transient
-
Posts
5,390 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Gallery
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by transient
-
-
I know I'm the wrong messenger to deliver this, but let's be serious: can anyone argue--with a straight face--that Mike Williams isn't an upgrade over Stevie?
What we need is a comprehensive flowchart of the Bill's offseason maneuvers. If I come back in a bit, and nobody has created one yet, then I'll know what I'm doing this afternoon :-)
I had defended Stevie in the past (not vigorously, but previously thought he was harmless enough). Personally, I think he's gone because, despite all of his lip service, when a game was on the line and he had a chance to make THE play, he always seemed to disappear and blame someone else in the postgame presser, or make it seem like it was no big deal. Not the person that Marrone wanted "mentoring" the youngsters on the field, IMO, regardless if he was otherwise a "good lockerroom guy".
I haven't watched a ton of Mike Williams outside of the highlight reel, but the man certainly competes for the balls that are thrown near him. Between Williams, Watkins, and Woods, EJ just needs to get the ball close, leaving Goodwin to just run far and fast, then adjust.
-
Is there a link?
Great minds think a like. The counter to giving the up 1st in 2015. Is
1.) Winston and Mariota are probably going Top 3 and the Bills are not going to be a 3-13 team in 2014, even worst case. So its not like the Bills would likely be in a position to draft a "Franchise QB" in 2015. Also
2.) A Veteran Free Agent QB has to look at the RBs, O-Line, WRs and defense and say; "Yeah I can make this work."
Also, Whaley's has just shown that he's not afraid to move around in the draft. While not having a first next year would make it more difficult, if there is a QB there worth taking and EJ's not the man, what's to keep him from putting together a package to get the player they want next year, especially if the rest of the pieces have fallen into place?
-
I don't believe you.
I was reading all the negative stuff in his article, and was gearing up to send another email to the guy when I got to the part that was a pretty direct quote from me. Although I used the word "spleef" instead of marijuana.
I believe you. It would be pretty unlikely that someone couldn't recognize that as their own work. I lol'd at the Eddie Munster (Mel Kiper) reference.
-
He's okay but so limited athletically. In another thread I named 23 TEs that I would trade him straight up for (it didn't include the rookies). His numbers are misleading because he is targeted a lot. He is somewhere in the low-mid 20s.
Who is the best TE in franchise history? Warlick? He is before my time so I don't know. Metzelaars? He was never better than average. Reimersma is probably the best that I remember and he was just pretty good. I don't know if a Bills TE has ever been to a pro bowl? That's insane.
Allow me a quick Van Miller impersonation of a Metzelaars reception:
Bills set at the line. The ball is snapped. Kelly back to pass. Sets. Throws. HE'S GOT METZELAARS ALL ALONE AT MIDFIELD!!! MAKES THE CATCH. HE'S AT THE 50...(3s pause) HE'S AT THE 49... HE'S AT THE 48... he's tackled from behind at the 47 yard line by William "the refrigerator" Perry. That had the look of a big play, if not for the fleetness of foot of the big defensive lineman.
-
its a shame we dont have an undrafted WR that we cut, was left unsigned until we brought him back in november and was putting on 30 lbs and learning a new position.... now if we still had THAT things would be looking up.
The only thing that could make that scenario sweeter would be if we still had the incomparable David Nelson to line up outside of him. Just IMAGINE the possibilities.
-
I see. Your ignorance, and, yeah self-unawareness, is far more responsible for these silly posts than any sort of agenda. Ok. I'll spend more time on you then. Crusade? No. If you recall, this began with me replying to you. IF correcting idiocy, shaming ignorance, and calling out phonies...can be called a crusade? Then yeah, that's what I do here at TSW.
You simply have no idea how obtuse/inconsistent/contradictory your posts are. That's because: you didn't think this through, did you? It's either that, or this is the very best thinking we can expect from you. Well, that's fine. But, it doesn't mean we should let it slide. See the trouble for you here is: I did think this through.
Let me help you out: What you "meant to say" is much worse than what you said. Rather than "stupid", you meant to say: evil. Evil, as in: given 100 opportunities to bully someone/disparage gay people....most "frat boys", and by extension NFL players, will choose the affirmative 100 times. Think it through: You don't know that.
You have NOTHING to back this up....other than your micro sample of, apparently, a-hole friends, who do make these decisions 100 out of 100 times, and are where your assessment comes from, since they both do, and do not, represent "frat boys" for you.
Well, whatever is convenient at the time, right?The irony remains, whether you would have it or not, and you calling this "stereotypical" doesn't make it so. Absurd is the better description of your thinking here. IF I were to take your awful logic, and re-apply it with different parameters? That = me saying: "All gay people are going to be inappropriate and flamboyant in a locker room, because that's their stereotype". Both that argument, and yours, are = ridiculous, for the same reason: they presuppose behavior, and base that supposition on nothing.
