GaryPinC

bad footwork, not being in sync, no push as a unit. Is this because there's not enough talent on the line or simply because they're not understanding the playcalls, not on the same page and thus making all kinds of mistakes? This is a very young line that hasn't played together much and they had a new offensive system and terminology on top of it all last year. There were lots of mistakes but that doesn't mean there's not enough talent there. I don't know why many posters ignore the fact that when a new coaching staff comes in, the terminology and system changes take around half a season for the offense to adjust to. If it's a solid, veteran offensive line they'll pick it up in the first few games, younger lines may take the entire year depending on how much the coaches simplify the playbook. I remember specific plays last year where Bell turned to protect to his inside and the defender outside of him blew right by. Posters on here were blasting him a new one ignoring the fact that he wasn't even trying to block the guy that got by him. I too long for even a decent O-line and respect your opinions on this but when I consider all the above factors I can't condemn them the way you do. Our coaches/GM also think there's an upside so we'll (hopefully) see this year.

Translation: We're whacking our puds against the desk and trying to look really busy doing it.

Good points, Delhomme just seems to fall to pieces at the wrong times. I would rather have a solid,unspectacular backup who can execute an offense consistantly and get a win or 2. Seneca would be a much better choice, Vince Young is certainly an intriguing option from an physical standpoint, my problem with him is that he seems like a head case that would disrupt the team/locker room. But if Nix/Gailey did some due diligence on VY and felt he was worth bringing in I would be ok with that.

I watched Delhomme play last year in Cleveland. He can execute when the offensive line is having a great day protecting. The minute there's pressure, and especially if he has to scramble, he makes some really stupid decisions. I mean rookie backup Div III quarterback stupid. Nice guy, but I don't want him and honestly the Bills shouldn't either. I do think Seneca Wallace got a bit of a raw deal being displaced by Colt McCoy. He played well and moved the offense well and would be worth bringing in.

What a true shame they fired him. Probably saw too much behind the scenes of the FO.

Somewhat flawed? At least. WGR claims Fitzy sucks with a guy in his face, but while the original article alludes to this situation I don't see anywhere they clearly define "pressure". How do you correct for the fact that the Bills offense was pretty much a complete clusterf* the entire first half of the season, young, inexperienced, new head coaches, new offensive system with everyone struggling to get on the same page? Can anyone watching the Bills offense last year honestly claim it was all Fitzpatrick's fault and therefore he sucks? From the games I watched, he was the guy most responsible for improving the offense in the second half of the year. Fitzpatricks TD to int #'s under pressure(back calculating from the %) was 2:5. Colt McCoy's was 3:3. I think it is irresponsible to take such small #s, convert to ratio and rank. Especially if some quarterbacks were playing from behind and forced to take more risks than others. Even if it "seems" to make sense. In a previous report PFF has Fitzy down for 227 blitzes last year. For this report they only gave him 164 "pressures" which I assume includes non-blitzing pressure. Just recognizing the blitz and making a play should count for something even if the pressure isn't "in your face" at the time. So sad when an author claims to account for many factors in their analysis then don't have the guts to present their accounting formulas. For the record, I think Fitzy deserves another chance this year. I am completely in line with Buddy and Chan's plan and not reaching to draft a QB. Fitzy may suck, he may be a good quarterback, or he may be a great quarterback. I don't know what type of QB Fitzy will be, I only know he made a noticeable positive difference to the offense last year. His team and coaches seem to have a large amount of confidence in him, their priorities this past draft seem to back up what they've been saying.

Problem is I've heard Brent say this exact same thing more than once and I wasn't watching this particular basketball game. He's so contrived and cliche that for me he diminishes the excitement of the game. Ditto for Gus. Just my opinion though. Everyone's different and and I certainly respect your opinion about these 2 guys. For that type of announcer I always preferred Keith Jackson.

Thank you, very well said. And here, I think, is your answer: http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/478472/projection

Agree completely with you. He never impressed me with his knowledge of the game, either.

Well, you know if they cut him loose over the slavery comments there'd be a entire stadium's worth of activists rushing to Mendenhall's defense. The Bin Laden comments are just a big ol' softball begging to be hit out of the park. Touch 'em all time! I feel bad for Mendenhall simply expressing his opinion but as an athlete and role model you've got to know when it's inappropriate to express controversial opinions. Lesson learned (hopefully).

Wow, sounds like Alphadawg on one of his anti-Fitz crusades.

NGU, Thanks so much for taking the time and effort to provide us this info and your insights. It is most welcome, especially when the chicken-squabbling reaches fever pitch. Could you provide us any insight about why Mr. Nix and the scouting department feel Cam Newton's character issues won't be a problem in the future? ie: do they consider them minor enough to not matter or has Newton shown signs of remorse/maturity? Thanks in advance

Great point, I thought the same thing when I read it. Having knowledge and being able to apply knowledge are equally important. At least we know he'll have 1 of them down for sure.

http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/news?slug=lc-carpenter_memory_improves_gabbert_stock_041911 Good article, apologies if this has already been discussed elsewhere.

Wow, ever hear of "skewed distribution" in regards to the mean? Ever hear of the median? How about the fact that WEO is referring to the average career of an NFL STARTER, not every single player who signs an NFL contract as per the NFLPA's mean. There's no redefining going on here, an often overlooked but critical part of determining a mean is assessing how accurate that mean is, and there's nothing wrong with considering the mean of a subset of the population (ie NFL starters). Get a grip.

