Logic

Such an excellent and interesting read. Great job by Wickersham here. With regard to the importance of having a good owner, I always think of Marv Levy's autobiography. The part of Marv's book that stood out the most to me -- and which made me very depressed at the time -- was his saying that in order for a team to have consistent success, it needs to start at the top: Good ownership. That quote got me down in the dumps because, while I loved Ralph Wilson and appreciate all he did for the city of Buffalo, he was in the last years of his life and was, at the time I read it, an absentee owner most known for not wanting to pay his coaches or players. I saw the dysfunction trickling down from him, to the carousel of bad GMs, to the second rate coaches, and concluded the Bills were a hopeless cause. But then a funny thing happened: The Pegulas purchased the team, committed to keeping it in Buffalo, made it clear that they would spare no expense in upgrading facilities, hiring coaches, paying players, etc, and restored hope where it was lacking. I feel confident in the present and future of the Buffalo Bills, from the top down. I also feel bad for fan bases who don't get to feel that way. Devoted fans who have to put up with the Dan Snyders, Jimmy Haslams, and Mike Browns of the world. I am so thankful that we are not in that situation. I am so thankful for the Pegulas. On a side note: I'd LOVE to read a similar piece about the Brandon, Whaley, Marrone, Rex years of the Bills. It's probably for the best that that's all in the past and not in the public eye, though.

What you described (coaches being overly judicious in deciding whether or not to use their one flag) seems fine to me. It ensures that this no measure won't be overused or slow the game down on a regular basis. As you say, the coach -- knowing he only has ONE opportunity -- is likely only going to through the flag in a crucial, game-swinging instance. To me, to at least have that ONE opportunity is a better option than what coaches have now, which is no recourse at all.

Sure. As soon as he does something on the field.

LOL

Who knows. The only thing that would keep from thinking they're going to spend a 1st round pick on a running back is the degree to which they have made it clear that McCoy and Ivory are a big part of the Bills' plans going forward. If McCoy gets traded away, then sure. As things stand now, though? It doesn't seem like a very smart use of resources. If I was betting money on what position our 1st round pick will play, I'd bet that it's somewhere along the defensive line.

Not sure if anyone has said this yet, but the CFL gives each head coach ONE flag (separate from the usual challenge flags) with which to challenge a pass interference call. Since this rule was instituted, the average time of games in the CFL has actually gone DOWN. I don't see why we can't give each coach one flag -- say it's blue, just for the sake of argument -- and that's all they get. They can each challenge ONE pass interference play a game. Is that REALLY going to add a bunch to the length of games? I say no. If you're going to let PI be a spot foul, you have to let it be challenged.

Yeah. People completely overlook/ignore the fact that if McDermott wanted to be conservative and win low scoring games, he would have just kept Tyrod Taylor and possibly also Rick Dennison around. The fact that they jettisoned both the OC and QB right after they made the playoffs with them told me all I need to know about what McDermott wants out of his offense.

The Bills 100% need an upgrade at center. It's the third most important offensive position, after QB and LT. Everyone knows a young QB's best friend is a quality center. Ask Jim Kelly how he felt about Kent Hull. I really, REALLY hope the Bills don't rest on their laurels at the center position. It's a huge need. I'm fine with keeping Bodine as a backup.

Thanks for posting this. A lot of people rolled their eyes when Daboll was hired. Me? I was excited. I felt that his recent experience in the college game -- not to mention his added years being a part of New England's offense -- would mean modern passing concepts would FINALLY be coming to Buffalo, NY. Lo and behold, that's exactly what happened. The Bills incorporated more modern passing concepts last season than I've seen...well...maybe ever. It was refreshing and encouraging. For those that say McDermott prefers to win 13-10 defensive struggles, I disagree. And I think that the team taking a big-upside guy like Allen and pairing him with a creative mind like Daboll -- who, as the article pointed out, was running some cutting edge stuff by the end of the year -- is proof. McDermott wants to have a stifling defense, yes, but I think he also wants to score a ton of points. Couldn't be more excited about the 2019 season.

Personally, I think the Pats are going to handle the Rams relatively easily. Sadly, I think the SAINTS were the team that had the horses to beat the Pats. Why? Because the Saints held every rusher they faced this season under 75 yards. Stop the run and you beat the Pats. The Rams will not be able to stop the run. Sony Michel will have 100+ yards on the game, the Pats will shorten the game just like they did against the Chiefs, and they'll win easily. I'm STILL mad this morning about the non-call in the Saints game. I can't even imagine how Saints players and fans are feeling.

