Logic

Where Hawes transforms the Bills offense is this: They can use him as the "6th O-lineman" in jumbo sets, but he's an actual threat to catch the ball, unlike Alec Anderson. I could be mistaken, but I don't believe I've seen the Bills roll out a 6OL package yet this season. I HAVE seen (especially against the Jets) a good amount of 12 and 13 personnel. Hawes is Lee Smith Jr. For the Bills to say he was the best blocking tight end they've EVER evaluated, and for him to already be getting this much time on the field...you know he's special as a blocker at that position. Dawson Knox is set to make $17million next year. Given the realistic constraints of the salary cap, people aren't wrong to say that long term, Hawes' presence could spell the end of Knox's Bills tenure. Going forward, a Hawes-Kincaid duo at TE could indeed be the thing. And if Hawes is able to develop the receiving part of his game? Look out, man.

Dorian Williams, Shaq Thompson, Keonta Jenkins, come on down!

No such thing.

This is exactly what I thought after watching it. I hard heard that it was from "the creators of the Office", but once I saw Mike Schur's name wasn't on it, I became less enthusiastic. Greg Daniels is funny and a great creative mind in his own right, but I think a big part of what made The Office what it was is Mike Schur. I don't associate Greg Daniels nearly as much with that brand of comedy. On the flip side, speaking of Greg Daniels... I HAVE been enjoying the King of the Hill reboot. Good stuff.

Three Pro Bowl players drafted immediately after Kaiir Elam: Tyler Smith, Tyler Linderbaum, and Jermain Johnson II, right in a row. Ouch. George Karlaftis, Kyler Gordon, Breece Hall, George Pickens, Trey McBride not long after that. Double ouch. Hindsight is 20/20, every team has misses, and the Benford pick helped. But man...imagine adding any of the above players to the current Bills? Yeesh. Ah well. Ya win some, ya lose some.

I was an enormous Office fan, and saw that this was by one of the makers of the original (Greg Daniels), and it exists in the same "universe" as the Office and has Oscar as an accountant again. I gave the first episode a shot and did not find it funny. Like...at all. I'm willing to watch another episode or two and see if it finds its footing, because I see that it's gotten good critical and audience scores and has already been renewed for season two. But so far? Yeesh.

I like how multiple the Bills offense is. Sometimes, they're a powerhouse run team. Other times, they use short, controlled passing to matriculate the ball down the field. Other times they wing it downfield. They can run, they can pass short, intermediate, and long, and Josh can run it. They're an incredibly difficult offense to stop because they can do so much well. I like that they've started with a touchdown in both games so far. Starting slow was a real problem for them in recent years, but not so this year. If they can continue to start fast AND keep doing the "gathering info on how you wanna play us defensively, then adjusting to it and beating your gameplan in the second half" thing, they'll continue to be hard to stop. If I have to pick nits, I'd say that I'd like to see a more effective marrying of play-action to their run game, and more frequent use of play-action in general. I'd also say their screen game still stinks. Overall, though, it's hard to be anything but happy with an offense that averages about 30 points a week for over a calendar year now.

Yesterday's game reminded me so much of a typical AFC East game during the Patriots dynasty years, with the Bills playing the part of the Pats. A plucky upstart team with a new head coach, coming off a big week 1 moral victory, with a new QB that has everyone hopeful that "this year might be different!". Going against the five time defending division champs, a well-oiled machine, marching in to town with their franchise QB. Just like all those Pats dynasty years, the team that runs the division put those thoughts to bed quickly. They repeatedly and methodically stamped out any hope the upstart team's fans may have had, and reminded everyone just how big the gap is between a team like the Jets and a team like the Bills. Yesterday's win reminded me of those Pats years because it was...ho-hum, in a way. It was unspectacular. The Bills simply played sound fundamental football in all three phases, allowed the other team to make mistakes, and beat them convincingly, because they're better and more disciplined at playing football. The franchise QB didn't have a particularly memorable day, there was maybe one SportsCenter worthy play all game (and it came from a running back). It was just a good old fashioned three phase, fundamental boot whoopin. During the Pats dynasty years, you had to play almost perfect football to have a shot at beating them. Nowadays, you have to play almost perfect football to beat Sean McDermott's Bills. The Jets didn't even come close to doing that yesterday, so they lost convincingly. The Bills, to me, look to be in midseason form. They just look like an operation that's been doing it for years, has certain standards and expectations, and a certain way of doing things. They look like a well-oiled machine, who can beat you on any given day with either a passing or running game, defense, special teams, or any combination of those things. With their field general star quarterback, their motley crew of "do your job" receivers, their good play in the trenches, and their (mostly) no-name, "do your job" defense, they reminded me exactly of the dynasty era Patriots. Feels much better to be on this end of things.

