HardyBoy
-
Posts
1,685 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Gallery
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by HardyBoy
-
-
Would they have to specify specifically if it was a high ankle sprain?
-
3 hours ago, Mailman said:
Cool. Its Bill Burr, everyone!
Literally my first thought and I'm so glad this was the second post!! Well done...Bill Burr McDermott is what I'm thinking...he's got McD's mouth or something
-
1
-
-
9 hours ago, Jauronimo said:
This comparison might be equivalent if by continuing to watch the game until its conclusion you knew you would be forced to go get in your car and drive laps around your neighborhood at 1 mph for the next 2.5 hours.
My comment was in reference to people saying that was just what happens normally at night games...which people do leave all the time to beat traffic...I dont think this was about...
this is like someone going to a phish show, not liking the set list and being annoyed and then leaving before the encore when they normally stay and having them do some crazy rare thing or a super extended amazing set list where the first letter of each song spells some weird inside joke.
And I've gotten stuck for hours after a Great Woods show outside of boston cause we parked in that back lot by accident, definitely should have left before that encore in retrospect, lol...and I heard traffic outside the stadium was exceptionally bad before the game too
I'm not judging people, just saying that the people who are saying that people left early was just how people leave during night games all the time...nah that's not what it was, people were mad
-
2
-
-
9 hours ago, RkFast said:
Here's a scorching hot take....
It the grand scheme of things if you left you have ZERO reason to be truly upset, especially if youre lucky enough to go to lots of games.
Yeah it was cool as hell and a great moment. But you didnt miss the Bills win the Super Bowl, or get to one. You didnt miss some historic moment like a player setting a record of some sort. This was not "The Comeback" in the playoffs.
You missed the end of a really nice comeback win in Week ONE of the season. Nothing more, nothing less. And if youre blessed enough to go to lots of games, youve seen a TON of "moments" like what went down and youre on schedule to witness a ton more.
So rest easy....and next time book the babysitter for an extra hour
.
It was a scoragami and no team has ever in history come back from a 15 pt deficit with whatever amount of time and won in regulation.
Literally never happened before in history and the ravens also were the first team with i think it was 40 pts and more than 225 or whatever threshold of rushing yards that they met...but sure...
-
1 hour ago, AlCowlingsTaxiService said:
The judging of fellow fans level of fandom is tiresome IMO … Prime time night games are difficult for many based on factors I shouldn’t have to name, and people leave Sunday afternoon games early as well … wouldn’t be surprised if Josh walks back his post game comments regarding this issue. Calling out any fans is a recipe for problems. Just ask Sammy Watkins. Josh has certainly stockpiled plenty of goodwill with fans, unlike Watkins, but still … tread gently here
I don't think he was at all talking about fans that had to leave early for reasons unrelated to the score of the game in any way.
Leaving a two score football game with almost half a quarter to go is kinda wild...like I didn't even consider turning the game off...if they had gone up to make it a three score game then sure, but it was a two possession game with plenty of time to get two possessions.
That's who he's talking about...not the people that leave every game or concert before the end/encore to beat traffic...30% of the stadium does not do that unless it is a blowout and it just objectively wasn't a blowout at really any point in time...the bills had two three and outs back to back earlier in the game, why not the ravens?
-
1
-
-
Might have been why they didn't go for it there
-
1
-
4
-
-
5 hours ago, appoo said:
“Stepped out of bounds” you mean illegally shoved out of the back of the end zone
5 hours ago, djp14150 said:They should have called illegal contact on that play. Last time I checked back of EZ us more than t yds from LOS
Allen was out of the pocket, once a qb scrambles, illegal contact past five yards isn't a thing anymore... was a really good defensive play
I texted people I almost thought Coleman should have stopped, but what if there was a tip... then there was a tip on that 4th down play and he made the catch... crazy!
-
43 minutes ago, MikePJ76 said:
Autism?
wow now I know who kept the Star magazine in business in the 80’s and 90’s.
I mean both my kids have high functioning autism and I likely have it too (undiagnosed) and I definitely have adhd that wasn't diagnoased until my last year of college and my wife has adhd and wasn't diagnosed until into her 30s.
Getting diagnosed with that stuff, especially for women is really challenging, because a lot of the early research was done on disruptive boys in classrooms and girls on average don't present their symptoms that way... I'm also not gossiping, I'm highlighting the things that people make fun of Taylor Swift for are things that certainly are present in people with autism and neurodivergence more generally
https://www.yourtango.com/self/signs-taylor-swift-may-be-autistic-or-neurodivergent
-
2
-
2
-
-
1 hour ago, 4merper4mer said:
And her persona, songwriting, level of sincerity……..
Haha, hold on let me go put on some top 40 country real quick...I need me some non-formulaic music and lyrics...
Lol, that said, i don't disagree on Swift, though admittedly I don't know much about her lyrics and such, like I really can't speak to them being genuine.