What a thoughtful and thorough response. So glad I spent the time. ? And with this, I'm logging off for the night to go have some dinner and watch a movie. I will happily pick up this conversation in the morning if anyone wishes to.

https://www.amnesty.org.uk/trump-human-rights-autopsy-report https://www.hrw.org/world-report/2018/country-chapters/united-states https://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/politics/421814-us-risks-human-rights-abuses-by-funding-border-wall https://www.seattletimes.com/opinion/trump-human-rights-and-hypocrisy/ http://hrlr.law.columbia.edu/the-trump-human-rights-tracker/ https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2018/06/withdraws-human-rights-council-180619173311272.html Above are six links from a variety of places, including Amnesty International, The Hill, The Seattle Times, and Columbia Law School's "Trump Human Rights Tracker". The second to last of these lists, among others, the following (and goes into further detail, if you click the link): - Ended Deferred Action for DACA program - Secretary of State lifted the human rights conditions on arms sales to Bahrain - Revoked protections for women in the workplace - Repealed a rule restricting coal companies from dumping mine waste into streams And as the Al Jazeera article discusses, the United States, under Trump's watch, withdrew from the Human Rights Council. As the above links detail, there have been a litany of human and civil rights abuses under Trump. Instead of immediately insulting me, feel free to click through the links and read the things that I'm reading that make me say that Trump is a human and civil rights NIGHTMARE. And before anyone comes back with "none of those are worse than human trafficking!": I NEVER SAID THEY WERE! NOT ONCE! I only said that to selectively be outraged about one (admittedly horrendous and important) thing while conveniently ignoring many OTHER horrendous and important issues (ranging from environmental destruction that will have far-reaching impact on many American citizens to civil rights abuses against immigrant and LGBTQ populations) was hypocritical. That's all. To keep claiming that I dismiss or don't recognize the importance of the human trafficking issue -- or that my dislike for Trump's wall plan means that I don't recognize the seriousness of said issue -- is just dishonest.

Your requests of me are flawed and unreasonable, and here's why: You're presenting Trump's wall as the ONLY reasonable way to curb human trafficking. You're speaking as though, by not wanting to build Trump's wall, I must support or overlook human trafficking, or that I don't think it's a problem. So when I said that Trump has done damage to human rights, you responded by asking me to justify how said damage is worse than human slavery, despite the fact that I said no such thing. I said that the ability to pinpoint human slavery as an issue to be passionate whilst also ignoring the litany of OTHER human rights abuses taking place under Trump's administration seemed a hypocritical position. I DID NOT say, nor have I at any point implied, that human trafficking isn't a problem or shouldn't be addressed. It obviously IS a problem. Trump's wall is not the only answer to that problem, though. Insisting that it IS the only answer, while also implying that I think human trafficking isn't a problem to begin with simply because I disagree with the wall, is inaccurate and unfair. TRUMP'S WALL IS NOT THE ONLY ANSWER TO HUMAN TRAFFICKING. NOT WANTING SAID WALL DOES NOT EQUAL NOT CARING ABOUT HUMAN TRAFFICKING OR NOT WANTING IT TO BE ADDRESSED!

Here's the honest truth: Everyone is free to use whatever language they want. And I'm free to think they if THEY think that using language that is derogatory to the mentally handicapped is funny and "no big deal" -- and choose to use said language over an infinite amount of other options in their FOOTBALL MESSAGE BOARD PROFILE -- then they probably aren't the most empathetic or kindhearted person around. DC Tom insults people CONSTANTLY on these forums. I think he has a lot of anger, and it's easier to take it out on internet strangers than to deal with it. It has nothing to do with controlling or censoring anything. Freedom of speech is a wonderful thing, but its consequence is the freedom of those who hear said speech to form opinions about the empathetic and intellectual capacity of the speaker. Cue more mean-hearted, sexist, homophobic or otherwise vitriolic responses now from the likes of DC Tom and The_Dude now. If all that you think Trump has done to damage human rights in this country and abroad is "mean tweets", then your head must be irretrievably deep in the sand.

I truly appreciate the thoughtful response and your willingness to share. With regard to your notion that I am silently complicit in human trafficking by rejecting the idea of the wall, though: Respectfully, I reject the ability of someone who believes that Donald Trump has "advanced the cause of human freedom" telling me that I am silently complicit in anything. To support Trump (though you were careful to say you don't support him, you DID imply that you support his actions as president) is to be complicit in a staggering laundry list of destructive, racist, xenophobic, inhumane, and vile acts and causes. I'm glad that the issue of human trafficking is important to you, though I'm not sure how such an apparently thoughtful and empathetic person could turn a blind eye to the litany of OTHER human rights abuses for which Trump has been partially or wholly responsible during his national tragedy of a presidency. Here comes some sexist comments from The_Dude to defend the guy who thinks saying "retards" is funny! Everyone gather 'round! I've been through this song and dance with you before, guy. You've made clearly exactly what type of fella you are. Have a nice day! I have no interest in controlling what words he can use. I just think that the words a person uses -- and the things that a person finds humorous, no less -- are often indicative of the character of the person using them.

There you go again. Insults are all you've got. One-trick pony. I suppose I shouldn't have expected any more from someone who still thinks it's funny and acceptable to casually use the term "retards".

Ever notice that you contribute little to any discussion other than personal insults? It's not surprising, given your avatar and whatnot. But yeah. You're basically just a parody account.

