ICanSleepWhenI'mDead Posted December 20, 2011 Share Posted December 20, 2011 Everybody has a pet theory for why the Bills have missed the playoffs for over a decade. Some blame the players, some blame the front office, some even blame the owner who kept the team in Buffalo when he could have gotten a better stadium deal and made more money elsewhere. But those are just uninformed opinions. Opinions are like noses (clean version) - - everybody has one. But that doesn't make them right. If you simply accept the non-controversial idea that substances like steroids that are deemed "performance-enhancing drugs" actually improve athletic performance, then you should take note of some recent scientific research. Scientists have unambiguously shown that men who are in committed relationships have lower testosterone levels than men who are not. In addition, men who assist their partners with child-raising duties suffer even greater drops in testosterone levels than men who assume the more traditional male role of being a provider and leaving child-raising duties to their partners. Why should we as Bills fans care about this you ask? Here's why: Scientists have long known that increased testosterone levels lead not only to greater virility, but to higher levels of aggression as well. Although further research may be needed to prove it, some scientists also believe that higher testosterone levels can lead to improved athletic performance. The family values crowd won't like it, but this research provides a road map for building a successful football team. For at least the last decade, the Bills have placed a premium on drafting and signing "high-character" players. The unintended consequence has been a roster with too many guys who are in committed relationships, and even worse, who are more involved in raising their kids as compared to other NFL players. So they make great neighbors and members of society, but bad football players. I'm not suggesting that we should draft or sign players who break the rules by artificially increasing their testosterone levels and risking long term adverse health affects. But c'mon, why would you intentionally draft or sign players whose off-the-field life situations make it clear that they will have lower testosterone levels than guys who aren't performing child-rearing duties and aren't in committed relationships? You simply can't credibly argue that increased aggression is an undesireable trait in a football player. It's just one example, but I've read that Fitz has kids and is a great Dad. Well that's just great for his kids and his wife, and it makes him a desireable member of society as a whole. But maybe he wouldn't perform like a career back-up if he was single, prowling the city like Jim Kelly did, and had higher testosterone levels. If we are stuck with being way under the salary cap while Ralph owns the team, let's at least be smarter and draft or sign players that we can reasonably expect to be more aggressive. Just my 2 lira (based on science). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ET1062 Posted December 20, 2011 Share Posted December 20, 2011 Thank you for wasting 3 minutes of my life that I will never get back. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BADOLBILZ Posted December 20, 2011 Share Posted December 20, 2011 Everybody has a pet theory for why the Bills have missed the playoffs for over a decade. Some blame the players, some blame the front office, some even blame the owner who kept the team in Buffalo when he could have gotten a better stadium deal and made more money elsewhere. But those are just uninformed opinions. Opinions are like noses (clean version) - - everybody has one. But that doesn't make them right. If you simply accept the non-controversial idea that substances like steroids that are deemed "performance-enhancing drugs" actually improve athletic performance, then you should take note of some recent scientific research. Scientists have unambiguously shown that men who are in committed relationships have lower testosterone levels than men who are not. In addition, men who assist their partners with child-raising duties suffer even greater drops in testosterone levels than men who assume the more traditional male role of being a provider and leaving child-raising duties to their partners. Why should we as Bills fans care about this you ask? Here's why: Scientists have long known that increased testosterone levels lead not only to greater virility, but to higher levels of aggression as well. Although further research may be needed to prove it, some scientists also believe that higher testosterone levels can lead to improved athletic performance. The family values crowd won't like it, but this research provides a road map for building a successful football team. For at least the last decade, the Bills have placed a premium on drafting and signing "high-character" players. The unintended consequence has been a roster with too many guys who are in committed relationships, and even worse, who are more involved in raising their kids as compared to other NFL players. So they make great neighbors and members of society, but bad football players. I'm not suggesting that we should draft or sign players who break the rules by artificially increasing their testosterone levels and risking long term adverse health affects. But c'mon, why would you intentionally draft or sign players whose off-the-field life situations make it clear that they will have lower testosterone levels than guys who aren't performing child-rearing duties