Offside Number 76

You didn't read this, did you?:

There is a need for a hockey show today; Jack Eichel is playing tonight. That said, these two are going on and on about the anthem bull **** and not talking hockey anyway.

That's probably right. But it doesn't matter. For two hours, we hockey fans get to listen to SHH. (And by the way, they do talk football occasionally; last week they had Donald Jones on.) I assure you that for the rest of the day, WGR will pay proper attention to tonight's out-of-market football game.

Thanks man. Hope to see you over at SabreSpace again soon. It's been a while. --11.

For those who listened to Ryan's presser: What did he say about this?

Depth at RB or depth at Williams?

Missed it by one minute!

Good use of the last pick in the fourth round. Five minutes later, and we'd be talking about the Bills spending a fifth round pick on him. I can't understand criticism of this pick.

Perfect. He's about as "middle ground" as one can get. Barbarian's been touting him as a star since he was at A&M, which is why I found it necessary to needle him a little bit. No big deal either way. 1. Good, let's not. 2. Irrelevant.

Go back to Tanny's draft year and read his posts. Tanny was going to be a freaking HOFer. I like Barbarian; I want him to own up. I have no idea what this means. It's written nicely in the Uncle Remus style, but other than that, your effort (which seems considerable) is lost on me.

I get it; you're Barbarian's daughter. It's nice of you to stick up for your dad. This thread, though, was dedicated to HIS impressions of Tannehill. Wake daddy up and ask him to respond, ok?

Oh, do shut up. You're out of your mind and you're out of your depth, and you apparently have no idea why I posted this to begin with.

Yes. And I think the guy whose name still is a reference to Chan Gailey is one of them. I have no idea why.

It's based on 3 plus years, now, which is how I judge QBs. How was he in the playoffs last year? Oh. I forgot. And how do we judge Bills QBs? Oh yeah. Same thing for Tanny, buddy.

He never has looked better than mediocre, e.g. Fitz, and Barb owes us this. Not sure if you were here the year Tannehill was drafted, but it was BRUTAL.

IMO, outside of his opinion on this particular QB, I don't think his posts are bad at all. And he seems to be a pretty nice guy. But on this, Barbarian, I've fought you, and you've been fighting for too long. Own it and own up.

It really doesn't matter. It's time, Barbarian.

After years of touting Tannehill. And after a bunch of us, not just me, saying, "nah," I think you owe us--and by "us," I mean everyone with a freaking sane mind on this board (so like 3 people)--an "own up." He's not good, he wasn't good, and he really never will be good. Still love ya, my man.

I wrote this at SabreSpace and someone asked me to post it here: Very materially. In the Second Circuit (for the rest of the board, that's where this is playing out, if this was filed in Manhattan): a party must demonstrate (1) irreparable harm absent injunctive relief and (2) either (a) a likelihood of success on the merits, or (b) a serious question going to the merits to make them a fair ground for trial, with a balance of hardships tipping decidedly in the plaintiff’s favor. Lots of circuits do not have the "serious question" option. Now let's analyze: What's the irreparable harm? Not his lost salary, because money is never, ever considered "irreparable harm." Not likely his reputation, since at the end of the day, he could still be vindicated by a verdict in his favor. It's got to be the opportunity to play. With a normal occupation, that won't fly, since the real opportunity is to earn money (again, never, ever considered "irreparable harm"),but maybe with a waning football career, he's got something. Maybe. The second prong of the test: Overturning an arbitrator's decision is hard, so he probably doesn't have a likelihood of success on the merits. But one basis for overturning an award is arbitrator bias, and he may try to argue that Goodell is biased. That's at least a serious question going to the merits. Now we're down to a balance of hardships, and whether it tips decidedly in his favor, and I have no idea. The league has a serious interest in wanting to effectively and efficiently discipline cheaters. Brady has an interest in playing football. Don't know what a judge is going to do there.

Not sure if posted elsewhere in this thread, but here's the full report: https://nfllabor.files.wordpress.com/2015/05/investigative-and-expert-reports-re-footballs-used-during-afc-championsh.pdf

Well, my original post is no longer correct now that Easley has been re-signed.

It's a little different if one of the players is traded for value, no? Otherwise, it still would indicate a problem evaluating and/or retaining talent.

With the departure of CJ Spiller, no player drafted by the Bills in 2010 remains with the team. This means the team did an extremely poor job of evaluating talent, retaining talent, and/or both. Not a recipe for success. Let's hope the new regime's picks turn out better. EDIT: Easley re-signed after I posted this. (Or it was reported after I posted this.)

Maybe. This thread has been going on for nearly two years: http://forums.sabrespace.com/topic/21880-the-trial-of-terry-pegula/ I'm sure today's news will lead to its resurrection.

You've never been to SabreSpace, I take it.