HardyBoy
-
Posts
1,413 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Gallery
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by HardyBoy
-
-
5 hours ago, Bill from NYC said:
We had the #8 pick in rounds 1 & 2, and the 5th and 8th pics in round 3. With these four premium picks we wound up with 3 players: S Whitner, DT McCargo, and DB Youboty. With 4 picks!!! In round 4, we drafted Ko Simpson. All this on a team with no quarterback and a pi$$ poor offensive line.
In all sincerity, everyone is entitled to their opinion on this and all other issues. That said, I'm sorry; how you could think that this was a good, or even half decent draft for the Bills is beyond any level of comprehension of which I am capable.
Peace!
Absolutely given that context, woof.
Is it possible that the Whitner pick was similar to the Preston Brown pick, where the game changed and had he been picked 5-10 years earlier he would have been much better (I think Preston Brown is the brusing MLB that was on the Bills while Kuechly and others were changing the position)
-
1
-
-
That's cool they're letting the 3rd qb be on the practice squad, thought it was silly to require them to be elevated last year
-
2
-
-
7 hours ago, PetermansRedemption said:
One of my biggest takeaways from that fiasco was, how bad was Haack punting in practice that you let Martin punt injured? AND why did you then bring Haack back after the playoffs?
Wasn't a big reason for that that you could only bring up two players per game from the practice squad and they had injuries at other positions?
I'd argue your punter playing against a top three defense in the cold is extremely important, but I also trust they understood the give and take with that decision and made it properly based on their calculations... that said, Martin, like Davis in the AFC champ game a bit back, was a huge liability.
-
1
-
-
17 hours ago, GunnerBill said:
Nudes?
-
1
-
1
-
-
25 minutes ago, Aussie Joe said:
$10.5m guaranteed … so probably notThey could account for the bonus this year though or a lot of it, no?
-
On 2/28/2024 at 4:25 PM, BarleyNY said:
No, the funniest part is that some people are arguing that Mel Kuiper’s draft has any value at all. It should be free because it’s worthless. And, yes, I’ve seen it. I have ESPN+ included with another service I pay for. I would never actually pay for ESPN+.
ESPN+ has basically all the sabres games for like $12 a month...living in North Carolina, it's an amazing deal...I've watched at least 80% of the games (talk about a confusing team, I think they're so young and are figuring out how to manage their bodies and energy over the course of a season)
-
1
-
-
4 hours ago, Punching Bag said:
I'd rather him be meticulous and find good deals rather than get a show cow with mad cow disease and Foot-and-mouth disease (FMD) but I can see some as part of the mob wanting him to be in a hurry so they can start bashing him for not listening to their great plan from Madden NFL GM.
Haha, this is such a ridiculous post and I freaking love it, well done (I'm being serious)!
-
18 hours ago, RangerDave said:
Help me here...am I the apples or am I the oranges?
I think it's analogous enough honestly
-
9 hours ago, RangerDave said:
He could have gone out there and made a fair catch, no? Instead he acted like a petulant child.
And putting film out there of him sandbagging it and making an awful decision?
Say someone works on high tension electrical wires. They have a supervisor who is responsible for the safety of the worker in terms of ensuring the proper systems and protocols are in place and followed to make that very dangerous job as safe as possible.
Now let's say that supervisor has time and time again made it obvious to the technician they cannot be trusted to do that...if the technician refuses to go up, are they being a petulant child?
-
58 minutes ago, Aussie Joe said:
The tampering is one thing .. but that attitude is ridiculous..
I don't know, I mean yeah it is, but at the same time would you do what is arguably the riskiest thing in the sport for someone you don't trust?
Also, I know they get paid millions of dollars, but at the same time, their contracts aren't guarenteed and even if they were, these are still independent contractors arguably getting exploited by corporations (yes the players make millions, the owners make billions).
I see it as him looking out for himself.
