Buffalo03

Child support is expensive and difficult whether you have multiple kids with one woman or multiple with different women lol. It's still expensive as hell

Child support isn't much better. That sh*t is expensive as hell

Dick Emberg was the best

I agree. I'm hoping it was just a defensive issue. The D seems to be much better pressure wise under Mc D than it did with Frazier. I'm hoping he can thrive in the change

When we extended Oliver, at first I was like "I would have rather given that money to Edmunds". After seeing how Oliver has played through 2 games, I'm glad I was wrong about that

Only white Bills?

Next week will be the 3rd in a row since they are playing the Dolphins this week and we got them next week. That's kinda strange actually

What is the point of having inactives? So, out of a 53 man roster, 48 players can be active but not the other 5? What sense does that make?

Dolphins fans just saw that Milano INT and was like "look how he tried to kill that guy to pick that ball off"

He made those DBs lose confidence and become Inshakir

Bust

The D is much better with McDermott calling it. There has been a big difference in pressure the last 2 weeks that we weren't getting last year

Diggs must have slept with Epps wife with that hit

I also remember Kelly in an interview saying that Howie Long told him "slow it down, slow it down" referring to the no huddle offense. After that, Kent Hull said to Kelly "speed it up, speed it up". That was on the Four Falls of Buffalo

Continuing on with the posts of opponents we are playing the coming week where we are playing them. I am going with the Raiders at Bills 1990 AFC Championship game. You have to click on the link to watch it because the NFL likes to block 33 year old games from being used on message board forums. But as we know, we destroyed the Raiders in this one 51-3 en route to our first Super Bowl as a franchise. We were hitting on all cylinders and I hope we can bounce back and do the same this week. Sit back and watch this beauty and enjoy. As always.....Go Bills!!!!!

He could if he wants. I just don't think it's necessary

I wouldn't apologize. I would just simply say to them that the allegations aren't true and go about business

And if that was one of the criteria, I was on a TEMP contract for 3 years. They could have let me go at any time they wanted. They chose to hold on to me until the very end and then let me and other people go with no explanation of any kind. Don't you think the fact that I was never a permanent employee would have made it a lot easier for them let go of me sooner if they had some sort of issue with how I "talk about the company in public"? You're grasping at straws

They didn't say anything to me about anything like that. I'm not dumb enough to publicly put online how I feel about a company I work for and no, there was no warning of anything. I promise you, I was not told a thing. I liked the place. Anything I did happen to maybe say in public was positive. I never even really talked to anyone I worked with outside of work. You have no clue what this criteria was, nor do I. So stop making assumptions that you wish were true much like you are doing with the Trotter situation

I DO understand that. I already told you I understand the sequence of events. You are clearly not understanding that I am saying, that unless this is recorded or in writing that any of this really happened. He has nothing. Let me give you an example of what I am talking about, about 10 years ago, I worked for a company for 3 and a half years. The company ran on year to year temp contracts. I had excellent reviews year after year. Busted my a** for the place and was told that they were gonna be keeping people on at the end of the contract to hire as official employees and that I was "on the right track". 4 months later, I got a group email that included about 30 people that there was a "meeting" that we had to attend. We find out at the end of the meeting that they weren't keeping us on as employees while hiring another group of people to stay on. When I and a few other people asked one of the managers specifically as to why we were not chosen, they told us "we had a certain criteria that we went by. Unfortunately you didn't meet it". When I asked what criteria they were referring to, I was specifically told it was something they weren't going to disclose. But it was completely contradictory of what they told me all the other prior reviews and what I was just told 4 months prior. The contract expired one month later and me and the group of people were never given a clear explanation as to why. True story Do you understand what I am saying to you? Telling you "we like you, we see no reason why we can't renew your contract and make you a bigger part of this company" means absolutely nothing because they can let you go when that contract runs out if they so choose. You can't be this naive

I understand, trust me I do. I get it, I understand it. I promise you. And I understand the sequence of events in how he "says" it happened. What I am saying is when you are going contract to contract, you can be told one thing and then told something else the next. They can tell you to your face that they really like you when behind closed doors, they can't stand you. And this is all something that Trotter is alleging. Is there any proof he was told this? Was it recorded? Was there something in writing? Or was it just a "they said this but did this" sort of thing. He is gonna have a hard time proving anything if this was just words said to him. How do we know he isn't making some of this stuff up? We don't. I'm not saying he is, I'm just saying. One minute you may be safe at a job or so you think. Maybe they don't wanna keep you but tell you they do and then the next minute they decide to let you go or not renew your contract. Either way, we don't know if he is bitter about the situation or any of this happened but if it was just something he was told, he will have a hard time proving it

It still proves nothing. You can be part of a jobs plans one minute and not the next. They can say "we like you and see you as part of this company" and then the next minute decide "we don't see you as a fit". It doesn't matter how "clear" it seems. It proves nothing. And why is he asking Goodell? Goodell has no say over who the NFL Network hires or promotes

And what does this prove? Nothing. He makes it sound like this is why he was let go. He has no proof of that. Anyone can say "I see no reason why we can't renew your contract" and then choose not to renew it at any time. If he doesn't lose his job and his contract gets renewed, there is no lawsuit

Mike Giardi was another bigger name from the network let go as well. Trotter wasn't the only one. And if he still has his job, there probably is no suit

And the NFL Network was letting a group of people go which included Rachel Bonnetta and some others and he was part of that group. I don't know if all their contracts were up and they were cutting back on staff or what. All I know is, they didn't let him go separately from other people. He was part of a group that they let go a few months back