Danielg342

I might get burned saying this, but I'm not sure Tom Brady is done with the NFL. Maybe the Bucs might want to move on (but that would be stupid of them) but I can't see Brady retiring. He had one bad year but not because his skills had noticeably deteriorated- the issues appeared to be either beyond his control (a bad offensive line) or in the mental aspect of the game (all those tantrums and not being on the same page as his receivers). Brady could easily go for another year and I expect him too. He hasn't fallen to the depths of how Brett Favre or Peyton Manning looked in their final years and he's too much of a competitor to hang it up while he believes he can still grace a NFL field.

What I mean more is that this week was a break from the character drama, aside from Gabby's admission to Jake. The character moments- Bode and Vince, Charlie and Sharon- were happy moments or at least resolved happily. They were not dealt another whammy to brood over for next week.

I'm not surprised at the inclusion of soap opera-style plots in this show given Shemar Moore's experience with the genre and the fact he tends to do quite well with the material However, the show needs to find the right balance, because getting too "soapy" is dragging the show down. Speaking of the pregnancy, shouldn't Nischelle be close to delivering by now? She got pregnant last May...it's been eight months now if I have my math correct.

🤣🤣 I guess so, although I think to be a cougar you have to have a base level of maturity that I don't think Garcia has reached yet.

Well, I was pulling for Charlie...I mean, I knew he was going to make it, but the episode did play the beats rather well. The actors were, as they always are, downright amazing and were fun to watch. I'll also say I'm glad Bode came around and realized he's a Leone, not a Donovan and that Vince told him he was proud of Bode. Dad and son may not be eye-to-eye yet but they're getting there. We also had quite some fun with Sharon and Cara. Eve also stood out tonight too. That's about it. This sure felt like a "filler" episode, and, while I appreciate the need for a show to slow down after an intense episode (as what "No Good Deed" was supposed to be), there's something to say about pumping the breaks too much. The other note I have about this episode- which I'm not sure is a good sign- is that I wonder how much longer the fire camp will stick around. They were truly in the background, continuing a trend that doesn't, um, bode well for this show. As much as I appreciate that this show is about Bode, the fire camp is what makes this show stand out. They need to work the camp into the stories better instead of making them glorified extras.

Ho-hum. Just another day at S.W.A.T., folks. I'll give the show this much. Street's idiocy was understandable and, as harsh as Deacon may have sounded to him, Deacon had no other choice. I'll also say the twist with Ramona Quinn (Emily Swallow) was well-executed, and I appreciate the fact that in this "save the child" storyline there was a reasonable attempt to craft an interesting journey, because- since this is Hollywood- we all know how it ends. That's about it, really. There were a lot of stuff about the case that just didn't add to me, but I won't bother recapping them because this episode really didn't hold my attention, so I likely missed a lot of stuff. Besides, the details don't really matter if they just fly by as they did tonight. Which was the episode's real problem- it was far too "talky". There's an old writing rule that says "show, don't tell", and let me tell you this episode did far more "telling" than they did "showing", weighing down the final product. As for the Nischelle (Nichelle? These press releases have me confused) storyline...I'm not sure what to say about it because it was so brief and there was hardly a story there anyway. Which makes me wonder why they bothered. Just another day at S.W.A.T., folks.

