The Dean

While anything is possible, I'd consider the source of that article, before jumping to conclusions. LaCanfora is not very reliable with his rumor reporting.

No. That explains why Vlad might start over Miller. Not why Miller is inactive. If McDermott doesn't want to play Groy at guard, who comes in if Vlad goes down?

I can't understand why Miller is inactive---again.

I'm not quite sure what this means. If the Bills draft a "franchise QB" in 2018 (I'm not sure there is one, this year) they have plenty of money to pay the rookie contract. If the rookie turns out to be the "franchise QB" we've been waiting for, Glenn's current contract will be a non-issue, by the time the Bills will need to redo the QB contract. Maybe you are saying something else.

I didn't know ICE was still posting here. Clearly you wouldn't fall for a Breitbart report, right? http://www.sacbee.com/news/state/california/fires/article179322896.html

Depends on what "sore foot" means. A 300+ lb guy puts a LOT of stress on that foot.

Glenn was far from 100%, and probably should be taking a few more weeks off. I can see how that might be one small piece if there were other pieces, but it's crazy to make that assumption based solely on that, IMO. (BTW I understand you are just giving me your best guess as to why people are saying McBean are down on Glenn.) Age-wise, Glenn should be entering his prime. If he can recover from the foot injury, the Bills have a starting LT locked up for the next 4-5 years. Now, if he can't adjust to the new OL blocking scheme (of the coaches adjust to the talent of the line), then I can understand wanting to move him out. But early in the season, I thought he was adjusting as well as anyone on the line.

I believe you are probably correct. But when someone says the coaches EXPRESSED frustration, there ought to be something to point to.

Can anyone point me to where "the new coaching staff has expressed frustration" with Glenn? I have read, in multiple threads, that Glenn isn't all in with "the process", in McBean's doghouse, etc. Where is this coming from?

Wow. Did the illegal swear allegiance to ISIS, too? One thing I hadn't give much thought to until recently: The migrant workers who work the fields/pick the grapes. Most of the wineries have some insurance, and I assume savings. Many (if not most) of these workers, have no savings, and are essentially homeless. Clearly it's a tragedy for everyone impacted, even if they have insurance. Fortunately, I'm hearing of wineries committing to pay the workers, and do whatever they can to make sure they aren't totally devastated. If so, that's a real classy move.

I'd kick myself if I didn't mention Four Roses.

