mjd1001

Yeah, from a cops point of view you pull someone over they keep the window rolled down, especially if it is tinted that dark. The moment that the window is rolled back up I would order them to roll it down. It only has to be rolled up for 2 seconds where you can't see what they are doing inside the car to give them enough time to grab a weapon. The cops were aggressive, I'll say that, but I would not, for one second, blame the cops for wanting him out of the car when he rolls up a dark tinted window and won't roll it back down immediately when they ask.

30 minutes of the best of the best marching bands. They get 5-6 minute each...put on the best show possible. And I'm not joking, some of the 'shows' that some marching bands put on are pretty damn impressive.

The more popular a team gets the more it brings in the casual fans. They team stays successful and gains even more popularity, and even MORE fans who never followed football want to join the party. I lived in Boston from the late 1990's through the middle-late 2000s and I saw this there. Listen to WEEI and the Pats talk (when they were bad or average) had some good callers and bad callers, but overall more good than bad. As the Pats got better, more and more of the bandwagon fans started to participate, and, nothing against more people becoming fans, but, those bandwagon fans weren't exactly that schooled in the sport...hence you got a lot of bad callers. I see this here with the Bills the past 5 years. I see it on this very FORUM over the last 5 years. I don't think its more complicated than that.

If you are, then you are just outright wrong. Personally I do not like Harris and a lot of the policies she is pushing. I also don't like the idea of Tariffs that Trump is pushing. So I'm stuck in the middle, feeling no candidate represents what I am looking for . But, when someone says who they support, and then no matter what anyone says, they have answer for it...well, its just hard to take a discussion with them seriousley..if their candidate of choice can do little wrong. I came to this forum hoping for a bit of debate back and forth, but its very hard when some people view things so one sided, and have to result to insults, laughing emojis, name calling when someone doesn't agree with them (remind you of anyone currently running for office?) See my above post/reply So when you can't have a serious discussion, when someone says something you disagree with, result to insults, name calling, acting like a 3rd grader throwing a tantrum....is that all you have? Apparently so. I am not a left wing lie spewer, if you actually looked at many of my posts here or on other social media, I have criticized a lot of the policies of the left also. Yet if your ego needs that boost of calling me that, even though it isn't true...well...small minds get boosted by small actions I guess. The 5-year old level name calling. Accusations without knowing the views of who you are talking to...cute little threats....I see acting like the obedient little lemming your leader has so well trained you to be...just like pavlov's dog.

People who have money tend to want more money. The laughing emoji you have is best suited to be laughing at yourself. Lets see, a guy who is very rich who's actions show he is always wanting more money, will say things he admits himself are too optimistic about his company that tend to inflate its price, a guy who has a bit of an ego and likes being known as the richest person in the world....that guy makes a deal with a potential presidential candidate to get more business, more money, more attention..... -or- Rich guy with an ego says he never cared about politics and all of a sudden does...and the fact he might get a lot of support for his businesses from the above candidate who he now supports...that is just a coincidence. Occam's razor leads me to think its the former of the above, not the latter.

-Or- Trump came to me looking for support. We had a conversation, and if he wins, lots and lots of business and money are going to flow my way and I really like lots and lots of money.

It seems like most people want to argue on extreme side or the other on Jackson...either is bad/below average or he is a legit hall of famer and the best (if not top 2) QB in the league at any time. Can't the truth be in the middle? He is overall a good-to-very good QB, with exceptional physical talents that, at times, allow him to pull out a game that most other average-to-above average QB's cant? When you take everything into consideration..the stats he puts up, his win-loss record, his record in the playoffs, his great plays, his bad plays...it averages out to him being good, maybe very good, but not elite? Personally I think he's top 10 in the league. Not top 3, but probably in the 4-8 range. I think Allen is better and I'd rather have Allen, but that doesn't mean Jackson is a bum either (or even below average).

