BillsFan4

Haha I love it! Mainly because I can't stand Jerry Jones.

Curious where you heard this, if you don't mind sharing.

I hated that Kane trade form the second it happened. I was furious. I thought we massively overpaid. And I don't see all that stuff I said in the post you quoted as hindsight, since it was well known before the trade ever happened. -Everyone in the NHL did know that Winnipeg had to trade Kane. -His teammates did mutiny against him. -He did decide to have season ending elective shoulder surgery during The Jets first playoff run since moving back to Winnipeg (in fact, they hadn't made the p,ayoffs since '06-'07 when they were still the Atlanta Thrashers). -At the time of the trade, he had only scored 20 goals 1 time in his 6 NHL seasons. -his trade request to Winnipeg was well known I actually even said all of this stuff before the trade ever happened when discussing why I didn't want the Sabres to trade for him. Obviously my view hasn't changed...lol. I wasnt necessarily mad about the players we lost. Just on who we spent them on, and how they were traded. I felt Kane wasn't all that special, and that he was a bad influence for the kids. My view was that if you if you want to trade those guys, you do it in separate trades, or you wait and use that package for a player deserving of that type of return. We were at the very start of our rebuild. That was the type of move you make if you are a player or two away from a Cup run, not the type you make when just starting a rebuild. I could justify it a bit more if at least Kane were the type of player known to be a great veteran leader presence, who did all the right things and would teach the young kids the right way. But Kane was exactly the opposite of that. He was known for not being a good professional, and for not preparing the right way for games (he didn't even believe he had to show up early and warm up for games like the rest of his team, which was part of the issue his teammates had with him in Winnipeg). Anyway... I'm done ranting... lol. It's all water under the bridge now.

I figured as much. Kane's reputation must really be crappy around the NHL. Man, I can't tell you how much I hate the job Tim Murray did as our GM. I mean, really hate with a passion. He just burned through our assets like a drunken sailor. Think about just the Kane trade. Kane was a guy that EVERYONE in the NHL KNEW Winnipeg has to trade. His teammates basically rebelled against him. Then Kane quits on the team, and decides to have that season ending elective shoulder surgery (which he did need, but he just didn't need it right then). And mind you All of this happens during Winnipeg's very first run to the playoffs since moving to Winnipeg! Yet Tim Murray still gives up the damn farm for him. Talk about horrible negotiator. "Hey I know you absolutely have to get rid of Kane, but here take all our assets anyway!" lol. I remember Jim Benning was quoted after Kane was traded to Buffalo. He said they were in on the trade until they seen what Buffalo was offering. He said, in a very shocked voice, something along the lines of how they weren't willing to give (anywhere near) the caliber of players Buffalo offered. I think his exact words were something like "we made a very fair offer but when we heard the caliber of players Buffalo was offering, we had no interest in doing that".

Nah, what kills the buzz of this trade is the conditional 1st. Every time the Sabres have has contrition son a pick it never worked out for us. We always ended up with the lesser pick, which is why I assume that San Jose's pick will be a 2nd. The other things that kill the buzz of this trade are that the pick are 2 and 3 years away. And the prospect is pretty "Meh". A former 5th round pick from 2012 who hasn't Beane able to stick in the NHL. He has performed in the AHL though. So maybe he works out for us? I sure hope so. I would be much more ok with this trade if it was a guaranteed 1st.

I can't believe Ryan Hartman returns a 1st and Kane doesn't. He has 8 goals in 57 games this year... Or Rick Nash at this point in his career. He has some known locker rooms concerns too (party boy, can be difficult to get along with etc). Kane He's 33, has a pretty bad playoff track record where he's been invisible for large stretches. Plus he has just about an $8M cap hit. And Kane has had more goals and points than Nash the last 3 seasons. Or even Stasny, who also is getting old and has a huge cap hit, returns a 1st. But he has a much better reputation around the league. Damn it I hate being a Sabres fan sometimes.

