uncle flap

The reality is, as a practical matter, anti-union = anti-teacher. Semantics aside, without the protections (and perks, if you must) collective bargaining provide, being a teacher would be a dead-end, undesirable job, especially when compared to the amount of money and time invested to obtain the necessary qualifications. So like I said in that post that you didn't bother to read, "I don't think it is in the children's best interest to drive away the best and the brightest that are considering becoming teachers." But you're certainly not anti-union pro-teacher anti-child right? Talk about a tenuous grip on reality! :lol: I'd also like to add despite directly replying to you, I had those using terms like "money grubbing pricks" in mind when I wrote anti-teacher. It's duly noted that you did not use terms like that, but my point remains valid.

Ha! Well, since it'd be generous to say the anti-teacher camp's positions are "tenuously based in reality," I'm not sure we have any common ground from which to start. First of all, most schools are seriously underfunded and the funds that are allocated for schools are grossly misused. As I alluded earlier, there are too many administrators who do little more than create/manipulate data to serve political/PR purposes. There needs to be more teachers and support staff hired. There are a number of reasons for this but keeping class sizes reasonable is a major one. In elementary schools, there should be an aide in every classroom to deal with non-academic issues and allow the teacher to teach. For example, on any given day, I might lose a few minutes of instruction time due to classroom management (read: discipline). Every minute is precious, so having someone to pull a disruptive student in the hall or otherwise occupy that student allows the rest of the class to stay on task. As it stands now, I do the jobs that FOUR to SIX people would do in a fully funded private school district (hell, even an decently funded suburban district). I used to work at a private school that had a much better ratio of staff to student. The environment was great, but I made so little money, if that was all I could look hope to earn, I’d choose another career. The salaries are almost insulting considering the amount parents pay in tuition- at least where I was working. I don't think it is in the children's best interest to drive away the best and the brightest that are considering becoming teachers. Second, again to what I earlier alluded, almost certainly the number one problem has nothing to do with the education system itself, but with poverty. While there would be overlap in services provided by the schools, I'd expand a variety of social programs to help the disadvantaged. The economy sucks and has for a long time, especially for the working and unemployed poor. It isn't enough to say, "Go get a job!" There aren't any. So yeah, raise taxes, and/or drastically reallocate what those taxes are funding. Maybe the second point isn’t "grounded in reality" in the sense that the US would need a cultural shift; Less about “me,” and more about “us.” For the most part, I agree with the Green Party’s stance on Welfare and social programs in general. Here is a link to that part of their platform: http://www.gp.org/co...ice.php#1001034 I hope it is not too much to ask, but if any of you are going to reply to the points about social programs, please read the short blurb on Welfare contained in that link and let us know to what part of it you specifically object. Or we could always start another thread on that since we could be getting away from the original topic.

1. Thankfully, those problems are not pervasive because "tenure" exists. Tenure in a non-university setting is merely code for the NEGOTIATED protections unions provide to their members. So, cops and firefighters and basically any group of unionized professionals already do have "tenure." It seems a lot of you guys are hung up on that word. For public school teachers it doesn't guarantee anything besides due process. What that means is to be fired or otherwise dismissed, an employer must show that there is just cause in doing so. Tenure, or the same job security enjoyed by police and fire, does not mean a guaranteed job. It just means that one can't be fired simply because they can be replaced by someone cheaper, or any other unjustified reason. So, you mean to tell me in the cash strapped public school districts all over the country, you wouldn't see GOOD, PRODUCTIVE teachers laid off for cheaper unproven ones, if the teachers didn't have union protection? Oh, the people wouldn't stand for it? Just remind them that their taxes are that much lower. 2. It isn't simply that parents "don't care" - though in many cases, that is true. It is also that parents are unable to provide basic needs for themselves and their families. If the kids even show up to school, they can be sick and malnourished. The kids might not have slept all night because of the gangbangers partying outside their window, and are therefore falling asleep in class. The things that you and I see as crazy or stupid seem normal to them. If you haven't guessed I'm a teacher in a school with 85% of the population living below the poverty line and the other 15 is at or barely above it. I could go on about what the "real" problems are, but it seems most of you are too hung up on anti-union rhetoric to realize why teacher salaries have little to do with the financial problems facing large urban districts. (Hint: take a look at the number of administrators (and their salaries) per teacher compared to the number of teachers per student.) Based on your general opinions on this side of the board, I'd guess most of you won't like my solutions either. (Hint: It doesn't have to do with pulling up by one's own bootstraps.)

