BullBuchanan

Both Ekeler and Connor are top 5 backs alone. Spiller for the chargers is coming out of college with a lot of praise. In AZ, Williams was a big contributor last year for the Chiefs both on the ground and through the air. Ingram is also a highly touted rookie. Of the RB squads I listed, I think they're one of the stronger groups. Conner > Singletary, Williams > Moss, Ingram v Cook is unknown with Cook having the edge as a pass catcher. My original point wasn't that we needed to be better than these teams, just that if we were going to move moss, I'd prefer that we do so in an effort to upgrade top end talent instead of just more depth. I don't think any of that is happening though. I expect Singletary to not be re-signed, and Moss and Cook to split duties with a rookie or otherwise cheap player filling in 3rd string depth.

Any team with a top end #1, and any with better platoons so that would be Indy, Tenn, Car, Minn, LAC, Dal, Cle, AZ, Bal. The 10th spot is where I could argue for the Bills. Both Pitt and Cinci have a great No. 1, but zero depth. Den is very comparable to us as of now.

Settle down, chief. Like I said, I'd prefer we had more players with special skills. Singletary and Moss are both middling JAGs that don't do anything special. We have strong depth but it's a depth of mediocre talent pending Cook. There's at least 10 RB rooms I'd prefer - maybe more.

I'm not much of a fan of our RB room. I think it's solid, but I'd prefer some more elite skills - hopefully Cook brings that. That said, there's no upside in trading Moss unless they would be replacing him with someone better - and I'm not sure who that player would be. It isn't Blackshear.

This has been a rumor for months.

It would probably be an undersized, over-achieving Division III linebacker that he converts to Tight End.

I think that's technically correct yea. They could hold on to him a little while longer, but since no more football is being played, I suspect it's unlikely Mahomes is going down or anything like that.

If he makes the opening 53 his full salary for the year would be guaranteed. If they cut him now they recoup $24M in cap. They currently have the least cap space in the NFL. He would be untradeable if they wait any longer.

The Diggs one was outstanding. Micah Hyde comes off as the team Dad.

This isn't the place for this discussion, but obviously crime is going to increase as more people exit pandemic-era isolation, return to work, etc. How do the numbers compare to 2018/2019? Of course there are other dynamics at play too.

He can play, but he isn't the same player he was 5-10 years ago

It's not meaningless to Clemons. It's a ***** thing to happen to Tyrod. I really like the guy, but people get hurt ever week. I hate pre-season football as much as anyone, but I wouldn't ever want the NFL to be without it. What makes NFL football such a good sport compared to just about every other sport or level of football is how high the bar is. I want every team playing their best football and ready to roll come week one - not a bunch of teams that have no idea what they're doing halfway through the year. The Lions, Commanders, and Jaguars give us enough of that.

King (if still in the same form he was) is one of the top 2 options available along with 40 year old Dustin Colquitt. I'd be thrilled to have him here.

That was stated right in the lawsuit - i don't see how there's any contradiction or how her admission of being unaware of all the parties involved is highly relevant. That's what the police are supposed to be for. She claimed that she knows she had sex with Araiza (which is a crime on his part) and that he led her back to a room where she was raped (which would also be a crime(s) even if he did not take part). I agree that I don't think there's been any success here - beyond getting attention and public pressure on a story that a university tried to bury (yet again). However, that in itself is meaningful given what we've seen over the years as related to incidents of sexual assault. Had he made the team, he'd at least have a couple million dollars to go after. Now he'll be broke. Not sure why they'd want to get him released if their goal was financial restitution.

Even if it's video, 3TB is ~90-150 hours of 4k Blu-Ray quality video. I find it unlikely that much material is actual evidence. More than likely, they have dumps of multiple devices that include mountains of unrelated data.

Maybe, maybe not. Before her lawyer got involved this whole story was buried for nearly a year, so I'd say they've done a lot more good than bad. Regardless, what you think about someone's lawyer shouldn't have any bearing on the case unless they are making seemingly false or provably false accusations or are acting in a defamatory manner - none of which I've seen so far.

I believe it's a distraction from the subject at hand and irrelevant to the truth.

No, I didn't. My take has been consistent from the very beginning. I wanted him released regardless of guilt due to his distraction to the team. I believe I e told you this on multiple occasions. I'm perfectly capable of saying what I believe without you having to define it for me. I believe in truth and justice, which victims of sexual assault overwhelmingly do not receive. If he's innocent, he'll walk. If he's guilty he may walk too. All of that is to be determined. If he was trying to convince anyone of his innocence however, he hasn't succeeded. No one says he has to, and maybe legally that isn't the right thing for him to do. It doesn't make him guilty, but it's an odd look to not publicly deny the allegations in a stronger manner than he did.

Not really, no. See my previous comment. Going after her lawyer just seems like an ad hominem to me. Jane Doe could fire him tomorrow and we don't have any reason to believe that anything about the story would change. To me, that's the only thing that matters. There's been an attempt to discredit her legal representation since the very early pages on this thread based on things as unrelated as who he talks to on Twitter. That's very troublesome to me.

Attempting to discredit the plaintiffs attorney only serves to discredit the plaintiff which is highly inappropriate. So the attorney can't issue subpoenas. Cool. We know that and can move on froma pretty innocuous detail. With respect to lying about a settlement offer? I think that's all caught in the bickering between the two lawyers, and if it isn't again I'm not really concerned. I care about the actual story, not the way the lawyer does his job.

Ok, cool. That all seems like fluff to me well outside of the main story.

I didn't levy the accusations. I responded to them. Pay attention.

This is nonsense. The baseless attacks attempting to discredit the broad journalist community over the last several years based on ominous "agendas" is a tired take. What "agenda" is in play here? Should the news be burying the story like the university did?

What does "the media" have to do with it? There hasn't been anything said in reports fromt he media that I've seen that wasn't presented directly by the victim's lawyer. To me, the biggest part is that the university buried/covered up this story., and my question is did the police help them? if it is determined there was a coverup here, I would sure if I were the Bills

It's almost like maybe police don't always do the right thing. I dunno.