Rocky Landing
-
Posts
7,374 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Gallery
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Rocky Landing
-
-
What's with all this anti-clown bigotry?
-
Stop trying to make me so damned hopeful! I can't handle it!
-
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.Brown has good potential, but IMO he looked like a rookie out there last week. He was a step behind on many plays. Based on his play in camp and preseason, Bradham is ready to hit his stride as an NFL linebacker. We may yet see Brown start on the strong side if Rivers doesn't suit up.
What about Randell Johnson?I've been Bradham's harshest critic since his rookie year and going into the offseason he was considered a fringe player by the staff. They challenged him and he responded. He was a fixture in the building all offseason and became a film junkie. The result has been his best camp to date. I do think he's an upgrade over Brown who, while having a couple nice moments, really looked like a rookie against the Bears, especially his tackling. It was atrocious. But with Rivers out, it doesn't matter if Bradham is an upgrade or not as Brown will have to start anyway.
GO BILLS!!!
-
Honestly, I think it's a humorous change of subject on this thread. Carry on. (but, without me.)Poking what hornets nest. The words are what the words are. If one believes in the 2nd amendment and one also insists on a literal reading of the words, the Constitution calls for regulation of militias.
The words of the Constitution makes this an essential element to exist before stating Congress shall make no law. The words are clear that anyone who insists on adherence to the clear words of the Constitution is also endorsing a well-regulated militia.
-
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!Look, groups routinely pick and choose what parts of the Constitution they want to emphasize and then build whole ethos of thinking and alleged ways of life around their partial reading. For example, if the NRA truly based its thinking and actions on the words of the Constitution, a real adherence to the second amendment would start with making sure that we had a well-regulated militia. NRA seems to emphasize the later parts of the amendment without a focus on the fact that as best as I can judge we do not have the well-regulated militia in this country that all of the later clauses in the second amendment clearly are dependent upon existing before the later clauses are even relevant.
Even the biggest proponents of close adherence to the words of the Constitution seem happy to ignore the words in the Constitution which they find inconvenient. Ultimately it is this adherence to convenience which tends to undermine the faith of normal folk in what I think is one of the greatest written documents in human history.
-
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.Forte had to operate last season behind the Bears less than stellar OL. He has for several years been a great all around RB who does well in every phase of the game. He's a stud.
-
So, could you be a mob of one?There is usually only one mob. It's the one that's the loudest.
-
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.No, there's usually one mob. Mob mentality is a real thing and historically a primary concern for keeping domestic order was subduing mobs. One of the primary reasons why we have criminal trials with set procedures and protections was to avoid mob justice. Because the mob is not rational.
You can scoff at it all you want, but just because you agree with or are part of the mob doesn't make it any less real. Now it's tweets, emails, and blogs rather than pitchforks and torches, but it's still a group of irrational people calling for someone's head. And you not worrying about it doesn't change the fact that one day it could be you or someone you care about in those crosshairs.
And yes, people have always had their words held against them, but the situation as it exists today where everything is public, narcissism is at an all time high and growing, and political correctness has become de facto law (and a strict one at that) where saying something mildly controversial off hand, in public or private, can bring a media firestorm down upon he who dares question convention, that's relatively new in America.
Galileo would probably chuckle at western society and say we've come full circle.
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?Forte is far better than Moreno and it's not even close.
-
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.That's not what he said, nor is it what I'm doing. In regards to the story about the announcer, I'm not taking the unpopular stance. That would be to support the substance of his words. I'm simply pointing out how calling for the heads of everyone you disagree with is irresponsible and foolish. Just because you have a right to do something doesn't necessarily mean you should.
And you shouldn't take for granted that the mob will always be on your side. But perhaps you prefer a world where a segment of society has unwritten speech codes that you must not run afoul of lest you be destroyed.
-
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.The problem I have with the "independent" investigation by Mueller is that it is being overseen by two Goodell loyalists in the persons of Mara and Rooney.
-
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.What we're talking about in the context of speech is that the media has exploited this reality to ban unpopular speech. The only reason it has this power is because enough useful idiots jump on board with it. If the public didn't dutifully take up the outrage as instructed when someone says something unpopular we wouldn't be dealing with this on such an obnoxious level.
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.Well, they've done a pretty good job keeping it there with a promised investigation due to their terrible statements on the videos release.
-
You're right. I had the wrong stat. I feel better.Forte had 17 carries for 82 yards. That equals 4.8 yards per carry.
He had 8 catches for 87 yards. That equals out to 10.9 yards per catch (which isn't a great number).
You are confusing your statistics. I am not terribly worried about either of these numbers however, because that was the game plan. Keep them in front of you, let them have the short stuff, don't give up the big play, then either take it away or hold them to FGs. I'd say the game plan worked exactly as it was designed. After the big 44 yard reception on the Bears first drive, the Bills D did not give up a single play longer than 20 yards.
I'm perfectly fine with giving up 350 yards through the air if we are giving it up at a measly 7 yards per attempt clip and not letting them score touchdowns.
-
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.Time to crank up the social media outrage machine to correct this wrong.
-
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.@RyanTalbotBills: Buffalo Bills vs Miami Dolphins: Matchups, Keys To Game and Players to Watch In Bills Home Opener http://t.co/4aEs0DOtgc via @TheBillsMafia
-
"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.Greybeard, the problem is, the NFL has publically stated they did not see the tapes until last Monday and their stated justification for going from 2 games to "indefinately" is the tape inside the elevator, which they publically stated they didn't see until Monday.
If they, in fact, had the tapes months ago and either didn't bother to look at all the evidence before deciding what action to take, or they lied about not having seen them, either way, that's a credibility problem now.
I'm sorry, but I don't see much of a similarity.Paterno went down and the frenzy is becoming similar. I wonder if penn st and paterno will get those wins back ever
-
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.)The OP seriously thought he was the first one to notice this, on Tuesday evening? I did a seach of the board to make sure it was easy to find. No problem, Very easy..
Oh. and In, clearly.
-
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!It's not a Bills shirt, it's just a generic bison.
It's from Sportage. They make Ts that are popular with celebrities and this isn't the first time he's worn that T-shirt - Sportage has a pic of him wearing in a post game press conference in their "Celebs" section.
If you want to order one, go here: http://sportiqe.com/...buffalo-t-shirt
-
Very cool analysis. Loved this.
-
A little early for this sort of bandwagon, but still a pretty interesting read.
Nobody picked the Bills this week
in The Stadium Wall Archives
Posted
I always feel a little more comfortable going into game day as underdogs. If it weren't for pessimism, I'd have no ism at all.