All_Pro_Bills

Lamar Jackson is an exception talent and played to a level deserving of his MVP status last season. And Roman's offense is well suited to his current skill set but does anyone see the strategy of the Ravens providing him any opportunities to develop his game to the next step? Lamar has some critical weaknesses in his game. Weaknesses that need to be developed or eliminated (if that's possible) to stop defenses from game planning against them and enable him to become more of a complete QB. The kind of QB that can be effective in whatever circumstances are present. Compare this to the way the Bills have developed Allen and the improvement in his game over time. The Bills didn't simply customize an offense around his strengths and accept his weaknesses and just go with it. That to me seems what the Ravens are doing with Jackson. If the intent of the Ravens is to win 10 plus games every season and lose in the playoffs when they encounter a 'complete' team and QB then they are well positioned for the next several seasons. If they want to win it all they need to develop Jackson into a more complete QB and if that isn't possible start looking at 'Plan B'.

Absolutely. But was it even a bad call? This is what Fox Rules Analyst Mike Pereira said "Well I'll tell you, on a day were seemingly I've disagreed with everything that's been called, at least in replay, I agree with this. Because to me its illegal contact, he rides him more than 5 yards downfield with the QB in the pocket, and then when the balls in the air that illegal contact becomes defensive PI. So its tough, its huge but watch here gonna ride, ride, ride, he's beyond 5 yards, and then the receiver turns inside but the fouls already been committed. So I actually do like the call."

And I loved her so much as Phoebe in Charmed. But she grew up to be such a disappointment!

The Bills defense plays their system well generally with a lot of discipline but will struggle against good/great offenses. They have a great safety tandem on the back end and Tre White at one corner. But this defense is not elite. If you were building a defense of players 5-deep at all 11 positions, outside of Poyer, Hyde, and White who would you select from this group? I would hesitate to say anyone else on this defense is a top 5 player at their position. Maybe Milano but who else would you say is in the top 5 in the league at their position?

My revolt and laughable contempt for her action is not her objection to the existence of the police or her support of de-funding the police. My objection is the obvious lack of conviction of her and others that support the de-funding idea. They rally around the mantra of de-funding but when trouble comes to them personally they immediately drop their objections to the existence and the need for police. It all disappears into the hypocrites slogan of "police for me but not for thee".

Pure comedy. I can't wait to hear her "rationalization" between her desire to defund the cops and her need for their assistance. Recognizing her as an advocate of defuding the 911 operator should have told her to call Ghostbusters.

When I saw the OP's comment I thought of a business book that I read many years ago. It was written by a person that built a sports agent company. His observations about the mindset of a champion reminded me of Allen (and other high performers). I found it on my bookshelf and here's some insights from the writer Mark McCormack. "The true champions, the legends, the upper one percent who consistently dominate their opponents perform at a high level at the most crucial times. Skills and a supreme confidence are part of it but they are not the determining factors. Most players when they reach the professional level are already blessed with an abundance of both. The true champions edge exists solely in the mind. I have observed three traits in every superstar I have known. 1. The champions profound sense of dissatisfaction with their own accomplishments. They use any success or victory as a spur to greater ambition. Any goal reached becomes the next step towards a greater more 'unreachable' one. 2. The ability to peak their performance, to get themselves up for major events or contests. 3. Their ability to put away their opponents. This is the 'killer instinct; but this tells more about the result than what goes on mentally. In the champions mind he is never ahead. He is always coming from behind even when the score indicates he is destroying the opponent. He never believes he is performing as well as he actually is." I think this all describes Josh Allen's mentality pretty well. I'll add one of my own to the list for Josh. The ability to motivate and command his team to adopt and use the same mindset on Sunday. You can see his personality become the team's personality over the course of his time as QB.

The PI on 4th down was questionable but the INT was absolutely the incorrect call and the unsportsmanlike on Allen was weak. But all you'll hear all week is the "bad" PI call. It all evened out.

