uncle flap

Cordy Glenn hasn't given up a single QB pressure in the preseason.

Why are people citing a poll of 768 people that were self reported native americans? And furthermore that question is somewhat bogus. What does it mean to be "offended?" Was there a scale? Perhaps many don't feel "offended," but I doubt they feel "honored" as is the supposed justification. "Does it not bother you?" is a far cry from an endorsement. I'm sure if the question was along the lines of "If a non-Indian called you a "redskin," would you be offended?" we'd see a very different response. Check out some Indian/Native American websites and publications and then get back to us on how you think they feel. http://indiancountrytodaymedianetwork.com/ has a dedicated tab to "Redskins." I understand the anti-PC crowd's point about "infringing on freedom." I actually don't think that the Skins should be "forced" to change their name. However, just because you have the right to be culturally insensitive, doesn't mean that you should, or that anyone has to like it. "Freedom of speech" doesn't equal "freedom to not be criticized."

The NFL prohibits the use of marijuana, so if one of those players failed a drug test, the "legality" of his use goes out the window. Since it is unlikely that a player in one of those states would be cited with a violation or arrested for possession, the NFL would never know- but a player using marijuana would still have to beat the NFL's drug test. So to answer your last question, the NFL policy prohibits breaking the law AND the use of marijuana. In other words, a player can use marijuana legally, but still be subject to discipline by the NFL. See page 20: http://images.nflplayers.com/mediaResources/files/PDFs/PlayerDevelopment/2010%20Drug%20Policy.pdf

--- Also, to some of the other points made recently: I don't know exactly where he was on Sheridan, but near UB you see plates from all of over the country at all times of day. He may have been on his way back from chillin with a college crowd (he is 23 after all). Someone pointed out that Tonawanda cops are everywhere which is probably more indicative of why he was pulled over than any other single factor. They use traffic stops as a big source of revenue. Get a ticket, but plea down to a non moving violation, and no real harm to the driver except for the inconvenience and their wallet becomes a little lighter. Once he was pulled over- and I don't want to accuse the officer of anything - it could certainly be the case that the "strong smell" was imagined/exaggerated, since only a small amount of contraband was found, and there was no DUI/DWI charge. Bradham may have also thought if he came clean, he'd get off with a warning. Again, I don't want to accuse the officer of anything, but I can't help but wonder if the interaction would've played out differently if he was white, regardless of why he was initially pulled over.

The NFL now requires players being tested to remove their shirt and be bare from the knees up - because use of the whizzinator was so prevalent in years past.

Like Ochocinco did?

So I didn't really think all of this through. I did some asking around and some digging of my own and answered my own questions: The Tonawanda PD didn't violate any privacy. The fact that the charge may be dismissed at some future time is almost certainly irrelevant to the NFL. Conviction or not, the "facts" are out of the bag. Next, I turned to looking at other suspensions/discipline for other similar offenses. Based on Isaiah Pead's one game suspension, I think that is the most we can expect. http://profootballta...exas-last-july/ What seems more likely is that Bradham will enter Stage One of the league's intervention, he'll complete it, and we'll never hear anything from the NFL or the Bills about it again.

He was pulled over for tints.

There are a lot of questions here. It seems the cop was "fishing," and the subsequent amount of marijuana found would normally lead to an ACD (Adjournment in Contemplation of Dismissal). The NFL reserves the right to discipline players "convicted of or admitting to a violation of law" pertaining to use or possession of illegal substances. However, the ACD exists as chance to maintain a clean record. It is not a conviction and it's not equal to a probation. So I wonder: 1. Will the NFL consider Bradham's actions as a violation of their substance abuse policy? He certainly hasn't been convicted, and I don't know if the "admission" part applies in a criminal case. Admission is not the same as a confession, so I am interested to learn the NFL's interpretation of the term. 2. Is the Tonawanda PD at fault for acknowledging that it was indeed Bradham? When ACD is in play, there seems to be an assumption of privacy. In essence, if Bradham stays out of trouble for a period of time, there would be no record of the initial charge. Does a subsequent dismissal of the charge matter in the NFL's eyes? 3. Is the NFL willing to set a precedent that they will discipline a player on essentially hearsay? As noted above, the record of Bradham's possession exists in a weird (at least to this layman) legal netherworld, in the sense it may cease to officially exist. Of course, it "exists" now and there is a news report regarding the incident, but I don't know that the NFL can use that against Bradham since as far as I can tell, as that would be circumventing "due process." Any attorneys want to chime in here? I know we are talking about two sets of laws here, the NFL's and NYS's, but I have to assume that the NFLPA and Bradham have a good shot at "beating the case," so to speak.

I'm in- thanks for handling the commissioner duties!

Both. I admit I *want* him to be good, so perhaps I've overlooked some of the other guys. But while I've been at camp, I've personally seen him easily beat DBs deep for big gains and TDs, outmuscle DBs on jump balls, and make a nasty one hand catch over the middle and turn it upfield for a TD. I've seen Easley make some deep plays, and Kaufman catch some 20-25 yard posts and flags. Hogan, Sampson, the rest of the bubble guys, not so much. They are running slants, curls, and shallow drags for the most part. This may be because I have been paying extra attention to Rogers, but I also noticed him fighting through boderline illegal contact and pass interference quite frequently. To me, that signals that he's tough to cover. I'll defer to the venerable Astrobot, who has been attending more sessions than I have, but I see Rogers as a player with tremendous body control, size and speed. I don't think that his mental lapses are enough to outright discount his physical talent, at least at this point. I'll also defer to the coaches. If Rogers doesn't make the team, I'm going to assume that it's not because Rogers "doesn't get it" now, it's because they don't think he'll ever "get it."

