off topic Buffalo Bills 2015

[tom webster]

Man, that sounds exactly like how alot of us characterized Drew Stafford.

 

 

Blank porn DVD?

 

Sorry, can't let that go. Stafford might not have been what we all wanted him to be but no one that played with him thought he was unprepared or didn't care. In fact, most felt he cared too much and was too hard on himself.

Russell is a poster child for just a complete waste of talent.

[Weave]

Sorry, can't let that go. Stafford might not have been what we all wanted him to be but no one that played with him thought he was unprepared or didn't care. In fact, most felt he cared too much and was too hard on himself.

Russell is a poster child for just a complete waste of talent.

 

There were many conversations wondering if hockey was really a passion of his.  I think his play at times reflected that.

 

That is all I was trying to convey.

Edited July 7, 2015 by weave

[tom webster]

There were many conversations wondering if hockey was really a passion of his. I think his play at times reflected that.

 

That is all I was trying to convey.

Far enough. He just doesn't belong on the same conversation as Russell and that's all I was trying to convey.

[Eleven]

Sorry, can't let that go. Stafford might not have been what we all wanted him to be but no one that played with him thought he was unprepared or didn't care. In fact, most felt he cared too much and was too hard on himself.

Russell is a poster child for just a complete waste of talent.

 

Are you talking about Stafford?  Or Vanek?

 

Vanek cared too much.

 

I have no idea whether Stafford watched video, but, on the ice, he did not care too much.  Or at all.

Edited July 7, 2015 by Eleven

[WildCard]

I know, I know, it's only July. But still, 4th best odds?

http://www.scout.com/nfl/bills/story/1560612-bills-a-vegas-favorite-for-afc-championship

[TrueBlueGED]

I know, I know, it's only July. But still, 4th best odds?

http://www.scout.com/nfl/bills/story/1560612-bills-a-vegas-favorite-for-afc-championship

 

Either they're unaware of who our QBs are, or they're worse judges of talent than the people who thought Jeff Tuel "showed something."

[That Aud Smell]

I got a bad feeling about the 2015 Bills.

 

Expectations are fairly sky high. New system on offense. No viable option at QB yet.

 

Maybe training camp will provide me with some comfort.

[wjag]

I know, I know, it's only July. But still, 4th best odds?

http://www.scout.com/nfl/bills/story/1560612-bills-a-vegas-favorite-for-afc-championship

 

I'm starting to drink the grape kool ade.  Pretty solid D and a run heavy O that will minimize the QB.  Could be the Ravens model to their first SB with Trent Dilfer.

[TrueBlueGED]

I got a bad feeling about the 2015 Bills.

 

Expectations are fairly sky high. New system on offense. No viable option at QB yet.

 

Maybe training camp will provide me with some comfort.

The defense will be good enough to prevent any real disaster.

[That Aud Smell]

The defense will be good enough to prevent any real disaster.

I think that is true.

 

Thing is, there are outcomes superior to a real disaster that would feel like a complete and total disappointment. Another 9-7 record and missed playoffs, for example.

[TrueBlueGED]

I think that is true.

 

Thing is, there are outcomes superior to a real disaster that would feel like a complete and total disappointment. Another 9-7 record and missed playoffs, for example.

I suppose for many fans that's true. However, given the QBs, I think 9-7 is much more likely than making the playoffs and I'd have a hard time getting too bent out of shape over the most likely outcome happening (see also: NHL draft lottery).

[That Aud Smell]

Gotcha.

 

You're a pragmatist, a realist.

 

I think a super majority of Bills Nation is swept up in the Pegula/One Buffalo/Rex euphoria, and it's playoffs or bust.

[shrader]

I got a bad feeling about the 2015 Bills.

 

Expectations are fairly sky high. New system on offense. No viable option at QB yet.

 

Maybe training camp will provide me with some comfort.

 

Expectations are high among Buffalo fans, but pretty much nowhere else.  That really doesn't feel all that different to me than most years.  Yes, the feel around the team thanks to the new front office is very new, but the fans are still the exact same to me.  They're always the eternal optimists at this time of the year.