Some of you guys just don't get it. 1. Here's why tenure is important: Tenure gives GOOD teachers security. Without tenure, they could be laid off and replaced by inexperienced teachers at a lower salary, regardless of their classroom performance. So without tenure- administrators/districts aren't judging teachers based on their merit (however you want to define it) at all, simply by how much it costs to pay their salaries. Does that sound like the best thing for the children? Well, which is it? The $ or the children? 2. The reason that teachers or anyone who can afford private school wouldn't send their children to public school is not because of the quality of the teachers, it's the quality of the environment. I wish that those of you that are so quick to condemn these teachers could set foot in a classroom for one day and see what it is really like. I can't blame the kids, but being the product of an impoverished environment often leads to a litany of problems that manifest in the school and and in the classroom. Not that being poor in and of itself directly ill-prepares a child to productively participate in a learning environment, but absentee parents, addiction, and the impact of a variety of crimes all play a detrimental role in whether or not a child can succeed. You can put a damn good teacher in a class of troubled kids, but more often than not, his or her influence pales in comparison to the influence of those kids' parents and their home environments. 2a. The problems facing education in America are not due to anything involved with what teachers are doing wrong (or not doing right, whatever). The oft-quoted stats about where the US lines up with other industrialized nations are misleading. If you disregard the wealthy and the poor, the middle class students line up right with all the other countries we envy. So it's not that the US is falling behind in math and science, it's that the US stats include a great number of students who are affected by negative out-of-school factors (OSFs). I'm sure none of you want to learn more about this but here is a study about this topic: http://nepc.colorado.edu/publication/poverty-and-potential

You think swing passes are more complicated than timing patterns on option routes? The plays are already there, just sub McKelvin for Dickerson. And yeah, I want to see if he can do it because if he's good at it, it may be the reason we re-sign him, or get some value in a trade.

McKelvin is in the right place pretty much all the time, so that means he knows his assignments. The coaches are at least putting him in the postion to succeed. It is very rare that he is flat out beat, tho I have seen it a few times. Every DB, even the very good ones, sometimes read the play wrong so I won't hold that against him. The ball skills and timing are off. This would seem to be something correctable by coaching, but he still hasn't picked it up consistently. He looked bad on that Kerley play. I mean, Leodis, you're right there! C'mon man! However, let's not forget how good McKelvin looked this preseason- like he finally "got it." So, I would like to believe he could finally turn the corner (pardon the pun), but I'm not holding my breath. Since he's in his contract year and could be the last time he can prove his worth- how about this crazy idea: Should Chan put him in on offense in a Randall Cobb/Sidney Rice role? By that, I mean getting him the ball on swing passes, reverses, pitches and such and letting him go to work. The guy is electric on returns when he gets some space. I know we've got Dickerson basically filling that H-back wildcard (not wildcat) role, but I think McKelvin would be more dangerous and since there is no tape on him, Chan could showcase some of that creativity he is known for. Just a thought- what do you guys think?

In essence, what you said is correct, but I just want to add that tenure does not guarantee anything but due process. A tenured teacher can still be fired for incompetence or any number of valid reasons. Plus, tenure is earned, not just bought by paying union dues. So, if administrators are doing their job in the first place, the caricature of the incompetent teacher collecting taxpayer money for doing a poor job wouldn't have been awarded tenure in the first place. In most, if not all, unionized districts, teachers are subject to intense scrutiny while working under "temporary" or "probationary" status (and often part time) before they are hired as "permanent" tenured teachers. In fact, most teachers in large urban districts are laid off and rehired a number of times before they reach any semblance of job security with a "permanent" position. Having previously read some of your posts, I know you're an intelligent guy. However, this painfully impractical solution reeks of an emotional argument. I would like to assume you're joking. You don't like unions, fine. I assume you don't think teachers deserve any sort of protection from the hazards of the job, and should trust that whoever is judging their "merit" will make an unbiased decision every time. Politicians want to run education like a data (read: profit) driven business, and it just isn't. Standardized test scores are not an accurate measure of a teacher's "merit." Teachers should not be accountable for for things beyond their control. If a doctor tells you to quit smoking, eat more vegetables, and work out more often... but then you don't follow his or her advice... is that your doctor's fault that you have high blood pressure or become obese, etc.? I guess based on a "merit" system, that would be a terrible doctor, right?