Yawn. As they say, "the Devil is in the details", and I'm sure the CM writers' room has heard and espoused that expression many a time. The problem is, the writers get lost in them. Way too many times. So I won't get lost recounting all the details this episode went through- and the very, very very many they got wrong. I'll settle for this, though: I can't figure out what is sadder- Penelope Garcia trying to run in ridiculously long heels or David Rossi only barely being able to keep up with her while running with her. If anything said "Rossi should be retired", it was that scene. Tyler Green and Garcia are now apparently a thing. Rebecca Wilson and Tara Lewis are now, apparently, not a thing. Speaking of Rebecca, someone could correct me on this because it could just be standard procedure, but I have to wonder why she's "under review" because her first ever prosecution turned out to be wrong. She's had, presumably, 20 years of other prosecutions that had to have gone her way, so those should mean something. Not that I really buy Silvio being jailed for 20 years, given how flimsy the evidence was against him. CM continues to make the mistake that confessions are air tight when they are not, and Rebecca looks like a reckless and careless prosecutor for attempting to convict Silvio based on so little evidence. Did CM not learn from the false confessor in the JonBenet Ramsey case? Of course, I'm going to make the bet that the writers will tell us that Silvio knew, all along, that Cyrus would get killed which was somehow part of the "master plan". Because that's how Sicarius gets away with his crimes- the people who can be linked to him are somehow found dead before they can reveal their link to him (or, so goes the wonky explanation by the CM Writers' Room). Which opens a whole new can of worms that my brain just doesn't want to get into, especially at this hour. I should also throw the side eye at CM for again using family as the reason our serial killer does what he does. I also don't think it'll be too much of a stretch to suggest that Elias Voit is going be found out because of his familial connection to Cyrus- that last scene couldn't have telegraphed that any clearer. Washington was awfully sombre considering that just hours before the events of this episode occurred a Senator was murdered in cold blood. Pretty sure things would be more chaotic on Capitol Hill and at the FBI Headquarters than what we saw on screen. I'm sure there are other things I'm forgetting to mention about this episode and they may come to me later, but the point remains that this is an abject mess. At least the writers are consistent, at least.

From the Futon Critic.

Vince did, at least, go straight back to the investigator and told her to pin the entire blame for the incident on him, so at least Vince was aware he should have been held accountable. He may have only done it to save his son, but at least Vince was willing to take the fall.

Ah, OK. I understand. I looked at "I'm on your side" as a ploy for the investigator to win the interviewee's trust (though I think the investigator actually meant it). Maybe it's all those years watching police procedurals and seeing police interrogators use the same tactic which is why I wasn't bothered with the interviewer using that tactic here. It was unclear to me if the investigator ever recorded herself saying "I'm on your side", because I would agree that would be bad. If she left it out of the record, then the record looks impartial. I suppose she would be exposed by an interviewee bringing up that statement in court, but I think she could defend herself by saying, "I needed to say that to gain my subject's trust". I don't know how it works in civil cases but I know, in criminal cases, interrogators feigning support and sympathy for the criminal is legal. I would agree with that. I suppose the show's conundrum was figuring out who to sacrifice, as all the characters of consequence- Captain Manny and Chiefs Vince and Sharon- are main characters. Perhaps the show could have gotten away with giving one or all of them a simple reprimand or even just a suspension, but the errors everyone made seemed more serious than that. Maybe in "Bad Guy" the operation should have been a joint operation with another department of Cal Fire, just so in this episode there could have been someone of consequence (the other department's captain or chief) who could have been the "fall guy" here. It would telegraph the plot, for sure, but it would at least mean the writers would not have to sacrifice someone "important". My guess is the laziness and tendency to cut corners are unintended consequences of the pressures of being a Hollywood writer. They are under immense pressure to create a lot of work and do so under a deadline, and this is before we factor in all the outside demands that get made of the writing staff (e.g. actors wanting to protect their characters, executives wanting ratings). Small wonder a lot of writers get lazy and want to cut corners when telling the stories because this makes the writing process easier. I'll also guess those pressures don't start to build until after the show gets established. Part of this is the fact the first episodes tend to already have been made before the show even starts to air, but I also think that, until a show is a hit, the people involved don't worry about having to protect their involvement with it as much. If a show will only last five or six episodes it's easy to move on, but if the show will last for years, you'd want to make sure your time on that show is worth it. There's also the mantra for writers not to sweat the "small stuff". Realistically, if a show is entertaining all of its faults fade into the background. Case in point, in their first scene on Star Trek: The Next Generation, Gates McFadden and Wil Wheaton were worried that the audience watching the bazar scene would notice they didn't have enough extras to make a believable scene. The director told them that if the audience notices the lack of extras, they're not noticing the main actors in the scene. So, if we're sitting here and picking apart all the little details a show is getting wrong, the show is not doing its job to entertain us. This isn't to say the nitpicking is wrong, since it likely means all the errors are detracting from the plot. I mean, I don't think anyone would complain much about Fire Country if the show's worst offence was merely that the firefighters were wearing their helmets wrong. It'd still be annoying, but that wouldn't affect the plot too much. Bode being the only one who knows how to calm down a horse, with said horse's owners standing right in front of him? That's too big an error to ignore. With Fire Country specifically I think a bit of an ego play is at work. It's not as bad as Designated Survivor was with Kiefer Sutherland, but I think Max Theriot- who is an executive producer of FC- is meddling with the show to a degree. It's the explanation I have for why Bode seems to have "all the answers", as well as why the show seems to focus mainly on Bode's family to the (near) exclusion of everyone else. I grant that, as much as the show presented the possibility of exploring fire camp life, the show's initial pitch was about exploring Bode's life, his dark secrets and his journey to redeem himself from his darkness. Bode being a focus doesn't bother me. I think what does bother me is that the first two episodes presented the idea that Bode had many different secrets, not just Riley's death (which isn't much of a secret anyway). I also believe the show is dropping the ball on exploring how Bode navigates life as a fire camper. To this end, he should have had a longer run as First Saw, since then he'd have to interact more with the other inmates and he'd have to figure out how to solve their problems. This isn't to say that Bode's drama with his parents was a bad concept- it just feels like more of a "background" issue than one that should be front and centre. Front and centre should be the fire camp.