and aren't in committed relationships? You simply can't credibly argue that increased aggression is an undesireable trait in a football player. It's just one example, but I've read that Fitz has kids and is a great Dad. Well that's just great for his kids and his wife, and it makes him a desireable member of society as a whole. But maybe he wouldn't perform like a career back-up if he was single, prowling the city like Jim Kelly did, and had higher testosterone levels. If we are stuck with being way under the salary cap while Ralph owns the team, let's at least be smarter and draft or sign players that we can reasonably expect to be more aggressive. Just my 2 lira (based on science). Oh, it's Ralph. No doubt about that. The fact that he kept the team in Buffalo does not exclude him from the responsibility for what happened on the field. I agree that they don't draft a lot of tough football players and it certainly has an impact on the result. I do buy your premise that drafting nice guys helps you finish last. But the losing of the past 12 years is the result of poor ownership. The bad draft picks, coaching, free agent decisions etc.. are just like cracks in the windshield all caused by the initial impact of Ralph. I don't hate the guy because it's just a game and I realize that it is HIS team, not Buffalo's. But he is just a lousy football decision maker. VERY lousy. And when you consider that the object of a pro football team is to convince the locals to support you it should not be a surprise that people actually do find him contemptible (as one TBD poster put it so well). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
808 Posted December 20, 2011 Share Posted December 20, 2011 go die Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
st. pete gogolak Posted December 20, 2011 Share Posted December 20, 2011 That must be the reason why the Convicts beat the Guards in "The Longest Yard". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ICanSleepWhenI'mDead Posted December 20, 2011 Author Share Posted December 20, 2011 Oh, it's Ralph. No doubt about that. The fact that he kept the team in Buffalo does not exclude him from the responsibility for what happened on the field. I agree that they don't draft a lot of tough football players and it certainly has an impact on the result. I do buy your premise that drafting nice guys helps you finish last. But the losing of the past 12 years is the result of poor ownership. The bad draft picks, coaching, free agent decisions etc.. are just like cracks in the windshield all caused by the initial impact of Ralph. I don't hate the guy because it's just a game and I realize that it is HIS team, not Buffalo's. But he is just a lousy football decision maker. VERY lousy. And when you consider that the object of a pro football team is to convince the locals to support you it should not be a surprise that people actually do find him contemptible (as one TBD poster put it so well). You're entitled to your opinion - - but everybody has one. It's not research. Here's just one article describing the recent research showing that a man's testosterone levels are adversely impacted by being in a committed relationship or sharing child-rearing duties: http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/context-and-variation/2011/09/16/testosterone-fatherhood/ Over the last decade or so, biological anthropologists have studied the biology of mating, partnering and fatherhood of men (e.g., Burnham et al. 2003; Gettler et al. 2011b; Gray et al. 2002; Gray et al. 2004). As it turns out, these different periods of men’s lives have distinct hormonal milieus, just like the reproductive states of women like fecund, pregnant, breastfeeding and grandmothering. When men are seeking mating opportunities, testosterone is high to support mating behavior, muscle anabolism, and the other secondary sexual characteristics that allow a man to display his good genes. When men are partnered in long-term relationships or become parents, testosterone often declines. And the more a man spends with his offspring, the greater the decline. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thisistheyear Posted December 20, 2011 Share Posted December 20, 2011 Everybody has a pet theory for why the Bills have missed the playoffs for over a decade. Some blame the players, some blame the front office, some even blame the owner who kept the team in Buffalo when he could have gotten a better stadium deal and made more money elsewhere. But those are just uninformed opinions. Opinions are like noses (clean version) - - everybody has one. But that doesn't make them right. If you simply accept the non-controversial idea that substances like steroids that are deemed "performance-enhancing drugs" actually improve athletic performance, then you should take note of some recent scientific research. Scientists have unambiguously shown that men who are in committed relationships have lower testosterone levels than men who are not. In addition, men who assist their partners with child-raising duties suffer even greater drops in testosterone levels than men who assume the more traditional male role of being a provider and leaving child-raising duties to their partners. Why should we as Bills fans care about this you ask? Here's why: Scientists have long known that increased testosterone levels lead not only to greater virility, but to higher levels of aggression as well. Although further research may be needed to prove it, some scientists also believe that higher testosterone levels can lead to improved