BillsFan4

Dude, those guys you list have only been here a couple of years. It's way too early to even be talking of starting another rebuild. It usually takes a good 5-6 years to recover from a full tear down as it is, so it's not all that shocking that Buffalo isn't a great team yet. Complete scorched earth tear down rebuilds, especially the scale of the one the Sabres did, don't just happen overnight. Our longest tenured player has Beane here what, 4 years? That's almost unheard of. Tearing down again isn't going to make things better IMO. There's no reason to be dumping 21 year old players like Reinhart for draft picks anyway, especially for what would likely be later 1sts who would take years to contribute on a meaningful level in the NHL.We just have to keep building and have some patience. Trading away our best players for draft picks isn't the way to get better. Some me players take longer to develop than others, too. Reinhart is only started no his 3rd year in the NHL. Guys like Henrik and Daniel Sedin weren't the great players they are today until year 4 or 5 in the NHL. Reinhart out scored more points in his 1st year than Henrik Swdin did in his 4th year, but then he blew up in his 5th year and has been an amazing player ever since. Kane may have to be traded (since he's a UFA to be) if he's not going to be re-signed, but that's different than trading away our recent #2 overall draft pick and our #1 C, who are both still very young. I don't see ROR as a problem anyway. We have to keep building and not panic over a crappy start. There's still too much dead weight on this team, too. But it'll take time to replace them.

Kane you freaking ass hole. What a terrible penalty to take with 2 minutes left in the game. LA now has 3 goals on 3 power play attempts tonight, after not scoring a single power play goal so far this season. Buffalo and Arizona are the only 2 teams left without a win. This team needs to take Eichel's comments to heart and get sick of losing, or get shipped out of Buffalo. This team has no real killer instinct. They can't even show up for a whole damn game. Like tonight, they play a great first period so they decide that they don't need to show up for the second. I feel bad for Housley...

Doug Marrone clarifies stance on Sammy Watkins draft trade https://www.buffalorumblings.com/2017/10/13/16471004/buffalo-bills-doug-marrone-clarifies-stance-on-sammy-watkins-trade-2014-nfl-draft 'While on a conference call with reporters in advance of this Sunday’s game between Marrone’s new club, the Jacksonville Jaguars, and Sammy Watkins’s new club, the Los Angeles Rams, the head coach tried to clarify his hesitance to embrace the deal at the time. Marrone said that it “wasn’t the player” that he was upset about, as he viewed Watkins as a “special player.” Instead, he said that he was upset about “giving up too much not knowing what [buffalo’s] quarterback situation was.” '

I could be wrong but I don't think so, was it? His wife mentioned being raped in a deposition in 1989 (and it was printed in that book in 1993). The attempted rape lawsuit came in 1997. The third rape charges were both filed in 2016, one in June and I'm not sure on the other (October, maybe?). The Apprentice started in 2004.

Sounds good. But how do we get the other teams we play to draft/sign short defensive linemen, too? lol

So first I completely made it up because nobody ever said anything like that. Then I present you with court documents showing I did no such thing, and now it's the accusers who made stuff up. Ok then. Why let facts get in the way of an opinion, right? I love how you have no issue believing the women who accuse Clinton though. That doesn't show any bias or anything... Personally, I believe both are guilty of the accusations regardless of political party. Edit - I forgot to add that numerous accusations happened many many years before Trump ever even ran for the presidency, so I fail to see how it could be tied to bitterness about the election results.

I don't just make things up. It's not my style. His first wife accused him of rape in court during their 1989 divorce (which she Her exact words were "he raped me". To be fair, she later walked it back (supposedly under pressure from Trump), saying she felt violated and didn't mean he literally raped her. https://www.thedailybeast.com/ex-wife-donald-trump-made-me-feel-violated-during-sex This one was only an attempted rape accusation (under statement of facts, letter i) https://www.scribd.com/mobile/doc/300193678/1997-Jill-Harth-Lawsuit https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/jul/20/donald-trump-sexual-assault-allegations-jill-harth-interview And the third lawsuit just happened recently. A woman filed rape charges against Trump. Twice. But eventually dropped the charges both times. https://www.scribd.com/mobile/doc/316341058/Donald-Trump-Jeffrey-Epstein-Rape-Lawsuit-and-Affidavits This recaps all 3 if you'd rather not click on all the individual links - http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/assault-allegations-donald-trump-recapped/ And here's a list of some of his assault allegations stretching back decades - http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/assault-allegations-donald-trump-recapped/