Like, I think Beane, McD and the Pegullas are quite possibly at the top of the entire league, or close to it, in terms of being honest and genuinely caring about their players. Look at what is likely about to happen to Tre White, and remember he definitely signed what at the time seemed like a team friendly deal...now, you could say it was a super smart move for Tre, because he ended up getting a good chunk of guarenteed money as early as he could, but he could have made a lot more if he had waited a bit to sign.
I'm not sure he took a team friendly deal as much as he looked to get generational money guarenteed as early as possible, even if the total amount wasn't as high as he could have gotten had he played an extra season...regardless if it was a wise choice or not, he is probably about to get released in a few months.
I don't know if that makes Hardman have a bad attitude, I'm sure the vast majority of players in the league feel the same way...he probably has an honesty problem...but in a lot of ways, that makes him a great teammate and asset to an organization...Diggs is similar...yes men and women and group think is very bad in business and sports, even if it bothers management...management in a lot of cases are over promoted idea thieves...it's why everyone hating on McD is so annoying...he's actually building something by brining together ideas and synergizing them...he's not a Saleh or the dude in Atlanta just doing things you're supposed to do without actually understanding the purpose...he should get slack while he figures it out imo, but my Adderall has worn out and that's how we got this lovely gem of a post!
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, corta765 said:
End of an era. He was the last of a generation of writers that truly put out superb content that was detailed and always looking for interesting things readers wouldn't normally find. Even if I didn't agree with his article or take, I at least knew there was some true meat behind it.
He always seemed to have a soft spot for Buffalo despite being from Patriot land and was a good voice for the team. I will really miss his schedule insight as he usually was ahead of the curve on tidbits coming down the pipe. His best work to me though was his camp wide tour every August as it was a such a great and fun primer for every season.There are still some floating around on places like the athletic and the ringer, but I would agree that that is largely gone in the mid form (the sites I referenced are typically long form)...King wrote some longer stuff, but most of that was medium length stuff combined with other medium length sections to build out a large form like article.
-
1
-
1
-
-
42 minutes ago, QCity said:
He missed 5 games.
When he came back healthy after the bye he played 45% of the snaps.
He played hurt for a few games too... also, I'm sure the injury limited this ability to do certain things after he came back
-
He was hurt for most of last year and he was productive before he got hurt.
-
1 hour ago, FireChans said:
KC won the trade. Best QB in football and moving up 17 slots in the first for the paltry sum of a late first rounder the following year. They have won 3 Superbowls and been to 6 AFCCG since the trade.
I’d trade our first round pick for the next 50 years for that kind of success. No brainer.
Josh Allen was a great consolation prize, but we were the architects of our own demise unfortunately.
May I ask how old you are (I'm not really seriously asking) that you are willing to trade 50 years of what I am envisioning that you are envisioning as 50 years of drought era football, lol
I'm wondering if you asked a 35-40 year old 49ers fan how they've enjoyed those early championships and they might feel a certain way about whoever wag back said they would mortgage the next 50 years if they could just win a few right now!
-
I'd argue this year with throwing into tight windows was a top 3 defense at the top of its game vs AJ Klein, a severely hampered Douglass and a bunch of other injuries.
What AJ Klein level mismatch did the Chiefs have on their defense that the Bills could have exploited to get those wide open windows?
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
-
1 hour ago, benderbender said:
Wait, I'm allowed to gamble on the WWE?
-
On 2/15/2024 at 2:13 PM, Man with No Name said:
Brees was still really good at 40, and pretty effective his last year at 41, despite not having any arm strength left. Rivers was still good at 39. he left to spend time with his family and because he really really wanted to be a high school football coach for some reason.
40 seems almost a normal end now, with quality seasons until almost the very end. with improving medicine, stem cells, less invasive surgeries, peptides, hgh, etc., it's easy to see mid 40s becoming more regular. I think more than anything it will be the desire rather than the ability that flames out prior to that. It is difficult to imagine that being the case, but im 42 now, and every year it shocks me how much i lose interest in something that brought me 30+ years of joy before. there just comes a time that the juice isn't worth the squeeze anymore.
