Johnny Bravo

It's pretty weak sauce to quote one part of my post without the supporting context. In fact, it's more work to select only a portion of the quote, so I guess that wasn't accidental. If the evidence doesn't support @Simon's point, I guess you are okay with just changing the evidence. Well done, you win🙄

That wasn’t an assumption. It was fact from the FBI. it doesn’t prove anything about Wiley and his guilt or innocence. I think it doesn’t prove anything show that we shouldn’t automatically believe a woman just because she makes an accusation. Furthermore, I said nothing about these women or their character. I don’t know them so how could I have an opinion about them? (Maybe you can give me some pointers on judging people I don’t know. You seem to be pretty good at it as you feel free to call me ignorant, misogynistic, and biased without ever having met me). My comments are 100% related to their actions. You are obviously passionate about the topic. That said, I hope you would never sit on a jury.

I don’t know Wiley personally, but I can look at the evidence and make a fair assumption. He was a Walter Payton award nominee multiple times. It’s the most prestigious award the NFL has. Does charity work mean he can’t be guilty of rape? Of course not. But it does give us some sort of indication of the kind of man Wiley is. My argument isn’t that Wiley is a saint or can’t be guilty. My argument is that we don’t have to believe the accusations against him just because they are serious and that other factors besides the accusation can inform our thinking on the subject before all the facts come out. As new facts are presented, we can change our opinions. But right now, with the things we know, I’m skeptical of their accusations.

This is the problem. You are saying "he gets away with it" referring to the women as "victims", etc as though you know the events happened as alleged. Araiza's case proves the problem with this sort of thinking. Women are people and therefore some lie, some are mistaken, etc. Even our moms, even our sisters, wives, etc. Let's see how the case goes, what evidence is presented at the civil trial, etc. But let's not convict Wiley in the court of public opinion based just on the fact that he was accused of something. Especially when that accusation is contrary to what we have seen about his character for almost 30 years now.

Is buyer's remorse a myth or is that just speculation? Look, women sometimes lie about being raped for all sorts of reasons. I can tell you what percentage of liars lie for each particular set of reason. We do know that 8% of all rape allegations are PROVEN false (again not just a failure to convict). That is astounding whether that is 8% that are completely made up, 8% that are just errors by the accuser, or some combination of those and other reasons. My point remains the same-we need to skeptical-especially when three are other factors like three decades since the alleged events, seeking a civil versus criminal tral, etc.

I agree with a lot of this. One point of disagreement though. You are saying you stay away from the "believe all accusers" mantra. You say you want people to come forward and your prescription to help bring this about seems to be that everyone else needs avoid doing anything that looks like skepticism lest another accuser see that and be hesitant to come forward. Functionally, I don't see a difference. One doesn't need a "believe all accusers" outlook if he acts and speaks in the ways you suggest...his actions end up being the same. I say that since no one here (or anywhere as far as I can tell) suggesting that Wiley's accusers not have access to the court and police systems.

These are good points and good examples-especially the Church and Penn State. I'll have to consider them some more. Thanks!

Is it shaming the victim to have a healthy skepticism of an accusation based on the timing? Does the crime for which someone is accused mean we just believe everything is the accusation is terrible enough. How about juries...can they find a man innocent even if it could cause another woman to think twice about coming forward? I think your second question refuting the gold digger accusation is a fair one. However, it is worth considering that the case is a lawsuit and not a criminal trial. Any lawyers feel free to correct me if I am wrong, but in this case Wiley would not be facing any jail time AND the criteria for finding him liable is much lower than at a criminal trial. So basically, the woman is pursuing her case against Wiley in a venue where he doesn't need to be found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, where he stands no risk of being sent to prison, and where she gets a check if she prevails with that lower burden of proof. You seem to be saying that we shouldn't even consider these factors when discussing this incident for risk of shaming the accuser. I say that is an irresponsible dereliction of our duty to exercise our judgement.

"That's immaterial to whether not he's innocent in this particular instance." I don't understand this. We should encourage people to make accusations of rape whether or not the guy is innocent? We only need to go back 2 years to Matt Araiza to see the consequences of this sort of attitude. Matt Araiza lost two years of his career and his reputation because a woman lied about being raped by him. For point of reference, the FBI says the 8% of all rape accusations are PROVEN false. That isn't that the accused was not convicted because there was a reasonable doubt about his guilt...it's that it was proven that the accuser was wrong or lying in making the accusation in the first place. As far as the support structure in the 90s versus today, when has there ever been a reluctance to believe rape accusations? If your claim was about something like sexual harassment, I'd probably agree with you that society has changed for the better. But rape? It used to be a capital crime. Men used to be executed for raping a woman-that's how seriously it has always been taken. I believe that reluctance to come forward with a rape accusation today is more a product of the situation not being rape as traditionally understood. I think these situations are more an instance of drunken hook ups with next day regret in which the accuser shares culpability with the accused.

