Coach Tuesday

Why don't you address my point at face value. I would be critical of two different paths - not taking a QB at all (which they wisely didn't do), or trading a bunch of assets for the riskiest QB pick in the draft (which they did do). There were many other paths I wouldn't have criticized, like drafting Rosen, trading up for Darnold, trading a couple of 2s for Nick Foles, etc. You're such a cranky skin sore.

Absolutely right. So?

The issue is RISK. Is this an organization that can afford to take a big risk at the QB position? I say it isn’t. Safer options were available, like trading likely fewer assets for the guy who just won the Super Bowl, or drafting the guy whose stats actually project a safer path to success (Rosen). Or hedging that big risk by holding onto your current starter for one more year while your risky developmental pick learns. Beane took a big risk and I think it’s not the right strategy for a franchise that hasn’t had a pro passing game since the early 1990’s.

It freaks me out that I’ve seen Josh Allen’s face hundreds of times in the predraft process and yet I still have no idea what he looks like. His face has no discernible features. It’s like an unfinished police sketch of a SIM character. Discuss.

They think they’re smarter than everyone else. The results suggest otherwise.

You lost your fastball Steve.

Pegulas learned NOTHING from the Tim Murray debacle. Stop handing the keys to neophytes.

This is ALL on Terry P.

Tell me they wouldn’t have been better off sending both seconds to Philly for Foles?

He doesn’t have them here either so...

When is the last time the Bills went against the grain and picked a player with horrible advanced stats - and it worked out?

Beane should work on his resume - he’s toast.

This would be a DISASTER

Obama was a terrible president. Trump is far worse.

The Jets are gonna market the heck out of this guy. He’s going to be everywhere.

Yeah but the Bills have an established QB coach and lots of weapons in the pas- eff

Oh my gosh you're bad at this. In response to the bold - no, dickwad, I haven't made that assertion. I've explained why your (supposed) statistics don't support your assertion. And nowhere did I say that "poverty does not increase the likelihood of criminality." But you know all of this. Just like I know that you're probably a racist megalomaniac, a broken, less-likable version of Walter Sobchak, collecting night vision goggles, shopping at military supply stores, reading alt-history books, sneering at strangers, and waiting for your chance to prove yourself to the fascist revolution you'd love to foment.

I’m sure they showed their board to Sal.

This is one of the most uniformed takes I've ever seen. There are so many false premises here, it would take hours to deconstruct and rebut them all. Real quick, your "construct" is as follows: blacks are more likely to commit crimes (FALSE) because blacks are more likely to be poor (POSSIBLY TRUE) because of failed liberal policies aimed at helping blacks (COMPLETELY FALSE). The drug laws, among many other problems with your ridiculous (and transparently racist) argument, were SPECIFICALLY DESIGNED to subjugate minorities. How do I know this? I spent an entire semester at law school pouring over the legislative history of the Controlled Substances Act of 1970, and it's abundantly clear from the legislative record that trumped-up conspiracies and fears regarding minorities were the key impetus for significantly harsher Federal drug penalties. Oh, and wanna know why there are so many single-parent households in poor black neighborhoods? THE DRUG LAWS. Again, this is one of many, many flaws in your ridiculous, racist, premise. And enough with your pretense about rescuing black people from plantation owners like me. You're not fooling ANYONE with your fake, um, I wanna say virtue-signaling but...

Just admit it!! Why not do it. Just do it! You folks spend HOURS in this alt right circle jerk assuring each other that you're not racist, that the media is out to get you, that liberals are uninformed hypocrites, etc. You'd spare us all a lot of time just coming right out and saying what we all know you believe, deep down...

Someone's getting emotional, amirite? Does this count as a whine?

No, that's not it. It's because they're actually, you know, racist. They know it. We know it. It's known. Let's just have them admit it. Why not admit it? Some of you spend hours and hours on this forum beating around the bush - just say it! You think America was a better country when blacks and hispanics and other minority groups were "in their place," when "men acted like men" and it was ok to hit a b--ch and maybe be a little bit rapey. Amirite? JUST ADMIT IT. Nope.

You aren’t following the discussion Boyst. I’m not “disagreeing with the statistics” - I’m explaining why they don’t mean what he says they mean. Committing crimes and being arrested for crimes are two different things. But it doesn’t matter, he reveals his true views when he says that the “black community” needs to confront the issue. Folks, if you’re gonna be a racist, just admit it. Stop trying to hide and deflect.

No. What you've pointed to are (uncited) statistics which would demonstrate that blacks are more likely to be arrested/convicted of crimes. Those supposed stats would not stand for the proposition you're citing it for, which is that blacks are more likely to commit crimes. And I wonder what happens to your alleged stats when you remove drug arrests from the equation? I bet we both know.