Hmm, what is it that you started doing around age 12 that no longer brings you as much joy exactly...
-
7 hours ago, TheFunPolice said:
and you made millions of dollars, won multiple Super Bowls, and are viewed as some of the best players and best teams to ever suit up
Sorry it wasn't more "fun"
Lol, post meets handle!
-
1
-
-
13 minutes ago, Patrick Fitzryan said:
How do you explain the fact that in countries where redlining and segregation never took place, like Canada and England, they somehow still have the same issue with the same group committing a significantly disproportionate amount of crime?
How do you explain that black children raised in wealthy homes are more likely to go to prison than white children raised in poverty?
Many of the issues you mentioned, particularly food deserts and white flight, are self-imposed. People do not want to be around rampant criminality and will rightfully choose to avoid it.
The gall to claim I've been somehow propagandizedby bad messengers while you spout off complete revisionist history about events like the Tulsa Race Riots (which started when black people killed whites) and their supposed "Black Wall Street" (it was a block with four or five small stores) is laughable.
You mean England where they have huge issues with soccer fans singing racist songs against soccer players? Can you tell me about how that same culture exists in South Africa next please.
You're just kinda strengthening my argument... and wait, you don't think England had segregation and redlining?
Do you not remember the hoopla about Meghan whatever her last name is being half black and the pure royal bloodline?!
They are probably more racist in large parts of Europe than in America.
Also, like I said always happens, your argument is shallow (I'm not saying you are shallow at all, I don't know you and I am only refering to this specific arguement), just like everyone else I've had this debate with when trying to get past the initial ban guns not ban guns fighting and actually trying to get into the nuance...the person says there is a lot of nuance and it's more than just guns (which I agree with, plus pragmatically, that toothpaste is out of the tube anyway)...so then I get excited for a nuanced debate and then it just stops at culture of criminality where there is not ackwoledgment that even if I were to conceded that point reluctantly, that anythiny actually might have led to that potential culture forming other than I guess genes is not even open for debate...so is that the argument ultimately, genes?
It's really hard to distinguish between if it's just a shallow argument either because it's repeating talking points, because it's lack of knowledge on the topic or if it's all just a dog whistle for the great replacement theory. It's annoying because I think there is actually going to be middle ground every time and nope.
Also, I'm not saying I am definitely right on everything, I'm open to learning and growing and all that...just not through logical fallacies and shallow concpets that don't actually do a good job of explaining a situation, or like on this case, basically proving systemic oppression leads to systemic problems in the group being oppressed by raising examples of other systemically oppressed communities and then saying see, it's all the same.
-
3
-
-
1 hour ago, Patrick Fitzryan said:
Wrong. West Virginia is the poorest state in the union, has a debilitating drug problem, and it's 97% white. It's violent crime is below the national average.
People like you who CONSTANTLY make excuses for what is clearly a cultural problem with violence in that community is why nothing ever changes and nothing ever gets fixed.
How does west Virginia have anything to do with what we're talking about?
Also, West Virginia hasn't been subjected to hundreds of years of systemic roadblocks. You could say things like company stores and lacking education to keep the population reliant on jobs working in dangerous coal mine conditions for sure, but those are very very different social and behavioral and opportunity constraints compared to what happened in black neighborhoods.
Nixon literally had retaliatory laws passed against black people because they voted against him. Black people were lynched. When they fled places like Tulsa after there was basically a pogrom done on them when it was known as Black Wallstreet, they fled to places like Rochester and Boston and faced arguably even worse oppression through segregation and red lining and all that...Rochester, the home of Fredrick Douglass and a key stop on the Underground Railroad less than 100 years later treated essentially political refugees and asylum seekers, their own county's citizens absolutely terribly.
