Dibs
-
Posts
6,692 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Gallery
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Dibs
-
-
Maybe it helps him enunciate the cadences in the huddle. Perhaps Leodis can borrow it during interviews.
Literal lol.
-
I was just joking anyways but his mouthpiece could end up being the same topic as EJ's visor was last year.
But how does he use his bling mouthpiece to hide his slow eyes?
-
Oh really?
Well, yes. It doesn't mean that they don't....but it certainly doesn't mean that they do. Why question something so obvious?
And re: the maths... The trade cost the Bills one 1st round pick. The player cost the Bills two 1st round picks. Do you honestly think that people who word it that way (myself included) are somehow tŕying to say that the trade cost us two first round picks? Even though every Bills fan(and anyone else who was interestdd on draft day) knows exactly what the trade was?
For the record, I liked the trade at the time of the draft....liked it all last year....and still like it now. Two picks IMO is well worth it for one of the premium prospects in the draft....particularly for a character like Watkins.
-
If you ignore the 1st round pick we got in trade then sure, it's true. Just like the sky is purple if you ignore that it's blue.
Huh? Dareus cost us one 1st round pick. Darby cost us one 2nd round pick. Watkins cost us two 1st round picks.
Just because someone uses sleightly different termanology that somebody else does not mean they have some sort of agenda.
-
Who cares what he wears? He could wear bright pink pantaloons on his head for all I care, as long as he plays well.
-
.....
Much worse is his idiotic assertion that Bills gave up two first round picks to obtain Watkins, in effect he says, costing the Bills three first round picks to obtain Watkins....
It is a dunmb-arse article, no doubts....but he never said that. He said "Watkins cost the Bills 2 1st round picks"...which is true.
-
Ha ha, we have the best defense which means it can't get better so that's a strike against the Bills? Since Tom Brady can't get better I guess the Pats** are doomed as well.
Well no.....they cheat.
-
prohibitive of what? Lol
Hehe....you know. Prohibitive of the cap. That money we spent on star players could have been spent on, um, well, other star players.
-
"The problem, of course, is that those moves came at a prohibitive cost...."
I wonder how many extra games we lose this season due to that prohibative cost? With logic like that he would fit right in around here.
-
Because you are being irrational whiners.
You guys can't even get on the same page about why you are upset about this.
Kelly supports your side and shot your take down for it's false premise before I even got to it.
Trolling is bad, mmmkay?
-
I'm thinking BADO believes, since the Bills have been a dysfunctional organization for so long, nobody associated with them can be defamed---or. perhaps more to the point, it doesn't matter since they are bad.
That's about the only sense I can make of his ramblings in this thread.
He's obviously just trolling everyone in this thread (for some inexplicable reason).
-
.....
Previous commissioners had no issues applying the rules of this CBA. Why? .....
That must have been extremely hard for them to do since Goodall has been the only NFL Commissioner during this CBA.
-
So a good journalist re-interprets what his source tells them and then apologizes for the source...unsoliticed of course...... if necessary. And yes.........that is exactly what you are telling me. Probably doesn't sound so smart when I say it though.
If you get told that someone is...." Just as proficient with their left hand as they are the right. They are amphibious.", do you report that they are ambidextrous....or indeed amphibious?
-
...
Here is what I care about: Show me the baby!
I don't care about the media pains!.
Yet you jump into this thread early on with strong opinions. I think you care about the media pains....just a little bit.
-
Yes, admit that his sources used a bad choice of words. it was not his word, so he shouldn't apologize for that. He should have just admitted his sources used poor wording.
.....
IMO he should have conveyed what his sources actually meant rather than directly quote something that he(very most likely) knew was going to be misrepresentative of the situation.
.....
Of course, and Dibs might not be aware of this (though he probably is--dude seems to have more info down under than most here) "going rogue" has become quite the popular term in the states the last few years. So I suppose there is a possibility both guys used the term, independently. But still, I kind of doubt it.
Actually, I wasn't aware of that. I guessed the concept in my attempts to be fair to TG (trying to think of reasons why 2 individuals would both incorrectly use an uncommon term).
