The Red King

Again, it's not about right or wrong, it's about public opinion. The NFL already has PR nightmares (see Anthem Protests), they're not going to outright condone pot right now when the backlash from parents and activist groups would be scathing. I'm curious, do you not think there would be severe backlash, or do you think the NFL would push through despite it?

And here I thought hard work, tough defensive play and making just enough plays got us to nine wins. Silly me, the playoff fairy decended from above and waved her wand, turning a 2-14 team into a playoff team. Always vexes me how people handwave away the Bills hard work and effort last season, attributing everything to pure luck. Buffalo put themselves in a position to take advantage. That wasn't luck. That was Baltimore making a mistake that showed they were not a playoff team. The same kind of boneheaded plays the Bills have made in past seasons. That D was good enough for nine wins, and this D looks to be better, so I stand by my prior statement.

That's the interesting part. Despite facing all those terrible stats people mentioned above, we made the playoffs! So, even if our defense is the same as last year, and personally I think they'll actually be better, so long as our offense plays as good as or better then last year (lot of question marks, but not a high bar to cross) then this team could well ride its defense into the playoffs again. The offensive weapons get added this upcoming off-season.

There is a difference between pre-existing, like the NBA, and changing, which the NFL would be doing. Is it hypocritical? Maybe. But you know the moment the NFL makes that change the media would blast it, noting the "NFL Goes Green...Condones Pot!" Parent groups would get whipped into a frenzy like a poked beehive. The backlash would be enormous.

Good lord. He might be a bust, he might be a star. We won't know until the bullets fly. I want a good QB. Not just a QB with good stats. A good QB, one that wins games. McBeane saw the same stats we did, the same scouting reports, the same metrics, and they drafted Allen anyway. They obviously think they can tweak what needs tweaked, and that he can hit his huge potential. Time and again last season, the Bills made moves that had us screaming and questioning, but what did it get us? A playoff birth, and a buttload of draft picks. In my eyes that earns them the benefit of the doubt. There has been a plan here, and calculated moves with benefits that weren't immediately obvious. That, and I'm a damn Bills' fan. All together, that means I'm going to support the kid and see what they can do with him. Am I saying he can't fail? Not at all. I just see no reason to automatically assume McBeane has no idea what they're doing and condemn the young QB to the trash heap before he takes a single snap.

When you are slandering someone, everything is blown out of proportion.

That's utterly unfair! Prior to this we had a president assassinated here, iirc.

So, despite his friend serving her child, the ex claims he never asked her to leave? ...and I'm sure McCoy is all like...

Just a matter of tossing one of several quantifiers out there. "I believe...", "In my opinion...", "I honestly expect to see...", "What I think...", replace "when the" with "should the" ...anything that changes it from sounding like an absolute.

...actually, the broadcasters themselves, on multiple occasions, pointed out when Bills' receivers were wide open and Tyrod just didn't throw to them for some reason. They even mused and wondered aloud why TT didn't throw to them. Sorry, that loss is 99% on Tyrod.

Way too many assumptions going on here. Some people are already assuming Shady did it. Some are already assuming he was framed. Some people assuming that if you consider the idea she either set this up herself or took an unrelated attack and lied to blame Shady at least plausible that you are a horrible human being for even considering such a possibility. Some people are assuming that if you suggest there might be a possibility McCoy was set up that, by default, you are blaming the victim and are a horrible human being. And far too many people assuming others have already made up their minds, even if they specifically say they want to wait for some real evidence to appear before deciding one way or the other. That this woman was beaten is absolutely horrible, regardless of who did it. At the same time, that beating in no way sways my opinion on whether or not McCoy was involved...an opinion that has, and continues to remain "There is nowhere near enough (if any) evidence to determine whether or not McCoy was involved and I refuse to declare him innocent or guilty until we have enough evidence to determine that." I refuse to join a lynch mob based solely on hear-say and speculation. If that makes me an uncaring monster, so be it. It is plausible that Shady did it. It is plausible someone did it on his behalf unbidden, it is plausible the attack was completely unrelated and she's lying to frame McCoy. And the least likely, yet still slightly plausible possibility is she did this to herself, or had someone do it to her...so she could frame McCoy. Four completely plausible possibilities and as of yet, no way to discredit any of them. So, wild as this sounds, why don't we just let the police do their job and come to conclusions based on fact and evidence, rather then bias and conjecture?