When they finally had enough of the literal ghettos they were forced into and the absolute atrocious treatment by the police, they rioted (seriously, read about the rochester race riots, it's a very nuanced moral issue) white flight happened and they built highways through black neighborhoods on purpose to destroy those places so white people get out of the cities, because it was now illegal to segregate.
Let's fast forward to 2008, when predatory loan practices and shredding of government oversight driven by the mortgage lobby, led to an insane amount of wealth being transfered out of the black community and to banks that got bailed out, and those neighborhoods that used to be largely black owned suddenly got foreclosed and gentrified.
That West Virginia stat is interesting for sure, but it's on its face not analogous...like using it as an example here is a logical fallacy...I don't know them well enough to name the one it is off the top of my head, but I certainly know it is one.
Also, I'm not here to debate the right way to handle generational poverty and lack of opportunity and generational hopelessness...the only culture I want to talk about is how we have a culture of forcing huge swaths of people in this country into never ending poverty... I'm not interested in condemning how people who are living in situations where they have literally no possible way of escaping the level of poverty they are stuck in, just because of the zip code they are in...I have no experience with that life, I have no idea how I would personally handle being in that situation and my guess is you have no idea about it either, yet you cast aspertions.
Warren Buffet has said that his vision of society is that it's a random draw, and that people in charge should be governing in a way that they assume that they could be born into any position in life and to do public policy accordingly.
How do you think your life would be if you were born into poverty in the inner city? If your school had lead in the water and moldy ceilings and burnt out teachers? If you didn't have access to a grocery store with fresh fruits and vegetables and had to eat processed food for every meal and didn't have access to dental care and your teeth had significant issues by the time you were 5 because of all the sugar drinks you had no choice but to drink because even if you had the money, you would be stuck with sugar drinks because again, no real grocery store and you can't even drink the water because it's contaminated...like empathy dude...even if you're right and I conceded your argument as to it being a "cultural" thing, which I don't, but let's pretend I did for a moment...why did that culture you say exists develop? What were the conditions economically, socially, and politically that fostered that culture to form?
Also, maybe you can help define exactly what you mean by "cultural" and what basis you have and what experience you have to adequately and properly label a culture my guess is you have very little actual understanding of or familiarity with other than what is portrayed by the media.
And again, the only culture I am really interested in discussing in terms of coming up with solutions here is the culture of building generational poverty through corporate and political and societal policy...corporations are people, cigarette lobbies pushed the government to make policy for years saying cigarettes were safe, highways destroying cities so they could sell cars, etc...you're taking your eye off the real problems because you're letting them trick you into debating cultural formation in systemically oppressed populations...stop doing that, how about instead we work together to see past their bs and work to actually bring about positive change.
-
2
-
1
-
-
4 hours ago, Heels20X6 said:
But the reason it won't be truly discussed with the racial element attached to it is because no one will be honest as to WHY crime and especially crime amongst black men in inner cities is so high. Because that requires us to look at the institutions/policies/systems that were put in place to bring such levels of abject poverty and lack of opportunity that crime becomes palatable.
It's just easier to sit there on a high horse and say "black men are more violent than white men" without any context whatsover.
Right! And that right there is where the conversation typically falls apart and it's really weird. Like I don't know if it's because people are conditioned to say there are systemic issues outside of just guns that are causing this (which I agree with and think there is a ton of sensible common ground).
And then it's like ok, let's talk about some of the specific systemic things that are causing these issues and the response is no, none of that is true.
"Father's aren't present!" Well yeah, we have a private prison system that has literal contracts guanteeing them a certain number of inmates annually, and non violent drug laws that are either applied to minorities more (whites and blacks smoke pot at the same rate, but are arrested for it at an insanely higher rate) or sentencing guidelines are just absolutely insane (cocaine and crack are the same drug, but you used to get 5x more jail time for the same weight of crack as coke and those laws were written that way intentionally to go after black people).