So basically we gave up Tyler Myers, Joel Armia, Drew Stafford, Brendan Lemieux and a 2015 1st (which was a crazy deep draft) for a 2nd, a 4th, Bogosian's horrible contract and a meh prospect - Danny O'Regan, a 2012 5th round draft pick. Yuck. I hate Tim Murray. He set us back YEARS.

The 1st is conditional on Kane re-signing in San Jose. Otherwise it's a 2019 2nd. Very disappointed in this trade.

https://www.sony.com/electronics/tv/t/televisions Prices are out on the 2018 Sony lineup. All except the A8F. That price on the new x900f is enticing. But it makes me think that it is a downgrade on the current x930e. I want to say that was 2x as much when it hit the market this time last year. So so I emailed Sony to ask. They were not overly helpful, and didn't go into any detail but they claimed that the 900f is indeed an upgrade on the x930. I am still not so sure of that, though. I am going to try and do some digging because I want to grab an x930e if it is a better tv than the new x900f, since it looks like they are doing away with the 930 series all together. Heres the side by side spec comparison of the 900f and 930e - https://www.sony.com/electronics/tv/t/televisions?view=compare I already mentioned the backlight is different. Direct LED vs edgelit slim backlight on the 930 (which Sony claimed just last year was better than their direct LED on the 900). Also the motion processor. The 900 has x-motion clarity and the 930 has Motion Flow xr960. No idea which is better. Do you? I also notice here that the 930 has XDR PRO Contrast 10x, and the 900 has XDR pro contrast 6x (last year's 900 had 5x) so that's a step down on the new 900. https://www.bestbuy.com/site/compare?skus=5714432,6179727&productString=*&url=%2Fsite%2Fsearchpage.jsp%3Fcp%3D3%26searchType%3Dsearch%26_dyncharset%3DUTF-8%26ks%3D960%26sc%3DGlobal%26list%3Dy%26usc%3DAll%20Categories%26type%3Dpage%26id%3Dpcat17071%26iht%3Dn%26seeAll%3D%26browsedCategory%3Dpcmcat333800050003%26st%3Dpcmcat333800050003_categoryid%24abcat0101001%26qp%3Dverticalresolution_facet%3DResolution~2160p%20(4K)%26sp%3D-currentprice%20skuidsaas I am going to take a ride to Best Buy or Speaker shop this week and talk to someone. Id like to see both side by side but I'm not sure if they'll continue displaying the 2017 models once the 2018 models hit the stores in a couple weeks. Probably depends on how many 2017 models they have left in stock.

Sure, if you look at humans in their current form compared to other species on this earth we look out of place. But we weren't always in our current form, and all of the stuff you are mentioning happened over millions of years of human evolution. A few things (if you're interested. Evolution is something that interests me, and I tend to be a long winded poster, so I apologize in advance if this ends up being a long, boring post... lol). - Human brains didn't grow 300% practically overnight. It grew slowly over 2 million (+) years of evolution. Homo Erectus, which is one of our earlier ancestors, and lived around 1.8(+)million years ago, had an internal skull volume of roughly 600-700ml. It slowly grew, reaching 1000-1100ml around 500,000 years ago. Then reached a size of 1500ml about 20,000 years ago. Interestingly, the human brain began to shrink somewhere over the last 10-20,000 years to about 1350ml (IIRC, I believe it was in large part due to poor nutrition during that time) and then slowly began growing again to its current average size of 1400-1450ml (or cubic centimeters if you prefer). - It took a long time for the homo genus to climb to where they are on the food chain (and it can be argued we are still not at the top of the food chain, or even an apex predator (of which there are many), but that's another discussion) Our rise up the food chain happened slowly over many 100's of thousands of (or million+) years as our brains developed and we were able to start using tools and eventually making tools and then creating better tools + weapons. Also, We are omnivores and didn't always necessarily use tools to hunt. We can survive as vegetarians. Using tools to hunt is something that human ancestors learned and improved on over time as their brains evolved. The earliest human ancestors lived on a diet likely very similar to chimpanzees (fruits, nuts, bugs, plants, and at times meat + marrow they could scavenge or safely hunt). - We were not always so hairless compared to other species, and we didn't always wear clothes (which is relatively new in the scope of our evolution). That is another thing you can attribute to evolution. We became less and less hairy over time. There are numerous theories as to why. One that I can remember off the top of my head had to do with early humans moving away from the forests/jungles and onto the African savana, where in order to regulate their body temperatures and keep their brains from overheating, began losing their body hair. -Early ancestors did live out in the elements. Living in caves is something that initially had more to do with protection. Building better and better shelters is again something that evolved over time. - Humans are not not the only species born helpless. There are many. They are called altricial species - some examples off the top of my head are dogs, cats, rodents, marcupials, and numerous species of birds. A shorter gestation period is something that evolved due to our larger brain sizes and upright locomotion. Bipedalism restricts the width of the birth canal and therefore the size of the babies that can pass through it. - Humans were never monkeys. That is a common myth. We just shared a common ancestor. Australopithecines were the first hominins (human, human relative/ancestor). The homo genus (Homo Habilis (said to be the earliest homo), Homo erectus and eventually us - Homo sapiens) was derived from the genus Australopithecines, which has previously split from the genus Pan (chimpanzee). There were many different genus of Homo, and it took millions of years before Homo sapiens appeared. So if you're waiting for a species to drastically evolve, you'll be waiting a LONG time! lol

