GaryPinC

Agree with you completely, except I'm not that upset because this is how the NFLPA leadership has behaved all along. Often, it's more about posturing for them, and this is part of the reason I lean towards the owners. I certainly support the players' right to take some time and look things over, we all know how stupid the owners were not to do this last time. But they could have communicated this less abrasively. I think they will approve the contract, but will probably put up some kind of stink about some minor issue(s) just to try and flex their muscles. Hopefully it'll be signed within a week, but with unions who knows? They may have decided to delay this thing long enough to cancel the first full preseason games and teach those owners a lesson.

Nope, as I mentioned there were the court depositions and his entire history of quotes and press releases. Leach is pretty consistent. Much like yourself, so I realize this is all too difficult for you to comprehend.

Pathetic. Court recordings from the depositions refute his claims. In fact his lawyers were using the school's own investigation to undermine Adam James' credibility. Leach is just trying to make some money but dug himself a bigger hole to get out of before he coaches at another FBS school. Completely sad that this guy is a talented coach but his huge ego and paranoia have absolutely killed his career.

Keep in mind one other factor: http://www.headinjury.com/sports.htm " ...during the minutes to few days after concussion injury, brain cells that are not irreversibly destroyed remain alive but exist in a vulnerable state. This concept of injury-induced vulnerability has been put forth to describe the fact that patients suffering from head injury are extremely vulnerable to the consequences of even minor changes in cerebral blood flow and/or increases in intracranial pressure and apnea...." Evidence is mounting that a large part of long term brain injury is due to subsequent head traumas before the person has recovered from the initial concussion, not simply repeated blows to the head. On the other hand if a person is diagnosed with concussion and fully allowed to recover, it may avoid long term brain injury even if the person experiences more concussion(s). If true, this puts the onus on the NFL to have the best diagnosis and treatment criteria available to avoid repeated injury. This also sets up future lawsuits if the NFL does not take sufficient responsibility given the scientific evidence. This is why the NFL is coming down hard on the head-to-head contact and why they are being much more cautious if a player is suspected of having a head injury. I don't expect the NFL to back down on the hitting/concussion issues and I even wonder if the league will expand its 53 man roster to help account for all the players that will be sitting out with any form of concussion. We'll see but I don't expect the NFL to go back on all this.

I didn't realize that was her arguement. Nice. Unbelievable that the courts let her drag it out and drive Verizon away.

Wow, that's amazing if true. Even though their amount invested in the local economy would have been much less (most of those $ were for equipment they would put there, it's just sad.

Would they be able to stop the Bills if the RWS lease expires? With all respect to those who want the stadium close to/in downtown, it seems to me this isn't about the Bills franchise helping Buffalo. It is about the Bills franchise making the most money possible (including attracting investors/financing $$) while remaining in the area. To me, Niagara Falls seems the logical choice, despite infrastructure issues which could be addressed.

Good call, I am detecting sarcasm but nonetheless amazed at how far you're willing to stretch the definition of "published". Awfully kind of you.

I think PTR's right on with his arguements. I love the Senator's ideas for putting it near Buffalo but a big part of the issue is bringing more Canadian money in and that seems best served by Niagara Falls. I also would love it if that area wasn't so damn commercialized but that's the history of the area and it's not going to change so might as well take advantage of it. Also you've got the fact that all the new gambling places are putting a hurt on Atlantic City: http://old.news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110531/ap_on_re_us/us_reshuffling_atlantic_city I've got to believe the Niagara Falls casinos have seen drop off in business especially when you factor in the economy and the newer ID restrictions. I'm sure the area would be amenable for a large draw of people on fall weekends and at other times during the year. Toronto companies might consider purchasing stadium suites, especially with all the other entertainment around there. To me Niagara Falls is the area's best attraction for drawing in people and therefore arguably the best place to put a new stadium. And let's be honest, Buffalo will never be a tourist destination so a stadium would help spur some development in the area but won't be a significant growth catalyst. When they built the Indians and Cavs new facilities here in Cleveland it certainly helped make the immediate area look better and resulted in some new bars and restaurants but these businesses struggle in the off season or when the teams suck and aren't drawing fans. Those facilities haven't changed Cleveland much. Buffalo needs to focus on new parks/greenspace, cleaning itself up and luring in new businesses. Make itself into an area where outsiders would come to raise a family, not try and lure in a bunch of tourists for a vacation.

