TtownBillsFan
-
Posts
393 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Gallery
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by TtownBillsFan
-
-
LOL, whatever, dude. You seem to wear your feelings on your sleeves. Do better. I've seen you do better in prior posts. If you can't accept that it was a heady play, especially by a rookie, then it's your issue, not mine for noticing.
-
4 minutes ago, LSHMEAB said:
Pretty sure you meant glass half empty. And it's my nature to expect the worst and be pleasantly surprised if things go well. I'm staunchly averse to disappointment.
Yep, totally meant half-empty for you, as it seems to be your MO (here and in the dungeon). I don't know how people live that way, maybe its a defense mechanism. Not how I work, but it must work for you
Hopefully this one works out my way, and you can be happy about it as well! *cheers*
-
1
-
-
1 minute ago, LSHMEAB said:
When ScottLaw makes a statement like this, it's clear the guy has shown that those of us in the bust camp have seen some potential.
Don't mistake criticism for hate. It's on Josh's play to do the talking. He'll either improve or he won't. The "skeptics" are willing to give him a shot because 99% of us would love him to succeed. There's probably like 2 or 3 posters who'd rather be right than see the Bills have success.
Thank you for this. There are several of ya'll that seem really debbie downers on stuff (yes, you and Scott are two of the many). But you are correct in noticing improvement. And I've seen enough from both of you to know that you're fans of the team, even if glass-half-full types. The fact that ya'll will come around is good enough, and it will happen. Just know that there's spots on the bandwagon for ya when you want to get a full-time seat!
Just now, Alphadawg7 said:Hahaha thanks! And fair enough, I get where you are coming from and it’s fair. I mean I am very optimistic about him, but also still know he has plenty of work ahead. But truth is, I wanted nothing to do with him when the off season began last year. But he won me over after quickly showing big strides working briefly with Palmer and then just seeing him grow and make big strides here, especially the last 3 games vs early season.
Truth time: When they announced Josh- I expected Rosen, and it was who I was pulling for us to take (since my boy, OU fan here, Mayfield was already gone). I think they chose the right Josh now, but at that minute, I wasn't sure they did.
-
1
-
-
OH, LOL, I know, I see them, and say WTF. Many of Brady's are "that should have been grounding, but the league won't call it, so there, have that, ground!".
-
Count me as one of them. Mark it down, set it in stone. Not the coach (yeah, I'd love to have Reid as an OC), but I wouldn't trade our QB. And I think it's better to have a brilliant OC, and a defensive-minded HC. So I wouldn't take that trade. I'm not saying McCoach is a great HC, but I'm saying I'd prefer a HC that's more defensive-minded, and a mad-scientist as OC. And, I'd still take JA versus Mahomes, right now. I know that's blasphemy for what he's doing right now, but I'll stand by it, and what I think we have in QB.
And I think our OC might be pretty okay, given some weapons to work with. I'm not sure if you noticed some of the crazy stuff he tried, some that worked, some that was just-off from working, but he's pretty creative.
-
1
-
-
1 minute ago, ScottLaw said:
He still has his inaccuracy issues.
But they aren't nearly as bad as many make it out to be.
Allen has had one or two 'ugh' passes a game, no doubt. They seem to be on the really short (behind the line even) passes, where he's having to take alot of the 'rifle' off of the pass. No doubt, he needs to work on his touch. But good grief, he's a rookie, who's touch was always in need of improving. I just don't get why some people can't seen the good, and improvement that has been made. Are some of ya'll up in Buffalo just that miserable? Good things are coming in the way of the football team!
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, The Drought said:
I'll give them McD, Allen and McCoy for...
Reid and Mahomes
Not me, but stick with this position. I'll mark "The Drought" down as one that doesn't think we're heading in the right direction in the AFCE. I think we have our QB and McCoach, so long as Frazier isn't allowed to call gameday calls. Add an OL and WR or two, and a TE, and I think we're in the playoffs again next year, and for years to come.
-
1
-
-
LOL, fair enough. But JA is ALL OVER Rodgers in ability to move with the football in his hands, AND CLOWN DE's and DT's while doing it. JA's stiff-arm pimp-hand is stupid-strong.
