billsfan89

I know from 2011-2013 people really wanted Glenn kicked in at guard. But I think by 2014 when he put in a pro-bowl caliber season (along with his excellent 2015) no one wanted Glenn at guard. But yeah despite quality average or better play at a tackle position seems worthless to a lot on here.

Tre is a lock, not sure who else would make it. Lots of guys could make it. Edumonds has been playing like a top LB but had a OK first half of the season. Milano in my opinion has played like a Pro-Bowler and so has Jordan Phillips who will have a sack total as a DT that will get attention. Hyde has been good all year long and has the name recognition. On offense if John Brown has a really good final 2 games he has an outside shot. I think Mitch on the O-line might also get some attention as the Bills O-line has turned into a top 5-10 unit in the league and Mitch has been one of if not the best players on that unit. Not sure anyone else on offense has a shot unless the O-line metrics and scouting says something different. But if I had to guess, Tre, Hyde (has the name recognition), Mitch, and Jordan Phillips all make it.

I don't know what this fetish for moving Ford to guard in 2019 is? I get that you might think Ford has been a liability at RT I get wanting Ty in there and moving Ford to the bench (although I think Ford has been decent at RT.) But Spain and Feliciano have been very good to solid at the guard positions. They don't need to be replaced by Ford.

The Bills offense was bad but it came through when it counted.

Just really a remarkable turn of events for the Bills. 10 wins and a playoff spot with a chance to take the division and a possible bye? All with a young blue chip QB and some solid young pieces in other critical positions? As a Bills fan since 2001 I have had to watch as year after year the Bills have either failed to put talent together and or been poorly coached. But now the Bills have a great head coach, good talent and a system that fits the talent. This team does the little things and has the talent hang with anyone. A second playoff trip is a great achievement for this young team.

Do people forget how bad the return game was last year? A bad return game can cost you games.

How quickly people forget just how horrid the return game was last season. Roberts might not be a game breaking returner but he is super reliable and on punts in particular always gets those 8-10 yard returns that add up to help the field position game. I think he is a quality reliable returner.

Shaq has 5.5 sacks with 3 games remaining on the season. I don't know if I would say the team "really" needs to bring him back. He is a nice player but I am not overpaying for him if I am Bills management. I think he is an excellent DE3 but I don't think he is starting caliber opposite Hughes. I think a deal that is around 8 million aav is about what I would pay. Agreed on White they are going to lock him in for 2021.

He has 5.5 sacks this year in 13 games. He still is an effective player. But I do agree that he should retire after this season. He can chase a ring with whatever team he lands on this season but after that I don't see why he would keep playing. The thing with football is that you are much more likely to damage your body playing those few extra years. Whereas less collision based sports like Baseball and Basketball might cause wear and tear on your body playing a few years in your late 30's and 40's just isn't going to have the same negative impact.

He ordered someone to do it. Someone not listing to you ordering them to commit a crime doesn't absolve you of it. No I don't think he should be impeached over it. My only point was that he technically committed a crime

You are being purposefully dense. I am not saying that Trump was convicted of a crime. I am saying he committed it. Did Bill Clinton commit perjury despite the fact he was never charged with that crime. This is a message board not a court of law. I don't think it is a stretch to look at the Muller report confirming the story of Trump ordering McGahn to fire Muller as Trump attempting to obstruct an investigation. There is no other supposition to make.

If you fire the head of an investigation it delays the investigation as the new person heading it up has to reorient themselves into continuing the investigation. It was designed to be a stall tactic. You don't have to end something to obstruct it. Trump in business would stall things out with lawsuits and other methods of dragging things out. This is exactly what he was trying to do with this investigation. You can't charge a sitting president. You present the evidence to Congress. That's what Muller did. Congress didn't think it was strong enough to warrant removal because while a crime was committed it wasn't strong enough in nature to warrant the political will to justify it.

The reason I believe Russia Gate to be non-sense is that the media narrative of Trump being a Manchurian candidate doesn't jive with Trump's actions on Russia. He literally pulled out of the nuclear treaty that ended the Cold War. In fact that narrative has pushed Trump to push harder on Russia and has escalated tensions. Obama made fun of Romeny for stating that we were in a new Cold War and I agreed with that being stupid and based in the 1980's. However there isn't a debate that Trump did trying and obstruct the investigation. Is it enough to remove him from office? No, I look at this (once again based off of what we know so far) as illegal but not enough to remove someone from office over. I don't even get why you would object that much over this assertion. Also this isn't a supposition either. This is literally a man firing the man leading the investigation of him. In a court of law you don't need to have him literally say "I did this for X reason." Your burden of proof is as high as Dave Chappelle's was for R.Kelly in that hilarious bit.