athletic performance. The family values crowd won't like it, but this research provides a road map for building a successful football team. For at least the last decade, the Bills have placed a premium on drafting and signing "high-character" players. The unintended consequence has been a roster with too many guys who are in committed relationships, and even worse, who are more involved in raising their kids as compared to other NFL players. So they make great neighbors and members of society, but bad football players. I'm not suggesting that we should draft or sign players who break the rules by artificially increasing their testosterone levels and risking long term adverse health affects. But c'mon, why would you intentionally draft or sign players whose off-the-field life situations make it clear that they will have lower testosterone levels than guys who aren't performing child-rearing duties and aren't in committed relationships? You simply can't credibly argue that increased aggression is an undesireable trait in a football player. It's just one example, but I've read that Fitz has kids and is a great Dad. Well that's just great for his kids and his wife, and it makes him a desireable member of society as a whole. But maybe he wouldn't perform like a career back-up if he was single, prowling the city like Jim Kelly did, and had higher testosterone levels. If we are stuck with being way under the salary cap while Ralph owns the team, let's at least be smarter and draft or sign players that we can reasonably expect to be more aggressive. Just my 2 lira (based on science) That sure was a lot of words. Scientific theories are generally backed up by research, not "scientists have long accepted." Prove to me that the Bills have more player in committed relationships than other teams. Then tell me if this low testosterone thing has affected Tom Brady? That guy's married and gayer than the 1890s. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Erik Flowers Posted December 20, 2011 Share Posted December 20, 2011 Ralph is cheap. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ICanSleepWhenI'mDead Posted December 20, 2011 Author Share Posted December 20, 2011 go die We need more players who display this level of aggression. There's always an "exception that proves the rule," but I'm guessing that even if you are in a committed relationship, you are not currently intimately involved in raising any children. Your testosterone level appears acceptably high. Can you play OLB? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ET1062 Posted December 20, 2011 Share Posted December 20, 2011 Your whole theory is based on the Bills having "High Character" players. Sorry, but the Bills have had more than their fair share of scumbags, dirtballs and convicts over the past 10 years. Once again, thanks for wasting even more of my time! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BADOLBILZ Posted December 20, 2011 Share Posted December 20, 2011 You're entitled to your opinion - - but everybody has one. It's not research. That's where you're wrong, it is research. I just researched it. Ralph does in fact own the Bills . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dpberr Posted December 20, 2011 Share Posted December 20, 2011 "That guy's married and gayer than the 1890s." Hilarious. Absolutely love it. Literally LOL'ed. (LOL?) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wilson's Ears Posted December 20, 2011 Share Posted December 20, 2011 Everybody has a pet theory for why the Bills have missed the playoffs for over a decade. Some blame the players, some blame the front office, some even blame the owner who kept the team in Buffalo when he could have gotten a better stadium deal and made more money elsewhere. But those are just uninformed opinions. Opinions are like noses (clean version) - - everybody has one. But that doesn't make them right. If you simply accept the non-controversial idea that substances like steroids that are deemed "performance-enhancing drugs" actually improve athletic performance, then you should take note of some recent scientific research. Scientists have unambiguously shown that men who are in committed relationships have lower testosterone levels than men who are not. In addition, men who assist their partners with child-raising duties suffer even greater drops in testosterone levels than men who assume the more traditional male role of being a provider and leaving child-raising duties to their partners. Why should we as Bills fans care about this you ask? Here's why: Scientists have long known that increased testosterone levels lead not only to greater virility, but to higher levels of aggression as well. Although further research may be needed to prove it, some scientists also believe that higher testosterone levels can lead to improved athletic performance. The family values crowd won't like it, but this research provides a road map for building a successful football team. For at least the last decade, the Bills have placed a premium on drafting and signing "high-character" players. The unintended consequence has been a roster with too many guys who are in committed relationships, and even worse, who are more involved in raising their kids as compared to other NFL players. So they make great neighbors and members of society, but bad football players. I'm not suggesting that we should draft or sign players who break the rules by artificially increasing their testosterone levels and risking long term adverse health affects. But c'mon, why would you