Apparently WGR used "Pettine Zoo" on-air. I didn't hear it first hand but one of my buddies just mentioned it.

I'm not trying to come across as a Rogers apologist. But he has been catching touchdown after touchdown in training camp. He's been blowing by corners and making highlight reel catches. Maybe I'm wrong, but I do think the bubble guys have been getting more looks in the preseason games because they need further evaluation whereas Rogers has shown enough to warrant sticking around. Perhaps there's some psychology at play here as well; As with EJ, it could be that Marrone wants Rogers to think he's earned it, not just handed a spot solely based on potential. What better way to get a player motivated by making him think his job is in jeopardy? There's literally nothing that the bubble guys can do that Rogers can't. I'm not worried about finding the next David Nelson, since Stevie, Woods, and Chandler can work the underneath all day. All of the receivers can catch 6 yard curl or slant- why waste a spot on a guy who can do that, and nothing else? Nelson was a good guy, but he didn't bring much to the table. Again, I freely admit that I'm spitballing here. I don't have any inside information. But to me, I find it hard to believe that Marrone and Co. would be so hasty as to cut a guy who could develop into a big time force as a pro. Look at Dez Bryant. All the talent in the world, but immature as they come- until recently that is. By all accounts, he has "matured," although it's taken a couple of years. Now, I can understand not wanting to wait around for a player to develop/mature, but if the reason is so the Bills can keep the likes of Chris Hogan... I just don't think that's a good idea. I said this upthread, but I'd let him hang around until he "proves" he can't contribute, rather than making him prove that he can in just a few weeks.

I have to respectfully disagree with a few of your points. 1. Joe B is usually fair, and while I don't think he a personal vendetta against Rogers, I do think that is judgement is clouded by some preconceived notion, or that he has some other reason which slants his coverage of Rogers. For weeks I've heard and read him harping on Rogers without mentioning some of the spectacular plays he's made in training camp. I wouldn't say that Hogan or Kaufman have been clearly outperforming him. 2. Based on reports from others, (and my humble opinion from watching him at camp), Da'Rick's talent is obvious. I'm not saying that this is certainly the case, but it's well within the realm of possibility that Marrone recognizes Rogers's physical talent, and also recognizes that he needs some time to develop the mental side of the game. Therefore, perhaps he has already decided Rogers is the 5th, 6th, or 7th WR, and that he needs to see more from Easley, Hogan, Kaufman, and Sampson to see who else is worthy of a roster spot. So while I agree that it seems the writing is on the wall for Rogers, I'm hoping that we shouldn't take these indications at face value. I think it would be short sighted to not at least wait and see if Rogers can get it together. I also think it's short sighted to keep a guy like Hogan over Rogers, when Hogan's ceiling is seemingly barely above Rogers's floor. If in the unlikely event Week 10 rolls around and they are down 3 receivers and Marrone still can't count on Rogers, then bring back Hogan or Kaufman or some other street guy. I just find it hard to picture a scenario where I'd rather have Hogan on the roster Week 1 than Rogers. Neither are likely to see the field, so I'd rather have the guy with enormous upside in my back pocket, than a "serviceable" backup.

On the Minn KO return that went for a TD, but negated by a holding call, Rogers chased the returner the entire length of the field. He didn't give up even tho there was zero chance of him catching the guy, and perhaps even realizing a flag had been thrown. It seemed to me that he's learned to play to the whistle after getting an earful about the "fumble" in the Indy game. I also noticed some decent blocking on running plays. Not great, but an indication he is at least attempting to play a well rounded game. I think I detected some "body language" after a play where he was wide open, but Tuel hit Kaufman instead. The play went for a first down, but Rogers might've had a TD if Tuel found him. All in all, I think Rogers still has too much potential to risk cutting. He may have a long way to go, but I think it'd be short-sighted to give a kid with that much upside such a limited window to prove his worth. Obviously, I'm not privy to everything the coaches see, but I'd let him hang around til he "proves" he can't contribute, rather than making him prove that he can in just a few weeks. I realize roster spots are at a premium, but I wouldn't be willing to give up on the Da'Rick experiment unless there is some injury crisis at another position during the season.

I wish there were more highlight videos of DTs. This is obviously only one game, and probably Kyle's best, but it's nice to see a video dedicated to highlighting his play: http://www.buffalobills.com/media-center/videos/Top-10-Performances-Kyle-Williams-vs-Pittsburgh/1043a80e-f53b-4934-9cc2-c0be477e58d9

Good read here on Kyle Williams, and how he is one of the most underrated players in the league. http://www.grantland...timated-monster

So I should bring a bolt cutter to the tailgate friday?

It's not hard to see that coming. It happens every year.

That's from here: http://deadspin.com/why-your-team-sucks-2013-detroit-lions-1108073618 Written by this guy: http://twitter.com/ZODIAC_MF

Yes, but that is not the keeper's primary job. His primary job is to make saves. Less than perfect goal kicks and punts are fielded by players, not stationary objects. Furthermore, if he shanks a kick, it's likely not to affect the game as much as a missed field goal or terrible punt.

This and the fact the 53rd guy on the roster is going to be a guy who stands to make far less of an impact than either a dedicated kicker or punter.

http://twitter.com/icecube/following But seriously, here's a list where you can browse the players' tweets. http://billsmafia.com/bills-players-on-twitter/

I think the mystery surrounding the rash of dead dolphins is solved. I wonder if there will be enough to even field a team after Week 7.

Marcus!!!