You're an idiot.

And another thing, @Deranged Rhino: You keep talking about how you've "personally talked to people on the southern border about the wall" and they all, "to a man", back you up. My article, citing multiple OTHER articles, stated 6. Border patrol agents don’t like concrete or steel walls because they block surveillance capabilities. In other words, they can’t mobilize correctly to meet challenges. So, in many ways, a wall makes their job more difficult. 7. Border patrol agents say walls are “meaningless” without agents and technology to support them. Are we prepared to pour countless billions annually—well after the wall is built—to create a nearly 2,000-mile militarized, 24-hour-surveillance border operation? Because according to patrol agents, that’s the only way a wall would work. So, as for the "many people" on the southern border that YOU'VE talked to about the issue who "to a man" want Trump's wall (which, by the way, I guess we're all just supposed to take you word for it that you've had these conversations and that these people actually exist): Not all border patrol agents agree. Yet you speak as though you represent the views of border agents universally. Between that bit of "take my word for it" conjecture and your "I care about it and you don't, that's the difference" line, you're pulling moves that would cause you to laugh your debate opponent off the floor if he tried them. That goes back to my point that you suffer from an assumed moral and intellectual superiority and hypocrisy...or as you once called it: Intellectual Dishonesty. And that's not to even MENTION the fact that you easily dismiss reasonable counter-arguments or op-eds as "pushing a narrative", while I suppose YOUR arguments and statements are...WHAT, exactly? Certainly not pushing your OWN narrative, right? Hypocrisy. May I ask if you consider yourself a Donald Trump supporter?

You have problems because your ONLY way of attempting to contribute to a debate seems to be to accuse those who think differently than you of condoning pedophilia and rape. Enough with that garbage. You're like a broken record.

Only in private, and it took a lot of yoga to get to this point. Because I have a differing viewpoint from you, I don't care about the issue? Sure Rhino, whatever you say. Good God almighty, you have problems.

Speaking of running way from posts filled with information and data... Care to comment on the post I made today citing numerous facts and statistics pointing out the futility and ineffectiveness of the wall? It included multiple quality and difficult-to-refute points and well reasoned arguments -- most coming from conservative outlets, no less -- and neither you nor any other seemingly wall-supporting person said a peep. The assumed moral and intellectual superiority -- not to mention hypocrisy -- of many on this forum is staggering.

https://medium.com/s/story/what-happened-when-a-trump-supporter-challenged-me-about-the-wall-e54e86a5edd1?fbclid=IwAR1d_5b4gazBYOJXw-p5LIBoTgCuDuQIlOuaW7hrrruu79u0ajjxcoX90pk The article above -- which I'm sure most won't click on before calling me an idiot -- uses only conservative sources to point out why the wall is such a bad idea. The pieces cited in the above article are listed below if you want to skip directly to them. They all point to the same fact, though: "The ugly genius of Trump is his ability to manipulate deep, primal emotions—namely fear and hate. Along with Fox News, he has convinced his base that immigrants put them in 'extreme danger' and only a wall will make them 'safe.' Unfortunately, their need to feel safe is much stronger than their will to grapple with a complex, multifaceted problem—a problem that will require serious engagement with complex policies to get at the root of it. And so, here we are, paralyzed by shutdowns at every turn." Cato Institute: “Why the Wall Won’t Work” https://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/why-wall-wont-work Former Reagan staffer and Tea-Party liaison Donna Wiesner Keene: “The Conservative Case Against a Border Fence” published by U.S. News & World Report. https://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2011/10/12/the-conservative-case-against-a-border-fence-trying-to-stop-illegal-immigration-with-a-really-big-fence-would-be-a-futile-waste-of-money The Chicago Tribune (a conservative-leaning paper): “Trump’s Wall Is Performance Art, Not Border Security” https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-perspec-chapman-trump-wall-mexico-immigration-20180314-story.html National Review (conservative magazine): “Trump’s Border Wall Plan Is Ridiculous on Its Face” https://www.nationalreview.com/2016/04/donald-trump-border-wall-plan-ridiculous-guaranteed-failure/ Additional non-partisan sources: Harvard Business Review (business-oriented): “A Wall Won’t Secure the U.S.-Mexico Border, but Economic Policy Could” https://hbr.org/2017/02/a-wall-wont-secure-the-u-s-mexico-border-but-economic-policy-could Nonpartisan Migration Policy Institute (MPI): “Borders and Walls: Do Barriers Deter Unauthorized Migration?” https://www.migrationpolicy.org/article/borders-and-walls-do-barriers-deter-unauthorized-migration

Underused? I'm not sure. OVERused? It's gotta be Shaud Williams. Every time the Bills were in 3rd and a mile, Mularkey would call a draw play to Shaud Williams. Every time. I still have nightmares about it.

No problem. Given that we're on a football discussion message board and are discussing drafting a defensive lineman, I figured giving my opinion on said topic would be reasonable. Thanks for yours!