I don't disagree that the investigator's report would be torn apart in court. It sure would. I'm saying that her intentions were believable. She just happened to apply them (or rather, the writers happened to apply her intentions) in the wrong way. "The rules and procedures" can't stop her from putting as positive a spin as she can on what happened. Data and statements can be interpreted and reinterpreted in many different ways. In a lawsuit situation, the defendant's and the plaintiff's investigations will be different, guaranteed, just out of their nature. Cal Fire will look to mitigate as much damage as possible from their end and the plaintiffs will try to maximize it. Perhaps in real life Cal Fire would not attempt to portray its own employees all that well, because if they can pin what happened on a suitable scapegoat (and reprimand that scapegoat), the organization might be able to escape liability because "we did something". It would be up to the courts to decide if they had done enough.

Manny also said he was a "graduate" of the inmate program. So, at least in the show's universe there is the possibility that campers could become full-time firefighters. I actually think the series finale will see Bode finally get out of jail and replace Manny as captain, with Bode now leading the camp. There may even be a "new" Bode that the original Bode takes under his wing like Manny did to him, with the finale telling us that the cycle is repeating itself once again.

I'll give the writers this much credit. Usually, when shows do the "team under investigation" stories, the investigators come across as cold, soulless automatons who are after nothing but "the truth". This is mostly done just so that the main characters can tell the story of the situation that is being investigated, because that's the focus of the episode, but typically investigators come across as cold and inhuman. At least in this episode the investigator wasn't cold and seemed to actually have a motive. Add to that it was a positive one too. I would find it believable that the Cal Fire investigator- who would likely be the key witness in any lawsuit- would want to craft a report that is favourable for Cal Fire. What I don't find believable is that the investigator would take people at their word. So what if Freddy "confirms" the absurd situation that the investigator pitched to him? What court would believe that is what actually happened? It boils down to what is a key problem for this show. Unlike other shows that meander and seemingly have no idea what point they are trying to get across, Fire Country is the opposite. These writers have a point to make, but they twist the entire episode around to make that point- regardless of whether or not the events depicted actually made sense. There's a real lack of foresight and planning. A lot of Hollywood shows have this same problem, mostly stemming from the fact Hollywood writers can't resist the urge to attempt to make their episodes "complex". They could learn a thing or two from the show that precedes it, S.W.A.T., by just keeping it simple. Sure, S.W.A.T. gets too simple and too formulaic far too often, but I'm never confused about what is going on or why things are happening. Fire Country gets too confusing at times so they really need to learn to tighten things up.

Bruce Smith would like a word. :P Thinking of the original LT makes me wonder who would win in the hole- Lawrence Taylor or LaDainian Tomlinson?