Of course I see a bunch of live music from bands like Phish and grateful dead tributes and Billy Strings and other jammy stuff...most of those bands don't have stylists and such driving narratives, but my guess is basically all music on popular radio these days does and I dont think Taylor swift is any more egregious in that compared to others, though she might be more successful...she also reportedly has autism, so some of the feeling that she lacks genuiness might be coming from that as opposed to her not actually being genuine, because honestly she does seem pretty genuine a lot of the time, just sometimes the non-verbal social cue type stuff feels a bit unexpected somehow
-
1
-
1
-
-
Oooh...can someone in here please tell me how I should be thankful for LiveNation and Ticketmaster?
-
Some of these movie commercials aren't exactly ideal for an 8 and 5 year old watching before 9pm
I'm not usually too concerned with stuff like that, but some of these are decently scary for a 5 year old...
-
On 9/4/2025 at 12:08 AM, HappyDays said:
It's worth noting that Sunday Ticket at its most expensive is $522. That's for returning users who add Red Zone. Over a year that averages out to $43.50 per month. That's like two DoorDash orders. I understand there is a very very small percentage of the population to where budgeting an extra $43.50 per month would genuinely be impossible and there are no other realistic budget cuts they could make in their life. I'm not trying to belittle those people. But let's be honest, most of the people in this discussion are not in that tiny minority. Most of them just see an easy way to get out of paying for the service so they take it, because they don't want to inconvenience themselves by making small sacrifices somewhere else in their budget.
Oh get out of here with that...$522 can be used to get a really nice used guitar that you could have for the rest of your life and pass down to people.
Plus the price of the sunday ticket in the rest of the world is a fraction of what we pay here.
Please next tell me how the price of insulin or epi pens are no big deal because it's some much smaller amount when spread over a much longer time span...and ignore the fact that they are gouging people here when they aren't allowed to do it other places.
-
5
-
-
13 minutes ago, HappyDays said:
And the same logic could apply to shoplifting. The Walton family owns the Broncos and also owns Walmart. You could say that stealing candy bars from Walmart isn't a big deal, and you could say since the owners are billionaires that means it's totally an okay thing to do. But 99% of the population would disagree with that. Even shoplifters themselves know on some level that what they're doing is wrong. What's weird is that everyone agrees shoplifting from billionaires is wrong and shouldn't be encouraged, but streaming content illegally has absolutely zero social taboos at all. Quite the opposite, people brag about it and act personally offended when legal authorities shut it down. Like what did you really expect to happen?
For what it's worth I don't think people that stream content illegally are evil. Nor do I think shoplifters are. Absolutely there are some people in such desperate financiial situations that they have no other choice and while I don't condone the behavior I don't really begrudge them either. What gets me is that there are plenty of people who do have a choice, who could afford that one month of Netflix to watch a single game (or just choose not to watch it) but actively decide that they deserve that content for free. It's as if tens of millions of Americans all at once decided they were going to start walking out of Walmart with toiletries shoved in their pockets, and then got enraged when the stores instituted security measures to stop the endemic.
And yes at a macro level I do believe that such widespread illegal activity absolutely affects the overall price of these services. Because if it happened in the opposite direction of course prices would be affected. Imagine if all of a sudden Hershey lost 20% of their annual sales because 20% of their customers decided to just start stealing their candy bars. You don't think that would affect the price?
I'd be more curious as to why their customers decided to suddenly start stealing 20% of Hershey's chocolate bars...
-
1
-
-
9 hours ago, Coach Tuesday said:
LOL ok.
Yeah I get that this is a prevailing view these days - theft from big companies is fine because they're greedy. I don't agree that it's fine, nor do I agree that it's victimless, but again, I understand that it's a commonly-held core belief now.
I mean ensh$tification is a real thing...the issue is we're being turned into the product, not the consumer.
They're also coming in, stealing the market by offering super low prices and getting rid of or buying up any competition that might exist and then once that is achieved, they jack up prices on customers and turn the customers into the product and then using excess cash for stock buy backs and then laying off employees
This is a lot more nuanced of an issue than you're making it out to be...like there is a social contract aspect of this whole thing...like $20 for a cd back in the day, when the money mostly went to record companies and the musicians got saddled with signing bonus debt and loss of control of the master recordings (aka their music)
Look at spotify...artist make like .0004 cents a stream or something insane like that, but the record labels still get a significantly larger piece per share.
-
6 minutes ago, MJS said:
I addressed that. Receivers switch in and out according to personnel packages. Shakir is a slot receiver, so is especially prone to being taken off the field. But the top receivers play much higher percentages of snaps. Ja'marr Chase plays 80-90% of snaps. Derrick Henry plays 60% of snaps, or less. Barkley played 70%. But most "workhorse" style backs play in that 60-70% range while most top receivers play 75-90% of snaps. Running backs need the rest.