 

 

Oh, and I thought the typo I fixed while starting this post was pretty funny.  I originally typed out "RExpectations".  I probably should have left that one in there.

[wjag]

Expectations are high among Buffalo fans, but pretty much nowhere else.  That really doesn't feel all that different to me than most years.  Yes, the feel around the team thanks to the new front office is very new, but the fans are still the exact same to me.  They're always the eternal optimists at this time of the year.

 

 

Oh, and I thought the typo I fixed while starting this post was pretty funny.  I originally typed out "RExpectations".  I probably should have left that one in there.

 

RExpectations is a keeper  :thumbsup:

[The Dominator]

I suppose for many fans that's true. However, given the QBs, I think 9-7 is much more likely than making the playoffs and I'd have a hard time getting too bent out of shape over the most likely outcome happening (see also: NHL draft lottery).

 

This has been my thought process regarding this team up to this point: Looking at the differences between last year's 9-7 team and today's, upgrades were made at head coach, offensive coordinator, RB, WR, and TE. O-line is still a question mark. QB is an ugly wash. The defensive personnel is largely the same. 

 

But even with multiple upgrades on the offensive side of the ball to a team that went 9-7 and was poorly handled in regards to offensive playcalling (Anyone remember 3rd down playcalling against the Jets?) and game management (ahem Marrone), I can't predict more than 10 wins because of the quarterback position. Maybeee 11 wins if everything went right (see: 2013 KC Chiefs) but they are most likely a 9 or 10 win team, right on the fringe of the playoffs. 

 

Edit: BTW, who else is pumped for training camp? I am beyond excited to see how Rex interacts on the field and see all the different formations and personnel groupings Greg Roman applies. 

Edited July 7, 2015 by TheDominator

[shrader]

This has been my thought process regarding this team up to this point: Looking at the differences between last year's 9-7 team and today's, upgrades were made at head coach, offensive coordinator, RB, WR, and TE. O-line is still a question mark. QB is an ugly wash. The defensive personnel is largely the same. 

 

But even with multiple upgrades on the offensive side of the ball to a team that went 9-7 and was poorly handled in regards to offensive playcalling (Anyone remember 3rd down playcalling against the Jets?) and game management (ahem Marrone), I can't predict more than 10 wins because of the quarterback position. Maybeee 11 wins if everything went right (see: 2013 KC Chiefs) but they are most likely a 9 or 10 win team, right on the fringe of the playoffs. 

 

Edit: BTW, who else is pumped for training camp? I am beyond excited to see how Rex interacts on the field and see all the different formations and personnel groupings Greg Roman applies. 

 

The margin of error is so razor thin in those games though.  I know it's cliche, but a couple bounces go the other way and the results of many of those games change quickly.  Just look at that Lions game.  They had no business winning that one.  I know there were a few others that could have gone either way, both wins and losses, but that's the first one that immediately comes to mind.  If I had to guess, I'd put them pretty much right where they were last year.  The only way I'd go over 9 wins is if one of the QBs emerges.

[The Dominator]

The margin of error is so razor thin in those games though.  I know it's cliche, but a couple bounces go the other way and the results of many of those games change quickly.  Just look at that Lions game.  They had no business winning that one.  I know there were a few others that could have gone either way, both wins and losses, but that's the first one that immediately comes to mind.  If I had to guess, I'd put them pretty much right where they were last year.  The only way I'd go over 9 wins is if one of the QBs emerges.

 

I choose to disregard all the little bounces and individual plays (you could also point to the Bryce Brown fumble into the end zone and the inability of Chandler to grab the ball when it bounces right in his lap against KC). The way I look at it, they all even out over the course of a season. You could probably lose your mind if you take the time to think about every individual play that changed the outlook of a game. So yeah, I disregard them and look at the makeup of the roster and coaching staff and see a team that could probably end up anywhere from 8-8 to 11-5. Once I see a few practices from the quarterbacks I will be able to bridge that gap by a game or 2, and finally go through the schedule and come up with a final prediction once injuries are accounted for. 