Buffalo was Washington's first opponent since Sean Taylor died. If I remember correctly, the 'Skins and the Bills made a deal where on Buffalo's first play on offence, the 'Skins would line up with ten men (symbolism for Taylor's absence) and the Bills would take a knee. Perhaps a similar agreement could be made for Damar Hamlin. In, say, Buffalo's first game in 2023, he could play the first snap on defence in his regular position, with the running back running towards him and sliding in his direction so all Hamlin has to do to "make the tackle" is touch him when he's down. Then Hamlin can say he returned to play and left the game on a high note.

There is one thing that this show has that keeps me hooked, aside from its supremely talented group of actors. It has heart. An idealistic one, for sure, but a heart nonetheless. One that tells you that despite all the negativity that surrounds us all there are still positives. In a Hollywood ocean that is filled with darkness, it's refreshing that there is still a show that wants to shine a light. Obviously it still doesn't mean that Fire Country is perfect, and brightness can only cover its flaws for so long. We still had "nonsensical Super Bode" in this episode, which added "nonsensical Super Gabby" to the mix with the in-field emergency surgery. I also have to wonder how Captain Manny and Chief Vince could have kept their jobs for so long with so many blunders which are, apparently, a known matter of record. I ask the same question about District Chief Sharon too, especially since she's allowed all this stuff to happen. One thing I will give the episode credit for is that the lead investigator did, genuinely, come across as someone who was on the firefighters' side, even if Freddy hilariously and poignantly questioned her motives. I also don't know how any report by the investigative unit of Cal Fire would avert any lawsuit (or damage from it). Just like I'm not sure how Vince could accomplish the same thing via a simple heart-to-heart with the victim's family. (Megan, I understand, is the name of the woman who died in this episode) ...but still, that scene with Vince having the heart to heart really gave this episode a nice moral to the story, even if it went through a series of nonsensical leaps and bounds to get there. Just like Vince wanted to "punch away the pain" before he realized he was getting nowhere and only hurting people who were trying to do the right thing (Bode), Megan's family needed to make the same realization. It's a thoughtful point that puts what happened in this episode and the one before it in perspective, and while it's debatable how accurate the show's portrayal of that perspective is, it's nice that the show is level-headed about its emotional stories and still understands they need the emotion to have a point to get across.

"With all due respect, why do I have to?" Oh Hondo...always defiant...but I'd expect nothing less. I would cringe at the mere thought of a soap opera type storyline for this show but we all know Shemar Moore is a vet and he's done well with this kind of material before on this show so we'll see how it goes. Soapy-ness was a bit of a theme on this episode, with Luca discovering he had a previously unknown sister. One who seems to have a lot in common. She's also played by TV vet Kelly Overton, so you know "la sorella Luca" isn't going to be a one-shot deal. Then there's poor Tan...I guess we'll see what happens with Bonnie but this doesn't look like a good sign. Oh, and is it just me or was Hicks a bit more amped up than he usually is? As for the case itself...well, it held my attention and I liked how it emphasized the personal nature of the situation, even if what was said during the episode was a bit idealistic. Getting into the family past of Powell Cabrera was also interesting. Still, this episode kind of was just "there" and it had all the hallmarks of a "mid-season filler" show. Enjoyable, but forgettable.

This is not mine. Found it in the Bills Mafia Facebook group. Obviously, this was created by a Bengals fan. Hope this clears everything up with regards to the scheduling scenarios.

Actually, the Bills would have had the chance (in this case) to be the No. 2 if the Chiefs lose to the Raiders. That would put Buffalo and Kansas City at 13-4 with Buffalo having the tiebreak. In this case, Cincinnati would have had to have beaten Baltimore anyway to claim the top spot, because that would force a three-way tie at 13-4. The Bengals would have won the No. 1 because they would have beaten both the Bills and the Chiefs, the Bills would be No. 2 because they beat the Chiefs and the Chiefs would be the No. 3 because they lost to both teams.

