K-9

I wonder how Beasley would have done in those schemes under those QBs with the Jets.

If Bruce insists on having this petty beef, he should have it with the HOF electors, not Boselli.

Over the course of their career matchups, neither owned the other; it was a draw if anything. In the ‘89 game at Rich Bruce had a play where he gained leverage and tossed Munoz aside like a rag doll. I don’t recall anyone else ever doing that against Munoz.

If having a great game against one of the all time greats to ever play the game solidifies a player’s credentials for HOF induction, then Bruce should be flattered and take it as a compliment of how great he was.

Not happy that Tampa won, but I’m glad the Rangers didn’t if that makes any sense.

RFK was scheduled to be demolished this year. Has that changed?

Other future considerations are the big money deals awaiting players like Thompson, Dahlin, Cozens and others the Sabres deem essential parts in building a perennial contender.

Yours is a unique perspective to be sure and it’s much appreciated. I’m curious as to what aviation-centric movies you have found to be more true to form in your opinion.

If I was a Pats*** fan, I’d be more concerned if my team could force the Bills to punt after going eight straight quarters of football without doing so. And while there is no denying we were Brady’s punching bag whenever he played us, he never did to us what Josh did to them in that playoff game, either. Only one team in league history has played a perfect offensive game and the Pats*** will always be the defense that gave it up.

I agree entirely with everything you say here and that’s been my experience as well thru the years. I want people to aspire to a higher position as it brings out the best in people. Relevant or not, the potential for conflict is there. I don’t predict conflict will occur nor do I think any of these once OC coaches are that fragile. And like Ive said, this is Josh’s offense more than it’s anyone else’s, including Dorsey.

I’m not worried about Dorsey in the least and who calls the plays isn’t my concern. Nor am I saying play calling will be a power struggle at all. Besides, this is Josh’s offense more than anyone else’s. I’m talking about all the voices in the room during the week. There are three former (demoted) OCs serving a new OC in this league. I think some egos have the potential to be hit.

If any of those sous chefs hadn’t already been head chefs themselves, I’d agree that they’re just sous chefs. Shouldn’t be a problem when things are going well, but I can see the potential for too many voices and some conflict if the offense struggles.

Too many chefs from the looks of it on the surface.

Kama Sutra #13. I just don’t have the upper body strength anymore.

The play Dawkins makes on the play at the 13:20 mark in the video is all I need to know about his mindset as a player. Puts Judon on his ass in pass pro then runs 20 yards downfield after Diggs makes the catch and blows up a defender trying to make a tackle. You can’t teach that.

Can’t really judge without being there in person, but he seems a bit slow in getting punts off. Not sure what kind of situational punting they’re practicing, either, but they don’t come off his foot consistently in those clips.

Yeah, LaPierre left out the part about the bad guys wearing body armor. Only good guys with a gun AND wearing body armor can stop a bad guy with a gun wearing body armor. Assuming, of course, the good guy with a gun actually has the courage to act. Someone told me today that in all the cases where an armed “good guy” intervened in a “bad guy with a gun” situation that only 3% of the time was it successful. I’m gonna research that, but I would not be surprised in the least to find it to be true.

Yeah, I posted a couple days ago how beyond ironic that is. And that you’d think Abbot and Cruz, so proud of their new gun laws, would be touting them by urging all attendees to strap up with their finest semi assault rifles and regalia to show their pride.

Heard a couple of big wig politician speakers (won’t use their names lest this post gets deleted) at the NRA both trot out LaPierre’s tired line about how only a good man with a gun can stop a bad man with a gun. Someone should remind them that NINETEEN good men with guns stood outside of a room for over an hour and couldn’t stop ONE bad man with a gun.

This is the mentality we are dealing with when it comes to the manufacture and marketing of semi-automatic assault rifles. This from Daniel Defense, the company that made the rifle used by the killer in Texas. Un F ing believable. https://www.nbcnews.com/news/crime-courts/maker-gun-used-uvalde-shooting-long-known-incendiary-ads-rcna30631

That’s a twist because in case after case of police shootings the claim is they shot because they were “in fear for their life.” It’s a universal defense.

The protestations of various posters in these parts aside, decades of polling absolutely bears that out. It’s the politicians and the lobbying interests they are owned by that will not cede an inch of ground.

Of course there is a middle ground. But when one side of the argument is against giving up even an inch of ground, the middle cannot be reached. And in places like Texas, the exact opposite is the case. That’s why federal statutes need to be part of any common sense legislation.