Buffalo03

Again, as you so graciously ignored, the last comment I made to you was if you put a woman in BOTH scenarios, why does she get a pass for a rape but not an assault that leaves her with possible permanent brain damage? They are both violent crimes and should be reported in a timely matter. One should not get a pass over the other

Did you miss the part where I said assault and car theft? Or did you leave that out intentionally? How about you answer the question. Is rape worse than being beaten to a pulp and getting your car taken away? If it was a woman in both scenarios, and she chose not to report either or for 20 plus years, you would be ok with her waiting to report the rape but not the assault? One violent crime gets a pass and the other doesn't? OK then

You have absolutely no proof of that. How about we put a woman in this scenario. Would you believe her and think she should get paid if she was assaulted and beaten and had her car stolen 23 years ago and is now looking to file a lawsuit? Or is it only in rape cases that she is "telling the truth" and that's ok?

No, I didn't. The main reason I brought this up is assault and rape or whatever, should be reported in a timely matter. And the longer you wait the more ridiculous it looks. So, if someone gets beaten to a pulp and has their car stolen, that's a lot better than rape? They are both crimes that would harm either individual but one person gets a pass and the other gets criticized. Assault and rape are both major crimes

If I was assaulted and beaten and had my car stolen in 2002 and I just now came forward with it with a lawsuit, how would that look? How is it also any different from this? Granted, rape and the situation I'm referring to are different allegations. But the time frame of reporting would cause concerns, correct? I bet all the people saying "women should be able to report 20, 30, 40 year old rape allegations" would also be asking why it took so long for a person to report an assault and theft of property over 20 years later, right? Why do women always get a pass in this case?

The longer it takes for women to come out, the harder they are to believe. And him being an ex NFL player, you don't think he has somewhat of a nice nest egg? Maybe the women themselves have been in better financial situations over the last 30 years. A lot can happen to people in that time. Someone may be financially stable at one point in their life and then for a number of reasons, something happens and they become desperate for money. I personally feel the smartest thing for any woman to do is report is as soon as possible. If he did this to 10 different women at the same time and not one says something over 30 years and then boom he is hit with 10 all at once 30 years later, it just screams money grab to me. Maybe it isn't but I do agree, woman should come out sooner

I mean, he is in some ways. Not every throw he makes is on the run or outside the pocket

That stadium is only 26 years old. Why the rush?

Me. I can be CB2. I will be 39 at the end of the month. I'm 5'10 240 pounds and probably run about an 8 second 40 time. What do you all think?

I just hope if he actually stays healthy and Balls out that the Bills do decide to bring him back, though and that this isn't his final year for us regardless

Teams can't afford paying every position $30 or $40 million a year and as you said, if I am paying for tickets, I wanna see a good product. When you have to let some good players go because you are paying DBs $30 million a year, then it isn't intriguing to the fan

These contracts are getting out of hand. Soon teams will be paying punters $20 million a year

Single digit numbers for anyone that's not a QB is just stupid. A LB wearing 8?

4th and 15 isn't that easy. It's one down to get 15 yards. And if you don't want a team getting 2 late scores to steal games, stop them. The whole argument of "that team dominated for 75% of the game so the other team should have a harder time of winning it" is stupid. If a team is up by 21 late and let's up 2 TDs or 2 TDs and a FG in the 4th quarter, and now the other team has a chance with a minute or 2 left, that's their problem. Now they have to stop them again on 4th &15 from the 30. I'm all for it

There should be some sort of PED out clause in contracts. If you sign a player before you know they test positive, you should have the ability to release them with no penalty

Wouldn't you admit that we are closer to a Super win than the Chargers? Not sure why him saying that makes you feel that way

Is it sad that this dude is better than Elam?

How about $100 in a card? Think they can use it?

I'd sign Diggs personally. Dude's a baller

He's still in the league? I can imagine that call Laviska: Hello Beane: Laviska, Brandon Beane of the Buffalo Bills. How are you? Laviska: Sitting on the couch eating oreos. Is this for real?

Picking in the back 5 picks every year also is part of it. You don't typically find top 5 players in the backend of the draft

I'm so sick of the "the winning team through 3 quarters played a better game" argument. There's 4 quarters. If that same team that dominated for 3 quarters that's up 28 let's them back in the game in the 4th quarter and score 3TDs to come within a TD, that's their fault. An onside kick needs to travel 10 yards. Guess who's standing exactly 10 yards away with the ball kicked directly at them, the receiving team. The kicking team needs to basically run a whole 10 yards to recover the thing unless they get lucky on a bounce or the receiving team messes up and fumbles it or something. The play heavily favors the receiving team too much. Getting 15 yards on one play still isn't all that easy to accomplish. If the NFL made adjustments on all automatic first down penalties for the offense that the defense commits on that specific instance, it would be fine. Instead of an automatic first down, it's a 5 yard penalty and a do over on 4th down now with a 4th & 10. When you watch your team get back into a game and then know the have a 1% chance of winning on an onside kick, it's crappy. The 4th & 15 at least gives the team some hope and the team that "dominated" all game that let them back into the game has to now stop them. Perfectly fine by me. I get into this argument with the point system in hockey. Why are you getting a point just for going into OT? And people say "well, it's because they played an outstanding game of hockey" who cares? If 2 teams play an outstanding game of football through 4 quarters, does that mean that each team should be granted half a win just by going to OT?

They lowered OT down from 15:00 to 10:00 for "player safety" but then proceeded to add an entire game to the schedule after that. I don't wanna hear about physical nature of the game or "player safety". 15:00 OTs make a lot more sense

This could be the one instance where there is no automatic first down. They can make it to where defensive holding on this particular play is just like a 5 yard difference or something. So, instead of it being 1st & 10, it becomes 4th & 10 and 5 yards closer. The same can be done with PI. It's a 5 yard penalty and a 4th & 10 instead of a spot foul. Or just a redo down but you only get 3 tries. If the defense commits PI or holding. It is a 4th & 15 again. If the defense commits one of those 2 penalties again, then it's a 4th & 10 & 5 yards closer. If the defense does it a 3rd time then it's an automatic 1st down. If the offense commits a penalty then it's a turnover on downs and no 2nd opportunity. There are ways to work around it but to me the onside kick is outdated and just doesn't work anymore. Everything about it favors the receiving team

I really want them to go back to 15:00 OT quarters instead of 10:00. It's stupid and makes no sense. And for the love of God, Eliminate the onside kick. I have been in favor of the 4th & 15 play from the 30 or 35 yard line. The onside kick, especially with the new rules of no surprise onside is just an automatic game over for the kicking team. A 4th & 15 at least gives them a a somewhat better chance