-
According to TG, that is the word that 2 separate sources used to describe it. So if that is true (I don't take TG to be an outright liar), he did is job right. He reported it using 2 seperate sources, which is fairly responsible because 1 source could make a mistake, but 2 is a lot less unlikely. A lot of these twitter reports go on a lot less. So he did well, so this is really on his sources.
...
Unless the word "Rogue" has become a bit of a fad word around Bills HQ it seems quite strange to me that 2 seperate sources would use it....particularly since it is being used outside of its standard definition. I suppose it could also be that Whaley has a group of people at OBD that dislike him and gossip with each other, and as consequence end up using the same adjective.
-
....
the 2 sources that used the word "rogue" with him were obviously not good sources. They were either flat out wrong or they had an agenda to throw Whaley under a bus. TG should have just admitted his sources screwed up instead of trying t o twist it that he didn't mean "rogue" to mean what people generally think it means by its definition.
....
I don't think that it has been established that the word "rogue" was a direct quote or whether it was a (poorly?) chosen word by TG.
-
What do you do when you can't complain about the starting OL anymore?
Start whinging about the backups.
For a team that has had a crap roster for over a decade, I'm constantly surprised at the unrealistic fan expectations for total perfection.
-
.....reminded me of the age old question of would I trade our 4 SB losses for 1 SB win?
....Folks often ask the question would you trade four SB losses for one SB win?
...Really?
-
Basketball: I guess it depends upon exactly how you refer to your college basketball exploits? I don't know the details of what Coller claims re baseball. If you claim you played basketball in college, but you weren't a good player and didn't make the roster, you're being factuallly accurate, brag away. 99.5% of the population can't ball out even at that level so cred to you. If you put it on your resume that you were a 4 year starter at a DI school and you played fall ball, you're lying. If you play fall ball and you brag about your exploits, you're a tool.
If someone calls you out on something you've done, and you respond by attacking some aspect of their character, that is called an "ad hominem argument" and is regarded as a type of logical fallacy and a refuge of people who really don't have an adequate response. That appears to be what Tim Graham has done in responding to Coller's questioning his tweet by attacking Coller's resume.
I don't know about jagoff meanings from video games. Merriam Webster Online defines rogue as a man who is dishonest or immoral; a dishonest or worthless person; but also a mischevious person. Urban dictionary says "going rogue" is either Someone who "acts independently and wayward from the usual group, generally acting in an outrageous or abnormal manner" but also a "euphamism for unprotected anal sex".
I think if you're a reporter whose tweets get picked up and echoed by national media, you better be damn careful before you use a term that calls a man dishonest or immoral or worthless in a respected source for definitions of the language, and you better be ready to explain just what you mean lest people think that you're getting too deep, as it were, into his personal life.
Well said.
-
What
Great
Radio
You forgot the question mark after "radio".
-
According to that article, the NFL can still give out a different punishment to Brady for his offenses. If that is in fact the case, I think they should go with a full 16 game suspension. That'd be sweet.
-
I have been using it for several years now (from Australia) and last week was the first time it had major issues.
-
This is a real problem. So let me get this straight...you have to think of everything there is that could happen (even things that are not available yet or have not been dreamed of yet) and make sure you apply a punishment for each and everyone in order for it to stick? That's a bunch of bull!!!
I don't think that driving a car onto the field would be covered. Perhaps if McCoy isn't quite healthy in week 1 he could do his RBing from behind the wheel.
The legal system is a joke. There should be more focus on the intent of the laws and justice rather than the minutea of the language.
Absolutely rediculous!
Grantland predicts Bills to be a cellar dweller in 2015
in The Stadium Wall Archives
Posted
Thanks Bill. In my mind the "we don't have a top QB" was/is by far the strongest argument against the trade. Sure, a star WR is always going to be helpful on any team but when you have a good QB throwing to a star WR....that's when it can become magical. I think the "plan" was perhaps too reliant upon the young QB(EJ) developing as hoped for into a good QB....which was a bit of a gamble. Hopefully we can achieve the desired result regardless through TT....and if not, hope EJs improvement isn't a mirage and continues.