Jump to content

Mr. WEO

Community Member
  • Posts

    44,449
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Mr. WEO

  1. i agree with you in principle but i'd be shocked if they did not try to sign someone who at least LOOKS like an upgrade.

     

    of course they'll probably wind up overpaying another crappy player.

     

    Really, how hard will it be to repalce the talent of Dockery? We may have a better guy on the bench right now. Hell, we had a morbidly obese TE who we simply MADE into a "pro Bowl" LT.

  2. Daniels would be a great addition, at teh right price. I'm thinking 2nd and 5th at the absolute most, but I'm very wary of that 2. You don't build playoff teams by giving away picks. In 2006, we selected Brad Butler and Kyle Williams in the 5th round.

     

    But it would nice to have a legit TE for once. They are a young QB's best friend.

     

    You should be wary of the #2---we've used it to pick such impact guys like Parrish and Hardy and Brian Pozworth.

     

    Wouldn't you galdly part with any of those guys, plus a 5th, for Daniels.

     

    In the caseof Ralph's daughter and Modrak and the rest of the brain trust, high draft picks should be treated as sharp objects in the hands of children.

  3. Haynesworth will get mad money. But red flags are that he didn't start to dominate until his contract years (the last 2 years), he's missed 22 games the past 6 years, and he had that incident with Gurode. My concern is the Bills give him the best offer, and he becomes another Dockery.

     

    Peter King is writing that there seems to be little interest with GMs (at the combine) for haynesworth---at half the price he is seeking.

  4. Where does this stuff come from? Let me quote you.

     

    You said "the front office stated they wont talk contracts with players who are not with the team."

     

    You also said "the front office failed to live up to its word about talking new contract..."

     

    Where is the conflict. There is none. The Bills did indeed swear they would NOT talk to Peters if he did not report. However, they did NOT at any time promise that if he did report they would talk contract. They simply did not promise this. And in fact, late in Peters's holdout they promised the opposite. Brandon finally said, when Peters was still out that the Bills would not under any condition talk contract during the season.

     

    The Bills had not promised anything, and therefore did not break their word. Go back and look it up.

     

    The Bills, now that the season is over, will sign Peters to a very fat extension.

     

    He's right. No one promised this guy anything other than what was in his (renegotiated) contract that he gladly signed.

     

    They will probably pay him. But no way he's the best guy on this team (we would be doomed for years if that were the case). The best player, the hardest player, is Lynch---it's not even close. How could anyone who watched them play say that Peters is "our best"?? Peters only goes into "beast mode" at the training table. I didn't see Lynch take so many plays off this past season......

  5. By the way H2o, Crowell was placed on IR before he had the surgery.

     

    He ended up having the surgery about 2-3 weeks after the season opener. Many people think that when he stated his intention to get surgery that Brandon put him on IR out of spite and anger.

     

    Regardless, it was an ugly situation, there's two sides to the story, we'll never know the truth, and I'd be surprised to see Crowell play for the Bills again.

     

    It really doesn't matter. The guy took himself out of the season. He could have taken care of himself anytime before the season started.

     

    Bye bye Angie. Go see what an LB from Buffalo coming off IR is worth on the open market.

  6. To clarify, I was saying that they didn't have enough evidence to charge him with a crime. The only evidence they had, which you summarized well, was only sufficient to charge him with a traffic violation, which technically isn't considered a "crime".

     

     

    Let's take this from the top:

     

    - The police saw the car had some sort of problem with the license plates. That gives them sufficient cause to investigate further. If the car had been moving, they would have been justified in turning on their lights/siren and pulling the car over.

     

    - The marijuana had to be mentioned in the police report, because that's what gave them probable cause to search the car. Otherwise, the whole case would have been tossed out already.

     

    - It isn't a crime to smoke marijuana. It's a crime (or in some cases a violation) to possess it, and of course it's a crime to sell it. There was no specific evidence as to which of the three people in the car were/weren't smoking; just speculation. Testing the blunts, or even dusting them for prints, would accomplish nothing. You still wouldn't have proof beyond a reasonable doubt as to who was smoking. Urine tests wouldn't legally prove anything because it's not illegal to smoke. You still wouldn't have proof beyond a reasonable doubt that anyone possessed the pot. For example, they could all simply claim that they apparently ate some brownies and didn't know that they had pot in them.

     

    Of course, anyone with even a modest amount of common sense recognizes that it's 99.9% likely that all three of them were smoking. But that's not the point. The point is there isn't enough admissible legal evidence to charge any of them with drug possession.

     

    The problem with the license plates is that there were none. That is what initiated the suspicion of the cops. The scent of marijuana prompted the search.

     

    Hey, VOR, if you want to continue to believe that those blunts did not contain MJ, then go right ahead, for whatever purpose it suits for you. But as someone else already pointed out, in court, there is no way to establish who "owned" or "possessed" the drugs, as each guy will claim it's not him but the other guy. The cops know how this goes. If they found a 16 oz. bag, the outcome would have been different.

     

    Don--you've met the 0.1% who does not believe they were smoking weed.

     

    Atlbillsfan is right. No one wants Lynch to miss games (he is, by far, the best player on this team), but he clearly believes that none of this other stuff matters and that, based on the response from the law, the league and his employer--there is no downside to this behavior. There is always another chance, no problem.

  7. The prosecution rests because it has NO REBUTTAL. There is NO NFL fan in America & Canada that does not think the MAJORITY of Pats* vets were/are on the ROIDS except for Pats* fan. The evidence may be circumstantial, but it is overwhelming.

     

    THAT'S your rebuttal?

     

    There is "overwhelming" "circumstantial" evidence that the "MAJORITY of Pats vets were/are" on "the ROIDS"? And EVERYONE in North America knows this, EXCEPT Pats fans?

     

    So, essentially, you can make ANY claim about a team, no matter how fantastical, and if someone challenges you, they MUST be a "fan" of that team?

     

     

    hahaha. Like I said.......funny funny funny stuff.

     

     

    And VOR--nice try with the "black" comment. A knucklehead can come in any color. The irony of your weak jab is that you and yours are the ones using demeaning racial stereotypes--implying Lynch's race is an excuse for his poor behavior. Why don't you just come out and say what you really mean, which is "let's not be so harsh on Lynch---that's what these people from the ghetto are like, it's all they know."

  8. His new agent advised him poorly.

     

    He was under contract (renegotiated) and he had absolutely NO leverage, yet he held out.

     

    He subsequently arrived in poor shape, had a mediocre year. Way to negotiate!

     

    Saying he is, by far, our best O-lineman is either a derogatory statement about our line or the value of LTs in general.

     

    If he's one of the best, how we know what an average LT looks like?

     

    And stop with the Pro Bowl nonsense.

  9. before you crucify and judge him like half of the rest of the board, don't you think we should get all the details first.

     

    You wouln't want to be put in the same category as a Nancy Grace would you?

     

    All those prosecutors on tv are too extreme. According to them you would think that no one is in this world is innocent

     

    Nancy Grace? Why do you keep mentioning her? TV prosecutors? What does this have to do with Lynch?

     

    Testing the blunts? Dumbest comment in these threads---AND you keep repeating it. Do you think those fellas tossed some FAKE blunts on the floor of the car? Do you think that the test just might come back "not Lynch's marijuana"?

     

    How bout testing Lynch's urine? Case closed. Why is it important to have him suffer NO consequences of violating league conduct policy?

     

    Are you two roommates or something?

×
×
  • Create New...