I see what you're saying. My apologies as well. I could have been more clear in my initial post.

Like DCTom said, If the earth were actually flat, gravity would be much different. It would pull in different directions depending on your proximity to the edge/center of the earth. The closer you got to the edge, the more sideways the pull of gravity is, and we all know that isn't the case. There are so many things that have to be explained if the earth were flat. Like circumnavigating the globe. How can you follow the same heading (say due east) and circumnavigate the globe? Or How can people take all different paths of circumnavigation, flying over different countries/continents? If the earth were flat, you'd only be able to basically circle around 1 path (the outer edge), and why wouldn't you hit that edge depending on how you flew? How do planes fly over the Antarctic if it's just a big wall of ice at the edge of the earth? Or time zones... if the earth were flat wouldn't you see the sun at all times (if it were a spotlight like flat earthers claim)? How would satellites orbit the earth? Why don't shadows look the same everywhere? How do you explain away the Hubble space telescope and all the images it produces? Or space travel, the international space station, all of the astronauts, pilots and even passengers on those zero gravity flights, or the old Concord from back in the day, who have seen the curve of the earth for themselves. Lunar eclipses... why does the earth project a curved/round shadow on the moon during an eclipse? Why is every other observable planet round? Why do you see different stats and constellations depending on your location relative to the equator? If the earth were flat wouldn't you be able to see the same stars from everywhere? Why would certain constellations move toward the horizon and disapppear, and new constellations appear, as you changed locations on the earth? (hint, because its round!). I could go on and on and on... But The flat earthers try to address some of this stuff though... https://wiki.tfes.org/Frequently_Asked_Questions This makes me want to bang my head against a wall repeadly. lol So many of these explanations try to sound smart but just don't cut it. They're obviously just good enough to fool some though. I honestly didnt even believe this whole "flat earth" was really a thing until I looked into it more. These people really do seem serious about believing this stuff. It blows my mind.

I never said that. Or even implied that. But when you have people dismissing clearly factual, and easily verifiable, pieces of information solely because it was written by "the lame stream media", I'm sorry but it is an issue. Facts are facts, period. (and just to make sure I'm clear - I am not saying or implying that every article written by the main stream media is fact).

Good lord. These conspiracy theory nuts seem to be spreading in recent years. It's actually scary. How do you battle this stuff when the people you are fighting against don't believe in FACTS? (and it's not just flat earthers either... there's whole large groups of people that refuse to believe facts or most anything from the mainstream media). I mean, there is just soooooooooo much proof that the earth is round, you'd have to be crazy to believe anything else. Why in the !@#$ would NASA, the US and every other country around the world want to go to so much trouble to push a "round earth" conspiracy theory to begin with? What could they possibly have to gain from It?