Oh, and you don't think my words are 100% applicable to your posts?
You want an example of obtuse? Here you go:This is the Webster's definition of "obtuse".
According to you: the "frat boys" you know are fine. It's the "fat boys", in general, that are the problem. (Holy 1960s, idiotic, "Southern moderate", argument, Batman!) And if we asked the "frat boys" you know, they would be pissed at you if you applied your idiotic stereotype to them, but pefectly okay if you applied it to their brothers, or other "frat boys" they know. Or is it: the ones they don't know?
And of course my favorite: there is stereotypical behavior for fraternities(which you predicate on hard data like Revenge of the Nerds), but that stereotype doesn't apply: "in general"?
What in the Sam Hell are you on to? Stereotypical behavior that doesn't apply "in general"?Is there any doubt left as to why I have called your posts "pseudo-intellectual"?
Yeah, that's precisely the argument you are making....and that's precisely how obtuse it is.You keep saying "let me be clear/my intent" etc. It's more than clear: your problem isn't language.
Your problem is you can't be who you think you are, and who you actually are, at the same time.
This is called: cognitive dissonance, and you are riddled with it. The good news? At least you are trying, but failing, to be a good person.
Acknowledging that a stereotype exists is not the equivalent of subscribing to it, but thanks for continuing to define obtuse for me. These examples are very helpful. A few more like this, and I think I'll get it.
-
Looks anothing like videos of the Cowboys war room, where JJ sits in the middle of the room and everybody strokes his ego.
Is that what he refers to "little Jerry" as nowadays?
-
Yeah...because those are precisely the terms that are required to characterize it. Words mean things, and these words are exactly appropriate.
Speaking of meanings of words, do you know what the word irony means? Because, I can't help but notice you didn't respond substantively to me calling your post "ironic". Let me help. Ironic:
Your treatment of "stupid frat boys" is exactly equivalent to their, as projected by you, treatment of gays. You even use the word "sterotypical", to provide a handy underscore to your hypocrisy. The difference: I can't possibly know how "stupid frat boys" might or might not treat gays.
However, I can know how you would treat millions of people you've never met, yet attribute both absolute behavior and mindset: you've posted it! (I always love Dr. Xavier mind-readers like yourself, who are capable of knowing what millions of "stupid frat boys", are all thinking, at the same time, now and forever. I mean, this is one hell of a trick you can pull off.)
Nothing like blatant hypocrisy, couched in pretend morality. Nothing like self-congratulation, being represented as grace.
I had thought that this was the sole province of the religious extremist, because I keep hearing that from the supposedly "enlightened". You've debunked that notion, and provided me a good bit of lulz in the process.
Nice work.
My brief prior response was a (failed) attempt to not involve myself in something that is clearly a crusade to you. In an effort to prevent this freight train of misrepresentation from going further off the tracks and have you cast yet further aspersions on my character...
Regarding the "self-unaware irony" comment, I was quite aware of what I was writing, to the extent that I debated altering the phraseology to "frat boy mentality" as it might have been less likely to provoke a response such as yours, which was not the intent. The point you contort, however, is that I am directing this at fraternities, instead of at the NFL. Changing the order of the words to "stupid frat boy" changes the meaning, a fact that I suspect you realized given your clearly extensive grasp of the language. You then continue to bludgeon the reader with this sentiment so as to insinuate that I think all fraternity brothers are stupid.
My intent was to invoke the "frat boy stereotype" (thus the word stereotypical and the quotation marks) as an example of behavior that is permeating the NFL, instead of having to walk the reader through every recent example of it. By way of disclosure, I have never been a member of a fraternity. I have many friends who pledged and joined fraternities when we were in college, and I'm sure that if I asked any one of them what the stereotype of a "frat boy" was, I would get a description that closely resembles the chauvinist, intolerant brothers depicted in Animal House, Revenge of the Nerds, or countless other movies. They probably also wouldn't be offended by my acknowledgement that there, in fact, is a stereotype unless I conveyed that that was my impression of my friends, specifically, or of fraternities, in general, which it is not. Unfortunately, with examples as recent as this offseason with Incognito, hazing and other personal abuses which I would associate with that STEREOTYPE are prevalent in the NFL.