Great thread! In my pessimistic view of the future, commodities are hoarded by multi-national conglomerates. When the oil wars are over, the next series of large scale wars will be over water. Here's a great take on this idea: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IxvQKZPb6Wo Lyrics here: http://rapgenius.com...ld-water-lyrics

So no Calvin Klein underwear for you, I gather. I misread that the first time because I have a #12 with my name on it that my parents got me when I was little. I should've told them that was a jersey foul! ^^^This! I always wore #5 on the various sports teams I played on growing up, but I could never bring myself to get a Trentative jersey. I've had quite a few jerseys over the years- as far as current players go, I have a Spiller and a SJ13. I've been wearing 13 to the games mostly because it's blue and my Spiller is dated (having the #21). Plus Stevie got that swag, lol. My next jersey will be Dareus unless Sheppard really makes a name for himself before I make my next purchase.

Yeah, you can say that again. Based on what Wanny is known for and my somewhat-clouded-by-alcohol perspective of Sunday's game. I'd guess that the LBs were simply asked to keep the play in front of them. Same as I just said about the safeties, I wonder if the LBs were staying home or getting pulled out of position by something the Jets were doing.

I'd like to know what you thought of the safety play. They always seemed late to me, and I'm wondering if that is more because of a slow diagnosis of the play, or something that the Jets were doing to pull them out of position, or just a matter of great placement by Sanchez. Ugh. I hope I never have to type, "great placement by Sanchez" ever again.

You can play press out of any scheme. the DBs and Safeties were playing deep zones. That's cover 4 as in 4 deep zones. Cover 2 only the safeties are playing deep. So press coverage is usually reserved for man to man defense or cover 2 when the corners are playing short zones.

I'm sorry man, but you are way off with your suggestions. #1 Sheppard is fine, and getting better every game. He's solid against the run. In pass coverage, he's not being asked to cover man to man, just to keep the play in front of him. Sure, Barnett is the better overall player, but you want to have your best guys out there. Sheppard is one of your best guys and he plays MLB and doesn't seem to have the lateral speed to play OLB. Same with Morrison. So you keep Barnett outside. On passing downs, you'll see Barnett move to the inside strong side and Scott to the inside weak side. Moats will probably lose his job to Bradham once the coaching staff fully trusts Bradham. Moats is best used as a pass rusher and Bradham should pan out to be the better overall player. Barring injuries, by the end of the year, and probably pretty soon, you'll see Barnett- Sheppard - Bradham. #2 McKelvin's problem is playing the ball. He's better when he has help over the top. As a nickel corner, it's more likely he'll have safety help over the top, so I'd leave him there. Athletically, he can play outside and inside equally as well. I'd rather have him play the slot guy who is more likely going to stay in front of him. Of course he can still miss tackles like he did yesterday, but despite his limitations he's better than anyone else you'd put at nickel. I don't remember McGee excelling at nickel, tho I'm sure he could. Williams has played rather inconsistently during his short career so I can't really say where he's a better fit. I wish Brooks hadn't got hurt because he seemed to have the potential to earn a starting spot. Before I go shifting all the corners around, I'd like to see a few more games in this new defense, and some better safety play. I think all of these guys will be fine once they settle in. #3 The Bills were playing cover 4 mostly- and perhaps if they were playing cover 2 , you'd see more bump and run and less of a cushion. They ran the ball well, but the line is not good enough to play ground and pound for 60 minutes. The simplest coaching adjustment is to stop asking Fitz to run a complex horizontal timing offense. Obviously, when it's working, you get results like early last year. But I don't think the personell is there. Too many weak spots on the offense. A good QB can make up for the WRs and vice versa, but the Bills don't have either. I still think the Bills should run a spread, but without as many timing routes. Run out of the spread and throw screens and swing passes. Then take your shots deep off of play action. #4 I agree about Graham and Easley. Get them in the game. Jones is a tremendous blocker. Throw a bubble screen to Graham behind Jones and Chandler and TJ could be off to the races.

In regard to blitzing: I don't think it would've helped that much as many of the Jets passing plays were three step drops and/or quick first read throws. I would've liked to see better play form the secondary, and in particular the safeties. Time and time again, Byrd, WIlson, and Searcy were late on helping the corners. I had a bit to drink during the game, but IIRC, the D was playing almost exclusively cover 4. The safeties need to better diagnose the play and get where they need to be just a little bit quicker.