And the current president. Not to mention all the sexual assault accusations on Trump (at least 15) and Clinton. I guess it's becoming a tradition in this country to elect these types. lol

Yeah, he's totally changed. Now he just re-tweets (and posts how he agrees with) people saying he needs more targets instead of saying it himself... lol

It tells me that it's a pretty normal amount of time... It took John Dorsey (ex Chiefs GM) 20 years in the NFL to be hired as a GM. It took Kevin Colbert (Steelers GM) 26 years in the NFL to get his first GM job. It took Reggie McKenzie 18 years in NFL John Schneider (Seattle) 17 years in NFL Dave Caldwell 17 years in NFL Mike Maccagnan 25 years in NFL Tom Telesco 22 years in NFL Jason Licht 18 years in NFL Les Snead 17 years in NFL Bob Quinn 16 years in NFL Thomas Dimitroff 15 years in NFL Then there are tons more that had many years of experience in coaching/scouting/administrative at the college level before getting to the NFL and putting in 10,13,14 years (14yrs was a very common one) in the NFL before getting their 1st shot as GM. Same goes for the GM's listed above. I did not include any of the years they put in at the college level. If I did the # of years experience would be even longer. Beane had no experience in football before getting that internship with Carolina at 21-22yrs old. So he put in 19 total years, but many (or even most) other guys put in that much time or longer if you include their experience at the college level working their way to the NFL. Plus he is very young by NFL GM standards, which I'm sure was part of the reason he didn't get his shot sooner.

Wonder if there's any possibility that they bring Gary Barnidge back in for another visit.

Damn, how stupid can you get? Recording and sending a video of that? Fun fact related to this video - Miami was once considered the coke capital of the US. I guess it's where much of the coke came into the country. I believe it is still the most popular drug in Florida, especially in southern FL.

Yeah I saw that when it happened! I rewound on my DVR just to make sure. What a jerk! lol

I really like the behind the scenes type pieces, that give us inside info about the team. Stuff that the average fan doesn't have access to. It so interesting to read about that kind of stuff in my opinion. That is a big reason why I read the Buffalo News. I'd love to see more of it. I also second all of those who have said lighten up on the negativity from some (Jerry and Bucky, I'm looking at you! lol) Edit - thanks for doing this by the way!

Beane was hired 2 months after free agency started. The majority of good players were long gone. Plus, he had literally no scouting or personnel staff when he first got here. They had all been fired. So he had to put together an entire front office, scouting and personnel staff from top to bottom. Then he had to start watching tape and evaluating the roster with that staff. How much time did that leave him to make legitimate improvements this offseason? He did bring in Jordan Matthews and EJ Gaine, while at the same time stock piling draft picks for next year to try and improve the team the way most great teams are built - through the draft. When a new coaching staff is brought in, there are many players from the previous staff that no longer fit. It happens all the time around the NFL. Instead of holding onto guys that don't fit and trying to force them into positions that could set them up to fail, Beane traded them for assets in return to rebuild this team. I don think he was trying to tank though. But I do think that the future takes priority over this season, which is actually really nice to see for a change. I'm willing to give him an actual chance before I make up my mind on him. Let's see what he does in the draft and next offseason.