-
4 minutes ago, LABILLBACKER said:
There are zero consistent receivers on this team. There might be promise in Jones or Foster someday but if you include TE, the Bills receiving corp is the worst in the NFL. if you factor in all the drops this year, Josh is probably close to 60%.
Truth. And I'm super-disappointed in Charles Clay! He's a University of Tulsa guy (my Alma Mater), and he WAS Tulsa's offense while he was there. He was SOOOO good. I think he got used up at TU though, as he hasn't had the same impact in the NFL, even with Miami. Nagging injuries have limited his immense ability, and it's a friggin shame.
-
8 minutes ago, JerseyBills said:
Lol. It's just that Rodgers seems to make a living off that, it feels like he's doing that every time i see the Pack play . He was the player that came to mind when Allen threw the deep ball knowing the D was Offside, Rodgers consistently will chuck it deep when the D is Offside. Not many QBs do . I just thought it was a very heady play for a rookie , and again, our previous QB would never make a throw like that, as he seemed to be stuck in his head, nervous in the pocket and didn't trust his throwing ability, so Taylor was thinking, while Allen just reacted and made a veteran throw there.
It was, Jersey. Don't know why mr. fixit is being douchy about it. It's a heady play, that you WANT your QB to make. But especially heady for a rook. And I was as big a Tyrod Taylor fan as there was, but he didn't do it often (if ever). I'm wondering if it's b/c he couldn't see over his line to see it happening! LOL!
-
1 minute ago, transplantbillsfan said:
There were at least 5 blatantly unacceptable drops in the Jets game.
Suddenly, Allen's over 60%.
Our WRs drop balls CONSISTENTLY and MULTIPLE times a game that you see dropped by other QBs' WRs once every 2 or 3 games.
Other WRs drop balls in traffic.
Buffalo WRs drop balls with no one around at all. Clay's done it at least twice in the last 2 games and Jones did it last game.
They also just drop almost every single pass where they're actually contested.
Our WR corps blows and is a huge reason Allen's development has been hindered.
Yep, and just imagine what he can be with a true #1, a trusted slot or TE that can be counted on to catch one over the middle (including even 50% of the 'contested' catches), and a run game where he's not the highest rusher.
Maybe I'm just a rose-colored glasses-wearing, cool-aid-drinking homer, but sheesh, that's what being a fan is about. I've been this way since the day Thurmal joined the Buffalo Bills. And I'm seeing a QB that has the same swagger, the same moxie, as Mr. JK. Not saying he'll get there, but dangit, for the first time in decades, I have that hope! I haven't been this confident in our QB since Drew Bledsoe. Let's get a team around this mountain of a kid, and see what he can do!
-
1
-
-
1 minute ago, Passepartout said:
Yeah as need to hire some referees that are younger or that of in the forties. To make it fair and square.
If you're trying to say they need younger refs, then yeah, agreed. Younger, full-time, and more competent, with their jobs on the lines with multiple, egregiously bad calls (or non-calls).
-
1
-
-
BM4J, I think there's some merit in what you said. As they say, they could call holding on every play. So either get rid of it altogether, or make it so only egregious holding is called. That'd make the QB more safe (which they seem to want), make the sub-standard line-play we get better (if they can grab from the front and hold, just not from the side), lessen the number of calls per game, and speed things up. Make it so Guards and Centers can literally hold the guys jersey in front of them, and not let them around, but the OT's have to play by the rules we're currently under.
That'd make premium edge-rushers even more valuable, make the blitz even more valuable, but allow you to have big road-graders in the middle that can do their job, while also improve the run game (given you now have big-mean-strong push-your-guy in the middle). I've seen the idea of allowing holding altogether, and as long as you're not holding a receiver, I think it could work. Yes, it'd change the game, but would it be worse? I think not.
-
The casual, non-Bills fan probably doesn't. But the points hold merit, and to those on this board, should give one hope above what Bucky's and Barnwell's reports, alone, would relay. But you probably already know that.
-
On 11/19/2018 at 12:38 PM, LeviF91 said:
"No one wants to take your guns."
Daily reminder that SJW's always lie, and there is no such thing as "common sense gun control measures."
Shall not be infringed.
I'm at page 148 of 150, but I think the point has already been made, more guns in the hand of good people = better, right? I mean, if we're to believe that most (or more than half) of people are 'good' by birth/definition/etc, then we'd be better with more guns in the hand of the greater population of good people, right? Math?
