from race is one of the dominant themes in US constitutional law. Beasley may have had race in mind when he wrote this, but it's just as plausible that he was thinking about the concept in its Bill-of-Rights sense. And seeing "minorities" and "majorities" in this way is hardly rare or obscure in American life. It literally comes up all of the time in law and politics. Whole American colonies were started by religious minorities fleeing majorities. 

Are you saying the Bill of Rights isn't related to race?

[dave mcbride]

15 minutes ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

 

Not that it’s Germaine to the main point of your excellent post, but per his twitter Beasley says he is not religious at all.  

He seems to think he’s scored a clever point here but I’m unsure what he believes that point to be.

 

 

Thank you! That is really informative, and the reason I said what I said is because of Beasley’s tweet in which he basically said “What about God?” (Plus the guy is from kinda hardcore Texas and went to SMU.) Maybe he should be more clear in his stance and less cryptic (can’t believe I’m saying this!).

8 minutes ago, GoBills808 said:

Are you saying the Bill of Rights isn't related to race?

The Constitution is about race in fundamentally bad ways. But the Bill of Rights? No, not really, except for maybe the 10th amendment (in a real stretch) and more plausibly the second amendment (but again, very debatable). https://billofrightsinstitute.org/primary-sources/bill-of-rights. The other 8 aren’t about race at all.

Edited July 27, 2021 by dave mcbride

[GoBills808]

4 minutes ago, dave mcbride said:

The Constitution is about race in fundamentally bad ways. But the Bill of Rights? No, not really, except for maybe the 10th amendment (in a real stretch) and more plausibly the second amendment (but again, very debatable). https://billofrightsinstitute.org/primary-sources/bill-of-rights. The other 8 aren’t about race at all.

I realize this is getting off topic, but since the rights conferred were applied selectively on the very basis of race I have to disagree.

[Hapless Bills Fan]

I didn’t want to start a new thread we have to police, but this quite lengthy interview with JC Tretter is interesting and relevant:

Article from Cleveland.com

 

 I had to give my email address to read it, so a few key points:

-he had a conference call with a group of 15 concerned NFL players (described as “mostly unvaccinated) on Sunday

-they are all pissed off about the NFL’s memo on forfeiting games - Tretter said it created “panic and frenzy”

-they feel the league is setting up a divisive scenario between vaccinated and unvaccinated players and trying to coerce players to get vaccinated, after agreeing it would be voluntary [I can’t say they’re wrong]

Quote

The unvaccinated players argue that especially with the Delta variant and other variants circulating in the United States, vaccinated players can also catch the virus and transmit it.  They also have concerns over vaccine immunity wearing off during the season, especially since the CDC website states it doesn’t know how long protection lasts for any of the three emergency-use authorized vaccines. As of Monday, 13 vaccinated NFL staffers and four vaccinated NFL players have tested positive, according to ESPN’s Adam Schefter, with only a few teams reporting to camp so far.

 

Colts coach Frank Reich announced on Twitter Monday that he tested positive positive for COVID-19 despite the fact he’s fully vaccinated, and will miss the first part of training camp. He said he’s asymptomatic, which supports the NFLPA’s argument for vaccinated staffers and players being tested more than every two weeks. The concern is that asymptomatic individuals might spread the virus with so much time between tests.

 

Quote

The problem with increasing the testing cadence for vaccinated players is that some of them got the shot primarily to avoid frequent testing. An email to the NFLPA inquiring about how often the vaccinated players would have to get tested if the rules are amended was not immediately returned.

The NFL and NFLPA are currently in talks to revise some of the protocols.

 

Quote

“As we’ve seen in the NBA, MLB, College World Series and Olympics, there will be instances where vaccinated individuals test positive,’' he wrote. “To create a narrative that we will only be dealing with positive cases from unvaccinated players is inaccurate and disingenuous.’'

He stressed that “breakthrough cases should concern all of us. The science is not clear on whether vaccinated individuals can transmit COVID to others. That’s why we believe that we need to be testing our vaccinated players more often than our current rate until we know for sure. That data will be critical for our success this season and would be a game changer for our country and the rest of the world.’'