How about if City Hall gets off its arse and has a Ralph Wilson appreciation day, even a halftime ceremony? When T.O. got his city key Ralph joked he's never been given a key to the city and you know the truth is often said in jest. Looking at how much vitality Ralph has lost in the last 6-10 months (he looked very run down when Dareus showed up) I honestly believe this season will be his last. Mayyyybeee he makes it through 2012 but I doubt it. I do believe some sort of succession plan is in place and Ralph wants it secret just to torment all the disrespectful "cheap" jokers he's had to endure over the years. If the city were to show him some respect perhaps he'd soften up and talk about the future.

There's a big difference between getting a smaller raise next contract and taking an actual pay cut. The only one lying to themselves is you.

My referencing the NBA's situation is due to a few months ago when posters who favored the NFL player's rights were touting the NBA arrangement as what the NFL should do. Open the books, make the players full partners like in the NBA. At the time the NBA was optimistic they wouldn't have a lockout, because of this open relationship. Fast forward a few months and the landscape looks much different there now. Even though NBA players have full access and some posters like tgregg feel that because of this the NBAPA will accept a large salary reduction, I think that instead they will attempt to dictate to the owners how to change their spending decisions to funnel more money to the players. Which is exactly why the NFL owners will not and should not "open the books" to the players. No matter how much info you give the players and their agents they will try and maximize their salaries alone, but it is the owner's team and it is their business and their league and their right to grow the league, not have the players shut that down in order to pad their wallets. Look at Green Bay's situation (check out the link posted on page 2). Over the last 4 seasons they have watched their profit margins shrink considerably while player cost increases outpace revenue increases. That is a recipe for future business troubles, that seem to have started shortly after signing the last CBA. I have a feeling their situation is similar to the rest of the league and the owners feel they need to act now before most of the teams are losing money. Why not open the books then? Maybe they've opened them enough but DeMaurice and the players aren't satisfied because they are making a pure power grab and want access to everything. Does anyone here honestly believe the NFL hasn't provided any justification for their demands? They say they have done this on multiple occasions but the players deem those efforts inadequate (go look at that Green Bay article for example). I support the players rights to be well paid but the owners have a right to make the decisions about their team and their league. And no, I am not under the erroneous impressions you presume. I know exactly how this started and certainly appreciate what the players have given up to be in a CBA and also how the current setup provides for a reasonably fair distribution of talent across the league and how important that is to our Bills.

Very interesting read: http://www.revengeofthebirds.com/2011/5/27/2193897/nfl-lockout-news-kurt-warner-says-players-have-to-give-back-money In all the discussions about this topic I remember some posters saying the NFL needs to open the books and be more like the NBA. Well, in one sense, they've gotten their wish: http://www.variety.com/article/VR1118032543 "National Basketball Players Assn. exec director Billy Hunter has said he's "99%" sure that a lockout will occur." "We need a system that provides all 30 teams, regardless of market size, an opportunity to compete for a championship and be profitable," NBA deputy commissioner Adam Silver says." Kind of like the NFL has? "According to Forbes, more than half the NBA's clubs (17 of 30) are losing money, with five teams facing deficits in the double-digit millions. Saying that the current system is completely broken, the league aims to cut player salaries by $700 million to $800 million annually -- a whopping reduction of 40% from what the players make now." Sounds like the NBA will have an NFL-style lockout and that at the end of the day they need to structure themselves more like the NFL. So much for opening the books. Shouldn't this mean the players will readily accept these salary reductions since they can look at the figures themselves? We'll see.

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.