I think I'm going to watch this game differently than about any other game I can imagine in years. I'm really trying to not go in with any pre-conceived notions. WR's being thin? Potential problems in the secondary? Basically, anything past history has taught me, or training camp has taught me, I'm not going to think about. Just observe the game. I notice that before a game is even played, in the past I would 'think' what I liked, or didn't ilke about the roster and then go into the game looking for things to support my view. Maybe its because I took a step back and didn't pay attention to camp too much, didn't really watch the preseason games...Not sure exactly why. But I'm going to just watch the game and have an opinion AFTER the game, not look for things to support an opinion I generated before it.

I personally don't think it was all Diggs. He got here right when Allen was maturing. Did he have a part in that, maybe, but Allen was getting better on his 'timeline' one way or the other. And if there is a step back, it might not be because of Diggs, its going to be because of a LOT less money spent on players due to them wanting the cap reset (Diggs being a part of that)

Can we 'sticky' this so its at the top of the board every week?

I guess its not wrong for people to be arguing whether they liked Diggs/thought he was good for the team or not. Its 2 different ways of being a fan. -For some, being a fan is about big names. They are exciting. Its fun, great entertainment when players are 'divas', meaning they are just having fun with the fans, trolling people on other teams, etc. The more players you have like that, the better....and its even BETTER if they put up numbers and demand those around them do better and call them out. Celebrate after a big play, show the other team you just did something great. The 'alpha male' mentality, some support it, some are it, and some fans want that type of player. -For others, being a fan is about the team, not the individual at all. Celebrations after a touchdown? C'mon, act like you've been there before. Saying too much on social media and not keeping it 'in the house'? that is the sign of "Diva" behavior and Diva behavior is NOT good for the team. Entertainment is about a well executed play, a well structured drive, seeing a WR on the other side of the field complete a block on a running play even though the play went in the other direction. 2 Types of fans. I personally am the 2nd type, but we have both on this board. Its not so much a matter of Diggs being 'good' or 'bad' for the Bills when he was here, its just as much the type of fan he appealed to (or didn't appeal to).

EBIDTA is interesting (Earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation, and amortization) Dallas at $550 million New England at $250 million Rams at $243 million Majority of other teams (20 of them) at least $100 million Buffalo? Dead last at just $29 million Cincy is 2nd last next to Buffalo, but still almost 45% higher.

Article as of today: https://www.cnbc.com/2024/09/05/official-nfl-team-valuations-2024.html 30.Buffalo Bills $5.35B 31.Arizona Cardinals 32.Cincinnati Bengals more details at the link

It drives me crazy when people do this... Blame me, I can take it...blame me....BUT then they go on and give you a ton of reasons and excuses to not blame them. Saying you have 'big-ass shoulders' and then immediately pointing the finger other places is pretty much proof that you have the narrowest shoulders that crumble at the smallest sign of criticism leveled on them.

no not at all. If you did take the time to look at my posting history, I was kinda down on Diggs for the past 12-18 months.

For 15 years. But after that, i think all bets are off. I do not know the 'buy out' with this new stadium. But if things keep going the way they are, growing cities like Austin, San Antonio, Oklahoma City, Raleigh/Durham...they are already bigger/more populated than Buffalo and at the rate they are growing, they might be REALLY far ahead in 15 years in population, GDP, TV market size, etc. Yes, there still is Toronto, which is still growing at a rate of adding 1/2 of the population of the city of Buffalo each year (albeit to the 'metro area'.) All you need is one of those places to say they are going to build a $4-5 billion dollar stadium (todays cost) and one billionaire owner. The other NFL owners probably wouldn't think twice when they see the populations figures/wealth of those areas and see how much more it would mean to the entire league's bottom lines. I'm not trying to bring people down. I'm not saying this WILL happen for sure. The Bills are safe here 'for a while' and we all should enjoy it. Its just to say the Bill will be here for 20-30 years because of a new stadium is a little bit naive to me.