To the point about "right to acceptance," this is your agenda, not mine. My intent was to point out that the media was going out of their way to accept Michael Sam, and recognize the courage it took to go through this whole process as an openly gay male, and not just tolerate his existence, thus the extensive coverage. I was also pointing out that many outside of the sporting world regard this as a step that needed to be taken, and that even ESPN was appropriately cognizant of the significance of the moment. Let me be clear; I am aware of how I phrased that, and I did mean to take a shot at ESPN. I agree that the coverage was over the top, but no more so than what regularly occurs for the combine or draft itself, which is of less social importance, in my opinion.
Regarding all of the other flattering and colorful language you've thrown my way, read through both of our posts on the matter. Which of us is more clearly defined by all of those terms that you so nicely offered to explain to me.
If there was one thing I would change in my initial response, it would be the "It says something when even ESPN understands the significance of the moment," as on re-reading it could be construed as me taking a personal shot at jboyst, which was not my intent.
-
I honestly really hate people with two thumbs.
:thumbsup: -
I also find this hilariously obtuse:
Sorry, but this is pseudo-intellectual farce.
The premise of this farce: establishing acceptance of all, real acceptance, not lip service, and therefore real equality, is the goal. But then this goes on to characterize every "frat boy" as the same. And what's worse? Uses the very word "stereotypical" to do it.
That's hilariously self-unaware irony.I wonder: what is the process for any "stupid frat boy", to gain acceptance from: transient? Or, are they all doomed to being pre-judged as "stupid"? Apparently "frat boys" not only can't be accepted, then can't even be tolerated.
And, transient has taken it upon himeself/herself to establish this "standard" for the rest of us, based on: "we all know how "frat boys" are". As I said: intellectual farce, and hilariously ironic.
The premise is also retarded. There is no "right to acceptance", and there must not be, in a country that espouses "equality". Real equality depends on allowing for diference of opinion, beliefs, and ideologies. We cannot be equal if some opionions, beliefs, and ideologies are deemed to be "correct" or "superior" while others are not, and therefore, those who hold the former are treated differently, and better, than those that hold the latter. As long as the latter are called names, denigrated, excoriated....then we are merely a representative tyranny, and there is no real equality.
No. Tolerance is what we all signed up for, and that's all. We must not and cannot force acceptance upon anyone.
Otherwise we CREATE the very "false acceptance" the premise of this farce has identified, and a whole lot of resentment to boot.
QED This is an intellectual farce, because it espouses causing the very problem it seeks to solve.
As someone who can appreciate irony, I'm sure you can appreciate its presence in the fact that you've used the terms obtuse, pseudo-intellectual, farce, self-unaware, and "retarded" to characterize the content of my post...
-
Again, I just watched the cake eating scene and if a straight player did that with his girlfriend, it would've been extremely awkward just the same. I hope he takes some good natured ribbing for it just the same way a straight player would. We're on the same side on this issue, trust me.
I must have missed the cake eating. I was referring to the phone call and hand holding that was on a loop on ESPN. Your initial post about the cake eating posted as I was typing my second.
By the end of the 7th round, I was about burnt on draft coverage, and I turned it off after Warren Sapp mentioned Sammy Watkins being the best gamble of the weekend, given that the offense would be so explosive featuring him paired with Stevie Johnson (at which point everyone else on the set pointed out that he was traded to SF), and Fred Taylor (which everyone else must have just chalked up to more drivel from the big dummy, and let it ride).
-
(I actually thought the affection he showed with his buddy was over the top and blatant attention grabbing)
How many draftees cried this weekend? If I'm not mistaken, the waterworks started with the first overall pick. How many other of those draft picks had as much of a personal stake in this weekend as well as a professional stake? I saw the reaction of someone who had taken on a cause that was bigger than himself finally have the opportunity to release months of stress and anxiety.
If you had not known his sexual orientation and had just been witness to a draft pick hanging out with his girlfriend finally get the call and display the same affection, would you have still thought his reaction was over the top?
-
why? why is it a huge moment?
landing on the moon was a huge moment
putting bacon on a cheeseburger was a huge moment
the beattles on late night was a huge moment
this is not a huge moment. this changes nothing in life, this changes nothing in society and if anything will only polarize the issues for many many millions of people who are offended by the simplicity of such a simple issue gaining such popularity in this country when it has no significance. it is a waste of a headline. it is news worthy but nothing of significance.
Societal tolerance does not equate to acceptance. While many could care less about sexual orientation because they truly have reached a point of acceptance, there are probably just as many who tolerate homosexuals out of conformity without actual belief in equality. The fact that the Rams drafted a player that was openly gay sends a message. The fact that Michael Sam was strong enough to be open and upfront about this (albeit, in the face of it likely being assumed even if he didn't confirm it) instead of trying to hide it while applying for a job with what could be equated with the epitome of male heterosexuality (and, unfortunately too often, stereotypical "frat boy stupidity"), conveys an important societal message about acceptance and being yourself. He may not turn out to be much of a football player, but like it or not he has sent a strong message as a role model, and it is a story worth following. It says something when even ESPN understands the significance of the moment.