Or how a lot of the prior convictions that people are talking about up thread are due to people plea bargening because they are not able to afford bail and have no choice, but to plea out either because of a completely broken and underfunded public defender system or because they will lose their job if they have to spend time in jail for pre-trail lockup. Now you're on parole, which costs money and if you get in trouble at that point they don't even have to prove you are guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
You want to talk about systemic issues? Years 0-3 are probably the most important years in terms of development. Yet you have food deserts, high risk of lead contaminated water, lack of adequate child care options and the thing I find the absolutely most crazy...diaper poverty...snap doesn't pay for diapers, so you have moms that aren't able to take their kids to daycare so they can work or go to school because the kid has no diapers, it's so screwed up.
There's countless other systemic things impacting people in inner cities, which are predominantly minority. This narrative that it's cultural for black people and a choice is so dumb, especially when you look at poverty in rural places and suddenly you're seeing the same "culture"
MLK wasn't killed because he was trying to end segregation, he was killed because he shifted his focus to bringing all poor people together to end institutional poverty.
Unfortunately basically everytime I try and engage with people in good faith on the gun violence conversation, they say the right things about wanting to shift it away from guns and look at it systemically and holistically (which of course guns are a part of that whole)...but then it turns out that it's invariably an act to get the conversation to shift away from guns and then suddenly there aren't any systemic things impacting people, it's all "culture"
-
2
-
3
-
-
3 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said:
An excellent point ….and if you read through my posts in this thread you’ll find I’ve advocated for one thing, and one thing only: That everyone needs to simmer down, show some respect for those who were hurt or killed, and to wait to learn more about what actually happened before rushing in to solve a virtual cornucopia of society’s problems. Instead, I’ve read that this sad incident should be the launching point to fix student debt, the nuclear family, assault weapons, the second amendment in general, and yes mental health.
In isolation, of course we should let some time go by and mourn the people impacted. Problem is, this isn't an isolated thing...the way the news cycle works is this is going to be thoughts and prayers, anything else isn't respectful..then spend two days arguing it's too soon and a political ploy by the radical left to take away guns (all like literal nra/gun lobby talking points it has been proven and factually reported) and just the same play book over and over.
The gun lobby is incredibly powerful, have driven an intentional media and marketing campaign to any reasonable gun legislation, which the vast majority of Americans agree with some level of oversight and regulation.
I guess I'm also kind of confused, because we have other amendments that are being legislated and the judiciary sets precedent on all the time that changed and defines the constitution, like Miranda Warnings and such, but you only hear widespread outrage over the 2nd ammendment, when it literally says the words well regulated in the text of it.
That's not a political statement either, that's a why is it that people get so worked up about perceived infringement of the 2nd ammendment that it's a literal non-starter, when people aren't trying to talk about infringement, but genuine good faith regulation, but then when you look at something like due process or the government having access to ring camera footage or other types of huge data privacy oversteps by the government, you really don't hear anything.
Like the social conditioning aspect of this is insanely interesting to me.
I think the secret is to really stop focusing on how people are saying it, and to focus on what they are actually saying...like yeah, that maybe sounded a bit insensitive, but this is a super nuanced topic and I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that that was a super nuanced answer, so what exactly do you mean and what exactly are you trying to say, instead of shutting down and just allowing oneself to react in the way we've been conditioned by our respective algorithms.
-
2
-
-
45 minutes ago, boyst said:
i'm sorry i can't even begin to fathom someone using Star Wars as an argument in their statements.
The Constitution could be amended but our representation is too busy trying to divide us than work together to find solutions. Our leadership is too busy ruling by executive fiat vs taking the reigns to direct our country. Our only salvation is the judicial system which keeps things working slowly because they understand that solutions of sweeping change are best made with deliberate, sane, and processed thought instead of grandiose pen and paper memos, social media photo ops, and soapbox sermons.
You completely missed my point. The current judiciary is an activist judiciary... they ignore precident, maybe you just don't notice because they're either doing what you like, or much more likely the, let me see if I can use these the right way, the right wing media cabal isn't shouting "activist justices, activist justices" so they're not activating their subjects with the queen of hearts (yes that is an original Manchurian Candidate reference).
