VOR

Quite possibly the most telling and best post you could ever offer, Hollywood Donahoe. Go back to creating a thread so you don't have to read the multitude of "TO taint-licking threads," will ya? You at least have a modicum of a clue there. BTW, I'll let you know how my "jealousy" of the Steelers (you know, the real "America's Team") is coming along. Yeah.

Players these days make exponentially more than they did back in '87, much less '82. Thanks to FA which they successfully fought for, and got. So they have the resources to withstand a strike. They are also MUCH better organized, as the last round of CBA talks, in which they took the owners to the cleaners, proved. A strike, while not ideal, is a very effective tool. But if the NFL really "planned" this, they would have done it before Sotomayor got confirmed. She'll be siding with the players. And even outside of her, I can't see the SCOTUS ruling in favor of the NFL, and in the process all the major sports, and giving them virtually unlimited power.

Maybe instead we should be pining for the Steelers' GM, Kevin Colbert?

Are there any pictures of the woman who accused McIntyre? She should be put through the same gauntlet.

Do I believe the NFL silenced "the press" Hollywood Donahoe, I mean "Mr. WEO?" No because everyone else reported on the Roethlisberger case. Do I believe the NFL told ESPN, essentially the only real (sad as that may be) sports network, to be silent? I can't rule that out, seeing as how they curiously broke with their previous tradition by not reporting on this case, involving one of the biggest stars in the NFL (which in itself makes it newsworthy). Outright lying that "they don't report on civil cases" when they did with Pacman Jones, doesn't help dispel my suspicion. Even if they claim that there was no evidence Roethlisberger raped her, they had NO problem plastering McItyre's name and face all over their website, with just as flimsy evidence. But even if the NFL didn't tell ESPN to hush up (and I'll readily admit that's a possibility, since it's not the central point of my argument) , it's clearly a case of ESPN silencing news because of some ulterior motive, which in this case would be getting interviews with Roethlisberger and the money they'd stand to lose from that. Imagine that! The NFL could never stoop to such levels! Just like I'm sure they didn't under-report their earnings, used to calculate players' salaries, so as to build up that "war chest." He did it to AVOID getting penalized for under-reporting injuries (he was warned prior to that game where he put half the team on the injury report and afterwards put Brady on every weekend). Yet you want us to believe that he was warned about illegally videotaping in 2006, and continued to do it, even though it "meant nothing?" Or even sillier, that the videotaping was a ruse, that ultimately cost his team? There is no way you actually believe this. It wouldn't involve anyone but the coaches. The videographer was obviously taping unbeknownst to virtually everyone, hence the reason he needed to be caught, and then tried to resist giving-up the tape after he was caught. LOL! I just gave you back EVERY quote you used to defend the Patriots, that has been used to defend Bonds. They sound silly, don't they? The difference between the two however is that it's easier to discredit one individual, especially a guy who hasn't come close to winning a championship and who is a dickhead, versus an entire championship-winning organization. I suspect that if Bonds had been nicer, like Mark McGuire, or even A-Rod, his case wouldn't have gone very far. You need to go back to Patriot Place or whatever the official Patriots forum is called, Hollywood Donahoe. Your ridiculous excuses would make sense to them there.

You're Crazy.

Knock the ball down, Nate!

Well it's not like he can let his grades suffer in college and still expect to be playing, with a free ride no less.

Who cares what you've seen? We only want to hear about what others have said.

I'd say that one thing less classy is...falsely accusing someone WAY out of your league of rape. Wouldn't you say, hand?

Your son in essence has a second chance. Not many people get that. Even fewer seize upon it (and when you're dealing with a teenager...). The time is NOW to tell him "bad grades, no play." Because there is still a high likelihood he doesn't make money playing football.

Has it occurred to me that the owners knew they were going to allow the ANI case to be heard by the SC back in 2006, when they crafted that POS CBA? LMAO! Um, no. I doubt it occurred to anyone BUT you. And that would include the owners. Do I even think they knew this was the plan when they opted-out of the CBA back in May of '08? No. There has been ZERO talk about this case until June of this year. But go ahead and believe what you want.

If only the Bills had faced a pretender like the Bears in any of the SB's!

But hey, "labor peace." Another Mr. WEO gem.