https://www.dni.gov/files/documents/ICA_2017_01.pdf That is the ICA above, correct? I don't see where it says anything about the bolded statements you made. I don't see any mention of metadata or the GRU doing everything it could to mask their identity. I've read over it a couple times now. I don't see any mention of a lot of the claims you are making. Maybe I am just missing it? Or did they say it elsewhere? They don't really get into many specifics in that ICA. Saying they used "cyber operations" (which can mean a pretty wide variety of things) is about as specific as they get in most cases. Also, have they released the classified information they used to come to these assessments? How do you know the NSA's only piece of evidence is the metadata? I find that hard to believe. Just as one example, What about this leaked NSA classified document detailing Russian hacking efforts? (https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3766950-NSA-Report-on-Russia-Spearphishing.html#document/p1) the girl who leaked it was even charged by the DOJ for doing so (and is currently behind bars awaiting trial IIRC). Many of these conclusions seem based on assumptions of the hackers location, specific security measures used and specific method used to hack, none of which seems conclusively proven by this metadata. It seems like it amounts to one possible theory. There are many other possible explanations that are just as likely. For example, If it was copied earlier (which as I understand is a likely possibility) the download speeds are meaningless. They could have originally downloaded it at any speed then and analyzing the speed of the copy means nothing. When you have to qualify a statement with "if this, this and this happened" then it's not really proof, unless you can prove all those other things too. Even the forensicator himself doesn't make definitive claims about much of this stuff. He uses words like "assumptions", "likely", "estimated" and "the most probable interpretation of the metadata". From what I seen he never definitively says that it was an inside job or that it couldn't have been hacked. He even specifically says that he made no claim that the computer was connected to a DNC server or that the data might not have been copied earlier nor whether it might have been copied or leaked. He also said that the computer had eastern time zone setting in force (which can be done on any computer in any time zone). Here's a pretty decent independent review done on the forensicators analysis (posted on one of the original sites to run the VIPS memo)- https://www.thenation.com/article/a-leak-or-a-hack-a-forum-on-the-vips-memo/#independent-review And another - http://archive.is/t8DXQ Here's something from some VIPS members themselves disputing the original conclusions of that memo - https://www.thenation.com/article/a-leak-or-a-hack-a-forum-on-the-vips-memo/#vips-dissent Here is part of a statement from Scott Ritter, member of VIPS, in regards to some claims made in the VIPS memo (which he refused to sign) - "The analysis contained in the VIPS memorandum contradicts such an assertion (of the DNC hacking). Unfortunately, this conclusion is not supported by the data. I reached out to the forensic analysts (the forensicator and Adam carter) who conducted the analysis of the metadata in question. They have stated that there is no way to use the available metadata to determine where the copying of the data was done. In short, one cannot state that this data proves Guccifer 2.0 had direct access to the DNC server or that the data was located in the DNC when it was copied on July 5, 2016. These same analysts also note that the July 5 date that is pervasive on the metadata probably overwrote all prior modification times, meaning it is impossible to ascertain if there were any prior copy operations. The VIPS memorandum also speaks of the insertion of telltale signs into data copied from the DNC server designed to implicate Russia. I have reached out to the analysts responsible for this assertion, and it appears that they mistakenly attributed actual document manipulation from an earlier date to the July 5 data transfer event" The above articles bring up some very legit questions IMO. I'm no expert in any of this stuff, though. The thing is, there is a lot more in that ICA than just the DNC hacking, most of which the VIPS memo doesn't address. There is also a lot more to this whole russia investigation than just the DNC hacking. I do agree that they haven't presented the general public with much information. Everything of significance has seemed to have been deemed classified. Without seeing more of this proof ourselves, we don't really have much to go on but all their words. But there are an awful lot of people much more in the know than any of us that have seen an awful lot of evidence and believe without a doubt that a Russia tries to influence and interfere in our election.

The downside for me was losing Watkins for possibly nothing. The only way they get a comp pick is if they don't add more players in free agency than they lose. That possibly prohibits them from making moves to better the team next offseason. Plus even if they do get the comp pick, it wouldn't come until 2019 and would be a very late 3rd at best (technically it comes after the 3rd round is over and before the 4th round starts). Tagging him would likely cost around $15-$17M. That would take up more than 1/2 of their available cap space ($27M according to spotrac) There is also the stuff about Sammy's bad attitude. When you're in the fragile beginning stages of trying to rebuild a culture that's been broken for a long time, the new Bills staff may have felt keeping him around for this season wasn't worth the risk to their culture change (or something along those lines) especially when they could get pretty decent value back in return for him. So they traded him for a 2nd round pick in 2018 (that will hopefully provide more immediate help than a potential 2019 3rd/4th) and a pretty darn good starting CB. I don't like seeing such a talented WR traded away either and I hate the hole that it left on the Bills roster (assuming Sammy stayed healthy), but I can still see the downside of keeping him. I like that this front office isn't just thinking about this season, the future be damned. They are thinking long term. The Bills aren't good enough to be perennial contenders the way they are currently built, so the front office is doing something about that instead of just trying to constantly patch holes.

Oh man, you gotta be kidding me. I said I wouldn't freak out until he was starting regular season games. Well, that time has apparently come... lol I like our chances in this game a bit less now.