So, to be clear...should he be cleared of all these allegations, you won't be coming back? ?

Friendly Reminder: Nothing has been proven in this case, and there has yet to be any hard evidence presented against him. Before I pass judgement on McCoy, I'm going to wait and see what facts come out of this. But if you want to jump the gun, make assumptions and prematurely declare him guilty based on nothing more then here-say, you do you.

Yep, just walk away. MURPHD6 was proven wrong and still has yet to provide any proof his definition of 'plausible' is correct. He's spinning his wheels. Lemmie help illustrate the differences... Possible: Bills get 16 wins Plausible: Bills get 10-12 wins Probable: Bills get 6-9 wins

No...I really don't. I am now one of three people that have provided evidence you are in the wrong. You...have provided no actual evidence you are in the right. I've wasted enough time actually looking things up. You seem ready to easily handwave away what we've said while providing nothing to back your own assertions. It's like arguing with a child. "Well, you have to admit, this proves..." "Nu-unh!" "Look, all the evidence sh..." "NU-UNH!!!". Sorry, not wasting any more time. I proved my point. Time you actually prove yours.

Bam! You are my hero, dude. Not that he'll listen, of course...

So...to recap. "The Merriam-Webster definition says you're wrong, use the Oxford!" "Umm...the Oxford definition supports me." "Not that definition, the other one!" "The only other one is '1.1 (of a person) skilled at producing persuasive arguments, especially ones intended to deceive.' which doesn't fit at all! "You're an idiot for just using the obvious listed definitions for a word! There's another definition buried somewhere in there which I will not point out or quote/list at all that proves me right!" "Of course there is, bud. Of course there is." ...yeah, I'm done talking to you. You insisted we use the Oxford definition, which I then hung you with. Game, set and match. I think I'll keep using the word the way I have been, given that every definition and dictionary supports it. Ta!

That...was the Oxford definition. The one you insisted on using. The definition you wanted to use...proved you wrong. Good grief. ? https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/plausible "1(of an argument or statement) seeming reasonable or probable." ...as stated prior, do your homework. You just proved me right.

Oh, you mean this definition? "(of an argument or statement) seeming reasonable or[/b] probable." ...highlighted the key word for you there. Or. My proper use of the word was the former, you're still claiming the latter. So...thank you for outright proving the use of the word correct. Again, do your homework next time. Check, and mate.

Plausible =/= likely. Plausible = possible. Do your homework. From Merriam-Webster themselves... "appearing worthy of belief" the argument was both powerful and plausible" It is entirely possible for a situation to have multiple, plausible outcomes. I am not defending McCoy. I am, as I have been, defending the simple fact that there isn't enough evidence to determine what actually happened, and that there are multiple possibilities, all plausible! Also from Merriam-Webster: "A plausible explanation is one that sounds as if it could be true." Try actually researching a word next time before critisizing someone else's use of it.

Alright, time to go do something far more relaxing, Dark Souls II. ? ...should be a fun read in the morn. Be good to each other and remember, in the end, we're all Bills' fans!

I agree, and said as much. In fact, had someone arguing semantics with me on word choice for it. I never said her doing it to herself was the most likely possibility, only that it was a plausible one.

This just in. It is completely impossible for a victim to self-inflict wounds and even entertaining the possibility that it might have occurred makes you a monster. From now on, always assume everything the victim says is true without question. Whelp, I learned something today. ?

Or, let me put it another way. My kids break a lamp. I think it's more likely my daughter's fault, she's the wild one. But I can't chew her out for it without proof, even if I think her doing it is the most likely scenario. I have a number of plausible scenarios, and one I think most likely, but I still cannot conclude what happened without actual proof. ...clear things up?