CodeMonkey

After looking at this list of superbowl QBs I think anyone can see that with some exceptions, having a very good QB has been necessary in recent history to make it to the big show. http://football.about.com/cs/superbowl/a/sbquarterbacks.htm

I believe he did not need to sit out the entire season to avoid the pick moving up to the 6th round. He could have dressed at some point, but Gailey and/or Nix decided not to.

Can't say I disagree with that except maybe the "boy killing". Maybe change the first two to "male-mutilating".

You also need to make sure the percentages referenced are per capita. For example, bicycling at 8.1% being higher makes sense when talking about raw percentages because far far far more people ride bikes far more often than those that play football. I suspect the numbers listed above are raw and not per capita.

That cheating bastard! I knew there was a reason Nix hired Gailey and gave Fitz the big contract! Well played Mr. BellyCheat ... well played.

No one here cares about cash savings. Just cap hit.

At the risk of making you physically ill ... if the Bills draft a QB there is a good chance that Fitz (assuming they get some kind of restructure of his contract done) will be the Bills best option at QB for the upcoming season while the rookie learns. The first half of the season anyway. Like it or not, keeping Fitz at the right price this season does make sense.

Well the practice squad needs a QB too I suppose.

Backup plan for it they don't get a QB they like, or if they draft one he is not ready to go this season. Plus lights a fire under Fitz to restructure. Probably a smart move.

I don't know if they ever passed it or not, but at one time NYS or the Feds were talking about limiting the size of fountain soft drinks that you could buy. I think all of those kinds of things should not be legislated. You can't mandate common sense, it just doesn't work. About the nerds and sweettarts and soft drinks ... not legislate. Yet another common sense issue. If all that sugar makes you do is drop dead earlier then fine. But if it makes you diabetic or worse by 30 and raises my health insurance costs while they keep you alive for the next 30 years then maybe your Mother should have exercised some parental control back then. But parental control, not legislation. Football is silly compared to brain injuries in kids. I don't think there should be a law forbidding kids to play tackle football. It should be up to the parents. But I can see why some would want to legislate it. Personally I don't let my kids play for the obvious reasons, but I also feel that this is one of the common sense areas that should not be legislated. If some choose to let their kids take that risk then so be it. Their decision does not affect my kids so it is none of my concern (unless their kids become a burden on the health care system I suppose).

They kinda already are. Gym class in school. But you aren't really comparing flossing to getting concussions from playing a silly game are you?

Some, like many doctors for example, would say that a 5 year olds body (head particularly) can't handle wearing a football helmet and pads and letting them play tackle football.

You raise an interesting point. If a parent allows a kid to drink alcohol to the point of physical damage and they can be arrested for that, could the same case be made for a kid that suffers a brain injury (concussion) from playing tackle football with parental consent? Could child protective laws already on the books come into play here as well?

I was going to make a point of the state prohibiting consumption of alcohol by a minor to protect the kids. But it seems these states allow under age drinking in non alcohol-selling premises with parental consent. Note that NY is among them so if NY won't protect kids from alcohol damage if the parents think it's OK why would they for football. Alaska, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Georgia, Illinois, Iowa, Louisiana, Maine, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, South Carolina, Texas, Virginia, Washington, Wisconsin, Wyoming

I see where they are coming from. They are trying to protect kids from their parents boneheaded decisions. Parents should know better but they do not. Government cannot legislate every common sense issue and at some point have to allow parents to be parents, right or wrong. What is really a shame is the fact that doctors (plural, not just one) who are the experts say it's a bad thing to allow head contact at a young age. But the parents need to live vicariously through their kids to the point of risking their kids future.

Yeah ole Buddy really screwed the pooch with that Fitz contract.

Some people in Buffalo would hate him if he leaves if he said anything or not. And the reason he said anything at all was because he was asked. He may well prefer to stay in Buffalo. But at the end of the day it is a business decision and he will play for whatever team makes the most sense. Most people, even most Bills fans, realize that.

Saturday works for me as well. But I doubt it will happen on a regular basis due to the simple fact that the host city wants Saturday night for their businesses, restaurants, etc. to get one last big payday.

Not sure what all the angst is about. He agent will shop him around and gauge the interest then they will evaluate all offers including the Bills and make a decision. The Bills not making the early "offer you can't refuse" like they did with Mario could bite them if another team does pull a Mario while Levitre is visiting. But it is what it is.

Exactly. He would have to be a moron to burn any bridges. Plus any other teams that might be considering him might think of him as a locker room problem if he made a negative statement. Basically nothing to lose and everything to gain by keeping it classy like he did.

I thought that was standard issue anywhere in Cali.

Nix may have to make him a better than competitive offer if some good teams express interest. If you were him, and a team like SF for example that has a good chance to go deep in the playoffs next year makes you the same offer as Buffalo does, which are you taking?

Isn't it a little weird to be airing that while he is still alive?

That's because TV is a numbers (ratings) game. If they play to a more sophisticated (for lack of a better word) audience, the neophytes will tune out. But if they dumb it down, then everyone can watch.

I'm usually pretty tolerant of the "change in mindset" and "culture change" posts. But maybe it's the weather today putting me in a bad mood or something but ... When you have sucked the sweat off a dead mans balls for 13 straight seasons, and most of the teams existence, the time for a "culture" or a "mindset" change has long past. The Bills have had plenty, in fact probably too many, of both of those things in past 13 years. You know what the Bills need? They need players who can !@#$ing play, coaches that can !@#$ing coach, a head coach that can !@#$ing manage the clock and not make stupid !@#$ing decisions during a season full of games, and a GM that can tell the difference between a !@#$ing career backup QB and a starting or franchise QB. That's what the Bills need. No more and certainly no less. Save all of the feel good mindset and culture crap for peewee sports along with the rest of the "everyone is a winner" nonsense. /rant