I was worried about this before the two pt attempt. BBBFS for the Dallas Monday night game in ‘07.

Is it matchups or did we just have a bad night? I remember the Bills getting smoked on MNF back in 1991 by the Chiefs at Arrowhead. Playoffs in Buffalo we crushed them…up 24-0 at one point. The Ravens are playing awesome right now. Can they beat us? Sure. But you make it sound like we have no shot, which is an absurd take.

He and Gabe are both big receivers, but the similarities end there. Keon can make contested catches and run after the catch. The next time Gabe does either of things it will be the first.

Unless I am remembering wrong (and I'm not, LOL), Von accepted those incentives as part of VOLUNTARILY renegotiating his contract to a lower number. It was the ultimate, team-first sort of thing we as fans are supposed to love.

So true. When we get that Lombardi, I wouldn’t trade it for all the Pats* SuperBowls. All the heartbreak of my 30+ years of fandom won’t matter at all any more and the victory will be that much more sweet because of it.

What a fun topic! QB=Allen RB=OJ WR=Moulds TE=Riemersma OT=Dion OG=Joe D C=Hull DE=Bruce OLB=Biscuit MLB=Sam Cowart CB=Odomes S=Henry Jones P=Moorman K=Christie KR=McGee Coach=McDermott

Take away the two TDs by Cook and we would have been shut out. Fire everybody!

Well done😂. Merry Christmas😊

this wasn’t just a regular knee injury. It was disturbing looking. So where is the line where real men and leaders can show emotion? I ask as someone who is pretty unemotional myself but who doesn’t see anything wrong with how Stroud acted.

When Damar was getting chest compressions I was on the phone with my brother. The broadcast had cut to commercial and when they came back they showed a ***** of Josh’s face. Just from seeing Josh’s natural human reaction to what he was seeing I said to my brother “I think he is dead”. If Stroud lost the respect of his teammates then Josh probably should’ve too. Of course Damar was dying and Dell wasn’t, but Stroud and Dell are best friends and that injury was disturbing to see. Add that Stroud knew he’d never get to play ball with his friend again because that friend’s career if possibly (likely?) over and he would have to be an automaton to not have some sort of visible reaction.

I don’t agree with this take. I’ve never seen Josh HAVE to do less than he has this year. Before this season, I’ve always been envious of other QBs who have “easy” plays. This year Josh has had them too. Hecan still make the amazing plays, but for the most part he hasn’t needed to. The last two games Josh has been amazing. But our offense had six games in a row prior to them where we had put up 30 points. In none of those games did he HAVE to be Superman-he passed for 300 yards in one of those games (the Titans).

The only fact you keep bringing up is that Reed is in the HOF. Using this logic do you also think Lamar is better than Josh because he has been voted MVP twice? Or do you use your own eyes to form your own opinion about who the better player is? Reed was awesome and deserves the HOF. I watched both he and Moulds and think Moulds was the better of the two and would have been the best receiver in the league with better QBs throwing him the ball.

Or it could just be what Allen himself said...entirely precautionary which is why they felt comfortable running Allen at the end of the game. We only have to look back to the beginning of the year when Allen had an injured non-throwing hand to know that the coaching staff DOES take his health into consideration when calling plays.

You don’t think our injuries in a game we lost by a missed field goal had ANYTHING to do with the Chiefs beating us? A healthy Milano, Bernard, Benford, Von, etc wouldn’t have made any difference in that game? Basing what will happen this year on what happened with last year’s decimated defense last year seems silly to me. The Chiefs are good and could beat us. But I think this Chiefs team beating this Bills team (especially in Buffalo) would be an upset.

Really? You can’t even think of ONE reason why we could beat the Chiefs in the playoffs? Not one…like having beaten them 4 times in the past four years-including this one? it sounds like you really haven’t given this matter much actual thought.

Whaley was the GM when we hired McDermott. Oversaw the draft that got us Tre, Dion, and Milano as well. But I still prefer Beane, LOL