It actually may help them cap wise (in the short term) He is entering the 4th year of his rookie deal with a $1.75M cap hit, and the Rams can pick up his 5th year option. So they can have him for 2 seasons for what, about $10M total (or less?)? Figure Trumaine Johnson is going to cost, I would guess at least $10M per year, if not $12-$14M (which is what I've seen projected on the Rams blog). He's one of the best available free agent CBs and I'm sure will be paid by someone. So the Rams trade for Peters and save a good deal of cap space th next 2 seasons. It may give them the ability to keep someone else now. And who knows what will happen after the next 2 seasons, when it's time to sign him. A lot can change between now and then. I do agree with what you're saying though. They have a lot of important (and likely Big) contracts coming up... Dont forget, Aaron Donald is in the last year of his deal too. He very well could end up the highest paid defensive tackle in the league. Suh money! Theres no way they can keep everyone, not without moving on from some others (like Tavon Austin).

If he was that unhappy with his targets in Pittsburgh, he will lose his mind here... He was targeted 84 times, for 50 receptions. Lesean McCoy, our most targeted receiver, had 77tgt's and 59 receptions. With those numbers, Bryant would have been 1st on the Bills in targets, and a close 2nd to Shady in receptions.

Wasn't last season their very first year on the job? Contract extensions already? Seems pretty quick. It makes me wonder if maybe Marrone and Coughlin were only given short term (2 yr maybe?) deals last year.

There is absolutely no way that you could have even skimmed through all those links, let alone actually read or listened to what they had to say, in the less than 3 minutes between me posting it and you quoting me. I figured you werent actually asking what they were protesting.This just confirmed it.

Here. Here are just a few of the articles I found with a quick google search on the subject. Many In the players own words - https://www.si.com/nfl/2017/09/05/themmqb-meaning-behind-anthem-protests-malcolm-jenkins-anquan-boldin-nfl-racial-inequality https://www.si.com/nfl/2017/10/26/anquan-boldin-why-nfl-players-protest https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/09/25/opinion/colin-kaepernick-football-protests.html?_r=0&referer=https://www.google.com/ http://ftw.usatoday.com/2017/09/nfl-players-explain-why-they-protested https://www.sbnation.com/2017/9/28/16376500/nfl-protests-2017-kneeling-national-anthem-why http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/nfl-protest-players-explain-why-donald-trump_uk_59c8cbd5e4b0cdc773325005 I thought many gave clear, well thought out reasons but that's just me...

I am sure that they have a draft board with their QBs ranked. As well as a free agent board/list with numerous potential QB targets on it. Which one of those QBs is plan A, I have no idea... But seeing as we really haven't heard anything about the Bills going after Cousins, or any other free agent QB, and we've heard a lot about them trying to move up in the draft, I would guess that plan A is the draft. We will find out pretty soon now. Definitely excited to see what they do!

I was about to say "Oh no... a shootout with a Robin Lehner in net" but Scandella wins it with 0.2 seconds left! Wow! Nice. Although the Sabres should have never let Detroit tie the game with 1 min. left in the first place. I thought Lehneronce again way overplayed the puck, which factored into that tying goal (as did the defense not being in position). Hey, I'll take the win!

