The Red King

As I said before, this looks like a diva throwing a tantrum because someone (Buffalo) didn't bow to his demands. Why would he be this fixated on Buffalo otherwise? Buffalo had the audacity to not give the legend in his own mind everything he wanted. If I was a FA and said to my agent, "You know, not Buffalo." then got Vegas, I'd be happy. I didn't want to go to Buffalo, I didn't go there. That would be the end of it. I wouldn't be like "You know who sucks? Buffalo.", "Buffalo is my least favorite city in New York.", "Did I mention Vegas = Yay!, Buffalo = Boo!", "I could have gone to Buffalo, but didn't want to.", "You know a city I don't like? Buffalo.", "Buffalo is a city full of doo-doo heads!", "Man, I'm glad I didn't go to Buffalo." ...etc. For someone that supposedly wanted nothing to do with Buffalo, he certainly can't stop talking about it, can he? That's the behavior of someone who is seriously butt-hurt, not someone who simply didn't want to come here from the start.

He acts like he just landed with the Pats, not the Raiders. That aside...I wanna read into it. Why is AB suddenly so hostile to Buffalo? I'm wondering if he isn't a jilted lover. I get the feeling maybe Beane didn't want to give him the $$$ money he wanted and walked away leaving AB bitter and lashing out on social media. Think about it, if it all went down the way AB's claiming, why continue to attack Buffalo? This seems personal.

"Numbers don't lie." Hey, let's have a competition. I'll throw twenty passes to NFL recievers. Brady can throw those same twenty to one-year olds. Bet my numbers will be better, and since numbers don't lie that will prove I'm a more accurate QB then Brady, right? ?

Josh Allen had far more touchdowns, rushing yards and passing yards in his rookie year then Mahomes did.

Mike Rodak, this guy, right? With this preseason article? http://www.espn.com/blog/buffalo-bills/post/_/id/28518/bills-set-up-tyrod-taylor-to-fail-blow-up-2017-season-with-shocking-trades , with the headline "Bills set up Tyrod Taylor to fail, blowing up 2017 season with shocking trades" and opens with this wonderfully ironic line "BUFFALO -- Turn out the lights on the Buffalo Bills' 2017 season, because it is over before it started."? This kind of deep, insightful take? The season the Bills broke a seventeen year playoff drought was over before it started? ? As stated by multiple posters prior, Rodak is disliked because all of his Bills' coverage is negative. Even in the Bills' brightest moments, he finds any spot of tarnish, real of imagined to throw shade at the team. Compare this to his coverage of the Patriots, where everything is positive, even if it's negative. If his reporting style was consistant with both teams, most people would be fine. Yes, there would be a lot more positive pieces about the Pats for obvious reasons, but it's fair and well-deserved. But actually take a look and you will see day in and day out, article to article that according to Rodak New England can do nothing at all wrong, and Buffalo can't do anything, nothing at all right. And that...is why he's disliked among many here.

I think the idea here is more we actually look like we have a plan. Whether it works or not, whether players pan out or not, Beane has a plan and is actually attempting to build a team properly, filling holes in FA and the draft. On paper this team looks notably stronger then last season. Offseason moves seem to be made with the goal of putting more games in the win column as opposed to the past where flashy moves were more designed to put fans in the stands. I, for one, welcome this change.

Not in the least, which is why I'm wondering why Cleveland's getting it. Improved, yes. Best in AFC? No.

Again, this isn't about whether or not Cleveland could be good. It's about the media already putting them on par with NE and KC with nothing being proven. Yes, they have a roster that could go to the big game, no doubt. Don't think I'm quite ready to say with certainty already that they're as good as NE and KC. Not without seeing a bit of the product on the field.

Not saying they won't be good, but you're telling me they're one of the top three teams in the AFC right now?

"Good" isn't the same as "best in the AFC". I mean, in that poll they were put on par with NE and KC, and above every other AFC team based solely on how they look on paper.

Yeah, but best in the entire AFC?

...wish I was making it up. Thanks for that helpful tidbit, except this post is questioning why the Browns are given a free pass while the Bills have to prove themselves, so it is Bills' relevant. ?