I'm not really a "top X list" guy, but I can give you a quick rundown on what I like at various prices. By no means is this a complete list: At the very inexpensive end I like Evan Williams Black---86 proof and about $20 for a handle. Good mixer (though I don't really drink cocktails much) and fine by itself. I think it's better than a lot of "craft" bourbon selling for $50/750ml. If I'm REALLY broke, I can drink Benchmark. It's made by Buffalo Trace (I think) and is about $17 for a handle. It's only 80 proof. I don't like that it comes in a plastic bottle, though. I also have been known to buy Heaven Hill's basic swill for about $10/750. It really doesn't suck--just not all that interesting. Evan Williams 1783 is also very nice for about $13/750. Evan Williams Bottled in Bond 100 proof, is about $26/1.5L and is a good bang for the buck. Wild Turkey 101 is a very underrated bourbon. I believe there was a quality drop several years ago, that may have lead many to think it was just swill. But then again, it could be because it was just known a a shot bourbon. Jimmy Russell, and now his son, Eddie, are great distillers. One of the few Bourbons I don't really care for is Beam's basic white label. But I like most of their other stuff. Beam Black is quite good, IMO. I actually like Devil's Cut quite a bit---and even I'm surprised by that, as it is a bit of a gimmick. But it works. I've always been a Maker's Mark guy, even though bourbon snobs like to snub their nose at it. I love 46, but understand why some don't.. Maker's Mark Cask Strength is probably one of my favorite bourbons---but pretty pricey. I'm currently in possession of a Single Barrel Maker's Mark Private Selection, designed by a local liquor store. It is outrageously good. Way too much for me to spend (I drink bourbon, I don't trade/invest), but I couldn't resist. If you aren't familiar with the Maker's Mark Private Selection program, you may want to check it out. It is a fabulous thing, IMO. https://thewhiskeywash.com/whiskey-styles/bourbon/meet-makers-mark-46-unique-private-barrel-program/ https://thewhiskeywash.com/whiskey-styles/bourbon/more-than-a-private-barrel-selection-new-makers-46-private-select-program-part-2/ K&L, one my absolute favorite liquor stores, just got in their special MM Private Select bottles: http://spiritsjournal.klwines.com/klwinescom-spirits-blog/2017/10/17/the-first-of-two-new-makers-46-barrels.html I started out drinking Jack Daniel's. Jack could be labeled "bourbon", it meets all the criteria, but chooses to call itself Tennessee Whiskey. Jack used to be much better than it is now. It was 90 proof, and (I believe) aged 7 years. Over the years it dropped the age statement and lowered the proof: First to 86 proof and then to 80. Nobody much noticed, as most people seem to mix it with Coke. The current JD isn't terrible, but it is overpriced for what it is, IMO, and a shadow of its former self. If you want to have a good Tennessee whiskey, I recommend George Dickel 90 proof (or any of their Select offerings). Others I find to be great value bourbons (though their prices vary) are Eagle Rare, McKenna Single Barrel 10-year old (great bargain, IMO), Elmer T Lee Single Barrel, Larceny and Knob Creek. At the high price end, Booker's, William Larue Weller, Col Taylor, Angel's Envy, George T Stagg (I have a bottle of Stagg Jr in the house) are among some I love, but never buy. Well, I used to buy Booker's, but haven't since the price increase. I will sometimes order these at a bar, though, sometimes, if the bump in price isn't too great. Way back when, I would buy 12-year old Van Winkle Lot B. It was $50, or so. Now, if you can find it, it is north of $200. No thank you. I like a nice wheated bourbon, but I ain't paying that. Maker's, Weller, Larceny are all wheated, and are fine whiskies. OK, I'm sure I missed a ton here, but I'm running out of steam. Oh, one more thing. A rule-of-thumb, of sorts. While what's on the label isn't typically very important, Bottled in Bond (BiB) is something that rarely steers me wrong. These bourbons are at least four years old, stored in a gov't bonded warehouse and bottled at 100 proof. They are typically very good values, IMO.

I'm a (nearly) lifelong bourbon drinker. But I am NOT a bourbon "snob". One of the reasons I like bourbon so much is, most of it is very good. While I love to try some of the newer limited releases and "craft" products, most of the value standbys are darn good, IMO. I tend to keep a few bottles around the house. One big handle of an "everyday drinker" (which I was drinking FAR too much of, until very recently). And then a few higher-end (or at least higher-priced) bottles around, as well. When I get home, I'll typically pour myself one of the higher-priced bourbons. Then, if I continue to drink bourbon, I turn to the everyday bourbon. For example, I just got in and poured some Bomberger's Declaration 107 proof, from Michter's. This is kind of a "mystery" bourbon, but let me tell you it's awesome. To me, it's one of the best I've ever had. There is virtually no information on the bottle and not much to be found online, either. At $45/bottle (about $100 on the secondary market), it's WAY out of my price range. But it's so good, I typically have some about 2-3 times a week. Then I switch to the everyday stuff. Currently that is Wild Turkey 101, as it's been on sale for about $30 for a 1.75 handle. I like a higher proof product (as I love my bourbon over ice), and WT 101 is a quality bourbon, aged for about 6 years, or so. Like I said, I've been drinking bourbon and Tennessee whiskey all my adult live. And for the past couple years, I have spend most of my free time reading/learning about American whiskey. I do NOT consider myself an expert, but I have a pretty good handle on things. Feel free to contact me if you have any questions. I may not be able to answer, but I can probably point you in the right direction. BTW, my favorite bourbon blog is: http://chuckcowdery.blogspot.com/ Making good whiskey is an extremely expensive and time consuming process. That's why small distilleries have to charge so much for young, underaged, whiskey. IMO, bourbon becomes palatable after about four years. Using smaller barrels does not speed up the aging process--only the exchange of whiskey and wood, which is only one part of aging. I'd be shocked if one could make homemade bourbon better than Evan Williams Black for $20/1.75L (though you could easily make a higher proof product). But I've had homemade whiskey that wasn't too bad, and it's always a pleasure to drink something "homemade", particularly if it's your own. But "better? Please.