I watched the video. You're right on with everything you're saying. It's not like that drunk girl was going to hurt anybody with those bag swings or weak punches, especially that dude who knocked her out. Guy was built and probably more than twice her weight, plus she punched him on the arm 2-3 times and he cold-cocks her like that. The way she fell I wouldn't be a bit surprised if she got a concussion. Dude should be arrested and everybody on that video and this board who think she got what she deserved should be ashamed of themselves for their lack of basic human compassion. That girl's obviously got major issues but no way does she deserve that. No way should a guy hit a woman but I certainly could understand if a guy's life or serious injury was imminent from a female assault. This was not anywhere near that type of situation.

JMO reading between the lines, I think Maybin isn't listening to/doing what the coaches are trying to teach him. He seems a bit too full of himself and maybe he "knows" how best to do things. Obviously he's working at it, so I wonder if he's just mentally immature. He's running out of time to grow up, and if/when he does get cut I'm sure he'll be blaming the coaches for not being able to coach him properly.

Mr. Peterson: Welcome to the working world, jackass. I guess your description would be apt if we didn't get PAID. Only most of the rest of us don't have the size paychecks you do.

Excellent post and one that I agree on completely. It's all about power for Smith, he wants to elevate the players to partners so they can control the money flow of the league. Seems like the owners made a fair offer on Friday and came way down on most of their demands. Smith had already made up his mind that unless he saw the detailed financials, they were decertifying. Seems like the owners are the only ones trying to seriously negotiate. Now that Smith has seen how much the owners were willing to negotiate, he will try and hammer even more out of them. At least the court case wasn't assigned to Doty this time.

1. I agree, but this can be shown without "opening your books". Of course it sounds like nothing will satisfy the players unless the owners do indeed open the books and that just isn't going to happen. Seems to me business owners only truly "open their books" to new potential owners. 2. I agree the players aren't controlling the league and the owners aim to keep it that way. Partnership means control, players are employees. Every company needs its employees but that doesn't mean they get to control the company. Define "justifiable" in a way everyone can agree on. That's at the crux of this disagreement, and neither side will fully agree. This league's been around quite a while and players are well paid. So why do they now need to become partners? 3. If the NBA is okay with players colluding to have their contracts expire at the same time so they can form their own "super" team that's fine. I don't agree with it and understand why the NFL does not want this to happen in their league. As I said in my first post corporations are not democracies. 4. You're making your own huge leap assuming the owners would be all over the press about losses/potential losses. What's worse than a bunch of millionares crying about money? A bunch of billionaires crying about money. Ever think maybe those billionaires realize this? 5. Nice. It'll be both sides' fault. I've met a number of the Browns players and have a connection inside the facility. Most of the players are not super spoiled and are pretty normal people. Of course the spoiled ones make it a bad rap for everybody. Outside of the spoiled players, it's probably the union leaders who are delusional about what the players deserve.

Why should the owners be transparent about it? Because their employees say so? The owners run the league and the teams. They are not a public company and are under no obligation to open their books. I feel a big, seldom discussed part of all this is that the owners don't want the players controlling the league, and I can't blame them for that. Look at the NBA, I think it's crap that players like Lebron/Wade/Bosh can get together and manipulate the fortunes of certain teams. Let's say the owners show the players negative percent changes in profits/revenues since the new CBA took effect. Would that be good enough? Probably not, but the NFL is not a democracy. It's great when commercial companies do profit sharing, etc. but there are plenty of companies in the world that aren't going to be doing any profit sharing ever. I've worked for some, and if they decide to give a bonus the first thing they'll say is "don't expect it again next year". The owners were stupid to sign the CBA last time around and the players are stupid to think they should be treated as equals in determining where the revenues go. That's why I don't think this lockout is going away anytime soon. Like others, I have issues with both sides but mildly favor the owners as I'm not a big fan of unions.

most of the commercials are just ridiculous. Bunch of unfunny marketing people jumping-the-shark with "comedy".

Agree completely, this is the thing that bothers me the most about those superbowl years. Dumb mistake but still can't believe the players mailed it in the rest of the game.

I agree and am surprised there wasn't a blanket policy prohibiting the wearing of team apparel. I don't go to dealerships very often (usually to pick up parts) but I've never seen a salesperson dressed less than professionally, and never seen any of them wearing anything expressing an opinion or favorite team. Generally salespeople try to connect with the customer and even wearing the home team's apparel may turn a customer off if they're not a fan or dislike football. That being said, if your boss calls you into the office as soon as you get in and tells you to change your tie, then tells you later again in the day, do you just ignore him and assume it's a joke?

Well, I must first thank you for being willing to put your life on the line to defend this country. You men and women are all true heroes. Certainly freedom of expression is an important right in this country, but when you choose to work at most jobs you give up certain freedoms. For example, you give up a lot of freedom to work in the military. Just because the constitution guarantees us certain freedoms does that mean you can exercise them whenever you want in the military? Same thing here but on a lesser scale. Image is everything in sales and this gentleman knows that. His boss requested/told him more than once to remove the tie and it went unheeded. Even though it's not the military, this salesman is part of a team that has standards for dress and appearance. Didn't bother any customers or hurt sales? Maybe a couple of customers just left without saying anything. The boss may have been a bit over the top but it's part of his job to ensure he doesn't lose business because of the way the salesman was dressed. The salesman was insubordinate, plain and simple. He can wear his Green Bay stuff outside of work.