Rocky Landing

Randell Johnson is behind Rivers on the depth chart. I have no impression of him at all, other than that he is the largest LB we've got. What about Randell Johnson?

Honestly, I think it's a humorous change of subject on this thread. Carry on. (but, without me.)

Is Bradham going to be much of an upgrade to Preston Brown? Bradham hasn't gotten a lot of love from this forum during the offseason. And, Brown had a pretty good game last Sunday, IMO.

Wow! You're going to poke that hornet's nest??? Good luck to you!

He is indeed. But, I've never been as impressed with Moreno as I was last Sunday. Not that I've paid a lot of attention to him until this season. And, maybe Miami's OL is better than I'm giving them credit.

So, could you be a mob of one?

If you're equating social media consensus with "mob mentality," and tweets, emails (who emails anymore?), and blogs with "pitchforks and torches," then you are patently wrong that there is "usually one mob." This debate is evidence. I'm not even sure which mob you represent. And stop trying to pigeon-hole me into agreeing with some cross-section of some mob. I'm not even sure who you're defending. Honestly, there is so much that is hypocritical in your posts, that it matters little. I haven't been defending, or attacking anyone on this issue. And that is about all I have for you. If you would like the last word, feel free to take it.

Is this wishful thinking? The 2013 stats for both players were very similar. Forte had more touches (not surprising considering that Moreno played for Denver), but their averages were very close. Perhaps the better question is: whose run D is better, ours or New England's?

I'm not so interested in how my views stack up to those of "the mob" (whomever they may be). Usually, there is more than one mob. But I would submit that we have always lived in a world where your words may be held against you.

I think another way of saying "loyalists," would be "businessmen who are happy with Goodell's job performance." I don't know, but I assume, that most owners want to keep Goodell around. At any rate, I would consider this investigation, regardless of its independence, or transparency, to be little more than a dog and pony show. If it deflects the focus away from his office, as I suspect it will, he will have done his job as far as the owners are concerned.

I think what MDH was pointing out was that just because you are taking the opposite, or "unpopular" stance, doesn't exclude you from fueling the very thing you are decrying. The media is certainly not "banning" unpopular speech. On the contrary, it relies on opposition to give what you refer to as "exploitation" its legs. The media needs useful idiots on both sides of the fence for there to be anything to exploit. And, thanks for participating. I disagree with this. Handing off the investigation to an outside entity, headed by a Mueller, no less, is a pretty good way of diffusing the situation as it is. Goodell doesn't have to answer another question for as long as the investigation takes. They have handed the ball off. And, by the time the investigation is through, which will likely be a long while, and assuming there aren't any particularly damaging revelations, there will likely be little interest in its findings.

You're right. I had the wrong stat. I feel better.

I'm probably going to sound a bit boorish in this sentiment, but I don't believe it is the NFL's responsibility to "punish" athletes for their off-field issues. It is their responsibility to protect the image of the NFL, and the interests of shareholder's, fans, and other stakeholders. Rice screwed up in this regard, and he is gone as a result. When, and if, public opinion sways enough to let him back in, and a team wants him, he will be back in. Just Like Michael Vick. This is not about justice-- that is up to the legal system. This is about football, and the NFL's image. I'm not going to waste any emotional energy on how the NFL handled this, and I'm not going to feel any "outrage" over how well the NFL, or Goodell, managed the NFL's image in this one case. It's just not that important.

Says the guy fueling the social media outrage machine. Written, I assume, without a shred of irony.

Who's better: Forte or Moreno? Moreno looked pretty damned good against the Pats. And, Forte averaged over 10 per carry. Our W against the Bears notwithstanding, I'm not so sure we have solved our abysmal run defense problem from last season. Will the addition of Bradham this week make that much of a difference in our run D? I'm skeptical.

"A credibility problem..." Yes. I'm just not sure how important such credibility is to the NFL, especially when there is this... you know... season going on to distract everybody. I'm sorry, but I don't see much of a similarity.

I have a hard time believing that this is going to bring Goodell down. Does anyone have a clue who would replace him? Maybe Jon Bon Jovi?

One of the best threads in recent memory. Thanks to the fish fans for participating.

Maybe the OP is a slacker? (I certainly hope you get that reference.)

Still, he has to have an inkling of its significance. It's not the Bills trademark, but come on... it's a buffalo on his shirt!

Very cool analysis. Loved this.

A little early for this sort of bandwagon, but still a pretty interesting read.

I think Corn Chex Stadium is better.

I would imagine that if it were so easy to get, that TMZ would have had it a lot sooner. It is their stock in trade, after all.

I think I disagree with you. I've always interpreted that term as a way of lowering the bar for what is perceived as unacceptable, so that any physical contact that is unwelcome is also unacceptable. It isn't just a matter of touching that causes pain, i.e. punching, or slapping, but grabbing, pushing, restraining, etc. are also unacceptable. Self defense is, of course, another thing entirely.