Have you? Sounds like you just don't like this guy. Anti-pot zealot? Just don't like people with Crohn's? Maybe, instead of just blurting out assertions, you actually provide analysis/evidence/etc. Truth is, nobody here knows what Sentrel has left, if anything. But I'm guessing the coaches have some clue.

Oh, hell no! But my point was, I can say that most years, about the Best Picture Winner (or Best Actor, Director, etc). But you are certainly right about how some throw a LOT of money on the Oscar push. But at a certain point, I figured that money all sort of cancel itself out, at some point. I didn't realize Harvey was known to be the "leader of the pack" in that area. Learned something new today. Thanks.

Given his physical limitations, tonight, the guy just balled. Very impressive effort from Mariota, this evening.

If that's your evidence, then there are a whole lot of suspicious wins. And Harvey wasn't the producer for many/most of those. In fact, I'm disappointed with most Best Picture winners. Not defending Weinstein (or Paltrow) in any way. He might have been responsible for getting her that plum role, but she still had to play it. I actually thought she was pretty good, in that particular role, though I wouldn't have voted for her. Some marginal actors are good in particular movies. I think I even liked the incredibly wooden Keanu Reeves in a role or two.

What am I missing here, Mark? I'm sure sleeping with Harvey helped actresses get roles---but an Oscar? Does he have enough power in Hollywood to sway the Academy votes?

VERY good to hear. Hope the good news continues.

How much is the buy-in? To be fair, I thought he was a goner, too. Apparently. I'm glad they didn't just release him. They are in desperate need of O-line help. It seems nuts not to see what he can do, after such a long layoff. I always thought Sentrel was a pretty decent reserve swing tackle. Unless his game has completely gone to s#it, he should be an upgrade on the right side, when he's ready to play (then again, most anybody would be). Ideally, I'd like to see Dawkins at the right side, Glenn on the left and Sentrel ready to step in for either. And while I know this isn't the thread where it has been brought up, why do some say Glenn hasn't "bought in" to the process? Where does that come from? He'd been injured---right? Even played injured (though only a few ST plays). Perhaps I'm missing something. But I have a feeling it's just the usual BS from uninformed "fans" and trolls. I suppose if he does get traded, there will be multiple threads where posters rail against him, and insist he was lazy and a bum.

How about the first 10-15 seconds of this:

I actually thought Peterman was the best of the later round QBs, and was happy when the Bills picked him*. But I'm not clamouring for him to start---yet. I just think he'll likely be a solid, dependable #2 QB for years. I could be way off, or he might surprise and be a #1. some day. (* Not as happy as I would have been had they taken Watson in the first. He was the only QB I thought was a "near sure thing", this past draft.)

And to think, I used to be proud to tell people Harvey got his start in Buffalo (Harvey and Corky productions). I have to agree with Chef. When I was in TV industry in LA, I was shocked by the behavior of many of the top executives of studios and networks. Really turned me off to the whole industry. I never knew of any sexual abuse, but it doesn't surprise me, at all. But the treatment of underlings, in general, is abysmal in the industry. I always yelled back, when some jackass yelled at me. I'd tell a studio president to go fu@k himself. But I know some didn't feel like they had the freedom to do that (families, mortgages, etc). However, I also think this kind of behavior goes on in many industries, among the "top dogs". What makes it worse in the entertainment industry is, it's not just money that's involved, but fame/celebrity. People will put up with a lot, it seems, to become famous. And, as we know from the treatment athletes get, fame cuts both ways. You get a big pass, most of the time, for bad behavior. But then, when you get caught and it becomes public, the blowback is much worse than if you were some unknown shmoe. Not that I feel bad for Weinstein. That POS deserves everything that's coming to him, IMO.