Boatdrinks

They got a second round pick and a player who is no longer on the roster.They had the ability to retain Watkins for at least two seasons and didn’t execute it. Who is this better player that the Bills received for Watkins? This team is now devoid of WR talent ( and must devote future resources to finding one- that may negate any “ profit” from trading him) so currently the trade remains a questionable one. Draft moves and their future possibilities aside, the fact is the jury is out until there is more concrete information. Your dim view of Watkins doesn’t match up with those of NFL teams, yet it is coloring your view of the trade and it’s merits/ detractions from the Bills current roster.

On the surface one might assume that, but they would be wrong. SW could have stayed with the Rams if he wanted to. Multiple teams were competing for his services with a fairly open checkbook. That doesn’t happen for players who are though of as disappointments to actual NFL coaches, personnel people etc. The Bills trade of Watkins is still a questionable one. He may not yet have achieved the status of a great player, but he’s still very good and I’d love to have him on the Bills roster right now.

Classy move by the Eagles here. Wasn’t Rob Johnson actually on the Buccaneers roster when they won the SB? Anyway, both teams may have not been obligated to do this, but showed they have some class. Unlike certain other franchises in the league.

I’ll definitely miss Steratore. When you saw he was officiating a big game, you were confident it would be a fair contest. The sound FX replay of Super Bowl LII with mic’d up audio is a testament to Gene’s common sense interpretation of the rules. Something that seems lost on Al Riveron all too often.

Yes, they would exist. On other AFCE teams message boards. Like say , New Englands for starters. Just a role reversal is all.

Pretty much. It's not just my view though, it's the NFL's. Remember, we're talking about a business here. I don't really care if they believe in the " compelled" act of allegiance or not. If they don't, they can now stay inside so it's hardly compelled. I do know that I ( and others) don't believe in the crap they are spewing with their " protest". As a customer , I don't want their voice to be the only one heard when everyone is paying attention. No one else is allowed to set up shop next to them with an alternative viewpoint. It's really not the time or place for such things , and I stand by that. Why would a business want to involve themselves in such controversy? It doesn't matter if it's during the game, they are on the clock and the cameras are rolling , all too willingly to get their drivel out to the masses while they're representing a company that may not believe in that message.

Almost certainly yes. I can't think of anything where it wouldn't . Maybe someone else could , so I'll leave it at almost. Just not the time or place for protests. Plenty of other opportunities to do so outside of the job.

Bills 5-11 Browns 7-9

Splitting hairs. Where is the line drawn? Criminals in attendance? It's just about societal decorum, there are likely many misfits and misguided folks in attendance at public gatherings such as football games. I guess one can be standing and at the same time not be truly respectful. To determine that would be ridiculous. That's not what's being discussed here. Yes.

That is in the particular vet's opinion. It doesn't mean that opinion is shared by all. It's also not gospel simply because he is a vet.

No, it doesn't . It's far more complex than that. It's more about a viewpoint of debatable merit and a " problem" the scope of which is quite minute compared with many ( most) others. This viewpoint is being rammed down the throats of a fanbase in attendance to see a sporting event and be entertained by such. Those doing the ramming are choosing to do so on the company dime. It's far more nuanced than simply about rights. If this were taking place on a random street corner on a Sunday morning that take may be valid. In this case it's not.

They are being respectful to the tradition of standing to honor America while the anthem is played. Yes , even a grossly misguided person is capable of that and even a cretin can understand it. There are likely numerous scumbags and societal menaces/ deviants in attendance at any game. No, we don't know who they are. What does that have to do with standing for the playing of the country's anthem?

Probably right. As for the compromise, it satisfies me. Don't want to stand for the anthem? Cool, don't come out until it's over. It's the only thing the NFL , as the business that it is could realistically have done. End the affiliation with the military? Nope, that would tick off a sizable segment of the customers. Get rid of doing the anthem altogether? Probably the same. Players can stand or " opt out". A sensible compromise that harms no one. Most importantly, it ( should) remove the NFL from controversy over this whole thing, which is what any business would do. The folks griping about the compromise are likely also throwing kudos at ABC for cancelling Roseanne. It's just what businesses do. They think about the bottom line, and respond with that in mind.

I think that statement was in regards to the NHL team. NFL economics are a different story altogether than in hockey. Apples to oranges here.

30th in passing.... the Bills will be seriously unlucky if McCarron cannot best Tyrod Taylor as a QB