1. You can say "Antifa Tyler" all you want, but that doesn't make it true. I know 6th grade name calling is your favorite president's forte, but that doesn't mean its a viable strategy. 2. The fact that you're totally on board with all of the stuff shown in that Tweet kind of says it all. To recap: BEFORE anyone had been apprehended, before any killer or any motivation was proven one way or the other, the entire right wing establishment mobilized with bloodthirsty tweets, quotes, and interviews talking about declaring war on the entire left. There are tweets up there talking about rounding up leftists, bombing cities, ALL OUT WAR, etc....and no one had yet been apprehended. They IMMEDIATELY decided to use Kirk's murder as an opportunity to whip up panic and stoke the flames of divisiveness, to the extent that many are/were encouraging actual violent retribution against leftists. If you support THAT, well...it tells me all I need to know about you. And it's not the least bit surprising. Party of law and order, my ass.

Totally cool, totally sane de-escalation and normal behavior from the right displayed below. Most of this came before anyone was even apprehended, mind you. Talk about “dangerous and violent rhetoric”!

I wonder what suddenly compelled Fuentes to say this NOW. Huh.

You're being willfully and repeatedly obtuse, not to mention changing your original question to me. By all means, go on pretending that only the left takes glee in political violence, ignoring all evidence to the contrary (some of which I provided), and painting with an absurdly large brush by lumping all leftists in together as "gleefully celebrating" Kirk's death, when that is very clearly far from the truth. If you can't be intellectually honest, then I have no interest in conversing with you.

I posted a thread from Adam Cochran a while back that went into it. Because one of his 10 slides was inaccurate (the voter registration one), the rest was dismissed out of hand. In short, they both appear to be just as likely (and, I'd argue, more so) to be related to well known Groyper/4chan tropes and memes than to any kind of leftist ideology.

As if what I posted isn't DIRECTLY relevant to the point you're trying to make. Sure seems like the left isn't "exclusively" gleeful at cold blooded murder when the sitting republican president's son is joking about the attempted murder of Paul Pelosi on Twitter. Remind me, is Donald Trump Jr a leftist?

Sure. The right would never make light of political violence.

It matters only insofar as there are a ton of republican politicians pinning this on the radical left, including our president. If we all agree that "it's gotta stop", and the "it" in question is political violence, then the president going on TV and blaming "the radical left" for Kirk's shooting BEFORE ANYONE WAS EVEN APPREHENDED" doesn't seem like the best move, does it? It doesn't scream "de-escalation and lowering tensions", does it? So I agree that a sick person is a sick person regardless of his political or ideological affiliation. But if repbulicans are gonna go on TV and make frothy-mouthed claims about the evil left, then well...yes, it does seem to be important to ascertain whether that's even true.

The cope on THE LEFT is insane? When mounting evidence seems to indicate that he was part of an extremist far RIGHT movement? Sure, Jan.

Coming from someone who just posted from Libs of TikTok. Get real, man. Nothing I could possibly post -- including a question asked of a large language model belonging to Elon Musk himself -- will dissuade you of what you've already decided: that the big, bad, radical left is to blame. Groypers can come right out and say "this guy looks like one of ours", and we can see pictures of the shooter himself dressing up as a Groyper meme for Halloween, and you'll still dismiss it and blame democrats. Your mind is made up. That's fine. To each their own.

Anything you must do to ignore the reality that this language is also spoken by far right extremists, who are also dangerous and capable of violence.

The fact that the shooter apparently considered himself a member of a far right extremist group who openly expressed their disdain for Charlie Kirk and encouraged their followers to go to his events to confront and discredit him for not being nationalist and conservative enough, to the extent that this campaign become known as "The Groyper Wars" seems.....relevant, no? But ya know...any chance to blame the democrats I guess.

Again: This ignores the mounting evidence that Robinson was a Groyper, and that it was the extremist rhetoric of that movement that was to blame, not democrats. I get that many on the right view this as a great opportunity to pin this tragedy on the "radical left" and rile up its base to think that big, bad antifa was beyond this. Unfortunately for that narrative, Robinson appears more likely to have been a far right extremist than a leftist of any sort.

I don't disagree with most of what you're saying. The problem is that the toothpaste is already out of the tube. They already jumped as fast as they could to label Robinson a member of the "radical left", and now Fox News and Newsmax are gonna run with that narrative for days on end, and millions of Americans are going to (or already do) believe it. I don't blame law enforcement agencies OR the media (for the most part) for being ill-equipped to understand or contextualize this stuff. I DO blame politicians who jumped at the chance to use this as an opportunity to vilify the left. Jumping at the first chance to tell the whole country that the left is to blame BEFORE ANYONE WAS EVEN APPREHENDED appears to have been, ya know....not great!