 

-Tretter defends the protocols and fines for unvaccinated players as “the same as last year”, not new 

[dave mcbride]

Just now, GoBills808 said:

I realize this is getting off topic, but since the rights conferred were applied selectively on the very basis of race I have to disagree.

The deed had been done by the time the BOR actually passed, and it was used by minorities all of the time going forward to secure their rights. Suggestion for you: read the Constitution of 1787 and then assume that the BoR never got appended. Seriously.

2 minutes ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

I didn’t want to start a new thread we have to police, but this quite lengthy interview with JC Tretter is interesting and relevant:

Article from Cleveland.com

 

 I had to give my email address to read it, so a few key points:

-he had a conference call with a group of 15 concerned NFL players (described as “mostly unvaccinated) on Sunday

-they are all pissed off about the NFL’s memo on forfeiting games - Tretter said it created “panic and frenzy”

-they feel the league is setting up a divisive scenario between vaccinated and unvaccinated players and trying to coerce players to get vaccinated, after agreeing it would be voluntary [I can’t say they’re wrong]

 

 

 

-Tretter defends the protocols and fines for unvaccinated players as “the same as last year”, not new 

Not sure you know this, but Tretter is from Buffalo and went to the Industrial and Labor Relations school at Cornell (one of the state funded schools at Cornell and where my son Sam is a rising senior). Plus he interned during his summers at one of the best economic development non-profits in Buffalo (my wife Leah runs an economic development nonprofit in Brooklyn and knows about the one he worked at; she’s from Buffalo). Anyway, Tretter is really, really smart and on the ball.  It pains me that he’s not on the Bills! 

[GoBills808]

5 minutes ago, dave mcbride said:

The deed had been done by the time the BOR actually passed, and it was used by minorities all of the time going forward to secure their rights. Suggestion for you: read the Constitution of 1787 and then assume that the BoR never got appended. Seriously.

Not for nothing, but when someone refers to the Bill of Rights they're usually only talking about the first ten.

 

Also, minorities weren't 'using it all the time to secure their rights', at least not initially...it was almost 150 years after drafting the damn thing that the courts began enforcing anything even resembling minority rights.

[Hapless Bills Fan]

30 minutes ago, GoBills808 said:

Not for nothing, but when someone refers to the Bill of Rights they're usually only talking about the first ten.

 

Also, minorities weren't 'using it all the time to secure their rights', at least not initially...it was almost 150 years after drafting the damn thing that the courts began enforcing anything even resembling minority rights.

 

OK, Gents, time to take this one elsewhere.

[rayray808]

So glad the Green Bay Packers are fueling news via social media or else we would be front page click bait on a divided locker room 

[Hapless Bills Fan]

19 minutes ago, rayray808 said:

So glad the Green Bay Packers are fueling news via social media or else we would be front page click bait on a divided locker room 

 

Maybe we ought to do a GoFundMe for Aaron Rodgers personal herd of Drama Llamas, make sure they get some extra oats or whatever Llamas like for a treat

[purple haze]

On 7/25/2021 at 5:51 PM, Hapless Bills Fan said:

 

I think social media is a piss-poor medium for team discussion.   I would think these guys have each other’s Instagrams and can DM if they don’t have phone numbers and text.

 

I agree the teammate interactions seem respectful, but the general tweeting is frequently rude and attacking.  And people are all in with interpreting Teammate A as attacking Teammate B which, even if that’s not the intent, could potentially cause problems.

 

That leads me to conclude that Beasley’s goal is not intra-team discussion

Different generation.  People seem to need to do most things online these days.

[HappyDays]

On today's Locked On Bills podcast, Joe Marino gave his thoughts on the controversy:

 

 

It's only the first 5 minutes or so of the episode. He basically says that whatever you think about Beasley's comments, he doesn't believe it will cause any problems in the Bills locker room, and other than annoying McDermott it won't actually affect our season.

[YoloinOhio]

13 minutes ago, HappyDays said:

On today's Locked On Bills podcast, Joe Marino gave his thoughts on the controversy:

 

 

It's only the first 5 minutes or so of the episode. He basically says that whatever you think about Beasley's comments, he doesn't believe it will cause any problems in the Bills locker room, and other than annoying McDermott it won't actually affect our season.

I listened to that earlier and I agree with him. Social media is not real life.