oldmanfan

Like what? A HOF Qb talking to a young QB, offering advice to him? What exactly is the downside?

I have commented in the past that reporters should probably quit posting their emails or twitter accounts or participate in sites like this, because it seems when you try and then have a dialog they get all pissy about things. Wawrow not so much usually; Graham is the king of that. So I would say Mr. Wawrow might want to consider not interacting in a forum such as this, because for him it's a no win situation. That said, it is abundantly clear that there are some posters on this board (just like there was on the BBMB back in the day) who take some kind of perverse joy in constantly being negative about things associated with the Bills. I used to think it was a defense mechanism given the state of the team for years, but now I think it is obvious some do this because they think it's cute to get a rise out of folks and give themselves some sort of bizarre ego boost.

Yeah. Whether official or not having a HOF QB communicating with the young QB is such a bad idea. What could he possibly tell the kid that would be useful?

Bullcrap

There are a few people here who think it's cute to be negative about all things Buffalo Bills. Odd way to get your jollies.

Don't care about other QBs. How they do has no effect on what Allen does.

It's silly to rank any guy who has never coached a game in the NFL before. Again, this is what happens when you have to fill a website every day with stuff. Guys write nonsense just to fill a space.

Another example of the problems with having to fill a space every 24 hours.

I mentioned this earlier but one of the confounders on this ball placement stuff is how much you put on the QB and how much you put on the receiver. We've all seen times after an incompletion where the QB points at himself to say it was his fault, and vice versa with the receiver. So, while I can't quantitate it, there are throws any QB makes where they put it right where they wanted but the receiver didn't get to the spot.

If someone has a mechanical issue, such as the ball coming out of his hand a bit early, they can be precise but not be as close to the target as they want I.e. Inaccurate. Like a pitcher than keeps throwing high. Puts it pretty much in the same spot but not in the strike zone.Or a QB that oversteps during his delivery. When you say he has to put a ball in a precise spot where a WR can catch it and run, that is precision. Great throwers are both accurate and precise. And if you look look at the work done by two guys on this board who looked at a multitude of throws Allen made and graded each ine you will see he was nowhere near as inaccurate as you want to think.

McDole is also a good one. Biscuit too. Reggie McKensie. Kyle and Fred will be there eventually. Another guy that hasn't been mentioned is Tony Greene.

Byrd without question.

I think Page had contacts and that started the investigation. I can read up on the others. You think I'm underinformed, I think you have confirmation bias and look at obscure references to try and drag out things that fit your pre-conceived bias. Summaries. I should read it. Good point.

They didn't know how to contact Trump after his victory? Like the meeting with the foreign minister in the Oval?

You're amusing to be sure.

That's what Deranged said. I think there was evidence of a crime, so you investigate. And more to the point, investigations occur precisely to determine if a crime occurred. So for those of you that think Clinton, Comey, Brennan, et al should be investigated, assuming there is evidence of a crime I'm all for investigation. The argument is what constitutes evidence.

Really? I just said I'd have no problem investigating Comey, Clinton, etc. This side of the board is comical; it's all of you that have your minds made up about everything and then comically claim it's others that are like that. I come over here sometimes just for amusement.

Investigate people without the basis of a crime.

Well I disagree with that premise. The Russians interfered with our election, there is no question about that. And his campaign had contacts with folks in Riussia. So that has to be examined. And to be fair and open, look at the other side as well if such data exists.

So they should not investigate Comey, etc in your view?

My analogy is fine. You just don't want to accept it. You tried to shut down another thread by saying the subject is being discussed in other threads.. I jump in here from time to time, but it is clear there are no real discussions here. This side of the board is you and persons of your ilk all just propping each other up with your conspiracy theories. For me, investigate everything. Impeach Trump so you get all the data out, bring Clinton, Comey, whomever you want up for investigation. Throw all of them in jail and maybe then we can get people in Washington thata ctually want to work together for the good of the country vs. this incessant nonsense that we have to deal with all the time.

No, I would ask why they cannot make a definitive determination and ask what other date they would need in terms of testing etc. Then I'd make sure I got that so they'd have the data they need.

I get the acting thing for sure. My daughter is a professional actor and singer and I hear that all the time, trust me. In fact, she is waiting t hear from the Bills if she gets to sing the anthem this year. The Bills put out a request for singers, and she just kills the anthem. Keep your fingers crossed.

A question: if you went to your doctor, and he said "if we had confidence you don't have cancer, we would tell you so" would you conclude you don't have cancer? Or would you demand more testing, more information, etc?

A question: if you went to your doctor, and he said "if we had confidence you don't have cancer, we would tell you so" would you conclude you don't have cancer? Or would you demand more testing, more information, etc?