SouthNYfan

I said something like this earlier. It's like in a divorce. Sometimes people just decide to give up more than they have to just to get out of a bad situation.

My father sold a '63 split window 'vette back in 1982 for peanuts. He still kicks himself whenever he sees one going for $150k+ lol

How is it not really? He was approached about a paycut. He could have said "no" He didn't. He took the paycut. Then he decided he didn't like it, had "buyer's remorse" so to speak. Guess what? Don't sign the freaking deal if you don't like it.

They aren't "annoyed by the song" Feel free to look at the million other threads and topics and internet searches about it. I'm not here to discuss that. If you've looked at my posting history on this topic, I actually don't agree with any form protesting/political stuff during the game or at the work place, so let's not act like I'm on board with it. My point was prior to 2009 players weren't required to be in the sidelines on primetime games, they remained in the locker room, but had the personal option to come out and stand if they felt like it. Some $$ was paid to the NFL which many believe was for this to be forced instead of optional. Nobody cared before this. That's the point of what I am trying to say, which you keep twisting.

You mean the "Patriots special"? That train ain't never late.

What did that have to do with the 5 year old repeating the behavior? (Also, good story, no sarcasm, I just fail to see how it relates to the topic, or how it relates to your comment about 5 year olds. If I'm missing it, explain, this honestly isn't meant to be a troll) They were not in the field in the NFL prior to the doj paying the NFL for patriotism. It's been explained to him already. He's acting like it's fake news that they weren't on the field before.

Howard Stern would probably be a good landing spot ? Divorces are usually ugly.. Many times one side just throws their hands up and says "screw it, you keep the house, the car, and all my sh*t, I just want to be done with your crazy @$$" He chose to take the salary cut. His had a choice to say "no" to it. He got buyer's remorse afterwards, then decided to make a public spectacle of it. You continue to ignore this in your responses, similar to what you do in every other discussion, ignore the things that don't fit your argument. Exactly. He signed it donk. Holdouts are before you sign it, like you feel you underpaid, you ask for a raise, they refuse it, you say "fine I'm not gonna play". Instead they asked him to take a paycut, he said "sure" then decided afterwards he didn't like what he did, so started with the retirement circus. If he wasn't happy with the initial paycut then he shouldn't have signed the contract. The NFL CBA is something the player's Union signed, which allows for non guaranteed contracts, again that's on them for signing it For the record I liked 'cog. I think he plays hard every down and is very skilled. I also think he's completely wrong in how he handled it.

I don't think they would play the lesser player solely because of that. If they're close though, I could see that happening.

I'm not saying he wasn't under-compensated. I agree with you that he was. My point is he agreed to the paycut. That's his fault, not the Bills' fault. Know your value. If you sign the paycut, then decide you shouldn't have, guess what?? You signed the contract. Buyer's remorse. Your fault. If you have your car on the market for $18,000, and give up waiting, go trade in your car for $15,000 and five days later somebody calls and says "hey, I wasn't that car for $18,000, do you still have it?" Guess what? You can't go to the dealer and say "so ummmm... About that car.... I need it back..." He signed the below market value deal. That's his fault.

I think he did. Like I said, still didn't have to sign a pay cut.

Funny. I've got a couple guys in another thread telling me I don't know what I'm talking about and the offensive line won't see a dropoff.

Nobody forced him to take a pay cut.

I meant it as last year was a dumpster fire, so being associated with it shouldn't be viewed as a plus.

Even if he did, our previous offense was a dumpster fire, so is being associated with that really a plus?

Isn't he over 50% if you include the passes completed to the other team?

Yeah crouch was drafted by the Rams, as a wr, hurt his hamstring training, played one preseason game, I think he caught one or two passes, then had a pretty bad hit in the thigh, and said he quit after that lol (One of my college roommates was a big Nebraska fan that's literally the only reason I know this)

Agreed. So let's assume he's 80% as good What about incognito backup? And any dropoff is still a dropoff, which was my point from the start, as well as in another thread. A dropoff is realistic to expect, and it's unrealistic to assume there will be no dropoff.

Yes I am hoping groy can do okay, but he was woods' backup for a reason, so even if he's okay, the likely result is a regression. Really that's my point. Here's hoping he's good though.

Dawkins replaced Glenn if I'm not mistaken. I conceded that I won't count him since he was hit or miss (Glenn) We lost wood and incognito to sudden retirement Wood played 16 games Incognito played 16 games That's who I'm talking about I'm just saying I think we will see a regression this year. That's a good point. The point of it all is there will most likely be a regression losing out two best linemen without any replacement. I'm okay with the drop-off, the whole discussion started with everybody calling people who think we will have regression doomsayer's basically. It's just being realistic.

We lost our two best linemen, and replaced them with the backups from last year. We lost then unexpectedly to retirement, so this wasn't something planned that the front office had guys in the wings waiting to take their place. That's an objective fact. The most logical opinion, based on that fact, is that the oline will see regression, unless the backups suddenly become miracle pro bowl caliber players. Is that a good enough explanation for you? What objective reasoning have you used to make your deduction that the oline will not regress, other than "I feel it won't"? What did you base that off of?

Somebody who objectively looked at something such as the offensive line losing its two best players and replacing them with backups, but your opinion is that there won't be a dropoff. I didn't know I needed some form of license to tell you that an opinion was wrong based on a lack of evidence to support your hypotheses. Very similar to somebody saying something like "tom Brady sucks, he's terrible" which is their opinion, but it's just wrong. So "wrong" is a bit hard, how about "most likely incorrect based on the information available"? Does that make you less offended?

Telling somebody their opinion is wrong when their opinion isn't based in reality/objectiveness isn't bs, John. You can be entitled to whatever opinion you want, just like anybody is entitled to tell you that opinion is incorrect, which is the concept that you fail to grasp.

Opinions can be wrong John. That's just a fact. There is so much absurdity in the fact that you don't grasp that concept that I'm not sure what to tell you. Where was clay tops in the league? I don't think they will be very good. Their history seems to point to this. I would love my opinion on this to be wrong.

I won't disagree with you. I don't think he's bad. He's probably a top 15 te overall, but he's just inconsistant. I view consistency as part of excellence. Is he talented? Yep. Look at a pitcher in baseball. If he's very talented but you can't rely on him every start to be good, would you call him excellent? It talented and inconsistant? I'll go with the latter, and save "excellent" for elite guys.

That's fair, I would interpret a guy being called "excellent pass catcher" as a guy being consistent, especially for a TE who is generally a safe, reliable target week it week out. Consistency is part of excellence, especially with a TE