BullBuchanan

What about whiskey? You still have to fight the lines. I think it's more of a problem that it's not, because people overdo it outside.

Not allowing a QB to be himself is exactly how the franchise ruined whatever potential Losman and Taylor had.

I only saw his last drive, but he looked pretty good to me, and I don't like the kid.

Cut Yeldon, Keep Wade

He certainly isn't living up to his likeness.

That's fine. he has plenty of time. If careers were written by rookie training camp, we wouldn't have quite a few HOFers.

because he scored 33 TDs over 2 years in a major conference with no experience as a WR?

You can always have another baby. There will never be another Peyton Manning.

ya know, nine eleven tavern is on the way to Orchard Park

Do you typically hear about 5th round picks a couple weeks into training camp? Most likely he'll play special teams for a couple years and be out of the league like 90% of 5th round picks, and there's nothing wrong with having him fill that role. anything more is a massive bonus.

See, that's where your bias starts to show through. He was objectively not garbage. He had a 59.8 completion % with a 2.5-1 TD/Int ratio over his career on some really bad teams. And those teams did not improve during his benching. In fact SF has kinda been trash since, except for Jimmy G's run 2 years ago to close out the season. He may not have ended up an all-star or even a starter, but he'd at absolute worst be a top 3 backup in this league with an ability to come in and win games.

I take it compensation comes in the form of exposure?

Yet you act like it's some moral injustice that they don't show up to play. RBs in particular provide extremely high value over extremely short windows. They have to take advantage before what happened to Gurley and countless other backs inevitably happens to them. If the league wants to fix it, which they don't, they'd do fully guaranteed contracts liek every other sport. It's funny watching the richest sports league act like the poorest.

This is hilariously out of touch. Do you say the same thing to the owners who cut talent mid-way through contracts? I'm all for these guys getting their money, because the owners will give them the least amount they have to. Holding out is their only option.

Not sure if this site is accurate, but looks like OJ was the very first inductee in 1980 and stood alone until 1984: http://billsfans1.tripod.com/wall_fame.html

OJ's on the wall, because he's arguably the greatest Buffalo Bill of all time. To this day his guilt has never been proven, so how are you going to take him off now without new evidence? I mean, it's a really bad look, but what can you do and where do you draw the line? The requirements for being found "liable" in a civil case are extremely less rigorous than being found "guilty" in a criminal trial. If you were going to do it 25 years ago, you could make a case for it, but how and why now? "According to The Wall Street Journal, in a criminal trial, the jury must unanimously find the defendant guilty"beyond a reasonable doubt" in order to convict. However, the same burden of proof does not exist in civil cases, which merely require what's referred to as a "preponderance of evidence." According to Cornell University Law School, that "preponderance of evidence" means that at least "50 percent of the evidence points to something," rather than requiring a unanimous decision." https://www.bustle.com/articles/152048-what-does-oj-simpsons-civil-trial-verdict-mean-liable-does-not-mean-guilty

Forgetting of course that he was found not guilty, like it or not.

I'm guessing all 3 apply in this case.

I think their logic goes: Not elite college LTs make good NFL RT's and Not elite college RTs make good NFL guards.

I recall that the draftnicks suggested he'd be a better guard than a tackle in the pros, so maybe it's not that big of a deal?

Isn't there a rally somewhere that you should be at?

And? I'm just trying to get to the bottom of what an internet blogger is, and why it discredits someone from being a real journalist in 2019. It's an extremely outdated term that suggests he's just some guy on reddit with a hot take. Newspapers have been dead for 10 years, and any serious journalist treats online content as their first source these days. If you want to say he doesn't have enough market reach, or he isn't affiliated with a big enough brand - yea ok, that makes sense. But the whole "blogger" thing just makes me think that there's just a bunch of old guys sitting around here waiting for this internet fad thing to end.

So if you're an editor for ESPN.com are you an "internet blogger"? How do you define that?