It is still a crime to obstruct an investigation into yourself. However the reason as to why I think this crime (similar to Clinton's crime of perjuring himself) wouldn't qualify as being enough to remove him from office (based on what we know so far) is due to the fact that the underlying investigation wasn't that valid. However all I am saying is that technically Trump did commit a crime. That's all, that's all I am saying.

You would then have to believe that firing the person leading the investigation would have no impact on the investigation. Stop with this bad reductive thinking.

You are asserting that firing the person investigating you is not obstructing their investigation.

I don't understand how you are not getting that I thought the Russiagate narrative was non-sense. The idea that Trump was this Manchurian candidate was silly. You act like I just watch CNN and believed everything. You are acting in bad faith because I don't 100% agree with you. I am not even arguing that based off of what we know so far Trump should be removed from office (how you keep missing this fact is astonishing) all I asserted is that this is very similar to the Clinton impeachment where laws were technically broken but that still wouldn't qualify as enough to remove him from office (based on what we know thus far.) How this is even controversial with you is stunning. Once again anyone slightly diverting from your opinion is just not good enough and an NPC or whatever other nonsense attack you want to go with. My contention is that Trump (According to the Muller Report on page 290 MaGahn testified to the fact) in ordering Muller removed for the purposes of obstructing his investigation. Now you can't argue that Trump ordered McGahn to have Muller fired that is a fact. Your only argument is that, despite that evidence it still wouldn't qualify as obstruction of justice. Which I find stupid as it asserts that someone not listening to you instructing them to commit a crime absolves them of attempting to commit a crime. "That weekend, the President called McGahn and directed him to have the Special Counsel removed because of asserted conflicts of interest.McGahn did not carry out the instruction for fear of being seen as triggering another SaturdayNight Massacre and instead prepared to resign. McGahn ultimately did not quit and the Presidentdid not follow up with McGahn on his request to have the Special Counsel removed." Muller Report Page 290. He didn't put it under consideration he literally ordered it according to McGahn himself (aka the man who he issued the order to.) How you guys seem to miss this is astonishing. "That weekend, the President called McGahn anddirected him to have the Special Counsel removed because of asserted conflicts of interest.McGahn did not carry out the instruction for fear of being seen as triggering another SaturdayNight Massacre and instead prepared to resign. McGahn ultimately did not quit and the Presidentdid not follow up with McGahn on his request to have the Special Counsel removed." Muller Report Page 290.

Once again you are being purposefully dense to state that context to which allowable actions are conducted are irrelevant. Once again, laws are done under context of actions. You are allowed to fire someone, can you fire them for being Asian? There are laws and regulations to which you can use your authority.

Is the Muller Report not Proven evidence? You seem happy that it (rightfully) disproved the Russia Gate conspiracy theory but when it goes against what you want to think you become purposefully dense. McGahn himself (firsthand) confirmed the accuracy of the media reports surrounding Trump's request to have McGahn fire Muller and then cover up the fact that he asked McGahn to do so.

Once again do you ever find it weird that the only people that you feel think for themselves agree with you? I looked at the facts, Trump attempted obstruction of Justice, there can be no denying that unless you are purposefully dense and stating that events that were testified to have happened did not happen.

All my point was that Trump much like Bill Clinton did technically commit a crime on two fronts, one is obstruction in the Russia probe and the other was a campaign finance law violation soliciting political help from Ukraine outside of the Justice Department. But much like the Clinton Impeachment Trump's crimes do not (Based off what we know so far, I would love to see Bolton and others testify before making a definitive conclusion) rise to the levels of being removed from office. But you guys are such a sycophantic echo chamber in the pocket of Trump that any mild criticism of the dear leader and criticism of Republicans comes with an onslaught of purposefully dense thinking, whataboutisms. bad faith interpretations and hack right wing Trump defense talking points. You go around calling everyone NPC's yet 80% of people here think exactly the same. Yes because at will employees can be fired based off their race? It's not like there are regulations.

It’s almost as if laws are done in context and situational. Your boss has the authority to fire you, but the context to which they do so determines wrongful termination. Fine throw him in jail. I am not a partisan hack.

OK so you don't see any issue with firing someone investigating you? Having the authority to do so doesn't make it legal or ethical. This is working backwards from your conclusion and then looking to an echo chamber to justify rather dense and bad framing

If you are doing something you have authority to do under the guise of obstructing an investigation into yourself is still obstruction of justice regardless of wither or not you have the authority to do so. Laws work in context. You are being purposefully dense in your interpretation of the letter and intent of a law and how context works in terms of determining crimes. Selling stocks is not illegal but it is the context as to when and why you sell or buy stocks that determines wither or not insider trading has occurred.