Rarely do I watch these debates but this will be an exception. Short of wandering around the stage and pissing his pants the MSM is surely going to give Joe the win. If post debate polls show Trump closing or ahead prepare for epic liberal temper tantrums. Get your popcorn ready!

This is a typical Trump move to set the expectations. Like a coach implying the refs are going to favor their opponent on Sunday because they always get all the calls. So now the officials are going to be on their toes to "prove" they are being unbiased. And if he is judged to be the "loser" well then the moderator wasn't fair as previously suggested. And if not his great abilities and the record of his administration won the day.

Go examine the poll methodologies, statistical populations, and insights from the poll takers that are publicly available.

Listening to the show hosts and fans calling in on WFAN in NYC most of the Jets faithful are already on suicide watch.

The 2016 polls over-sampled registered Democrats and did not statistically represent the population they were trying to estimate from a sample. From what I've seen they are doing it again in 2020 with the added wrinkle of about 10% of registered voters in the polls refusing to provide the pollsters their choice. Most are would-be Trump voters fearing being outed by the poll takers or other's that don't believe their answers will be kept private or anonymous. So the margin of error is likely much greater than they advertise. Which way it swings who knows for sure..

A black police officer tasers and arrests a white women for not wearing a mask outside at a middle school football game in Ohio. Is this motivated by racism? Reverse this to white cop/black women you'd be damn sure it would make every evening network news show as another police bias incident. Thankfully, the other 10 people in attendance did not start a riot or any fires.

My personal assessment is that most often people are blinded by their beliefs and cannot see the hypocrisy or double-standard they use to assess or evaluate issues and circumstances. Emotions and unsupported conclusions are the rule here. I think critical thinkers and skeptics are notable exceptions. I like to think I qualify as one of them. As a manager of a large data analytics and statistical organization that has access to 100's of millions, billions in fact, of data records in a particular area I've been conditioned over time to doubt almost everything that constitutes an unverified or unsupported conclusion to the point of annoying everyone in my family. While I have no verification I suspect you are likely trained or employed in some "hard" science or skilled area where facts are critical and opinions are considered but not used of or by themselves to make decisions or take actions.

Concession is a customary gesture but it is not required to certify election results so I don't know what the fuss is all about. Because they're applying the "if you can't beat 'em, then cheat 'em" rules for getting Trump out of office so the deep state can regain full control of the federal government.

I've served on grand juries at the county and federal levels. In my experience its a rubber stamp of the prosecutors case with only a few exceptions. So the question is what evidence, testimony, or statements did the prosecutors office provide to the grand jury that led them to reach the decisions they made concerning the actions of the cops involved? Based on the process if the prosecutor presented evidence with intent to indict the cops in this case the grand jury would have supported that outcome. My conclusion is the prosecutors did not want to indict the cops in this case and that has nothing to do with their guilt or innocence at this point in the process. So the questions and scrutiny for the decision should fall on the prosecutors office. Queuing up the expecting protests and rioting while taking out anger against the Louisville police force and local businesses isn't going to address that point. A more sound approach would be to get a good legal team and raise some questions, file motions, and litigate against the prosecutors office and the city.

So when some dirt bag breaks into your home and threatens your life and the lives of your family don't call the cops.

"Probably directing"? I can't believe anyone still falls for this intelligence nonsense. All these reports conveniently leave out one important item. Facts. Of course they can't release anything because revealing facts will disclose methods and procedures and put people's lives at risk. These intelligence agencies have two purposes. One to provide intelligence and information on enemy states and potential threats and another to produce disinformation to the public and unfriendly nations. Fact is they make up a lot of stuff and nobody is going to fact check them or produce anything to dispute what they say. Decide for yourself regarding the Russian interference narrative. Perhaps a little of both? The way the unipolar world order works is Washington issues directives and orders and obedient nation states comply. If they don't comply then pressure is exerted. Economic, political and if all else fails military force. Russia is not complying. And as they've insolated themselves from the consequences of U.S. policy initiatives, by decoupling their economy and eliminating the use of the US dollar in trade settlement and reserves, they cannot be forced to comply. And military action is impossible given their nuclear strike capabilities and other advanced weapons systems. As for Trump being some sort of Russian agent that seems dubious. Trump enemies, which he has many in the deep state, use the Russia narrative to kill two birds with one stone. To discredit Trump and to attack Russia. The Mueller investigation produced no evidence of any connection or relationship. Yet the narrative persists. The useful idiots here are the people that perpetuate and believe that some "special" relationship exists between Trump and Putin while never asking for or demanding any evidence or facts to prove the existence of such a relationship. Fact is Russia and the US are on shaky footing with each other and there is contentious relationship but there are no facts supporting any relationship between Trump and Putin.

