ToGoGo

Thank you. The difference between EJ and Orton last year was that Orton could consistently get us to the red zone. The problem was we rarely got touchdowns. Then we would lose games we should've won to the Dolphins, Raiders, Chiefs, and Broncos. We had 12-4/13-3 potential last year. We consistently year in and year out have a terrible red zone percentage. The next two problems are third down offense and third down defense, especially in the 4th quarter. Those three things are the reason we haven't been to the playoffs in 15 years. Not just because of a QB. What's interesting to me is that those three quality are all crunch-time/clutch qualities. In other words, mental. That's why people say we don't have any luck. That's why people get annoyed with the losing attitudes. It's like the team expects to lose and ends up losing. I believe that mental expectation of victory/will to win was the difference between 9-7 and 12-4 last year. That Tom Brady, I'm going to win no matter how bad I played the last 3 quarters mentality and nothing is going to stop me. We haven't had that in a long time.

Great great post. Explained the nuances perfectly.

I think some fans need to establish their value systems better. Which one is more important: A. How a player behaves off the field B. How productive he is on the field What's more important to you: A. Your level of annoyance reading articles on ESPN during the summer B. Your level of happiness seeing victories on Sunday during the football season It's nice to have both and if you look at the 70 or so players on the roster, around 65 don't have off the field problems. I think if you focus on those guys, you can ignore the McCoy's and Incognito's of this team. That or filter your news sources a bit more. Another thing you can do is take a step back, breathe, and ask yourself how much your "shady" feelings are based on you projecting your beliefs and opinions onto McCoy and how much is it really McCoy? How much is it the media, who gets a large portion of their advertising dollars from clicks, creating stories and provocative headlines so that they will increase their click-through rate and get more money from direct and affiliate advertisers?

Very nice switcheroo guys. As we all know, to present the possibility that some women are bad apples is clearly prohibited. This explains how everyone comes to their conclusions now. What I described, perhaps roughly, were (truthful and all too common) psychological insights into some messed up people that should always be considered. If you guys can't handle it, then I have no business debating with you on a Bills board.

I never, and you can look through my posts, said that it is easy to believe it is happening here. No reasonable person would say that. I don't know where you inferred that strawman from. I have said that it is a reasonable possibility in cases such as this and should always be examined before passing judgement. Something else people aren't taking into account. It's not always about money. There are many messed up women out there who like to start sh*t on a night out to get their boyfriend to fight for them because it turns them on or they like to see their man stand up for them. There are also plenty of scorned women who would enjoy seeing their SO in trouble with the law if they were angry at them for cheating, for example. It could be a payback type situation. Everything should be examined before ruining a man's life, livelihood, and reputation.

Couple things to keep in mind. In order to do that, let's set aside the whole alleged abuse thing for now. 1. Adrian Peterson is a top 10 running back of all time. He is a future Hall of Famer and the greatest RB of this generation. 2012 is one of the greatest offensive seasons of all time, if not the greatest for a RB. Let's not let any allegations get in the way of what kind of player AP is and was. 2. He is one of the greatest players to play for the Minnesota Vikings. He has been loyal and patient with them as they have struggled since Favre retired. They are also not the flashiest city in the NFL either. 3. People have different honor codes. In Peterson's mind he may have not done anything wrong and this whole thing has been a media overreaction. On the other hand, he watched as the team he's been loyal to for nearly 10 years left him hanging, and then refuses to trade his rights once he is reinstated and the public firestorm has passed. So in other words, Peterson feels he didn't do anything wrong with his kid, and it's a debatable subject if he did. He is one of the greatest NFL players of all time who has been loyal to a middling team who then leaves him out to dry and then refuses to let him go when the heat passed. He may feel an incredible injustice and there are many people out there who would rather call it quits on a career then to lay out your body for an organization that showed their true colors. In my opinion, he might not be bluffing, and frankly I hope he isn't just to prove a point. Regardless of what happened with his son, I think it would be really honorable of him to stick it to the Vikings by retiring if they don't trade him. Go in the Ray McDonald thread to see how I feel about cowardly NFL front offices cutting players as soon as any accusations come out but before any details. It would be nice for the karma to come around.

