VOR

Mirer had a 56.4% completion percentage, 2833 yards, 12 TD's and 17 INT's, and was sacked 47 times his rookie year. Are you thinking of another Rick Mirer?

Well as I was making fun of Mr. WEO over, Michael Vick (forgetting the legal issues) had better stats, was a winning QB, and even led his team to a playoff win. Yet everyone thought he sucked as a QB. Is it because Flutie is 5'2"? White? Wasn't the 1st overall pick? Won the Heisman?

I've never seen so much love for a guy who had a 54.7% completion percentage, almost as many turnovers as TD's, who had maybe 2 good seasons out of 12 in the NFL, and who never won a playoff game.

Oh, you think Vick should have gotten worse? Yet Lynch deserved what he got. And you're pissed because HE screwed you over, not Goodell? Makes perfect sense. Any Bills fans should be incensed that a dog-killer and pot smoker (what was that you said about Lynch allegedly smoking pot again?) received just ONE game more than Lynch. Oh...that's right. Sorry if I can't keep track of every wacky thing you say. And that certainly makes your creepy unconditional devotion to Flutie as pathetic as it originally sounded. At least Vick won a playoff game, while posting a better winning percentage and stats in a shorter period of time.

You mean the first true offense? Yep, he had an illegal weapon in a box in the trunk of his car. He got a wholly appropriate misdemeanor and fine for a first-time, non-violent, non-threatening case. It's not like he got away with anything there, like Stallworth did in his case or Marshall did in his cases. Actually chief, I was asking for your thoughts on Sir Roger's reported 4-game suspension of Vick. You have to think he's as retarded as I thought he was for Lynch's suspension. Well? And talk about non-comprehension! The stuff about Vick, his winning percentage, and taking his team to the playoffs and winning was sarcasm, given your Flutie taint-licking. And something tells me you had the same dislike of Vick even before the dog killing.

I didn't mention this before, primarily because the Gates thread sort of covers it, but I thought Obama made a HUGE mistake saying the cop in the Gates case "acted stupidly," and then went onto talk about how Black and Latinos have been discriminated. While there might have been truth to it, he basically alienated most of the law enforcement community, as well as a good portion of the white community who merely turn off when race enters into things.

Idiots!

I didn't realize that a moving violation ticket for accidentally and unwittingly hitting a woman (which is all Sir Roger could have deduced from reading the police report, much less the other pieces of data that make up the whole case) constituted an "offense." The only "offense" people took was to Lynch exercising his 5th amendment rights (the horror!). But hey, judging by this latest ruling, Sir Roger just makes the rules up as he goes along. I find it funny that Vick testing positive for pot while on bail didn't constitute an additional offense, meriting him an 8-game suspension at least. And judging by how you've been railing against Vick, I can't believe that this ruling by Sir Roger sits well with you. But knowing how you operate despite the little amount of time you've been here, you'll obviously spin this in a way to make it seem wholly appropriate. So let's hear it.

Good point. The owners so totally overmatched in the last round of CBA talks, that another round would likely have seen them working for the players. So better to let the SCOTUS do their dirty work for them so they don't allow themselves to get raped again. No wait, it was all about "labor peace," which would have been fatal to the league back in 2006, but suddenly doesn't matter anymore. It was a plan all along to take the ANI case to the SCOTUS. Riiiiiiiiight. My bad. TO agreed to the contract with the Eagles and then sought to break that contract because he thought it was a bad one. That's TOTALLY off topic. Then again, TO didn't go crying to the courts to try and change the rules. How much does it cost most of us to watch the Bills, or for most fans to watch their own teams (because most watch on TV)? What's your point, Sr. Guevara? Because MY point is that with this supposed new found power over setting players' salaries, they'll have a LOT more money. So that means that prices should fall for the fans. You see Mr. WEO, this isn't just about the Bills. But I wouldn't expect you to see anything more than what your narrow scope allows you to see.

I expect Levitre and Byrd to sign before camp opens. Maybin and Wood will miss a couple days.

The least you can expect from TO is an honest effort.

Yeah, and I'm not seeing anything. I didn't read either site and am just playing-off of Beerball's joke.

It was reverse discimination towards Wood. Sheesh.

Sounds like reverse discrimination. They don't want to say anything bad about the black player, i.e. that he may be a "holdout."

I will be going the HSA/high-deductible health insurance route next year (have been trying to get it the past 2 years, but that's another discussion). That's how it should be done.

My mistake. He got an indefinite suspension. And John Clayton is also reporting that 4 games seems to be the length of the suspension. So there's a whole lot of non-retraction retracting going on here.

Why not 8 games? Or a year? I'm not saying lifetime ban, like Stallworth got.

I prefer spendenoughtimewithoneanotherinordertolearneachotherstendenciesandtoplayasaunit, but it's damn long to type.

I don't disagree at all. And you think that Wood and Levitre would realize this themselves and want to be there from the get-go. So the problem isn't just on the Bills' side.

The Bills have options. And since the Bills are starting camp early, the currently unsigned rookies in-effect won't be missing any more time than any of the other rookies.

It is an inane chart. Sadly enough, it's pretty close to the truth. The government's answer is more bureaucracy, which means even greater complexity, oversight, inefficiency, and wasted money.

Great! Where are the car insurance public option plans? A lot of people don't care about taking better care of themselves. Most everyone knows that you should eat right, drink plenty of fluids, exercise, get plenty of rest, and avoid excessive drinking, smoking, taking drugs, high risk behavior, etc. Yet most people who can afford to pay for health insurance don't do more than a few of those things, much less the people that can't afford to pay. And the effects often-times don't manifest themselves for months to years later, so it's not readily apparent what you're doing to yourself. When you're driving in a car, you try to avoid accidents because first and foremost, you can get seriously hurt, if not killed, in an instant. Thoughts about damage to the car, the other driver, etc. are secondary. I agree that giving free health insurance might not lead to people making more poor choices, but I don't think it will make one bit of difference, while saddling the rest of us with their bills. If you have no interest in taking care of yourself because it's your body, I have no interest in taking care of your bills. And as I said before, food and shelter are the most basic "rights," yet you don't see anyone talking about a public option for them. Maybe giving free healthy food to the poor is the answer?

Fine. But why disrupt "labor peace?" A strike and/or lockout is probably what we'll end-up seeing, and that will disrupt the NFL, or lead to some very bad football with replacement players. The NFL (like TO and his Eagles contract) agreed almost unanimously amongst themselves that this was a good CBA. We saw their celebration post-signing on ESPN, and saw Ralph made to look like a fool because he dared vote against it. So why blow it all to hell? And if/when the owners get their ruling and have almost unlimited power over the "pathetic" players, I hope they do the right thing and rollback prices for the fans because....Sorry, I couldn't stop from laughing while typing that.

http://www.stadiumwall.com/index.php?showtopic=91939

Actually Lynch isn't getting the appropriate punishment. A moving violation and a first-time gun offense are hardly worth 3 games, or even 1, since it's not a repeat offense and no one was even close to being injured by the gun. As for the NFL "suspending" Vick while he was incarcerated, that's a joke. It's like the Giants "suspending" Burress for the last 4 games of last season, while he was injured from his self-inflicted gunshot. And on the way to work I was listening to ESPN radio and during SportsCenter the Duke mentioned that the suspension was expected to be for 4 games. So either it is, or no one told them over on the radio side of things. But with the firestorm created by this, I don't doubt Goodell will change his mind and make it longer. But hey, I'm a conspiracy theory nutjob.