I'm quite sure that that's not what the left is arguing, but by definition, if we're to assume that the vast majority of people are 'good', then the simple answer is more guns in the hand of good people = better.
Yep, you're right Jeremy, makes perfect sense. Why thank you, everyone. that was asking. Seems pretty simple.
I get why Trump might have a problem with some of these questions. It seems to me the answers are so crazy-common-sense
-
1 hour ago, Azalin said:
Let's be fair. Trump did run against JEB (among other republicans, obviously), and Trump's abrasive (to say the least) campaign style would invoke the ire of any politically dynastic family whose member was running against him. Trump tore JEB a new one. His family is understandably angry with him.
For the moment I'm setting aside the Bush family/uniparty/establishment/swamp dynamic and cutting them some slack for why they would have a beef with president Trump.
And for the record, in my opinion we haven't yet had a president who I wouldn't wish well in the afterlife.
All very true. I guess I just think of Trump differently, non-politically. Maybe unfairly, as he's certainly political now, but he's not the normal politician. Bufftex called me out above, and rightfully so The Bushes were silent as ex-pres's on policy issues, as I'm sure he knows (and observed, as they never spoke out about anything). But they were defending their own Low-Energy guy from the family, so they did have to 'speak out' in that regard
I think Bufftex probably knows what I meant, but whatever
-
Ugh, just realized what it looks like here at the end. That's the problem with quoting a post from a couple days ago, and it not pulling in all of the quoted items in context. Bah!
Oh well, I suck or am a retarded or whatever it is from DC, LOL, good on me. I stand by and beyond what I said (and yes, beyond on porpoise).
-
On 11/26/2018 at 2:11 PM, TakeYouToTasker said:
Talk about projecting...
They're literally accusing the President of all the crimes they themselves are guilty of.
This is a stupid post. Staggeringly so.
It's really not, as smart at you TTYTT. It's literally what they're doing to us.
-
On 11/20/2018 at 12:10 AM, Deranged Rhino said:
I always dismissed it as well. Until 2015 when I started to really look into it for purely entertainment/work reasons at the time. Here's the thing about that particular rabbit hole - or at least what I've learned over the past few years really trying to get to the bottom of whether or not it's real or just fear mongering:
(Leaving this slightly vague for the purposes of not giving people nightmares)
If you strip away the sensationalism, and focus on the actual occult practices rather than the "Church of Satan" Luciferians (who aren't satanic in terms of occult practices and beliefs), what you discover is that it's an ancient belief system. It's very much a religion, but it's Babylonian (or earlier). It's existed, and been practiced and handed down from generation to generation in all sorts of secret societies and sects. The practitioners of these rituals and belief systems believe it has tangible benefits to their lives. They believe dark magic is real and capable of being harnessed in all sorts of ways to benefit themselves.
And because they believe it - they're willing to do horrific stuff to generate the outcome they believe in.
So whether or not the power/forces they are trying to harness are real or not is irrelevant. It could be complete bunk. The nuttiest cult in the history of nutty cults. But that's irrelevant if they believe it's real. And they do. And in turn they are committing horrible crimes in the name of their occultist beliefs.
Because of the thread we're in now I think it's VERY important to clarify something from the OP. The cabal/deep state (whatever term you wish to use) is NOT monolithic. The actual Baal and Moloch sects are just one group and it's international in composition, though a large percentage find themselves immersed in the western political system. Why? Because the blackmail material generated in these ceremonies and rituals (even the non lethal ones) is incredible useful in terms of controlling western politicians. Compromising them with minors or rituals of that type would be something the western people would never forgive or forget... hence, it's great for control.
This is an incredibly deep topic that IMMEDIATELY makes people tune out. And I get it, I understand it, I was one of the many who tuned it out whenever it came up because it sounds so ridiculous...
... Until you research and find things like this.
https://wikileaks.org/clinton-emails/emailid/14333
Just a joke, right? Because belief systems built around ancient Gods is conversational knowledge, right? Or is it the sort of joke that's funnier for people who understand that it's not chickens who were sacrificed to Moloch - but children.
Then there are witnesses, like this. As someone who knows bad acting or forced acting when he sees it, I dare anyone to listen to his story around the 24 minute mark where he breaks down being asked to participate in sacrifices of children and tell me he's acting.
