Robert James

Strikes me as more of a Whaley move; definitely not a Beane move. And even Whaley would have needed to believe he had his QB in place (as he did with EJ) before spending that kind of money.

Great minds . . . .

He lost me at "first of all, Mike Rodak, who had this story, is a superb reporter."

I didn't see any "deep love" or "mad crush" for Peterman. He said Peterman "may have an upside" and he feels he knows TT "will never be a franchise guy." Mildly positive toward Peterman (saying he has a chance to be better) and saying only that TT has shown himself not to be elite. Both seem utterly reasonable to me.

Offense is overrated

I think this is a fair assessment, and seeing it laid out leaves me feeling more positive about how the off-season was handled. The downgrade at QB was a necessary move -- we'd seen Tyrod's ceiling and the uncertainty of bringing in new potential successors results in an understandable downgrade (I don't think Rosen could have been deemed an automatic upgrade). The downgrade an interior OL was caused by factors beyond the team's control. Loss of depth at tackle due to trading Glenn was a reasonable move: he was a question mark due to health concerns and trading him allowed the team to make needed moves elsewhere. Other than that it was significant upgrades on defense and more-or-less status quo on offense. True, the offense will likely take a step back or at best remain at the same level no matter what Daboll does; but given the possible outcomes, this one is pretty good IMO.

Given the amount of concern people express about the likely starting line-up, I think you can be confident there is no shortage of people being concerned about the bench.

Let's say the Bengals/Ravens game went exactly as it did, but was played in week five. It would have had precisely the same effect on our getting into the playoffs, but many people would have believed our path to the playoffs was somehow more legitimate. When it comes down to the last teams vying for the final wildcard spot, the ultimate winner is always decided by numerous plays in numerous games throughout the year that they had no control over. The fact that one of those crucial plays takes place near the end of the last game of the season for one of the teams, certainly adds drama. But it doesn't make the team that gets in any more or less deserving, IMO.

Directly quoting the link would make you responsible as a republisher of whatever portion you quoted. Once you say it, you are responsible. So, if you accused Matt Patricia of being a predator, I couldn't protect myself by saying "cba fan says that Matt Patricia is a predator." I wouldn't be shielded by the fact that I accurately reported what you said -- I'd be responsible for the accuracy of what I repeated. The adage is "tale bearers are as bad as tale makers." Suggesting someone check out a link doesn't fall into that category. If I vouch for the content of the linked material that's a different story. So, if I link to your accusation and introduce it by saying, "cba fan has finally exposed Matt Patricia, follow this link to find out the truth about the Lions' new coach," I'd be on the hook.

I disagree. In addition to trying to get the facts right, newspapers also have to consider whether what they are publishing is newsworthy. Here, it is reasonable to question that since the story is old news that was fully reported at the time it occurred and that has not suddenly become newsworthy again. Interestingly, the EU recognizes a "right to be forgotten," which essentially holds that at some point citizens have a right not to have old indiscretions (or alleged indiscretions) republished. This enables people to move on with their lives, and EU law requires Google to take down URLs after a valid delisting request is made. I see no valid reason for this story to have been reported again now, and agree with the OP. As for the OP being a publisher, the law is well settled that publishing a hyperlink to content does not make you a republisher of that content and you cannot be held legally liable for the accuracy of the content linked to. It's treated as a suggestion to check out information published elsewhere. So, legally speaking, me providing you a link to an article published on the Sports Illustrated website is treated more or less like me telling you that there is an interesting article you should check out on the Sports Illustrated web site. I'm not treated as a publisher.

To his credit, he went to two on his own: Jordan Palmer and Kirk Cousins.

What I said is based on the following as reported in the Buffalo News and the Democrat and Chronicle: "his resignation is tied to an internal investigation into Brandon's workplace behavior and allegations of personal misconduct having to do with allegations of inappropriate relationships with female employees at PSE." I noted that this is "alleged" misconduct. My post responds to the OP's suggestion that Brandon perhaps should not be slammed due to his role "saving" the Bills: he is currently being slammed for his alleged misconduct not for his general performance of his duties within the organization. He can be both "slammed" and appreciated based on those different aspects of conduct attributed to him.

Apples and oranges. Harvey Weinstein was a highly-successful film producer. Matt Lauer did great things for NBC's bottom line. Charlie Rose was a widely-lauded interviewer. Neither they nor Brandon have been accused of being bad at getting the core aspects of their jobs done well. It was the [alleged] abusing of other human beings that people had a problem with.

Nope, just being clear.

I'm sure there are defined "outs" in the contract (and some probably cover the conduct alleged here), but specified contractual terms defining the circumstances under which the employee may be fired is the exact opposite of at will.

What is the source for the assertion that he is an at-will employee? I find it very surprising that the person serving as the head of both an NFL and an NHL franchise would agree to that. Normally, the terms of employment for a position like that would be the result of a negotiated employment contract with attorneys on both sides, and the result would not be at will.

That was my original thought, but the plane apparently was not redirected to Vegas.

Incognito in a straight jacket for a quick hand off?

Hmmm? Jammer, have you been wearing your helmet? How many fingers am I holding up?

Darnold. If it weren't for the durability issues, it would be Rosen.

He negotiated and agreed to the pay cut. If he found it insulting he could have simply turned the Bills down. That they offered him a deal he now wishes he hadn't accepted is hardly bad conduct by the Bills.

The Second Amendment limits the actions federal, state, and local governments can take to restrict gun ownership. Private employers are not government entities and as a result there is no "state action," and the Second Amendment does not limit their actions. For the same reason, I could exclude gun owners from my home and kick people out of my home if I don't like their speech. There are specific state and federal laws that prohibit employment discrimination based on race, sex, age, and other grounds. I am unaware of any state or federal anti-discrimination laws that seek to protect gun owners from discrimination by employers. So yes, a private employer would legally be allowed not to hire someone based on the fact that they are a gun owner.

So, "Most Polarizing Figures in Buffalo Bills History" means most polarizing right now, in 2018?

True, but I don't think Rosen's comments on the difficulty of college football combined with serious academics was focused specifically on Alabama. He did mention their SAT requirements, but his comments were not generally focused directly on Alabama. And, in fairness, most of top football schools find ways to get their players through by finding ways to soften their academic demands.