[That Aud Smell]

The rookie 2nd rounder from FSU - Darby - was on the Twitter earlier this morning addressing the situation with an FSU player who was dismissed after an incident where he was apparently shown to have assaulted a woman.

 

Darby first said it's never okay to hit a woman . . .  (wait for it), but that something should be done to deliver consequences to women like the one involved in this situation who intentionally provoke men (i.e., football players) and that there should be more consideration for the fact that the player now faces the loss of a career, etc.

 

The Tweets are gone now. I'm sure they'll be re-posted somewhere.

[TrueBlueGED]

The rookie 2nd rounder from FSU - Darby - was on the Twitter earlier this morning addressing the situation with an FSU player who was dismissed after an incident where he was apparently shown to have assaulted a woman.

 

Darby first said it's never okay to hit a woman . . . (wait for it), but that something should be done to deliver consequences to women like the one involved in this situation who intentionally provoke men (i.e., football players) and that there should be more consideration for the fact that the player now faces the loss of a career, etc.

 

The Tweets are gone now. I'm sure they'll be re-posted somewhere.

What, you don't think we should feel sorry for the guy who sunk his own career by assaulting a woman? Sigh, what an idiot.

 

That said, I do think there is a legitimate conversation to be had regarding how society treats domestic violence cases differently based upon the gender of the victim (see, for example, coverage of Hope Solo), but this is most definitely *not* the case to use as a launching pad for that discussion.

[Johnny DangerFace]

 

That said, I do think there is a legitimate conversation to be had regarding how society treats domestic violence cases differently based upon the gender of the victim (see, for example, coverage of Hope Solo), but this is most definitely *not* the case to use as a launching pad for that discussion.

Yes and yes. I can understand the scenario of a girl slaps a guy and a guy slaps her back. Imo both are in the wrong.

 

That's not the case here though at all

[Hoss]

Yes and yes. I can understand the scenario of a girl slaps a guy and a guy slaps her back. Imo both are in the wrong.

 

That's not the case here though at all

Maybe this should move to the politics thread, but I disagree. The fact of the matter is that men are, in almost every case, the physically dominant "opponent." Men need to show restraint.

The only situation where there is a need to retaliate is when there is a legitimate fear of physical danger or death. A slap or even a punch does not present this. Either move away and call the police and/or attempt to restrain the woman. If weapons are involved it changes, but a simple use of the hands is nothing and does not call for retaliation.

 

Note that I did not say that there should not be consequences when a woman attacks or hits a man. I'm saying that the consequence shouldn't be the man resulting to physical harm in return. The law should be more competent in handling these situations.

Edited July 7, 2015 by Hoss

[The Dominator]

What, you don't think we should feel sorry for the guy who sunk his own career by assaulting a woman? Sigh, what an idiot.

 

That said, I do think there is a legitimate conversation to be had regarding how society treats domestic violence cases differently based upon the gender of the victim (see, for example, coverage of Hope Solo), but this is most definitely *not* the case to use as a launching pad for that discussion.

 

 

Yes and yes. I can understand the scenario of a girl slaps a guy and a guy slaps her back. Imo both are in the wrong.

 

That's not the case here though at all

 

The conversation needs to happen. It's funny, I think back to what Stephen A. Smith said on First Take about domestic violence in general and how badly his words were altered...

 

"We know you (guys) have no business putting your hands on a woman. I don't know how many times I have to reiterate that... let's make sure we don't do anything to provoke wrong actions... men putting their hands on women is obviously a very real issue in our society and I think that besides talking about what guys shouldn't do, we have to also make sure you do your part to do whatever you can do to try and make sure it doesn't happen. We know they (the guys) are wrong, we know they're criminals and probably deserve to be in jail. We have to try and do what we can to prevent the situation from happening anyway."