(This topic isn't for everyone, I understand that fully - but since it was brought up I felt it important to share this information)
I just watched this, starting around the 22min mark, and no, no way in the world was this guy faking it. I don't know what I'm being asked to believe. I'm a little afraid of what I'm being asked to believe. But this guy is not faking it. He saw some *****, hard full stop.
I also watched it to the end from that point, and I'm not anti-jew in any way. I don't know if that's what we're supposed to take from it. Perhaps I need to watch the first 21 minutes
I won't be anti-any religion, as it's people, not religion, that's bad.
-
After they way the Bushes campaigned against our current president, I'm wondering if I shouldn't have a lesser opinion of them. But I do respect the way both of them refrained from all things politic after they were out of office, so I'll keep that stance, and wish him well in the afterlife.
-
9 hours ago, billsfan89 said:
Even if that is the case because they don't want to rattle the donors they won't push Medicare for All to the public. Meaning that you won't see your more center mainstream Dems going to talk shows and other platforms and pushing the fact that they passed Medicare for all and the Republicans blocked it. So they might make a token passing of it to appease the progressive base but it will not be at the forefront of the Dems policy agenda. They will push heavily the Russia probe and maybe something like Marijuana legalization and restoring Net Neutrality (there is enough of a lobby to put money into those sectors) but I don't see them actually doing more than token acknowledgement of a progressive/populist agenda.
Sadly the American political system is organized around money and special interests. There was a Harvard study that stated that 90% of the time the policy that has the most money behind it wins regardless of how popular it is.
Honest question: would you want Medicare for all? Taking the cost piece out of it completely, would you want that system in place for everyone? I, personally, would not, as I work, and have much better healthcare, BECAUSE I WORK AND PAY FOR A BETTER SYSTEM FOR MYSELF. But, if it was Medicare for all, I assume my ability to do so would be removed (or, probably more likely, employers such as mine would be forced, over time, to go to that, and would remove our current system of employer-paid healthcare.) We're self-insured, because we're a big enough employer to do so. So anytime we have a bad year, our premiums and out-of-pocket go up, as they did this year, as we had some high-cost stuff with some employees. But under Medicare for all, what happened with my group of employees would translate to all, and we'd ALL pay more. And fear not, that would happen EVERY SINGLE YEAR if it was shared by all.
So, would you want Medicare, knowing it's an inferior product to that that people that work for a living have, to take over as the only option? As that's the only way Medicare-for-all works. Or, would you allow those of us that work for a living and can pay for it, a better option? Honest question, and I await your answer.
In addition, know that I took a pay consideration (meaning less pay), knowing that the company I work for has awesome insurance. It's part of my 'compensation plan', and definitely was a big big part of why I took the position I'm in. I don't see the problem in that being part of a person's decision in where they work.
One last addition: we've all heard how bad government-ran healthcare has been for those that are on it, especially those that served in the military. Why in the world would you want to turn over something so important, at least according to the polls that were cited above, to a bloated and inept entity such as our government? I await your honest reply. Thanks!
-
2
-
-
This is what is wrong with media in total. I really, really hope that enough people have a DR awakening, and see it for what it is. It's only going to change if we can get enough honest brokers of truth to see the dishonesty that the MSM spreads, and then demands change.
-
Sad anytime one of our preses passes. He seemed a likable guy. God rest his soul.
-
4 hours ago, Commonsense said:
I’m still sticking by my story, some NFL execs sat around watching Big 12 football and thought it would be a great idea for their own product.
Would anyone like this as the norm? Maybe we need a poll. I’m interested in what that would look like.
I'm a die-hard Sooners fan, butI want no part of that for my NFL gameday experience. It's fun for college ball, but the NFL needs to play defense.
Thurman Thomas: 'A Football Life' - December 14th at 8 PM ET on NFL Network; Re-Airs at 8:15 PM ET on Monday (12-17)
in The Stadium Wall Archives
Posted
I have a red helmet signed by Thurmal. My wife got it for me, the signature, not the helmet. He was in Tulsa at one of the malls a good ten years back, and she took it and had it signed for me. Before we were married. One of the reasons I married the girl
She gets me and my Bills infatuation, In T-town, OK. 