- the collusion case is still open. I thought Mueller had taken the lead on it anyway, no? But just to be clear I have never once said or claimed that trump was involved in collusion. In fact, I don't think he was. -They talked to a lot more people than just the ones who complied the ICA report. They said they interviewed 100 different people (sounds like they interviewed anyone and everyone with any possible info or ties to any of this and investigated many of their motives). They also went over every scrap of evidence that was used in the ICA as well as any other information that wasn't included in the assessment, much of it classified. How is that not an independent investigation? Had they only interviewed the people who put the report together, took their word for everything and called it a day, I would agree. But that is not even remotely close to what happened. What falsified evidence, impossible conclusions and forensic proof are you talking about? Are you referring to that stuff on Guccifer, the VIPS memo and "the forensicator" analysis of that metadata? That stuff about the internet download speed and eastern time zone stamp? If so, from what I have seen of it, it's is not really proof, forensic or otherwise. It basically amounts to nothing more than one possible theory of what could have happened and I've seen a number of experts refuting that theory. There really isn't any way to come to a definitive conclusion on some of that stuff anyway, not from the tiny bit of metadata that's available (at least the way I understand it). I'd be happy to go into more detail and provide links if this is indeed what you are referring to. If you are referring to something different please tell me and ignore the above... lol. I will say, without knowing what classified information they have, we really have no way of knowing for sure on any of this. But It seems like everyone (on both sides of the aisle) who has seen that classified information for themselves feels that Russia definitely tried to interfere in our election.

There is obviously a lot of different things that went into this trade, but I think Sammy's attitude definitely played some part in it. After hearing Sammy say this, McDermott's comments very shortly after the trade come to mind - "we ar trying to build a team, not collect star players". McDermott & Beane are very big on those total team first guys and it's really shown with the acquisitions and draft picks they made. If that's something they feel is very important, then they have to show it with actions, not just words (IMO anyway). I think It sends a message through the locker room when management gives a player a big contract. It says "these are the types of guys we are going to pay". When you have brand new coaches and management who are in the very beginning stages of trying to change a culture that's been broken for well over a decade, I think it's even more important to send clear messages. If they are preaching that they want everyone to have a team first mentality (etc) and then they choose to pay a guy huge money who has acted somewhat the opposite of that ("me first"), how serious is the team really going to take that message? If it were me I'd say "well it's just hollow words. They're preaching one thing and doing another". I'm also a strong believer that its best when your highest paid players are also good team leaders, and ideally they are the ones carrying the coaches message, too. Because, either way, they are probably going to be one of the guys looked at to set the tone of the team. We seen it happen here with Mario Williams. I think it's important that a team is very careful with who they choose to give big money to.

They actually already did that. Jacob Josefson, our 4th line center this year is ranked #4 in the NHL in active career shootout percentage. Shootouts are his specialty and a big reason he was signed. Pominville is pretty good in the SO as well. https://www.sportingcharts.com/stats/nhl/all-time/career-shootout-percentage-active/ Hopefully it'll improve as the year goes on. I'll cut them a little slack for last night since they were facing arguably the best goalie in the world. Honestly, I'm more worried about Lehner being unable to make a save in the shootout. His save percentage in the SO was damn near 0% last year (and for much of the year was truly 0%)

That's where I think you're getting confused. The senate intelligence committee didn't use their assessment. They examined it to see if it was truthful, reviewing every single person involved and every piece of information those intelligence officers used to make their assessment. They were examining the validity of that ICA and came away with a general consensus that they trust the conclusions it came to.

Huh? Would you rather they not examine the people who wrote the assessment they were reviewing the accuracy of? It's not like they relied on those interviews to get their information. The Senate intelligence committee is doing their own investigation. They talked to 100's of different people and reviewed every single piece of information, classified or otherwise, that went into the ICA and even the information that didn't. 100,000 pages of documents. They've been extremely thorough. I'd have been more worried if, in their review of the ICA, they hadn't examined the people who actually wrote it.

https://www.c-span.org/video/?435050-1/senate-russia-probe-expanded-looking-possible-collusion Full Press conference from the heads of the senate intelligence committee updating on the Russian election probe. I tried to transcribe the first 5 minutes or so as best I could, since it pertains to the discussion we were having here. It's probably easier to just listen yourself, but here it is anyway - They conducted over 250+ hours of interviews, almost 4,000 pages of transcripts, almost 100,000 pages of documents reviewed. It includes highly classified intelligence reporting, emails, campaign documents & technical cyber analysis products. They've held 11 open hearings this year that touched on Russian interference. Their staff has worked 6 to 7 days a week since January to get to the point they are at today. So far in the interview process, they have talked to everybody that had a hand or a voice in the intelligence community assessment. They reviewed all the supporting documents that went into it and in addition the things that were thrown on the cutting room floor that they may not have found appropriate for the ICA itself. They interviewed every official of the Obama administration. They interviewed individuals from around the world. They've come to a general consensus among members and staff that they trust the conclusions of the intelligence community assessment. But they won't close their consideration/investigation of the ICA yet in the unlikelihood that they find additional information through the completion of their investigation.

Yeah I knew it was an automatic loss once overtime ended. That's what I was originally going to post, but I went with "oh boy" instead, not wanting to jinx them.