-
Are you really suggesting that a rookie would provide a better backup than Thad Lewis with a full training camp and preseason? Given the point at which they brought him in last season, were you really expecting more? Anyone they brought in this year would be a practice squad project at best.
-
1) The current regime put their eggs in the EJ basket well before this weekend. They went out of their way to bring in a shiny new toy, a couple of big uglies, and more insurance in the backfield in an effort to ensure that they're giving him every chance to succeed. On top of that, no playoffs this year and a new owner cleans house. They don't have the luxury of worrying about next year's draft. Makes sense to me.
2) The Bills tried to cover their bases last year, but a slippery mat, and a hit to the head took care of that. Give Lewis and Dixon some actual prep time in the system and they will be better than any rookie in terms of insurance. Tuel... meh.
3) SJ had a knack for coming up big until you needed him. And when he let the team down, it was never his fault (it was His fault). Better to let the young guys play without the mentorship of someone who so often couldn't be man enough to own his own mistakes.
4) Wisdom, patience, and judgement in the form of Levy, no one, and Nix has consistently missed the playoffs. Maybe someone with a win now approach to building a team will fare better. Besides, Whaley has shown more willingness in a single draft to find a way to get what he wants to succeed this year than we've seen in the last decade combined. I, for one, found it refreshing. Amazing what a GM with an understanding of cellular technology can do.
5) Year one of a coaches tenure is always in some part roster evaluation. As we turn this roster over, I'm interested in seeing what Marrone's plan is. Loss of Byrd and a few bit players aside, the 2014 version looks to have a true #1 receiver, a beefed up o-line, a better cast of run stuffers, and likely 3 QBs with a full season and offseason in the system. These pieces in place last year and I'm betting our coaching staff looks better than what you're giving them credit for.
6) I think the Brown trade was predicated on the BC back being picked. Plus, it appears, if I'm understanding it correctly, that the pick is a 4th next year, unless Stevie kicks in the incentive to make the SF pick a 3rd, in which case it becomes a 3rd in 2016. This for a proven NFL player as opposed to a questionable draft pick.
7) Until the Bills are a "destination" frachise with a chance to win the Lombardi every year, they will have to overpay for players, same as every team in the bottom third of the league. Be upset about it if you want, but it is a fact of life.
-
I'll miss Stevie, but the play he had that had the biggest impact was the drop against Pittsburgh. His drop put them in the playoffs, and got us the 3rd pick in the draft. If we drafted 4th, we may not have gotten Marcel Dareus.
OK today that might not sound so awesome, but if we can get the big man to put down the spleef, he might shed a couple pounds and remember the play calls.
If God gets credit for the drop, and Stevie gets credit for Dareus... who gets credit for the Spice in Marcel's car?
-
The 3rd demension was not yet discovered when the Ralph was built.
-
Oh the jokes on Brady alright. See what happens when you let your wife dress you.
I'm guessing she chose his pants to match his toenails.
-
This thread is making my ____ ______. You're all a bunch of ____ drinking ____! You'll buy anything _____ is selling! In your world ____ and ____ shoot out of your ___! WE'RE ALL _____!!!!
-
I just wasted 1 minute of my life reading this post.
A whole minute? It was 2 short paragraphs. Have you ever considered...
-
Hell yeah. In fact, I'd trade 3 first round picks for him...
...Mike Williams, Donte Whitner, and Aaron Maybin.
-
I was just making a 'Frozen' joke, but I do appreciate the detailed explanation.
Dead horse beating is a time honored tradition here at TSW.
p.s. Flutie should have started the forward lateral game.
Did I hear someone say Donte Twittner is a whiney douche? Or maybe it was Jason Peters is a entitled schmuck and a bad teammate?
Who's this guy with all the w's in his name, and why the hell is he apologizing?
And
-
No biggie then. That's very common.
Depends on whether "cancerous mole" = melanoma or not. If yes, then it is potentially, now or later, a "biggie."
-
Thank you for your uniformed, whiny rant.
Are you suggesting he is military? Police? Royal Canadian Mountie? Royal Palace Guard? Or maybe Royal PITA has a standard dress I'm not aware of.
The Chuck Pollock article about fans reactions to the draft
in The Stadium Wall Archives
Posted · Edited by transient
Some people take longer to mature than others. Hopefully the thought of nearly blowing his shot in the NFL motivates him to make better decisions. Debate about ability to rehab stupid aside, you can't teach size or natural athleticism. Maybe he's ready to try to reach his potential now that it's now or never.