 

He goes on to reiterate it is never right to put your hands on a female for any reason. I think there is a valid point in his words that people turned into "It's alright to hit women if they start an argument".  What I got from his commentary was 1. It's never ok to hit a female. Ever. 2. Females, PROTECT YOURSELF. I don't want to get injured in a car accident so I wear a seat belt. I don't want to fall off a cliff so I keep my distance from the edge. Male or female, if I don't want to start a physical altercation, I don't put my hand in someone's face or push them or throw my drink on them. I wear a seat belt, I stay clear of cliff edges, and I use my words if a verbal altercation arises. Am I wrong in my line of thinking?

 

EDIT: Even with all of that said, the guy is still in the wrong. Like Hoss said, men need to show restraint unless there is a legitimate threat. The FSU quarterback is obviously in the wrong and so was Ray Rice. There's no questioning that at all.

Edited July 7, 2015 by TheDominator

[LGR4GM]

The rookie 2nd rounder from FSU - Darby - was on the Twitter earlier this morning addressing the situation with an FSU player who was dismissed after an incident where he was apparently shown to have assaulted a woman.

 

Darby first said it's never okay to hit a woman . . .  (wait for it), but that something should be done to deliver consequences to women like the one involved in this situation who intentionally provoke men (i.e., football players) and that there should be more consideration for the fact that the player now faces the loss of a career, etc.

 

The Tweets are gone now. I'm sure they'll be re-posted somewhere.

Did anyone watch the video?  I did.  Guy tries to push her out of the way, she gets pissed, raises a hand, he grabs that hand, she throws a sad punch and he throws a really nice right hook.  I don't want to say who is right in this situation but dude, walk away.  Don't deck a girl. Unless you are being threatened with imminent death, walk away.  

 

Edited July 7, 2015 by LGR4GM

[Hoss]

The conversation needs to happen. It's funny, I think back to what Stephen A. Smith said on First Take about domestic violence in general and how badly his words were altered...

 

"We know you (guys) have no business putting your hands on a woman. I don't know how many times I have to reiterate that... let's make sure we don't do anything to provoke wrong actions... men putting their hands on women is obviously a very real issue in our society and I think that besides talking about what guys shouldn't do, we have to also make sure you do your part to do whatever you can do to try and make sure it doesn't happen. We know they (the guys) are wrong, we know they're criminals and probably deserve to be in jail. We have to try and do what we can to prevent the situation from happening anyway."

 

He goes on to reiterate it is never right to put your hands on a female for any reason. I think there is a valid point in his words that people turned into "It's alright to hit women if they start an argument". What I got from his commentary was 1. It's never ok to hit a female. Ever. 2. Females, PROTECT YOURSELF. I don't want to get injured in a car accident so I wear a seat belt. I don't want to fall off a cliff so I keep my distance from the edge. Male or female, if I don't want to start a physical altercation, I don't put my hand in someone's face or push them or throw my drink on them. I wear a seat belt, I stay clear of cliff edges, and I use my words if a verbal altercation arises. Am I wrong in my line of thinking?

No, you're pretty spot on here aside from using Stephen A. Smith as a quote machine here. He lost the benefit of the doubt long ago when he insulted those that insinuated that Floyd Mayweather is a domestic abuser. Floyd Mayweather deserves to be knocked off this pedestal but won't be. Along with many other athletes that we do or don't know about.

[That Aud Smell]

That said, I do think there is a legitimate conversation to be had regarding how society treats domestic violence cases differently based upon the gender of the victim (see, for example, coverage of Hope Solo), but this is most definitely *not* the case to use as a launching pad for that discussion.

 

Any such conversation would require real delicacy and depth of thought. Off the cuff, I'm thinking of stuff like how one side of the gender equation has a history of subjugation that the other does not; how, for every 100 deaths arising from domestic violence, something like 95 of them will involve a woman as the victim. I don't know that a gender-neutral approach to the matter is one I would endorse.

 

But, it is an interesting issue.