leh-nerd skin-erd

the patriots have a track record of sustained success the likes of which is rarely seen in sports. the bills have a track record of getting their tongue stuck to the same light post year after year after year.

or Benito Mussolini II. I hope he's not that guy either.

Probably his brother, Sketchy Whitehead.

He terminated the guy to the tune of $15 m. He made the call 2 years into a 5 year deal, when from an organizational perspective conventional wisdom certainly would have supported staying the course. From a structural standpoint, he hired the exact opposite type of personality to run the team. He fired the General Manager of the team, brought in a new guy to compliment the organizational style of the head coach. Other than a press conference broadcast on all the major networks, where he stated "I'm taking full accountability for everything", for which he would likely be savaged for his press conference demeanor or choice of suit, you see him passing the buck?

I understand the sentiment expressed by Seymour, and the desire to maximize earning potential. I don't sweat what they say, how they say it much one way or the other. Sherman making more or less money one way or the other doesn't impact me. Still, I am always amazed that someone complains how great someone else (owner) has it over them (elite player) when all the while they have a much much better deal than someone else (average player) who often has it better still that. someone else (retired player with health issues etc). strike. don't strike. whatever.

"let those among us who haven't jacked a few atvs along the way cast the first stone." - John 3:16

It's not a double standard, it's just a standard. Whether it's fair and reasonable is a topic for message boards, hookah lounges and opium dens, but the standard he chooses not to follow consistently is one that keeps him off the field. My perspective is "God forbid MD ______ which keeps him off the field for 16 games, which contributes in some way, shape or form to the Bills not participating in 19".

Reading between the lines often just reinforces ones own biases.

absolutely. I think if you're CK and don't think "Ah crap, this could go badly for me", I'd be surprised. In fact, if he was thinking "What's the big deal McD??", even more reason to release him.

Even as a Kujo fan, this is a stretch. It wasn't that he wasn't "toeing the line". It's not like he hit traffic on the way in for a meeting and ran 5 minutes late, violated curfew or whatever, he was climbing fences in his underwear asking to be shot. Come on, maybe you don't like McDermott but it's his job, in part to consider whether or not a guy can contribute. He wasn't thrown away, he was released. Happens all the time, even to fully clothed guys.

I think that comes down to preference and style. As long as a process is followed, it matters less how the question is posed.

Let's hope he learns from it moving forward. Question number 3 for any sensible GM during the pre-draft meeting has got to be: "When you have a car accident, do you typically wander off with or without your pants on?". It's unreal some of the things that come out of professional sports.

Well, they've outlasted more than a few good and decent Buffalo fans. At this point I'm more about my kids enjoying it. They've seen me toss a few remotes toward the tv in a fit of rage, should balance that out nicely. Plus, I'm not so sure we're not actually in Dante's shack already, or at least in the waiting room?

!!! Been there, just a few years less.

If you're the oldtime guy you seem to be, you've learned the lesson of the long time bills fan. It's better to be positive and angry later than angry all the time.

Or not,but only based on the article you cited.

The Russian investigation. What exactly do you see there? The Flynn issue, of course, is newsworthy. He was terminated. The Russian investigation thereafter is about...what? Seems to me folks with your worldview are lead around chasing shadows that lead to nothing. I'm all for the rule of law and if investigation reveals Trump being knuckles deep in a conspiracy, so be it. What do you see?

It would seem the NYT covers stories that match your worldview. This story says "Someone said this!", but "Someone else said that!" and "we're not saying it could be a problem, but it could be". And nothing new is learned.

the best way to summarize this "story" from the nyt is to copy and paste the title at the top of the page: Politics

you're on it today. Washington is a gigantic crock pot of hypocrisy and back-scratching, and it's never been more obvious than since President Trump took over. Those lefty and lefty-moderate leaning folks who point to REPUBLICANS who are aghast at this most recent event are pretty hung up on titles. Its fairly obvious that President Trump views many in r leadership as part of the problem, and it's painfully obvious that they see him as a threat to a) the country or b) to their base of power. I think the question ultimately boils down to whether or not the president had the power to do what he did. Obv, since President Clinton (the Clinton who was actually president, not the other Clinton who ran a couple of horrible campaigns to try and get elected) fired the FBI director back when he was in monica, oops, office. I thought the letter from the AAG laid out the case from removal pretty clearly. Then again, maybe he's in on it too. I have found the yates/Flynn/Trump discussion fascinating. yates brings information to the attention of the white house, and 17 days later, Flynn is out. Obama's secretary of state played fast and loose with national security for 4 years and her time in the woodshed boils down to "she's really sorry, let's make her prez...". Unreal.

Yes! If history teaches us anything, we can grab the pitchforks at a later time. No need to eat our own. Yet. I like McDermott thus far. I like his approach. I like that he's keeping his mouth shut and getting to work. I would hope that since he's a guy being paid handsomely to win games, that he has both a burning desire to succeed and a plan to get there. I hold no real long term animosity against departed coaches or players, so the next guy up is just that--the next guy up. Whaley imo was there long enough to show what he brought to the table, they moved on. He'll be ok.

So we can agree on the hope that McDermott is the cats pajammers as a coach. I think most of the rest of what you wrote is speculation. For all we know, Pegs may have decided that Whaley needed to go, may have offered him the chance to stay through the draft and so on. Whaley may have taken the opportunity and opted to see it through. He may have been offered the chance to leave two coaches ago. Whaley may have personal issues, or Pegula might, or about a million other things. It's not a matter of being tone deaf, it's the result of the simple acknowledgement that many of your facts may not actually be factual. Let's look at "McDictator then says Whaley and staff did a phenomenal job.'. That could mean 45 different things (he stayed out of my way, he did great research, he steered me away from XXXX and we went with YYYY). Be that as it may, let's assume McDermott thought he did a horrible job. Well, who would say that? I get part of what you're saying, but some of it (Media whispers, Pegula private musings) has a decidedly reality tv vibe to it. End of the day--the NFL is not a place for the faint of heart. McDermott's job is to win football games, and if he was entrusted by ownership to do what he wanted to do, so be it.

What is it exactly that they did to Whaley (and I hoped nothing but the best for the guy, and have no hard feelings now that he is gone) in the context of the nfl that ran 'em afoul of Merriam-Webster in your eyes?

The uber driver says he put his hand in Ohers face, and Oher pushed him to the ground and kicked him? Sounds like there is plenty of blame to go around.