intentionally draft or sign players whose off-the-field life situations make it clear that they will have lower testosterone levels than guys who aren't performing child-rearing duties and aren't in committed relationships? You simply can't credibly argue that increased aggression is an undesireable trait in a football player. It's just one example, but I've read that Fitz has kids and is a great Dad. Well that's just great for his kids and his wife, and it makes him a desireable member of society as a whole. But maybe he wouldn't perform like a career back-up if he was single, prowling the city like Jim Kelly did, and had higher testosterone levels. If we are stuck with being way under the salary cap while Ralph owns the team, let's at least be smarter and draft or sign players that we can reasonably expect to be more aggressive. Just my 2 lira (based on science). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truth on hold Posted December 20, 2011 Share Posted December 20, 2011 Don't know about the hormone theory but I do agree bills and their fans have placed too much emphasis on acquiring mother teresa in pads. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ICanSleepWhenI'mDead Posted December 20, 2011 Author Share Posted December 20, 2011 (edited) . . . Scientific theories are generally backed up by research, not "scientists have long accepted." Peer-reviewed article published in the Proceedings of the National Acadamy of Sciences of the United States of America ("PNAS") good enough for you? http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2011/09/02/1105403108 How about a scientific article published in the Journal of Endocrinology? http://joe.endocrinology-journals.org/content/170/1/27.full.pdf As for Brady, well, Kim Kardashian and that NBA player were "married," too. Besides, if you're suggesting that Brady is gay and not really married, then aren't you making MY point if you think he's a good player? If he's not really married, then his testosterone levels wouldn't decline, even if he publicly claims he's in a truly committed relationship with a woman. Edited December 20, 2011 by ICanSleepWhenI'mDead Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ICanSleepWhenI'mDead Posted December 20, 2011 Author Share Posted December 20, 2011 Your whole theory is based on the Bills having "High Character" players. Sorry, but the Bills have had more than their fair share of scumbags, dirtballs and convicts over the past 10 years. Once again, thanks for wasting even more of my time! It's hard to compare the "share of scumbags, dirtballs and convicts" between teams - - all teams have at least a few. But there is anecdotal evidence to suggest the Bills have less than the NFL average. During the lockout, somebody posted a running commentary, backed up by links to news media reports, listing the various crimes that locked-out NFL players were charged with. I was amazed at how few Bills players were on the list as compared to other teams. I don't currently have the TSW link at my fingertips to prove that my memory is right, but if I find it I'll edit this post to add it. And don't you remember how well-known Marv Levy was for seeking out high-character players during his admittedly brief tenure as GM? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SageAgainstTheMachine Posted December 20, 2011 Share Posted December 20, 2011 Ok, let's just say that your theory is true and that bachelors are better at football that married dads. Do you actually know that the Bills of the last decade have had more family men than the other teams or are you just guessing? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ieatcrayonz Posted December 20, 2011 Share Posted December 20, 2011 Ok, let's just say that your theory is true and that bachelors are better at football that married dads. Do you actually know that the Bills of the last decade have had more family men than the other teams or are you just guessing? Well I think a certain Glove Wearing Mary had enough estrogen for four NFL rosters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geno Smith's Arm Posted December 20, 2011 Share Posted December 20, 2011 Thank you for wasting 3 minutes of my life that I will never get back. Thank you for letting us know, because I almost read it... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ICanSleepWhenI'mDead Posted December 20, 2011 Author Share Posted December 20, 2011 (edited) Well I think a certain Glove Wearing Mary had enough estrogen for four NFL rosters. Didn't Trent Edwards' sister move to Buffalo and live with Trent while he was with the Bills? I'm not suggesting incest or anything, but maybe the scientific research should be expanded to see if living with your sister also affects your testosterone levels. Edited December 20, 2011 by ICanSleepWhenI'mDead Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SageAgainstTheMachine Posted December 20, 2011 Share Posted December 20, 2011 Didn't Trent Edwards' sister move to Buffalo and live with Trent while he was with the Bills? I'm not suggesting incest or anything, but maybe the scientific research should be expanded to see if living with your sister also affects your testosterone levels. Once my sister left for college, I became a much better tackler. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