Again, oh the irony. Nothing compares to your view of the CBA or what TO needs to keep him happy in any given season stuff. This is far more plausible than those. Yet you soldier on and try to portray yourself as "calm and rational." Belichick putting Brady on the injury report is all you've got? Seriously? Seriously? Well let me ask you Superfan, does putting Brady on the injury report violate any rule? Versus not reporting an injury (you realize that Brady has been having shoulder problems since after his first season, right? Of course you do). Do you remember when Belichick put half the Patriots team on the injury report, as a big "F you" to the NFL? Or are you suggesting that Belichick illegally videotaping was an elaborate ruse, which ultimately cost his team a 1st rounder and himself and his team hundreds of thousands in fines? Wow! You need to look-up the definition of "conspiracy." And then once you've done that, realize that it doesn't have to be on a massive scale. Bravo. Barry Bonds and his fans couldn't have said it any better. "You're jealous and a child." "Everyone did it and Jose Canseco admitted that!" "It doesn't help because steroids can't make you hit a ball." "The league knew about it and looked the other way because it helped them." You need to seriously grow up. Or get a brain.

Yes, it's wholly inconceivable that the NFL said to ESPN "we'll make one mention of it and that should cover it." Totally crazy! No doubt you think Watergate was just a bunch of guys sneaking into the DNC HQ to play poker. Maybe the "calm and rational" Tim Graham will report on it in short order. I'm sure he's talked to people in the NFL who said "it was no big deal" and "everyone does it," regardless of whether the edict came down from the NFL or not.

Likewise.

In the case of Peters, he was a known commodity in the face of unknown draftees, and this was a weak draft for LT's (and BTW, I forgot to mention the Jags taking Eugene Monroe with the 8th overall, which makes it 3 teams taking LT's high in the draft). And a 2010 first rounder really does the Bills no good this year, even in trade since it's at-best worth a 2nd rounder in the 2009 draft. I'm sure the Bills got the offer from the Eagles and told other prospective teams about it to see if any would beat it. And since they did the deal a week before the draft, it tells me that other teams said "thanks but no thanks." As for TO, what was reported and what is the reality could be two different things. He could have had the Bills, another named team, and an unnamed team curious about him. We don't know.

It depends on the situation, you simpleton. You cannot use vapid generalizations to defend worthless points. But since you asked, if I'm desperate for a used but road-tested car, because I've got a job I need to get to and no other means of transportation, I'll likely "value" it more than others who may be looking at it, and thus overspend to get it. The others see what I'm willing to spend and may opt for a newer car which costs as much, but could turn out to be a lemon. Capiche, or should I put it in even more simpler terms for you?

Another generalization. In this instance, Peters had "value" to more than just the Eagles, since at least 2 other teams were looking for starting LT's, and ended up using high picks and tons of money for unproven players. As for the "how good he is," the Eagles said he is the "best LT in football." So in this case, "value" should relate to "how good he is." Unless you want to suggest that the Eagles OVER "valued" Peters, because they had no better options at LT.

The Bills were the first team TO visited and he signed with them before he could visit any other teams. There was no rush for him to sign with the Bills, and it's not like the 1-year $6.5M deal, which was less than what #2 WR's had just signed for, much less #1 WR's, was an offer he couldn't refuse, or an offer that the Bills were going to pull off the table if he left. But given his age and all the talk about his dropped passes, as well has his perceived cancerous nature, I could see that some teams felt he wasn't a top player anymore. As for maximizing what they got for him, I have no doubt they did. They did the deal a week before the draft, which was probably their deadline.

LOL! After your "not all that great" equals "not a good player," you shouldn't be talking about what others can or cannot understand.

LOL! Thanks for the lesson on the law of sillyjism. Only ONE TEAM offered anything substantial in trade for Peters, and that was the 5th-to-last pick in the 1st round. If that alone doesn't tell you how little Peters was valued league-wide, nothing else will. Unless you truly believe that only the Eagles were unhappy with their LT situation. But again, that is disproved by the Rams and Bengals spending the 2nd and 6th overall picks on LT's the following week in the draft, on players who are wholly unproven and will be paid at least what Peters got.

No it isn't, and I already "shredded" you regarding this.

Yes, and the NFL talked about Spygate...initially. Your point? Believing that there are no conspiracies is for simple people. Hence...