I really agree with 50% of what you said, and totally disagree with 50% of what you said. As far as what I bolded above: Diggs. I think he is slowing down big time. Now, CAN he have a big statistical year if they force feed him the ball in Houston? I suppose, but I think he went from a top 5 receiver to 'just another guy' over the course of the last 2 years. Getting rid of leadership? Yeah, probably. But a lot of those 'leaders' have seriously slowed down. Both of the safeties last year were 1-2 steps to slow to make plays, and they aren't/weren't going to be any better this year. Diggs, see above. -Von? He's stuck here with that contract. I'm hoping (wishing) he is recovered and has one last 'above average' year in him. But yeah, mostly because of the injury signing him was a mistake in hindsight. -Milano? If he could stay healthy he is a top 10 linebacker in the league, maybe a top 50 overall Defensive player in the league (that is saying a lot considering there are close to 350 defensive starters in the league. But, he A.) can't stay healthy. B.) he is getting older and with those injuries, his athleticism is likely going to be taking a hit when he is on the field.

I don't know much about Babich, but happy for this. I would just have someone else besides the head coach calling plays.

Ok, devil's advocate again here. Then why did so many republican support it, and initially say they would vote for it?

Ok, again I'm wading into this discussion with a legit question I am hoping for a legit answer without simply getting talking points from each side. What I understand, there was a border bill, one supported by both democrats and republicans earlier this year, that might not have solved the problem at the border 100%, but it seems it would have made it much, much better. From my understanding, Trump did talk to republicans in congress to effectively kill the bill so he could campaign on the issue. So my question is, why so much complaining about the border issue by the right, when there was a solution (at least a partial solution) that was about ready to be passed but was killed...by the political right?

Especially if you end up seeing the ad over, and over and over...

I don't need to know much about you and don't need to follow your posts for my reply to be appropriate. You came in pretty hot with your statement followed by calling it a 'fact'. I strongly disagree with it being a fact. That is what I was/am responding to.

On a somewhat but not totally related note... PSL....personal seat license, right? Apparently not to everyone. In the past week I have heard PSL used as as short for Pumpkin Spice Latte. First at work a girl saying she can't wait until they are available, she wants to get a PSL...and then just now someone on the news said it when talking about Starbucks. I never knew...

It could be as simple as some people being like/thinking: I know football better than ALL of you! I am smarter than the coach. I am smarter than the GM. If they would have taken the guy I said I wanted, they would be better! Look how smart I am! If they do anything but win the superbowl its just proof that I was right, if they would have done what I posted that they should do, they'd be world champs by now! Its complaining, but its a way for people to just point out how 'smart' they think they are. They need to point out the negative things as a way of making themself, and what they think, be better.

1.) many people are more likely to express negative sentiments than positive ones on a lot of topics. If people are happy, they often times just be happy and go about their own business. But when someone doesn't like something, they want to complain and be heard. Not everyone, not all the time, but it seems this way more than not. 2.) self defense mechanism. I have one relative that is this way a lot....ALWAYS complain about something...be negative, tell everyone you are negative, and then IF things go your way, its a bonus. Kinda like buying insurance. If the team does well, few care you were negative because everyone is happy in the end. BUT, if things go wrong, you can take pride in being the one that said "I told you so!!" 3.) The curse of high expectations. I have thought something like this for a while....there are only 2 ways MOST fans will be happy. First, you win the championship. Second, you exceed expectations. When the "expectation" is that you WIN the championship and nothing else, then anything OTHER than that is a failure....thus something to be negative about. Think about it, when the Bills were bad a few years ago and Josh took over and had those first few games, no one expected them to win the Super Bowl right away but the board was a lot more positive as they got better with him. Why? Lower expectations. Not the case anymore. Hard disagree on that one. Usually bright eyed optimists, people who's expectations are not even close to grounded in any kind of reality...those people often can't take the idea that someone disagrees with their sky high expectations....so when that person does disagree with them, they say a statement like you just did. Its not a fact. You saying its a fact in itself is a defense mechanism you are putting out there to try to prevent people from disagreeing with you because you so BADLY don't want people to disagree with you. Someone who calls themself a realist MAY be a pessimist...but they may also be someone who like to position their opinion in a way where they take into consideration both positive and negative possible outcomes equally.