Your beef is simply with the electoral college because it enabled Trump's victory in 2016. And the popular vote went to Clinton because of big majorities in large "Blue" states. So the solution is to change the rules? That requires a change to Article II section 1 of the Constitution. And any change to the Constitution requires a 2/3 majority of states to ratify. It seems doubtful 2/3rds of the states would agree to that change. So just deal with it and hope your party doesn't ignore the swing states like Clinton did in 2016.

And what is the main point? Your argument is its morally acceptable for the majority to impose their will on the minority but not the other way around. How far are the willing to go? And who will stop them if they go to far? Most people are middle of the road and most people don't embrace or participate in the current political activism. And many who do go along with it do so because its fashionable and their livelihood depends on the opinions of others or they lack the courage to speak their mind. As for Trump and Biden being the same the answer is both are funded and bankrolled by more or less the same "Davos" crowd of billionaires and elites. As were Obama and Bush. So yes the results from either are going to be at the core the same.

Left or Right, Bush, Obama, or Trump. When I look at my life I just have to say I don't notice any difference. I go to work every day, pay my taxes (which keep going up), pay my bills, try to save a couple bucks, and go about my business and go out of my way not to bother anybody.. Same with all my neighbors, friends, co-workers, and acquaintances. I think that's the way it is with most people no matter where they live or whatever their background and make up might be. Maybe the people on the fringe left or right one percent see it differently but I suspect the majority of Americans feel just like I do. If everybody just did that we might not have any problems or certainly a lot fewer. But there's always somebody trying to push their crap on somebody else. I know lots of liberals and lots of conservatives and they don't support fringe elements on either side of the isle. Nobody sits around and suggests we need more poverty or more racism and bias, or more poorly uneducated citizens or more homeless or worse healthcare for people. The debate is about the solutions and how to go about it all. Most of this left/right is just election year political theater. And no matter who wins the election the next day me and everybody else will get up and do it all over again. Like it was once said "Meet the new boss. Same as the old boss".

I'm with you. In 2016 I thought Trump was a B S artist and somebody that had no grasp of details or facts. Clinton was a despicable character extorting money from various donors through her families "charitable" foundation. Now in 2020, Trump is what he is and Biden is a nondescript mediocre career politician suffering from the onset of dementia or some other degenerative mental ailment. My vote is "none of the above". Can't we do better?

As Mike Tyson said "everybody's got a plan until they get punched in the face". This election will come down to swing voters in several key states. These people voted for Obama in 2008 and 2012 but for Trump in 2016. They are people impacted by "izations" of the past 20 years. Globalization and Financialization of the economy. Their lives have been downsized from middle/working class to lower class and poverty through moving their jobs and businesses offshore and by the flow of money into Wall Street and the Banks through Federal Reserve monetary and government fiscal policies. Biden needs to appeal to these voters in a way H. Clinton wouldn't. She went so far as to call them "deplorables". They embraced Trump's vision to "Make America Great Again" and the potential to restore some of their livelihood. Biden also needs to distance himself from the most radical elements of the party and assure voters they will not exert control over the administration if elected. Trump will need to play off this theme and paint a picture of radicals and anarchy being the norm if Biden wins and that he is the choice for those seeking the restoration of order and civility. Trump will also call into question Biden's "mental state" and Joe needs to be on his game. It should make for great entertainment.