Sounds like you've done just as much research as me! lol Honestly, I was a bit disappointed with the 2018 model TVs. I passed over some really good sales on the 2017 TVs because I expected the 2018 models to have HDMI 2.1. But none of them do. I am into gaming and will use my new TV for gaming quite frequently, so that is a priority for me, and HDMI 2.1 would have been a nice feature even if I didn't use it till down the road. But oh well. I am curious to see the new 900f which has a full array backlight compared to the edge lighting on the 930e. I thought it was strange that the 2017 x900e (a lower model) used a full array backlight, but the x930e, a step up, used edge lighting. Usually a full array is an upgrade on edge lighting and found on higher end TVs. Yet Sony's had the edge lighting. But I read somewhere that Sony felt the picture quality was better with the edge lighting on the 930 than when they tried direct lighting/full array. I mean, there had to be some reason why they didn't use the full array that they use on the 900. I compared the x900e to the x930e, the picture quality on the 930 was definitely better (although both don't use the same chip either). So that makes me wonder if the new 900f will be an improvement on the 930e's picture quality, or if it's designed to be more of a middle of the road between the 900 and 930 series tv's. If that's the case then I'd be more interested in maybe grabbing the 930 now... Do you know if the new 900f is considered an upgrade to the 930e? I am am still torn between the LED and OLED myself. Obviously the OLED picture quality is unmatched. But I also worry about the burn in, and the brightness levels. As well as how reliable they are. The A1E was Sony's first OLED tv. I'm always a little reluctant about brand new models. I'm not too worried though, since the same manufacturer makes all the OLDD panels for the industry right now. I don't really see what problems it would have. I will be using the TV for gaming a lot. And watching sports. Plus with many new games having HDR capability, I just worry about the brightness levels of OLED, as well as the burn in and individual pixels dying out (like on plasma). But the picture just looks sooo amazing! It's hard to pass up. It it seems like both LED and OLED would be good for gaming, but maybe the LED being the safer choice? I've read numerous reviews listing that Sony x930 as a good choice for gaming. LG OLED's seem to get very good marks for gaming, too. As far as LG - I wouldn't go as far as to say it was even comparable. I felt they were definitely comparable. I just thought Sony's picture look a bit more defined and crisp, and the motion chip is definitely superior, as is 4K upscaling from what I've read. But the LG was very enticing for the price. I could pay almost $1000 less for an LG OLED. Plus LG has been making OLED for a while now. They led the way in that regard. I could get their 55" B7 OLED for the same price as Sony's x930 LED. That's enticing. I am always seeing them listed as the best performing TVs in review, too. Even above Sony's in numerous reviews. On what I would consider respectable sites too. Especially in the measurable performance metrics. Actually, I don't think I've ever read a bad review on an LG OLED... I keep thinking there must be something to it, but I am just so much more comfortable with Sony. The only one I haven't looked into as much is Samsung. I've seen them in stores and they are nice but I've never been as impressed compared to Sony's LED's and LG's OLED. Maybe I should give them another look... I do like that they have HDR 10 plus, which Sony TVs do not have. And that microLED technology looks promising, but I don't think it'll be available until later in 2018 at the earliest. Have you looked into the Panasonic TVs at all? They have an OLED line and a new LED line. They don't seem to widely available though. What interests me about them is that they are the TVs used by Hollywood post production facilities to color grade and fix films. So that means they are basically the standard for color accuracy. Their new flagship LED runs at 2200Hz, too.

Yup. And you don't dump him for some dream of an upgrade either (that's not even on the roster yet). If they draft a rookie and he beats out Tyrod this year, fantastic! Then he earned it legitimately. But you don't cut Tyrod before that rookie has taken a single practice snap, or is even on the roster. If they can can get an upgrade in free agency, I'm all for it. IMO though, Cousins looks like the only real franchise type QB on the market. Otherwise, pretty much everyone else looks like a bridge QB anyway. So if the plan is just to draft a 1st round rookie who wil most likely be starting in a year, im not sure I see a whole lot of point in aggressively pursuing one of these other QBs (Keenum, Bradford etc) who are probably going to be overpaid - in dollars and term. Only problem is the draft is a somewhere around 6 weeks after free agency opens, so you don't know how the draft will shake out and if you'll get that 1st round QB you want. And I don't think they necessarily want to be stuck with Tyrod for multiple years. So I could see it going either way, in regard to Tyrod. I guess it'll depend on how big of an upgrade they view some of these free agent QBs...

Man, I really miss Chris Farley.

This is smart. As I've said all along, there's No reason to dump him unless it's for an upgrade. It keeps the locker room happy too. Plus, Paying his bonus would definitely make a trade easier I'd think. It eats into the Bills cap this year but 2018 is already a big mess with tons of dead money, so why not try to maximize an asset (if he's traded)? This also makes the Bills look less desperate to move on from him, therefore may help up any potential offers. And if the plan is to draft a QB, it probably makes the most sense to just keep Tyrod this year anyway.