JoshAllenHasBigHands

Yeah. You definitely didn’t know that when you were typing the words “left and right.”

While he is correctly quoting the relevant language, he is wrong that a Barstool bid would be veto-proof. That language is less narrow than it appears.

I don't really know the Howard Stern example. You may be right. But I can say that the bolded are not true. Portnoy doesn't listen to any of the podcasts, nor does he oversee them. Importantly, their two biggest shows--PMT and Call Her Daddy--are totally independent form Portnoy. Big Cat has an ownership interest in Barstool, and if Portnoy told him to do something different, he wouldn't. That is less true for Call Her Daddy, which just had a pretty major contract dispute. But outside of the contract negotiations, Portnoy does not affect their content. Portnoy is involved in a bunch of their other offerings, but those aren't what make Barstool so popular. This is why I say Barstool =/= Portnoy. Take away those two shows and Barstool is a shadow of what it is today.

She is wayyyy more popular in Barstool circles than most think. The news and those that criticize Barstool just don't like to quote her.

This is what I mean by "not paying attention." Something like 3.5 million people a week listen to just two Barstool podcasts. Those 3.5 million people will never hear Portnoy's voice, nor will they hear his name mentioned (with minor exceptions). If you include Barstool's dozens of other offerings, that number may well jump to 4.5 - 5 million people. Sure, the media focuses on Portnoy, as he is a lighting rod and the founder of Barstool. But Portnoy = Barstool only to the media and the people who don't consume the product. I guess I will never know their motives. Maybe it was because she was a woman. But reducing her remarkable accomplishments to the reasons she was hired is not good.

Who has he "screwed over?"

Super interesting. Would you be willing to forego signing free agents, including lower tier free agents, though, to get the 3rd round pick?

This is not right. Portnoy is in charge of the entertainment side, and Nardini is in charge of the business side. His antics ARE the entertainment. Her job was never to curb his antics, but to make his antics more profitable, which she absolutely has. Beyond that, and where she has really excelled, is she was charged with growing the brand. Barstool has seen its brand absolutely explode under her guidance. She legitimized the brand and expanded it to grab female audiences. She has succeeded by a measure that was beyond anyone's wildest expectations. Reducing her to the "Token CEO" is as offensive as it is ignorant. Portnoy is an idiot. That said, Barstool is not Portnoy, or at least it isn't anymore. If you think otherwise, you just aren't paying attention. Their two most successful offerings--Parton My Take and Call Her Daddy--Portnoy doesn't have any involvement with. The same is true for most of their other podcasts/shows/etc.

People think Portnoy is the driving force at Barstool. Thus, because they hate him, they hate Barstool. However, that hasn’t been true for a few years now. He created a framework for much better talent than him to take off and succeed, and connected with what turned out to be an untapped market. The talent at Barstool is great, and its no wonder that company has taken off. Id love to see Barstool get the naming rights. Barstool would give the Bills the attention that Boston sports gets, and that would be remarkable for the Bill’s brand.

I dont think we get the comp pick if we trade for him in the final year of his deal...

Dude...I know you didnt miss the point that badly

Draft picks are valuable because it allows you to infuse young, CHEAP talent. This trade would force us to trade the opportunity for cheap talent for a guy that will want a BIG pay day this or next year. Plus, our salary cap will run out eventually. Its just not a smart play.

In today’s NFL, I would prefer Revis over Smith. And its not even close. A CB can take away half the field. A good DE just means you have to get rid of the ball sooner, which today’s offenses are specifically designed to so. Plus, a GREAT DE will get, what, 16 sacks a year? Thats one sack a game, and its rarely game changing. Josh Norman and Tre are the same in the sense that they are both “McDermott’s #1 CB.” That is where the comparisons stop. Tre plays on an island (meaning plays man coverage) in a zone scheme. Norman did not have the same responsibilities.

Tre isn’t a zone CB. And the choice isnt between a “good/elite DE and a good zone CB.” The choice is between a DE that only topped 10 sacks once in his career and an all pro CB. Finally, and this I dont expect everyone to agree with, an elite CB is more important than an elite DE.

I replied, but there is no need to keep this up, so I deleted it.

-W86A8&q=what+was+the+percentage+of+mask+wearing+at+blm+rallies&oq=what+was+the+percentage+of+mask+wearing+at+blm+rallies I'm pent up and missing football also and could use letting loose and cheering on the Bills, but this virus is brutal and very infectious -- I've already lost multiple friends and it sucks. I get the argument for individual rights, but when there are consequences that could lead to a cruel death... well, we owe it all to each other to make sacrifices. You should read the articles...the virus didnt spread because it doesnt spread outside, not because of mask wearing. Most people agree a substantial percentage of protestors didnt wear masks, though, as you can see from prior pages of the thread, you must be especially precise when discussing what percentage of protestors didnt wear masks.

Yeah? All of them?

I LOVE that you just used the word “irony” to try to insult me, but then proceeded to misuse the term. LOVE it. So appropriate to conclude this argument that way.

On a forum for dumb arguments, this is the dumbest argument Ive ever had. What a sily topic to split hairs about.

But why call it a “doctored photo?”

You cant possibly think the difference between a few percentage points regarding the number of people at the protests honestly makes a difference. My “point” was never that the majority qualified as a tipping point. My point was that so many people didn’t wear masks you cannot credibly claim that masks were the sole reason that virus did not spread due to the protests.

I never said all. It didnt even occur to me that anyone would challenge that so many protestors were not wearing masks, so I didnt think precise language was needed. Frankly, the claim buggers belief. Was it tens of thousands? Obviously. Was it “most” or “half?” Well, now that we are splitting hairs over inconsequential details, I have to acknowledge I have no way of knowing the percentage. Thus, I backed away from those claims. Again, the exact percentage is inconsequential when its so obvious that a substantial number of people werent wearing masks.

First, this isnt a court of law. There are no burdens. Second, even a single picture demonstrating masks were not worn establishes the point - at least some (half was an unprovable assertion on my part, hence my edit) did not wear masks. There are thousands of pics on the internet right now conclusively showing tens of thousands of protestors did not wear masks at those rallies. I believe that

To say that even a majority of protestors wore masks at those protests flies in the face of reality. Im exaggerating a bit - I think its safe to say, however, a substantial percentage did not wear masks.

Got a credible citation that its not true?