It's funny you say that the representatives are trying to divide us, but as soon as anyone mentioned anything that triggered you a tiny little bit, you melted and started dividing this thread and not allowing a natural discussion to flow...that wasn't a representative in power in far off Washington, that was you.
And people use stories all the time to make points, the star wars prequels, as much as they got lambasted for it at the time, are an amazing insight into how a fascist government can come into power through legal means, it's extremely relevant and also extremely nuanced because the jedi order are not necessarily all good by any means either.
-
1
-
-
2 hours ago, julian said:
Yeah 100% correct, I think Chicago is really the only city that’s had any substantial reporting on the epidemic of shootings and hand gun violence in the black communities.
It still doesn’t get the nations attention like these mass shootings because the national MSM has decided mass shootings will help with the anti-gun narrative they’re clearly pushing because they don’t believe people value young black men shooting each other like they value the innocent white bystanders being gunned down.
its pretty obvious, they don’t even try to hide their agenda.
Sure, but getting bogged down in stats misses the point, the media and politicians don’t give a damn because almost all those shootings are perpetrated with handguns by young black men against young black men.
Here's the thing, I'm able to find some middle ground there and I think we can have a genuine good faith debate, because I do think there is some truth in the media not reporting on this, just like the media doesn't report on missing women of color a whole bunch, but if it's a pretty blonde white girl it's national news. Them having a pro gun ban agenda, I don't know...I mean I think if they had any agenda at all, and if I was going to think they were legit psychopaths, I'd say they make way more money with there being mass shootings...if the media actually had an agenda to get rid of guns, I'd argue they would do a much much much better job of actually getting rid of guns...they made people believe that diamonds are actually valuable and that you need to spend a crap ton of money to buy them as an engagement ring, which was a crazy marketing and media agenda.
Problem is, I've had these types of conversations with people before (I was living in Ft Lauderdale when the Parkland shooting happened and thought things were really going to change after that one, and then they started getting called crisis actors...in the media and by politicians, so truly I think it might be worth re-evaluating where the agenda potentially might be, because I don't think you're trying to come at this from a bad faith argument)
Anyway, I truly I understand it's a highly nuanced issue and am truly open to listening and getting past the talking points that would set each other off onto conditioned tracks of conversation that are built on purpose to prevent us from being able to collaborate and compromise and actually change stuff (I dunno, feel like I learned that from George Carlin), and really listen to what you are trying to say, and not how you're saying it.
Here's the problem though, because this happens basically every time I try this...someone claims there are all these systemic issues leading to gun violence, but then when I mention yes, there are systemic issues like redlining and a bunch of things impacting, yes disproportionately people of color, but also people of all low socioeconomic levels, the invariable response back is that's made up, it's not true, I am not open to entertaining that line of thought for a moment, it's in the past and people need to work harder, basically...boot straps and all.
There is also a huge increase in hopelessness and lack of connection, which sadly is being exacerbated by income inequality and it continues to get worse and instead of coming together to figure out a solution, there has been a consistent agenda to take any possible solution, break it in half and put those solutions on two sides of a fence and prevent people from being able to talk to one another and realize the only solution is to work together.
I do think there is an agenda that led to that, I do think it's a media agenda, I could listen to it being a both sides thing and in many many ways it is in terms of not reporting on actual stuff and instead just focusing on if it bleeds it leads... but I also am looking around and suddenly out of nowhere people are terrified and angry at Taylor Swift, and they were suddenly out of nowhere terrified and angry at something else and next month it will be something else.
-
1
-
To my gamblers- Interesting odds change regarding where Diggs plays in 24
in The Stadium Wall
Posted · Edited by HardyBoy
I'm not sure it's appropriate to have gambling conversations here.
I was for the legalization of gambling, but the daily fantasy apps are highly predatory and designed to create dopamine addiction. The apps are exploitative and targeting young men specifically.