l< j Posted December 20, 2011 Share Posted December 20, 2011 I'm going to guess that you are not a provider, not involved in childrearing, and not in a committed relationship with any women (outside of the staff at a sports bar or 2). Compensate much? kj Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ICanSleepWhenI'mDead Posted December 20, 2011 Author Share Posted December 20, 2011 Once my sister left for college, I became a much better tackler. Well, then you and Trent make two data points, but we still need a double-blind study. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ieatcrayonz Posted December 21, 2011 Share Posted December 21, 2011 Didn't Trent Edwards' sister move to Buffalo and live with Trent while he was with the Bills? I'm not suggesting incest or anything, but maybe the scientific research should be expanded to see if living with your sister also affects your testosterone levels. I don't know about that but I heard their Aunt Flo thought it was convenient because she could visit them both at the same time of the month. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BringBackFergy Posted December 21, 2011 Share Posted December 21, 2011 "That guy's married and gayer than the 1890s." Hilarious. Absolutely love it. Literally LOL'ed. (LOL?) I did too...funny as hell. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Best Player Available Posted December 21, 2011 Share Posted December 21, 2011 Once my sister left for college, I became a much better tackler. Now That's funny!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ICanSleepWhenI'mDead Posted December 21, 2011 Author Share Posted December 21, 2011 The existing research shows that being in a committed relationship with a woman lowers your testosterone levels. If future research shows that living with your sister does NOT affect testosterone levels, then becoming a better tackler when your sister leaves for college isn't funny, it's SICK! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JOE IN HAMPTON ROADS Posted December 21, 2011 Share Posted December 21, 2011 Oh, it's Ralph. No doubt about that. The fact that he kept the team in Buffalo does not exclude him from the responsibility for what happened on the field. But the losing of the past 12 years is the result of poor ownership. The bad draft picks, coaching, free agent decisions etc.. are just like cracks in the windshield all caused by the initial impact of Ralph. I don't hate the guy because it's just a game and I realize that it is HIS team, not Buffalo's. But he is just a lousy football decision maker. VERY lousy. And when you consider that the object of a pro football team is to convince the locals to support you it should not be a surprise that people actually do find him contemptible (as one TBD poster put it so well). Dick, that's the best summary of RW I've seen on this board. I don't hate him either, but he's the least common denominator in all the bad decisions that bring us to a lost decade (or more). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ICanSleepWhenI'mDead Posted December 21, 2011 Author Share Posted December 21, 2011 I'm going to guess that you are not a provider, not involved in childrearing, and not in a committed relationship with any women (outside of the staff at a sports bar or 2). Compensate much? kj I'm not hiring right now, but if I was I would pay fair market value. You probably wouldn't get the job, though, because I prefer employees who reach reasonable conclusions based on available scientific research over people who make uninformed guesses. Maybe if you ran a Monte Carlo simulation on your guesses so that you had a higher confidence level in your conclusions you could be an unpaid intern. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BringBackFergy Posted December 21, 2011 Share Posted December 21, 2011 Plato would prove this theory as follows: Men like to meet women. Women are attracted to men with high testosterone and can smell it in male sweat. Men who sweat attract women. Men who attract women eventually lay pipe and have kids. Once men lay pipe and have kids they slow down because the little ones stay up at night. When kids are awake, the woman loses sleep and is grumpy in the morning. When the woman is pissed off, the man has a bad day at work. He comes home from work all sweaty and woman is attracted to him. Man and woman lay more pipe. More kids arrive. Performance on field sucks. Single man laughs in corner so hard he sweats. Single man walks out of locker room and attracts woman. Cycle begins again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pirate Angel Posted December 21, 2011 Share Posted December 21, 2011 Whiffing on QBs is the main reason.......giving a bunch of bad qbs 4 years to develop into even worse qbs is another Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. Fong Posted December 21, 2011 Share Posted December 21, 2011 Interesting notion, which kind of ties into what I've often thought about with the Bills going overboard to draft high character guys. But at the very base level it's Ralph. The guy runs this football team like a business. A business that is out to maximize profits and not necessarily be the best that it can be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ICanSleepWhenI'mDead Posted December 21, 2011 Author Share Posted December 21, 2011 Interesting notion, which kind of ties into what I've often thought about with the Bills going overboard to draft high character guys. But at the very base level it's Ralph. The guy runs this football team like a business. A business that is out to maximize profits and not necessarily be the best that it can be. I don't think there's any question that Ralph could do a better job of running the team. But if he chooses to spend less than the salary cap allows and makes other decisions to maximize profits, there's not much that Nix and Gailey can do about that. Faced with those limitations, though, Nix and Gailey should do the best job they can to make the team a winner. If the best available science shows that guys in commissioned relationships have lower testosterone, and are therefor less aggressive, we should be drafting and signing guys that are "playing the field," if you will, and aren't involved in raising kids. Note that I said "raising" kids, not having kids. Travis Henry and Willis McGahee both had plenty of kids, but since they weren't involved in raising them and remained on the prowl, their testosterone levels weren't obversely reflected. Fitz is different. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The-scout Posted December 21, 2011 Share Posted December 21, 2011 An I would bet more then 50% of the team already is on some kind PED. I'd bet 80% of the league is for that matter. But still a pretty gay post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ICanSleepWhenI'mDead Posted December 21, 2011 Author Share Posted December 21, 2011 An I would bet more then 50% of the team already is on some kind PED. I'd bet 80% of the league is for that matter. But still a pretty gay post. Maybe the guys who are married or heavily involved in raising kids subconshuslee realize that they need to take PEDs to be competitive. And they'd be under more pressure to be competitive anyway, because they have mouths to feed. What do you think? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WVUFootball29 Posted December 21, 2011 Share Posted December 21, 2011 Are you suggesting that the NFL Combine start ranking players based on their testosterone levels? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
QB Bills Posted December 21, 2011 Share Posted December 21, 2011 We need more players who display this level of aggression. There's always an "exception that proves the rule," but I'm guessing that even if you are in a committed relationship, you are not currently intimately involved in raising any children. Your testosterone level appears acceptably high. Can you play OLB? hahaha...nicely played OP, you are quickly becoming one of the better posters on here...kudos Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ICanSleepWhenI'mDead Posted December 21, 2011 Author Share Posted December 21, 2011 (edited) Are you suggesting that the NFL Combine start ranking players based on their testosterone levels? Hadn't thought about it. At first push it seemed like it might be a good idea, because we'd have exact measurements, just like we already do for the 40 yard dash, 3 cone drill, etc, etc. But then I tried to put myself in Buddy's gloves, and got to thinkin' about how he says all the teams are tryin' to rob the same train in the draft. If we asked the folks in Indianapolis to test for testosterone, Belicheat's spy cameras would probably see it somehow, and then he'd start asking questions. When he eventually found the scientific research, we would no longer have a competitive advantage. I think we should keep the science under our hat for now, and draft based on relationship and child-rearing status. Sure we might still miss on a few picks - - there could always be some guy who was secretly in a committed relationship or secretly helping raise his kids but lieing about it to his buddies to be "cool." But it would let us keep our strategy a secret. The Japs didn't tell us they were coming before they bombed Pearl Harbor. Odd looking draft picks might be a dead give away that teams like the Ravens or Cowboys were onto something, but in our case everybody would just laugh and say "same old Bills - - can't draft worth a s**t." When we started winning based on the scientific research, other NFL GMs would eventually figure it out, but at least we'd have a head start. It's a lot like the "Moneyball" situation in baseball. When the Texas Rangers started acquiring players who hit with power, nobody realized the method to their madness, until they started winning more games. Now all the baseball teams do it. Edited December 21, 2011 by ICanSleepWhenI'mDead Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SageAgainstTheMachine Posted December 21, 2011 Share Posted December 21, 2011 An I would bet more then 50% of the team already is on some kind PED. I'd bet 80% of the league is for that matter. But still a pretty gay post. Does this post like to get freaky with other posts about testosterone? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ICanSleepWhenI'mDead Posted December 21, 2011 Author Share Posted December 21, 2011 (edited) I think the jury is out on whether living with one's sister is equivalent to having a spouse. I believe Ndamakan Suh lives with his sister, and he's a raging bull. Roger Goodell is a sharp guy, and the NFL is powerful. Roger's probably seen the unpublished "sister" research. Maybe the NFL says Suh is required to take anger management courses, but he's actually just required to live with his sister as part of a "testosterone adjustment" program. Come to think of it, Trent Edwards looked pretty good for a while. Maybe Belicheat got to the research first, and talked Trent Edwards' sister into moving to Buffalo to live with Trent. I don't know how fast a player's testosterone levels would drop. Maybe the effect kicked in right around the time Trent took that big hit in the AZ game. I hate the Patriots! Edited December 21, 2011 by ICanSleepWhenI'mDead Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts