BillsFan4

The way I understand it is that the "law" you're referring to is a more of a guideline and nothing that can actually be enforced by law. Here's a quote from a sumpreme court justice from that Supreme Court case I linked earlier - “If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion, or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein,” said Justice Robert Jackson. Here's another article addressing it if you're interested - https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/does-the-united-states-or-other-countries-compel-national-anthem-etiquette 'In the United States legal code, there are statutes that apply to flag etiquette, the Pledge of Allegiance, and the National Anthem. Currently, these statutes don’t include language that would make it a criminal offense to disobey the guidelines, but the rules are widely followed.' And another article - http://www.ajc.com/news/national/colin-kaepernick-breaking-the-law-not-standing-for-the-national-anthem/cRjlkGqATbYZT3S3AkzJGK/ 'So does it, and what’s the penalty if I don’t stand? No, it doesn't. Section 171 does not specify nor impose penalties for violating the section of the code. According to a Congressional Research Service report to Congress in 2008, “The Flag Code is a codification of customs and rules established for the use of certain civilians and civilian groups. No penalty or punishment is specified in the Flag Code for display of the flag of the United States in a manner other than as suggested. Cases ... have concluded that the Flag Code does not proscribe conduct, but is merely declaratory and advisory." In other words, the Flag Code serves as a guide, and it is followed on a voluntary basis. You won't be forced to stand for the National Anthem, nor hauled off to jail if you don't. Cases brought because of something in the code -- mainly ones that involve defacing the flag -- have made their way to the U.S. Supreme Court where the justices have upheld that such conduct is protected by the First Amendment. There are no provisions in the code for either enforcement nor penalties. '

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Virginia_State_Board_of_Education_v._Barnette

But the supreme, court ruled that it was illegal to enforce it, so no, it really doesn't. 'So does it, and whats the penalty if I dont stand? No, it doesn't. Section 171 does not specify nor impose penalties for violating the section of the code. According to a Congressional Research Service report to Congress in 2008, The Flag Code is a codification of customs and rules established for the use of certain civilians and civilian groups. No penalty or punishment is specified in the Flag Code for display of the flag of the United States in a manner other than as suggested. Cases ... have concluded that the Flag Code does not proscribe conduct, but is merely declaratory and advisory." In other words, the Flag Code serves as a guide, and it is followed on a voluntary basis. You won't be forced to stand for the National Anthem, nor hauled off to jail if you don't. Cases brought because of something in the code -- mainly ones that involve defacing the flag -- have made their way to the U.S. Supreme Court where the justices have upheld that such conduct is protected by the First Amendment. There are no provisions in the code for either enforcement nor penalties. '

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Virginia_State_Board_of_Education_v._Barnette I thought it was ruled by the Supreme Court that forcing people to stand and salute the flag was a violation of the 1st amendment to the constitution. And another supreme court ruling - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Eichman Here's another piece on it saying there's a guideline but they can not enforce it by law - http://www.ajc.com/news/national/colin-kaepernick-breaking-the-law-not-standing-for-the-national-anthem/cRjlkGqATbYZT3S3AkzJGK/

Here's another article on McDermott. Tim Graham said not everything made it into the original article (that I posted yesterday), so this is some of his favorite surplus items - http://buffalonews.com/2017/09/01/sean-mcdermott-files-dont-know-now-know/

I've been impressed with Peterman this preseason, especially for a rookie. You see him going through his progressions, making some nice reads to find his open receiver and is using the whole field. He looks very comfortable playing in the pocket. He knows how to step up/climb & keep his eyes down field and doesn't panic as soon as the pocket starts collapsing. I thought he's picked up the offense quickly and looks very comfortable on the field running things. Doesn't seem to get too flustered out there. Seems to fit this offense well. He's been able to get the ball out quickly and his ball placement has been pretty good for the most part. Peterman obviously still has plenty to work on and I don't think we should throw him to the wolves yet (unless TT isn't ready to go) but I definitely have hope for him. He's looking like a very good backup at the very least and I think he has potential to be the Bills starting QB, even if just as a bridge to a more permanent guy. I'm hopeful he can be more than that, though. But It's really hard to make any real, definitive judgements on him during preseason. I want to see him against legit #1's when these a game plan against him.

If Ducasse starts at this point, I really don't know what to say... I always like to give new coaches the benefit of the doubt but It would be a huge hit to any good will afforded to Juan Castillo. Not that it would make me lose all faith, but it sure wouldn't help build it... If they are, for whatever reason, totally opposed to starting Miller (which I don't think is the case) then they Have To find someone else besides Ducasse to play RG. I really don't know how Castillo could try and sell it that Ducasse won the competition though. I just don't see any argument for that, unless there's just something that I'm completely missing or that we are not privy to. Like I've said a few times now, I am not going to panic about this until I see Ducasse starting a regular season game over (a healthy) Miller. As of now I just can't see that happening. I sure hope I'm right...

Wow. That was freaking pathetic. How many guys totally whiffed on tackles? God think mos god these guys won't be on the team...

Lol at Matthews with the photo bomb

They really do seem to be tanking in a quite obvious way. I hope it bites them in the butt.

Yes, I believe the owners just voted to change that rule for 2017 so that you can now trade comp picks.

I think Holmes might depend on what the Bills are able to,add come roster cuts. Or maybe they feel comfortable enough with the guys beneath him already... we will find out soon. I'm good with cutting Ducasse, Davis and Holmes to get that 3rd round comp pick though.

He's gotta be toast at this point... Even more so because he figured into the comp pick formula for the Bills.

Agreed. Even the penalty issues seem to be more under control. You can't expect this stuff to happen overnight. Its going to take time but I'm already seeing progress IMO.

Banyard has to have earned a spot at this point.

This is what I'm hoping too. It was reported earlier in the offseason that Miller was struggling with this new scheme/technique and blowing assignments (etc). P,us there were some saying (Astro & some local reporters) that Miller wasn't always giving a full effort in training camp. Hopefully it was just about getting Miller up to speed and making him earn his spot (McDedmott did preach competition at all spots and earning everything...). As I've said all along, I am not going to freak out about Ducasse until he's starting regular season games over Miller.

Another bad play by Ducasse. He has to be playing himself off the roster.

Turnover! Eddie Yarborough was Sooo excited. I got a kick out of that!

Im taking it as encouraging that Miller was the first guy in and REALLY hoping that means he is the leasing candidate to start.

Peterman to Reilly! I'm really pulling for this kid to make the roster.

It's great to see Glenn out there. The o line looks so much better with him out there, even with all backup O linemen. Maybe all is not lost... lol

Beautiful pass break up by EJ Gaines! He played that perfectly.

Did you hear him talking about Peterman? I thought he made it sound like Peterman has the #2 spot locked up. Also pretty much confirmed that Peterman would be starting if a Tyrod can't go.

I have seen this going around the boards for a while now. But I just don't get how you can blame McDermott for Gilmore, Woods, Goodwin and other free agents. First, we don't even know if those guys wanted to be here. Gilmore seemed to want to go somewhere where he'd get more national coverage and it was reported Woods wanted to go home to Cali. But assuming they did want to be here - Whaley was still here at the time, but if people want to say McDermott had 100% decision making power, ok fine. I disagree but we have no way of knowing for sure. I think at the very least he had to lean heavily on Whaley and his staff to help evaluate players McDermott had yet to even coach (or maybe even meet in some circumstances) . Either way... Whaley still had 2 years to sign Gilmore and a year to sign Woods, Goodwin etc. but he didn't. He could have given Gilmore a new contract any time in his 4th and 5th year here. Could have given Woods, Goodwin (etc) a contract any time over the last year. It was reported long before McDermott was hired that the Bills were not willing to go above $11.5M on Gilmore and that they weren't even negotiating with Robert Woods. Plus the Bills only had $19M in cap space entering the offseason with something like 26 free agents to sign. If they had signed Gilmore at $13M and Woods at $7M that's $20M in cap space right there... Putting all the blame on him for Gillislee is a stretch IMO. People like to pretend that Whaley had nothing to do with that but Whaley used the same original round tender on Hogan the year before and chose not to match the Pats offer. It was a very similar scenario and you can see how it fit whaley's m.o. Also, the contract and cap hit of McCoy has to be taken into account as well as the overall cap of the team plus how the organization felt about J. Williams (which I would assume Whaley felt strongly about Williams ability to replace Gillislee). I just don't see how you put all the blame on McDermott for this. He had hardly been here a couple months at the time. I doubt he was making every decision all on his own without any input from Whaley or others.

At least he's being reasonable with what the loss of Watkins's will do to the amount of wins/losses.