Rob's House

Is there a reason you've absolved Beloved Leader for any hand in creating, or at least facilitating the current situation?

You may have, but for every one of you there are 500 dipshits just parroting what Collinsworth said as if it was their original thought. If I'm wrong then why didn't they **** all over Jim Harbaugh when he did the same damn thing?

At that point though, since the cap savings on McKelvin would be 2.9 million, retaining him would be like signing him for $2.9 million. Wouldn't he still be worth that, even as a #3?

I said it before and I'll say it again. The only reason this has picked up so much traction is because Collinsworth said it and millions are parroting him. Why aren't people saying the same things about Harbaugh? Because the announcer on TV didn't tell them to, that's why. People are so easily led.

Yeah. Two hands and only one mouth.

Gronkowski's a bad dude. I'd like to see him take up MMA. http://image-cdn.zap2it.com/images/superbowl-2015-fight.gif

I don't disagree, I just don't think this is the tag line of this Super Bowl if Chris Collins doesn't go nuts about it. And I'm sure it's not if they score on the play.

Hindsight's 20/20, my friend.

That part I don't disagree with. If the job is of a nature that there is a logical connection between the prohibited crime and the functions of the job I understand. But a blanket statement, like no criminal convictions period, and for a job that doesn't grant one access to terribly sensitive info just seems completely wrong to me.

They weren't even employed by the NFL or the Bills. As dumb as most of the outrage of the day stories that pop up are, this one may be the dumbest. This looks to me like an excuse for people desperately wanting attention to grand stand, or for people who get a sense of superiority out of being outraged to have something to metaphorically masturbate to. My favorite are the heroes who are highly offended that they were given a guidebook that included feminine hygiene tips. To listen to some of these blow hards you'd think they had vag inspectors doing compliance checks. But a part of me does feel sorry for these young hot girls with enough free time and money to go play cheer leader because they feel like it. It must be tough. At least they can take comfort in the fact that a bunch of dorks they'd never sleep with are highly outraged that they they had to experience something they knowingly and voluntarily chose to do. I'm sure they appreciate your support. If they knew how genuinely and deeply you cared about this they might even give you the time of day.

I got an email From a recruiter about a federal government job the other day (a job that I can't imagine anyone with the required credentials would apply for, but I digress) and it stated that in order to pass the background check you had to have, and I'm quoting, "no criminal convictions." (I should mention that this job did not involve high level security clearance or anything of the like.) Does this seem extremely !@#$ED up to anyone else? I understand that a private company can put such restrictions on hiring practices because It's their company, but where does the government get off pulling this ****?

It makes me feel all warm and fuzzy to know there's something you and I agree and feel strongly about.

I think you're probably right, but I also think they're foolish for going about it this way. I also think this business of random drug testing is unnecessary and unethical, not just in sports but in most industries as well.

So is getting cancer. So suspend them for activity that tarnished the league's image. What does that have to do with testing them for non-performance enhancing drugs?

I think It's ridiculous that someone's livelihood can be taken away for drinking beer and smoking pot. I'm not sure why the league gives a ****; not sure why some of you do either.

If we're using that as a measuring stick then Ryan Leaf was a great pick because pundits thought he was great. The only question was whether he was better than Peyton Manning and Manning was already off the board. And no other QB was close.

I'm not arguing that it was a poor draft. I'm not even necessarily saying it was a bad trade, although I don't think it was a particularly good one either, but we'll see. I'm saying this isn't a purely hindsight argument. As far as the trade I'll put it this way: If I could stand here today and choose to have just Sammy Watkins or a probable bust and the 1st and 4th back I'd take Watkins. But if I can have one of Beckam, Mike Evans, or K Benjamin and the 1st & 4th I take that. Maybe in 5 years I'd regret it but I'll take those odds. To piggyback on what Thurman said about only trading up for a QB, when the trade happened I said he'd have to be the next Randy Moss to really make it a good move. If he's a solid no 1 WR who maybe goes to a few pro-bowls but never really dominates and lights up the league then I still think it was ok, but just ok - you're hitting on 50% of your first rounders (and busting on a 4th) which is about average - but if you drafted a Roddy White one year and then took Maybin the next, wouldn't you feel like you should have done better?

Is that too much to ask?

What we actually lost is a 1st and a 4th round pick. Your speculation on the value that could be derived from those resources is just that; sspeculation. But the value of those picks really isn't the point now, is it. Nor is whether it was a good move, which as you've stated we likely won't know for a few years. The point is that you said that the criticism is easy to make with the benefit of hindsight. This implies that a situation in which the value of the resources sacrificed to move up outweighed the upgrade in talent from a player that would be available otherwise was wholly unforeseeable. To that I offered a reply which I'll now expound upon. I pointed out that many Bills fans (most actually, and it wasn't close) were dead set against trading up, especially if it meant trading away the following year's first round pick. A frequently stated reason was that it was very deep draft and it made no sense to trade up in such a draft. With respect to the WR class, it was nearly universally touted as the deepest WR class in years. Therefore, when you say this criticism is made purely through the benefit of hindsight you are incorrect. The exact same arguments being advanced by those skeptical of the trade were being made before the trade ever took place. You argue that 1 year is not enough time to judge, but I never said it was. In fact I said quite the opposite. However, as I stated earlier, the idea that it is somehow wrong headed to grade a draft with the benefit of hindsight is absurd. Hindsight is absolutely necessary to grade a draft with any degree of accuracy. It is not humanly possible to do so otherwise.

From 2 pages earlier in this thread:

I think it's pretty disturbing that she did that, but it's also strange to me how outraged people are about killing a puppy when thousands of puppies are killed everyday by dog pounds across the country. If the headline had used the word "euthanized" would it make it ok?

It's a bit of a tangent based on BB's assertion that when your boss tells you what to do you do it.

When someone refers to your boss that's generally your employer. If you're a lawyer at a firm the state bar is not your employer. However, if they revoke your license and ban you from practicing you are also out of a job regardless of whether the firm wants to keep you.

The NFL isn't his boss.

Now you're just changing the subject. I asked how you could accurately grade a draft without the benefit of hindsight. Whatever you're answering or responding to has nothing to do with what I said. So in answer to your question, none. You don't need to say it at all because it's irrelevant to the post you responded to. I was talking about this ridiculous notion of a "hindsight witch hunt".