nfreeman

Me too, although I'd like to see Ennis reassert himself in the "best short forward wearing #63 in the division" race this year.

Or Nylander? Does anyone have any info on the forward lines / D pairings?

So after listening to Rex's presser, I think there's a pretty good likelihood that canning Roman was indeed at Rex's initiative, and not forced by TP/KP. (Not certain though by any means.) In particular, it sounded like Rex did not like the way TT was being utilized. I'd guess that Rex wants to see TT using his legs more. Rex also mentioned wanting to get more out of Watkins -- entirely reasonable after the way he was used in the first 2 games. I may be kidding myself, but I also have a hard time believing that TP/KP really ordered Rex to fire Roman. I don't think I've ever heard of anything like that happening in week two of an NFL season. They might have asked Rex a bunch of tough questions about the offense, but that isn't the same thing as a ordering him to fire his coordinator. So if in fact this was Rex's call, he is really going to have to deliver a good rest of the season in order to save his job. And, I have to believe that if Rex goes, Whaley is definitely gone and quite possibly Brandon as well. (Let's remember that Ted Black was given his walking papers by the Sabres after failing in a similar role to the one Brandon has now.) That would mean probably a much stronger front office next season, including the draft – with grown-ups making decisions on trades and so forth. Or, Rex and Lynn really deliver the goods by unlocking the potential of TT, Watkins, Clay, McCoy and Dareus, and the Bills make a miracle run to 10 and 6. Either of those works for me.

Well, for the first 13 years or so, Ralph was the big one. There's also alleged salary cap wizard Jim Overdorf.

Wow. If Brandon or TP forced the firing of Roman, it's an ever bigger clown show than I thought.

FIFY.

Bills remaining schedule: Sep. 25 Cardinals Oct. 2 at New England Patriots Oct. 9 at Los Angeles Rams Oct. 16 San Francisco 49ers Oct. 23 at Miami Dolphins Oct. 30 New England Patriots Nov. 7 at Seattle Seahawks Nov. 20 at Cincinnati Bengals Nov. 27 Jacksonville Jaguars Dec. 4 at Oakland Raiders Dec. 11 Pittsburgh Steelers Dec. 18 Cleveland Browns Dec. 24 Miami Dolphins Jan. 1 at New York Jets Certain losses: - Cardinals - both Patriots games - Seattle - at Cinci - Pittsburgh - at Raiders Probable losses: - 49ers - at Jets - one of the Miami games Probable wins: - at Rams - one of the Miami games - Jaguars - Cleveland That's 4-12, with the possibility of flexing to 6-10. I don't think they'll do better than 6-10.

Ted Washington was -- but he was a far superior player.

Really? You think that if the Bills finish 5-11 and look like a team in disarray -- which is certainly a highly likely scenario -- they are going to bring him back? I will be very surprised if this happens.

The likelihood of this being Rex's last season in Buffalo has to be at least 85% right now.

Holy mackerel. The wheels are officially coming off.

They've thrown our love away. Now we're just going through the motions.

He was joking you hoser.

The problem IMHO is that this is simply not a realistic possibility. He's not going to go from president of the organization, with significant input on everything, to marketing director. While I agree with TBPhD that he's probably safer than DW and Rex, I think him having that status is a big mistake by TP.

Serious question: if the Bills are 0-4 in 2 weeks, does TP fire Brandon, Whaley and Rex a la firing Darcy and Rolston -- and bring in Jimbo as president to find the next GM and coach a la PLF? I vote yes.

Well, although he said a lot of stuff, it's impossible to know which statements appealed to which people. Do you not agree that it's likely that many were motivated more by the "the system is rigged against you/Washington has forgotten about you?" than by the stuff you're referring to?

Indeed. Politically incorrect, and inadvertently offensive to some -- but not an intentional statement meant to flaunt bigotry.

How do you know this? And do you think it's better to assume that people have honorable motives as opposed to assuming that they are bigots? Also, I'm not sure the reaction he's describing is all that nuanced. I don't think much nuance is involved when someone resents being looked down on and thought of as ignorant/racist/white trash.

Pretty topical piece in the WSJ today: http://www.wsj.com/articles/les-deplorables-1473895470 (Probably paywall-barred, but likely findable on google -- look for "Henninger deplorables").

Good post.

As to the first bolded -- yes, it is. In your example -- would it be bigotry to say "Most Asians are conniving and untrustworthy?" Or "Most Obama supporters are lazy, shiftless [insert slur for African Americans]?" The question answers itself. As to the 2nd bolded -- I don't doubt that you've had negative experiences with Trump supporters. So how about something like "I've seen scary signs of bigotry from the Trump supporters in my town -- such as X, Y and Z?" Or "look at this interview with this racist dirtbag Trump supporter -- can you believe the ignorant things he/she is spewing?" Isn't that more accurate than "Most Trump supporters are white trash/bigots/rednecks?" (FWIW, I spend a fair amount of time in a fairly poor part of upstate NY, and have had numerous conversations with Trump supporters there. I haven't detected any bigotry. But I appreciate that YMMV.) The point, of course, which Claude and Neo have made much more elegantly than I have, is that slurring millions of people with whom you disagree politically is both offensive and intellectually unsound. Finally, in response to your other post, I will note that if person A slurs person B, and you say "I agree with person A" -- then you have slurred person B. I don't see what other conclusion can be drawn about your statement. The sticker says a fair amount about the person who displays it on his/her car -- but it doesn't say anything about the millions of other people who are voting for the same candidate as the car-owner.

This one was indirect, so it wouldn't have shown up on a search. Specifically, poster A called poster B a white supremacist, to which I took issue. PA then stated that a subsequent post by poster B showed that I was wrong to defend poster B from the charge of being a white supremacist.

Well, there are some interesting theories floating around in here. PA was suspended after, despite multiple warnings (both public and private) not to slur those he disagrees with as bigots/racists/white trash/rednecks etc., he called another poster here a white supremacist and, separately, again called Trump supporters bigots and racists. I will also note that when challenged on this, PA reiterated his view that Trump supporters are "truly awful people." That isn't political discussion. It's just name-calling with (ironically) more than a little bigotry in the mix. As always, I'm happy to discuss.

This is a good summary of why many conservatives will hold their noses and vote for Trump: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/439952/united-states-obama-foreign-policy-military-deterrence-vladimir-putin

I think Stephens is excellent. Today's column summarizes quite well the reasons many conservatives are conflicted about Trump.