Shakir is making more money than Cook... I'm not comparing him to Chase
If having workhorse style backs significantly decreases career longevity and in turn allows teams to point to workhorse backs and say their careers are short...who made the rule they needed to be workhorse backs?
If Cook makes it into a third contract...he's had a lot less usage going all the way back to college...also, I'd argue the Bills aren't using a running back by committee as much as a running back by situation...much like pulling receivers off the field for different personnel packages and such...also, #1 receivers are on the field for a lot of snaps, but they're also decoys a lot of the time/run clear out routes to help other people get open
-
15 minutes ago, MJS said:
Sure, which is why so many teams have gone to a committee approach. It takes less off of your starting back, but that also makes you less valuable to your team because you are doing less. It isn't complicated. The more you do, the more valuable you are to the team.
Meanwhile, the rest of the offense is able to play close to 100% of snaps and only come off the field for different formations and personnel packages. Pretty much only running backs need breaks. Sometimes receivers if they run a bunch of long routes in a row.
Shakir played 54% of snaps last year...Cook played 45%
-
1 minute ago, MJS said:
Because the more you can do, the more valuable and harder to replace you become to your team. If they don't need to pay money and roster high quality 2nd and 3rd backs, or scheme around your inabilities, those resources can go elsewhere.
And like I said, if you aren't able to handle the rigors of the position, there is a long line of talent willing to step in and take your job and prove that they can do it.
Virtually nobody can handle the rigors of the position. Yes there are a lot of people who can do 70% of what an elite running back becomes because you play them 70% of the snaps...what if you played them 50% of the snaps and got 100% of their ability for a much longer time?
Why do they need that many carries? I think the bills have shown with Cook that it doesn't need to be that way...and they aren't spending a lot on Davis or Johnson at all.
But yeah, the long line of talent is not better than or as good as the best running backs, unless you grind the best running backs into the ground with too many carries.
-
40 minutes ago, MJS said:
How is it not? You are running the ball through a gauntlet of large men trying to tackle you. It is a high contact, high volume position.
Oh I get that it's a physical position... I'm talking about who says they need to get 350 carries a season?
Look at what the conversation around Cook was during the contract negotiations...he doesn't play enough % of plays
-
32 minutes ago, MJS said:
That's the nature of the position. There's nothing unethical about it. Durability is really important for a running back. If you can't do it, there is a line of young guys waiting to take your job.
Says who on it being the nature of the position?
-
I was just watching something on Shaun Alexander and how his body broke down basically right after signing a big contract extension. I also think Ricky Williams falls into this category as well.
Both of their teams gave them on way way way too many carries...so much so that Williams decided he needed to take some time off to rest his body in order to essentially survive, and then the amount of vilification he received from that...it was wild and the attacks were extremely personal on him and yeah, it wasn't cool.
What I'm saying is that teams often use their running backs in unethical ways that contribute to their bodies breaking down and then turning around and saying see, the position is not worth paying...except they're largely causing that to happen
-
7 hours ago, GunnerBill said:
He definitely is. He can still play, I wouldn't call him washed. But dominant is not a word I'd use to describe him any more either.
Got me thinking in terms of a player like Dequan Jones...he's not able to dominate anymore and make plus plays regularly, but perhaps he's able to allow you to play a scheme and that has value as well (perhaps significant value).
Like if he's still able to anchor against double teams and not get pushed out of the hole, that then allows everyone else to play better because they're able to do what they need to do within the scheme and structure of the defense and then they can make plus plays because they are capable of making them within the structure of the play.
Like Bernard improved so much when he had Jones playing well and same with Oliver...not everyone can be Josh Allen or Aaron Donald and play outside of scheme and dominate, very few can, but there are many players that can be excellent within scheme and you need teammates that can maintain scheme to do that.
I guess that's a long way of saying maybe it doesn't matter so much if he's not playing at an elite level still, if he can allow them to be confident he can maintain his role within the scheme consistently.
-
1
-
-
Sounds like there are questions/ evidence he might already be in decline fwiw
-
1
-
1
-
-
10 hours ago, WotAGuy said:
RetattaTempo
Ford Taurus
Ralph is cheap
ex-Panther signings
George Siefert at the airport
These are Wall of Fame bits that will never die. Fight me.
Don't forget how losing a game against an nfc team can actually help your playoff odds...
-
1
-
1
-
-
15 hours ago, CSBill said:
TBD Public Service Announcement: The "gotta be an exPanther or Beane won't sign him" bit is long over, and even more critically, it is not witty anymore and has no comedic value. Can we put it to rest?
But he's an ex panther
-
2
-
Hilarious song that summarizes the Bills improbable victory on Sunday night!
in The Stadium Wall
Posted
Haha, old school country isnt the same as contemporary top 40 country at all...I just saw Sierra Ferrell in Raleigh Wednesday...my 4th or 5th time seeing her...she's incredible