On Monday, January 2, 2023 at 8:15PM EST, the Buffalo Bills had the opportunity to claim the No. 1 seed in the AFC. For them to lose the opportunity because they couldn't finish the game against the Bengals is penalizing them. It's not a formal punishment, per se, but it will sure feel like it...and that is surely not fair. Yes, the Bills should have won any (or all) of the three games they did lose earlier this season, but that's beside the point. Before the game against Cincinnati, the Bills still had the chance to make up for those losses. To tell them they don't get that opportunity and that they should "suck it up" because they "should have won earlier" just isn't right. Buffalo didn't ask to abandon the game and their chances to earn No. 1 overall should not be hurt because of it.

In my first year of University, I remember knowing a woman who disliked one of her classes. She thought she could pull the trick you could do in high school- skip enough classes and they kick you out of the course automatically- but in university it doesn't work like that. I remember thinking about how refreshing it was in university that I was treated like an adult for once and not babied like I was in high school. It was still an adjustment, but I managed successfully. Sounds like the transition from college to the pros is the same way, and with good reason. The stakes are too high at the pro level for the coaches to have patience with people who aren't yet mature enough to handle what it takes. Out of the two options present, the neutral site AFC Championship Game might be the best option but I still feel like they're punishing the Bills and Bengals for something they didn't do. Plus, how would Option #1 work? Would the #1 seed play #7 in the first round? I'm still a proponent- as I laid out before- of keeping all the scenarios that would have been in play with a result in Bills-Bengals in play and working your way from there. It would take some figuring out and may still not make everyone happy, but it would at least ensure that no one is hurt from abandoning a game they didn't want to abandon.

I think Ryan Leaf mentioned that as a reason he flamed out. San Diego paid him like a huge star so he didn't believe he had to work hard because he had now "made it". I wonder how many other well-paid rookies have thought the same way.

That's the thing- it's very easy for them to do so. Give someone a lot of money all at once and many of them will blow it within a few years. Add in the recklessness of youth, perhaps with the feeling that, as a rookie, you're "destined" to a long career in the majors, and it's easy to see why many players squander their salaries. Obviously, players need better direction with their money and leagues should do more to help with that. I won't belabour that point. One other thing that should happen is teams ought to scrap that stupid hazing ritual where the rookies have to pay for a team meal. How many of them lose a lot of money they'll never get back because they fell for this "harmless prank"? Maybe that bill doesn't appear to be a lot in the grand scheme of things but every little bit helps, on top of denouncing that abuse on principle. For what it's worth, the Bills have a good history dealing with players who suffered devastating injuries. When Kevin Everett went down in 2007, the Bills intentionally waited until he had passed three years on the roster so that he could collect all the health benefits that he needed. I can imagine Buffalo will do the same for Damar Hamlin, if not more, if they need to do so.

Only issue I have is that it still is punishing the Bills for something beyond their control. A tie or using winning percentage puts Kansas City in the driver's seat for No. 1 overall, when, if the Bills had beaten the Bengals, they would not have been. I still think the best decision is to base the standings on the results of this week's games, declaring the Buffalo-Cincinnati result based on who would benefit the most competitively. If the Bills beat the Patriots, they get No. 1, continuing the path the Bills were on if they had beaten Cincinnati. If Buffalo wins, KC loses and Cincy wins, Cincy gets No. 2 (I'm allowing a win for both Buffalo and Cincinnati in their game since this preserves the "best possible outcome" and because the two teams did not have the opportunity to decide their game on the field). If Buffalo loses, KC loses and Cincinnati wins, Cincinnati gets No. 1 (which the Bengals could have gotten an opportunity for if they had beaten the Bills). If Baltimore wins, the Ravens get the AFC North, as what would have happened had Cincinnati lost to Buffalo. If Baltimore and San Diego the Los Angeles Chargers both win, Cincinnati is the #6 seed, since a Cincinnati loss to Buffalo means Cincinnati would lose the tiebreaker (conference record) against San Diego the Chargers. Yes it's convoluted, but it's better than "simple" solutions like a tie or winning percentage. I want to be as fair as I can be to all the teams in question, because no one asked for what happened on Monday.