Fair enough.

I just gave you a couple examples. You don't need to go far to find false rape and domestic violence accusations. They exist. How prevalent is a good question. It's not so much "hard to believe" as it is hard for you to believe.

And I agree with that. I guess what I'm getting at, is that I believe the main reason the Bears have this caveat in the first place, is because of the public's rush to judgement. It's very circular. 1. Ray McDonald is accused of crime for the 2nd or 3rd time and may or may not be guilty. 2. Bears quickly cut him fearing public backlash 3. Public backlash 4. Details come out #4 should be #2, in my opinion. And if #3 only happened after the details came out, then the Bears wouldn't have cut him so quickly.

Again, I understand. And I know full well how many normally well-intentioned people put themselves in stupid situations over and over again. I see it all the time. But beating someone and putting yourself in a situation to be accused of beating someone are two very different things. As an employer, I don't care because I'm not an employer. But as a person, I'd like to know which one of the two he is.

I remember there's a Pacman Jones video on the web from a few years ago where he's calmly hanging out on a patio at a bar and a bunch of drunk people start trying to fight him for no real reason. If you've ever hung out at a bar with a pro boxer or UFC guy, you know they are a magnet for tough guys who have something to prove. There's plenty of shady women out there who are looking for a handout. That's why I think every situation should be looked at with caution before judging.

Again, I understand. But I'm not his employer. And at the end of the day, the truth is more important than caveats and contracts. At least in my opinion. Perhaps he's a serial wife-beater, but I just really don't like this rush for judgement before literally any details have come out.

Dante Cunningham. NBA, but whatever. Kobe Bryant, arguably. I understand that from an NFL multi-billion dollar employer concerned about PR point of view, and yes it's dumb to keep putting yourself in those situations. But to me, as a regular joe-shmo, I would just like to get the full story before passing judgement on the man.

I know he has a history of past charges, but have they released any info at all on this most recent one? It seems like nobody took even a second to see if this accusation has any merit. Not the Bears, and certainly not NFL fans around the league or in this thread. Ray McDonald may have a domestic violence problem, but he can also just as easily be a magnet for these kinds of accusations from women looking for a payday. It's important to at least wait for information to get out before passing judgement. This world isn't black and white.

I thought he did pretty well against us considering he's a rookie. What caught my attention is that when he played the 2nd half, Brady and Belichick watched him with A LOT of interest on the sidelines. Especially Brady. He must be doing pretty well in practice for Brady (who seems like he doesn't respect anyone) to watch him intently. I suspect they already decided he's their guy for the future, Brady suspension or not.

This might sound indelicate, but it's not the first one that worries me, but the 2nd. At the very least, he's been involved with some very shady people. Who's to say he's not anymore? History shows that many NFL and NBA players bring that entourage with them to the major leagues.

I don't have much to go on, but I don't have a good feeling about him personally after watching some interviews. You just get vibes about people. I think there is a VERY good reason a talent like his fell to the 5th round. I don't expect anybody here to believe me, but I had the same vibes about Aaron Hernandez during a prime-time game a few years ago when they showed him socializing with another Pats player during a blowout win. Maybe not a murderer vibe, but definitely a criminal vibe. To balance it out, I got a good vibe from Darby and Lewis.

Yolo put it best. He doesn't like black stars with "swag". I don't know how else to say it without being non-PC. You're still not getting the point. I think because the "Chip Kelly is crazy" narrative is getting more clicks right now.

So he's repeating himself because he feels strongly about it, not sure why that's so embarrassing. Regarding your 2nd point, and I've heard this from other people in the thread, you mention that the "reality is" that Chip is not racist and "might just mean" he wants all the attention. Please explain to me why it's reasonable to think "Chip wants all the attention" and why it's wrong to think "there's a racial tinge to it"? Why is one a perception and the other a reality when you don't have any evidence for either? I'm just trying to understand the reasoning behind it because it seems to have developed into a meme within 4 thread pages.

I'm about to ask a lot of questions. I'm doing this to open up the debate because I want to get to the core of some of the opinions on here. Why are you so sure there isn't something racial to it? Why do you "really doubt it"? How do you know he has a problem with loud guys, and not loud black guys? We have a guy on our team who thinks so and apparently whispers that other players think so. Why is he embarrassing himself? Is he really embarrassing himself, or is he just saying stuff that you don't agree with? Why is it factually wrong? I can see someone saying "I don't think that's the case" like HOF Watkins, but why is it factually wrong? Again, why is he embarrassing himself? Are you just embarrassed since he's a Bill and trying to project your embarrassment on to him?

I mean, who is it embarrassing for? Bills fans? That's pretty selfish. The guy has earned the right to speak his mind by being a star player. Agree or not, but that's how it goes. When a nobody talks, people say "who the heck is this guy, shut up and earn it on the field". Well this guy has earned it. We knew what we were getting when we brought him on board, the team is desperate to make him comfortable here, and he knows we're not going to shut him up. Rex and Whaley know we're lucky we even have him so they're going to deal with it. If you think about it, he's the closest thing we have to a star QB. As for the fans on this board squirming because they're terrified of negative attention, I just don't really care. The man is an established star and veteran in this league and he feels like he was traded for some very shady (pun not intended) reasons. He's not the first star player to be traded by Kelly and there are apparently whispers from others in the league that agree with McCoy, who is the only one with the balls to speak out. Do you trust the NFL to handle it internally after the Rice incident. If anything, the Rice incident proved that the only way the NFL will act is if there is threat of public embarrassment. There may not be any proof, but I know from experience that you know when somebody doesn't like you. You would tell your friends and they would say "really? what did they do? what did they say?". And you'll say "nothing, but I can just TELL that they don't like me". Sometimes it's all in the vibe. McCoy has had a lot of time to digest it and months later he's still talking about it. If Kelly is really getting rid of star black players because he fears they'll talk back to him and he'll lose the locker room, well then, that should be out there. In my opinion solving social injustices are worth far more than having some negative attention affect the team. For me to tell McCoy to shut up because I get annoyed when players talk and it might affect our W-L column seems very petty and selfish to me when put into perspective.

Perhaps, but I'm sure he has editors who are smart enough.

I think what the OP was pointing out, was not that "this is it", but that there is a common belief held by fans that we are somehow "cursed" or we are "losers for life" or "pathetic creatures like us don't win championships". I'm of course exaggerating, although I'm not totally off either. He was showing that there have been signs from both teams that things are turning around and that that disgusting stench from the Ralph years is clearing out. I'm fine with people playing the caution card, but if they are playing it because "well, things just don't go my way so I'm going to lay down over here and expect failure", well that's really annoying. It's also a self-fulfilling prophecy.

You know, there's a quote by billionaire investor Howard Marks that says (and I'm paraphrasing) "One of the stupidest things you can do is to think there's no risk when your stock is going up, but to think there's no hope is just as stupid." In other words, there's a reason John Paulson made $8 Billion during the recession. He made money off investors who thought the economy was never going to turn around. Life moves in cycles, the Jerry Sullivans of the world can think what they want, but we're due for a long run of success. If they want to play the "I'll believe it when I see it" card, then they can miss out on all the fun.

Thanks, glad you got it. On your 2nd point, I've thought about that before. The way I see it is yes, he's getting clicks and he's the toast of TBD for it. But at what cost? His reputation and integrity is going down the drain. Short term, he's winning. But what about long term when the "get clicks by getting emotional reactions" fad in journalism passes? What about when journalistic quality and integrity is back in vogue? He's toast. He'll need to be a politician to turn that around.