Following free agency, I hopped over to nfl.com and saw an article on whether or not the Patriots were still the favorites. Poking through the comments though, I saw no mention of the improvements the Bills and Jets have made, most noting the AFC East will be a cakewalk for the Pats. Okay, I get it, improvements on paper are one thing, but you gotta show improvement on the field. At the same time, one analyst mentions the Chiefs and Browns as competition. And the official website poll asks which team is the best in the AFC. The options are the Pats, the Chiefs, and the...Browns? ? Not the Chargers, not the Steelers, not the Ravens...the Browns. Yes, the Browns have improved since last year, but they went 7-8-1, a losing record. How do they get included in "best of the AFC" discussions without having to prove anything? Last year was no different, despite going 0-16, some people were picking them to make and even go deep in the playoffs! I guess I'm just wondering why teams like the Bills and Jets have to prove themselves and the Browns, who have been categorically/historically worse then them get a free pass and become the sexy favorite?

Alright, too many posts to properly quote off my phone. @Foxx, guilty, and I apologize for it. @3rdnlng, point taken thank you, I'll keep an eye on things and see how things (and people) work here. There are several intriguing topics here as-is. As for this one, I fear we veered off-topic, and in regards to the original post I think I stated my case as best I can, so I'll likely bow out here. But just here, not PPP. Like a gas bubble after a spicy meal, I will rise again. But for now, I think it's cough medicine and bed. TTFN!

If you're going to assume I am a diehard dem supporter, and my dislike of the electoral college is party-driven despite my saying otherwise, I see no reason to waste my breath. Youve already drawn conclusions and my words are falling on deaf ears. If nothing else I have to thank you both for being such perfect examples of party-centric partisan, if they ain't for us, they're 'gainst us mindset I mentioned earlier. Yes, by all means keep believing everyone that opposes the electoral collage must be a pesky Trump-hating democrat. I'll be over here, not jumping to assumptions. Thanks. I have a thick skin, and love open debate. I'm not arrogant enough to think my political beliefs unshakable. At the same time, I have little patience for fanatisism, and will disengage from a discussion if I feel I'm hitting it head on. If someone doesn't actually take the time to read/listen, why bother continuing to craft well-thought out replies?

...yeah, you're definately not actually reading what I'm typing.

Go and show where I said Trump isn't the president, or didn't win legitimately. Go on, I'll wait. In the meantime you might pass my post where I said the opposite. Let me be clear. I don't care who wins any given presidency, I oppose the electoral collage for reasons given. And I opposed it before the 2016 election.

I take issue that an individual's vote carries different weight depending what state you live in. It is a system that forces canidates to focus only on battlefield states.

Are...you even reading my posts? Or did you just (incorrectly) assume I was a headstrong dem and started spewing random propoganda? People like you scare me...

You're making assumptions. Things evolve, and systems evolve with them. If I recall correctly, slavery was legal when the US was founded, and women were not treated as equals. I think I'd rather trust a system that is properly evaluated for the internet era we live in, rather then rely on something because it's how our pa did it, and their pa, and...

Um...yes? Never said it was a problem that favored one party or the other. Just that it was a problem overall.

Specifically the all or nothing nature. If you live in a state with a heavy lean to one color, your vote carries less weight then if you live in a battlefield state. A system implemented to force canidates to focus on small states as well a big has somehow morphed to one where canidates only focus on a handful of key states.

Agreed. He won the election. I have my own (poor) opinions on the Electoral Collage, but it's still the current system.

Thanks. Fighting bronchitis, so I was a bit more terse then I should have been. I apologize for that. I think what I hate seeing most is hypocracy, people condemning one person for doing the same thing in another the absolve. That goes both ways. Depending on political leanings people are quick to throw out "witch hunt", yet if it were someone else of opposing leanings, they'd be first in line with torch and pitchfork. Many people here that say this whole thing is a waste of taxpayer dollars would be singing a different tune were it Hillary who tried to buy the team. That's the point I was trying to make.

That list you posted, that doesn't copy when quoted, that for Trump or Hillary? ?