apuszczalowski

The humor thing definitely seems to have come from Disney, the Marvel movies are similar but it works for those movies. It doesn't really work for Star Wars though

Wasn't sure because of the wording where it says he has to play all season, could see it screw8ng them over by him not playing in the game....

Even if they hit on those picks, your still going to be able to count on one hand the amount of really good players on their team....

That team is so void of talent they are going to need to hit on all of those top picks just to get a base to work off of. It's going to be a long rebuild for that team, they aren't in an enviable situation like some here think they are. It's possible they get better, but it's also possible they don't and the guy they hired was unemployed for a reason....

How is it a made up standard? Almost Every time there is a replay on tv the always talk about how the refs have to have conclusive evidence in the replay in order to overturn a call made on the field. You can't say without any possible doubts that the ball is loose and on the ground from any angle or photo available right now. That's the problem with the call

So again, tour saying you having nothing that show the ball touching the ground, but can assume it is because of what you think has happened. And now assumptions can be consider conclusive evidence that is required to overturn a call on the field.

The NFL can't allow one of its big name players to be out of "the game of the year", the networks would be livid and the league would lose out so they suspend him for one game. I'm a little more lenient on hits like that during play then cheap shots taken after a play is over and were deliberate intent to injure. Even more so when it's from someone who is basically expressing roid rage and explains it away as him just being mad he wasn't getting his way with the officials.

What rounds and what area? How many times have the Steelers drafted in the top 10 of the draft? How come good teams stay good when they have to keep drafting at the end of the round?

Well it's clear as day that you don't see grass directly underneath the ball otherwise this would be over and done. You can assume or believe that the ball is sitting on the ground all you want, there is nothing confirming or visually showing it touching the grass which means it's no conclusive that it has touched the ground and therefore there is not enough evidence to overturn it. I'm still waiting to see the photos clearly showing the ball on the ground without it being in his hand........

So what your saying is you have no evidence showing the ball actually touching the ground?

His hand

I would say he continued to struggle since he had the chance but could not shoot down his mother's ship.

Do you see green directly below the football indicating the ball is on the ground? Cause I see a hand there and no visible indication that the ball is actually sitting on the ground. Again, I await the photo showing the ball sitting directly on the ground, which is what needs to be seen in order to determine that the call on the field must be overturned.

So he is supposed to fight it anyway, even if he knows he is guilty and it will be proven that he was just because? There is a very good chance that he is doing this because he knows that its not worth fighting because he won't win fighting it since he is guilty of it. That is why most people settle out of court when guilty, or try to, because they know they won't win of they fight to say it didn't happen and there may be more things that come out public then.

Ok, now show the photo of the ball actually touching the ground, which is what was supposed to be required in order for a call on the field to be overturned. I will wait.........

Hard to fight it if they are guilty though. And in many of these cases it seemed that the allegations are true and it's why they aren't pitting up much of a fight

That's the problem, there is no view that clearly shows the ball is on or touching the ground. Everyone assumes it is or touched because of the movement of the ball, but there is no clear view that shows it on or touching the ground. The rules for instant replay to overturn a call on the field say that the have to clearly have visual proof that the opposite happened of what was called on the field. That's why it should not have been overturned

IF the Jags have nothing to play for and sit Dareus for week 17, does it screw the Bills cause he didnt play in every game?

Bon Jovi was going through it as a majority owner, he, like Jeter and the Marlins was goi g to be the figurehead owner with a minority stake. Similar also to Jordan and the NBA franchises he has owned. They are part of a group and because of their celebrity status are used as the face of the ownership group. Curry may be making $400 million plus a sponsorship deal with UA, but it's still not enough for a team or majority ownership unless he lives off another income and the entire contract was already paid to him.

Actually, this now speaks volumes about the situation and that the allegations are actually true. If he was truly innocent, he would say he is and fight the allegations. When he voluntarily decides to sell the team after the allegations come out, it means he isn't denying things happening.

You're assuming they would take him out of the game. The league won't allow that to happen, probably have the Bills player removed instead

You're assuming Cutler doesn't pull Cutler..... He may be checked out already

But wasn't his knee on the ground, and hasn't he showed possession by pulling it in a d then reaching across the goal line?

Not disagreeing, just saying that you don't think the league is behind it and it's just the refs helping NE?

You think the NFL isn't behind It? They need someone I dependent of the league to investigate cause the NFL us starting to make the WWE and XFL look credible.