Dr. K

The recent Drew Brees/national anthem thread got locked before I could post this, and since I went to the trouble to write it, I thought I would post it here. I think the U.S. is a great country and is exceptional in many ways. The flag, however, has nothing to do with the military or with soldiers or with wars or armies. It is a symbol of the nation as a whole. In the beginning the framers of the Constitution did not even want a standing army because they though having thousands of soldiers in peacetime would present a threat to the government and freedom (as it's been proven in many countries, where the army is often involved in coups and political infighting). It's only been since Vietnam that we have had these huge displays of flags and soldiers at sporting events in the U.S., to the point where many people have come to automatically associate the flag with the military, and to think that waving the flag at every possible opportunity is the only way you show your patriotism. I think it's a sign of our uneasiness about patriotism that we have come to insist on all of these public displays, and to treat the flag as if it were a holy object. If a country is secure in the love of its people, if it is a foregone conclusion that it stands for equality and justice for all, then it does not need to shout about the flag at every public opportunity. To make an analogy to faith in God, Jesus said, (Matthew 6:5), "And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites. are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and. in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward." In other words, when your faith is strong, and you are confident in the rightness of your belief, you do not need to go around in public making a big deal of how much you believe. To do is ostentatious, can even bespeak a kind of paranoia, and become a kind of bullying. For example, the largest and most organized displays of public patriotism I can think of in the 20th century took place in Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union. When somebody silently kneels during the national anthem, or otherwise uses the flag in protest, they are not dishonoring the nation, they are hoping to hold the nation to account for injustices done under that flag. We may not agree with them, but to get bent out of shape about it is a sign of insecurity or desire to dominate.

My two cents: I hate this idea.

If this is an accurate profile, the man is seriously troubled and needs help. I feel sorry for him, but he's also scary, a potential danger to himself and others.

Denver. The win was great. But Scott Norwood missed two easy field goals and an extra point in that game. It was the game in which I realized that if the Bills ever came down to the last seconds and needed a field goal to win, Norwood was going to blow it.

You jumped the shark when you turned to global warming denial. It undermines all your other arguments. Next step: Holocaust denial.

When they hired Rex Ryan, which I thought from day one was a stupid move. I could hardly watch them under him, the undisciplined play, the way he destroyed the defense, his ego and awful press conferences. It still makes me cringe.

Until the Bills beat the Pats consistently--say three out of four games--this is what you are going to hear. The Bills won't get respect from Pats writers and fans until they earn it by beating the snot out of the Patriots.

So I expect these to be locks: Stefon DiggsCole BeasleyJohn Brown That means, assuming they keep seven receivers, that there will be room for probably four of the following eight players: Andre RobertsDuke WilliamsNick EasleyRay Ray McCloudRobert FosterIsaiah McKenzieGabriel DavisIsaiah Hodgins A couple of them can be stashed on the practice squad, but it's going to be tough to make roster. Roberts has the advantage of being the return man. If Davis and Hodgins stick, who do they replace? Easley and McCloud look like probable cuts. That leaves Williams, Foster, McKenzie fighting for one spot. McKenzie and Roberts have similar skills, so maybe McKenzie goes. That leaves Foster and Williams--cut one.

Ferguson was five times better than Kemp, and I liked Kemp. But Saban would regularly pull Kemp in the middle of games and put Lamonica in to jump start the offense.

Points allowed, though that may not reflect the defense's play completely accurately. But it's what counts in the end.

This is the football fan experience. We are all nuts.

I agree. Norwood was iffy for at least that entire season before Super Bowl XXV. I never felt confident when he lined up to try a kick. He missed a couple of gimmes against Denver earlier that season in a game the Bills pulled out by a miracle comeback. If the Bills had Stever Christie a couple of years earlier they would have at least one SB victory.

He never was the starter in Baltimore. His first stint as a starter was Buffalo, then Cleveland.

I had not seen the earlier threads about drafting a QB. I was thinking more about obtaining an experienced backup. I trust Beane to make a good decision, but I can't say I was impressed with Barkley's (admittedly limited) play last season and worry that if Josh goes down a great opportunity to win the division and maybe make some noise in the playoffs could be wasted. I'm not interested in them getting Cam Newton--seems silly to me; he's not going to want to be a backup, for one thing.

Are the Bills set at backup QB? Seems to me if Allen goes down the team could be in trouble. Barkley had that great game two years ago against the Jets, but I'm not confident that he can do the job for any length of time if he has to. But I suppose most every team in the league has questions at backup QB.

Exactly. It drives me nuts that McDermott is accused of being too conservative when, for one example, he takes more fourth-down chances than any Bills coach in recent memory

All I am saying is that in your option 3 here, it is a judgment call, and too many fans act as if it's a simple matter. Your "universe of prospects" formulation is ludicrous. If you compare ANY coach against the "universe of prospects" then you will fire him and hire somebody else. There are many factors in evaluating a coach. It's not as simple as you present it here. Unless a coach is completely incompetent, it's a judgment call. I know a lot of Bills fans believe that Daboll is hopelessly incompetent, but they are wrong.

"the entire universe of prospects"? That's laughable. Nobody will measure up against the entire universe of prospects. You DON'T KNOW how any of those other coaches in that entire universe will work out. It's a hypothetical. You are acting as if this is physics. I have a degree in physics. Making a judgment like this is not science. You're still making a grass is always greener" argument.

I've bolded the crucial question. Notice that you use "might be good enough" with these hypothetical alternatives to Daboll, and use "will Daboll be good enough" when challenging Daboll's abilities. This is the essence of "the grass is always greener." If you ask, "might Daboll be good enough to build a championship offense" then you're much more likely to stick with him. I don't know for a fact that things will go better next year with him instead of somebody's flavor-of-the-month alternative. I just point out that the alternative always looks great because it's a hypothetical.

This "grass is always greener in the other guy's yard" attitude of fans always drives me nuts. As if it's a foregone conclusion anybody they bring in is going to be better.

I used to live in KC, have may friends there, and since they haven't been to the show in fifty years or so I'll root for them. I like it that they are one of the original AFL teams, too.

Andy Reid is a moron, putting in Hill to field a punt in a pressure situation when he'd only returned one put all season.

I would think there would be nothing left of it by this point. He couldn't chop down a dandelion with it.

I love it that Brady's last pass (maybe) as a Patriot was a pick 6.

It's good. Hard hitting action flick. You should see it.