Brandon

I was hoping to be wrong when they signed him, but this does not surprise me whatsoever.

For my part, it's mainly because I think both Zack Moss and Duke Johnson are worth keeping as the #3 RB, so if the Bills can get something out of one of them rather than cutting them for nothing, they may as well try. Moss is probably the only one of the two with any trade value.

Not interested in trading him or are they not interesting in trading him for what's being offered? I have a hard time believing they wouldn't consider moving a depth player if the right offer came along.

If they unload him within the next day or two, yeah, it'll still go away pretty quickly. If that's their move, though, they need to get it done soon. The longer he stays, the more those lingering questions will persist afterward.

It probably means that Beane knows a lot more about all of this than we do right now.

They signed him a few weeks before the draft. It didn't seem like a bad bet at the time, but when they drafted Cook, it hurt his chances of being the 3rd down guy, and with Moss returning strong after a poor season last year, his chances of being the veteran backup have also significantly decreased. And now Blackshear may be playing his way into one of the last few roster spots as well. It's a good example of how fast things can take a turn for a pretty good depth player. Most years, he'd make the team and likely contribute. This year? Probably not.

Not at all.

Pretty much. What few voters she has would otherwise mostly support Biden (or any other Dem nominee) rather than Trump and the GOP.

She'll pull significantly more votes from Biden or any other Dem than she would Trump. Anyone that would vote for Liz Cheney isn't voting for Trump, anyway.

He's not as bad as he looks there, but damn, that's an ugly compilation of plays from one game.

Unless it becomes a specific recurring injury, or unless the team doctors think he's made of glass or something, I'd write it off as bad luck. His potential special teams contribution is an important factor, but I don't think it's all-important, dependent upon the coaching staff's view of his potential on offense and keeping in mind that he's on a 6th round contract for the next two seasons.

To me, it looks like this may come down more to Hodgins vs Crowder rather than Hodgins vs Kumerow. McKenzie seems to have all but locked down the third spot and Shakir is making a strong argument for himself as the fourth guy. Do you keep an 8th year guy who has had a disappointing first training camp with the team over a 23 year old prospect who seems to be stepping up after finally getting healthy? If Hodgins has another strong preseason game this weekend, I suspect Crowder may be the odd man out.

I'm not surprised by it at all. He didn't show a lot in Tampa even before the injuries. At this point, I think he's probably just a decent veteran depth player and likely not much more.

It's just his first preseason game, but yeah, I thought Tenuta had a pretty rough game. As for Hodgins, again, it's just one preseason game, but if he keeps playing like that, it's going to be hard to keep him off the roster.

It was high, but Crowder got two hands on it. He should have caught it.

I'd also make it known that any future such behavior will result in lifetime bans from all Bills-related events and that they will pursue criminal prosecution if and where possible. No exceptions.

It probably doesn't matter. Even if it passes, it's very likely to end up in the Supreme Court in short order. Given the Dems' recent string of high profile losses in that venue in recent months, they're pretty stupid to even try this right now.

I agree on Emmitt Smith. He might be a little overrated as a function of his career numbers and maybe he's not the best RB in league history, but on any other competent team that emphasized the inside power running game, I think he's still a likely HOF RB. Maybe he wasn't super fast, but he had no shortage of long runs in his career. He had good short area quickness and his contact balance and strength to break tackles were very much elite. They didn't use him as much as a receiver, but he was pretty good in that role as well, and was the best RB in pass protection I've ever seen. He did benefit from their OL, but I'm not going to fault him for success in favorable circumstances and I'm not sure there was anyone better suited to the type of offense they ran. I'd also have to defend Aikman as well. Yeah, the stat line kinda sucks, but when they needed a play, he consistently made them. He gets labeled as a game manager, which has some truth to it, but he could throw downfield as well as anyone in the league when they asked him to. Best QB in NFL history? No, but again, put him in a competent situation and I think he's probably still a HOFer and, in fact, probably puts up better numbers on most of the playoff teams of the era than he did in Dallas due to their heavy emphasis on Smith and the run in the red zone.

1) Ryan Fitzpatrick 2) Tyrod Taylor 3) Drew Bledsoe There's no much separating these three from each other, but it's a considerable drop-off to the next tier, which would include, in no particular order, Kyle Orton, Rob Johnson, Doug Flutie and maybe JP Losman.

Basically, yes. Once that happened, Thomas was no longer a factor and Dallas was able to wear down the Bills OL just that much more quickly with their superior DL depth and were able to pressure Jim Kelly into mistakes after he'd played a solid first half. It was a perfect example of a game won and lost in the trenches. Dallas was simply better up front on both sides of the ball.

I'd assume there's some provision in there that's politically problematic for the opposition party. You give the bill a name that everyone should support, then hide a provision in there that you know the other side can't vote for. And then you scream from the rooftops that the opponents are the incarnation of evil for voting down your bill, when you were forcing them to eat a **** sandwich if they did. That's usually how this little game works, especially a few months before a midterm. Skimming over the bill, I don't see it, but its probably there. Given that, I'd have to hear the reasoning of some who voted against before passing judgement.

Like anything else, I'd assume it ultimately comes down to money. Cheap junk needs to be replaced more often, so the consumers buy more. Nuclear has been regulated to the point where its almost impossible to build a new plant. But electric vehicles are new on the mass market. There's still large amounts of financial gain to be made, especially at twice the cost or more of a conventional vehicle. You just need to convince the public that the enviro-apocalypse will occur if they don't make the switch. Thats not to say there arent some real environmental issues underpinning it, but most of the nuts leading the charge at the policy and business level stand to make a fortune off it.

Come on, man. That's just Joe being Joe.

Sad news, indeed. He was a good, reliable ally of the US while he was in office.

Agreed. The left is going to go absolutely nuts over this. Any gains they might have made (which I believe are far less than some expect) are going to evaporate in the aftermath of the temper tantrum that's about to ensue.