LET'S GOOOOOO BUFFALOOOOOOOO!!!!! FIGHT ON MY MEN!!!!!!!

and inaccurate- Shouldn't the stream be coming from the prepuce tassel? (I can't believe I just typed that.) meaning cam is all they got.

True! One of my all-time favorite writers! I'd recommend Kierkegaard and Gabriel Marcel. And as mentioned above, Satre has some pretty interesting stuff. Or you can just skip right to the Zoloft prescription

Yeah but if there's gonna be a new stadium it has to be downtown. I think there's enough room between the inner harbor and the arena to house a stadium, parking, and room to tailgate. I'm no planner or architect, but I think it could work. Except for the fact they'd have to take down the Skyway, and it doesn't look like that's happening anytime soon: http://www.bizjournals.com/buffalo/news/2012/09/05/nysdot-skyway-staying-put.html I really don't understand the appeal to move the stadium from the middle of nowhere to the middle of nowhere. If you're coming from Rochester or Toronto, is saving 15 minutes of travel time that big of a deal? You don't need room for expansion when there's unused or misused infrastructure already downtown. Couple that with the development of the Webster block and you've got yourself a destination.

OTOH, while these numbers support the idea that the Bills oline is successful in short yardage situations, I'm not sure they tell the whole story. I generally agree with and like the "signature" stats and rankings provided by Football Outsiders, and I see that these in particular are "adjusted based on down, distance, situation, opponent, and the difference in rushing average between shotgun compared to standard formations." But then they are re-adjusted "so that the league average for Adjusted Line Yards per carry is the same as the league average for RB yards per carry." Therein may be where the discrepancy lies, but I'm not sure. I'd like to trust their analysis but on the very same page, Buffalo is ranked as the #1 pass protecting oline. Their stats and methodology are comprehensive, but they still don't account for FItz getting rid of the ball almost instantly. To me, what it boils down to is the eyeball test. Perhaps the Bills were able to put together decent stats in the run blocking game over the course of the season, but if you guys remember the first game vs the Jets last year, Fred was stuffed a number of times on plays when it was obvious the Bills were running it, including a key 4th and inches. Fred's stats last year on 3rd and <3 were 6 yds on 5 attempts. While I don't know the conversion rate, you have to assume it's not good. I don't know how that translates to such a high ranking for the Bills oline, but I'm wondering if it is skewed by Spiller's 5.0 ypc on 3rd down, or maybe Brad Smith's WC carries, or some other outlier. The bottom line is that IMO I wouldn't count on a ground and pound game against one of the best front 7s in the NFL regardless of what some stats insinuate.

Can we not embed videos anymore? Anyway, here's a nice angle on a flyover from 2010 home opener featuring me and my buddies in the stands. I believe they do flyovers at all homeopeners, even if its not the first week of the season. I think they do them around the holidays too. And yes, this is the same video featured in Deadspin's lampooning of the Bills.

The defense will cut Fitz's INTs by allowing him to play safer and not abandon the running game. With a little help from his receivers, some of the types of picks we saw last year (6 to be exact), will be eliminated too. A few weeks ago it was debated ad nauseam as to whether Fitz's high INT total was a result of forcing throws when the Bills got behind, or if Fitz just plain sucks/takes too many risks. Based on the stats, it was pretty much a wash. Fitz was pretty much consistent in throwing about the same amount of picks in each situation if you check split stats on NFL.com or ESPN. Thankfully, Brad Riter broke it down even further, so we can see that less than half of Fitz's picks were solely his own fault: The Truth About Fitz and Picks If you're skeptical, there is a video of each pick included in the breakdown. Enjoy!

Ummm, did you forget what happened when the Bills played Tebow last year?

I get that- but the below-quoted approach is one route, and what Revis (and Rex Ryan and Bart Scott) said is another route. I don't think they overtly slighted SJ either. They gave him respect but in the same breath basically said he's no big deal. I detect some passive-aggressiveness in their comments, and again, since they had so much to say about it, I couldn't help but think, "The lady doth protest too much."

Do you know why you can name Brady and SJ as late round picks that turned into stars? Because that NEVER happens. Plenty of late round picks don't even get signed by the teams that drafted them.

PFT has picked up the "story" and also pointed out: http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2012/09/02/jets-downplay-stevie-johnsons-success-against-darrelle-revi/