uncle flap

I hope that you weren't implying that I'm calling anyone's fanhood out, or even that I was implying eball did. That wasn't my intention at all. My point, along with eball's (forgive me for speaking for you), is that if someone is going to criticize Fitz or any other aspect of the Bills, I'd like to hear that person's "solution" or suggestion on how to improve the situation. It doesn't bother me if someone wants to say Fitz sucks and go on to explain why they think he sucks, it'd just be more interesting to me to hear what what should be done going forward. Agreed. Like I said, if someone thinks Fitz sucks, fine. Now what?

:thumbsup: Exactly! However, if everyone agreed on everything, it would get really boring around here. I'm glad people's opinions differ. For those of you like paintmyhouse who cite why think Fitz sucks - how about coming up with a viable alternative? Tavaris Jackson had a better QB rating. Awesome. Should the Bills go out and trade for him? I'm not talking about what the Bills should have done in the past - e.g. "they never should've signed Fitz in the first place." I'm saying look at the Bills today; What do you do? IMO, any realistic move you make going forward is riskier than staying with Fitz for the time being. Maybe that premise isn't fair, since the Fitz "haters" probably wouldn't have signed him in the first place, but I'm sure with the benefit of hindsight we could all come up with a roster chock full of Pro Bowlers. So let's look at the present situation and take it from there.

Good thing nobody runs the ball anymore.

My thinking here is that nearly 100% of NFL players are developed in the US. The US population is just over 300 million. Then, out of all the best athletes, many are developed to play basketball and baseball among other sports. Despite the NFL being the most popular sport in the US, other sports are also very popular. Contrast that to the billions of people outside of the US where soccer is far and away the most popular sport. Therefore, I would believe a higher percentage of the best athletes would aspire to be soccer players. So, a higher percentage of a much higher population of top level talent is competing for professional level jobs. Of course it follows that there are far more soccer teams throughout the world. However, the best of the best are concentrated in Europe- meaning the best players in the entire world play in the top "NFLs" of Europe. So, IMO, there are at least five domestic leagues on par with the NFL. England, Spain, Italy, Germany and France. Then you throw in the top teams from a number of other domestic leagues that can compete with the best teams of the big leagues, despite the rest of the teams in the lesser leagues not being as strong. For example, Dynamo Moscow or Ajax (from Holland). Their leagues aren't as strong as say, Italy's but their top team(s) can hang with Italy's big boys. So, no, I wouldn't consider the Spanish league as the NFL and the German league as the CFL, for example. Some leagues are stronger than others, but I'd say the top few teams in each are interchangeable, and the next tier are certainly as good as the above-average teams in the NFL, comparatively. For argument's sake, I'd say there are about 60 playoff caliber teams (throughout Europe) any given year vs. about 16-18 in the NFL (I know 12 teams make the playoffs, but one could argue other teams are relatively just as good and don't make it for whatever reason). The Champion's League is a competition between the best teams out of all of those leagues - 32 qualify. That would be like the NFL consisting of like 12 All-Pro teams, and like 20 division winners. Of course, none of this creates a perfect analogy- it's more of a thought exercise than anything. Ultimately, it's apples and oranges. 24-8-6, and 22-12-4 in league play. Not that impressive as stand alone stats. But then they went 12-1-1 in the Champion's League in 2001-02. The main reason I brought up Madrid was to offer a different perspective. I lived in Spain during that time and saw this team full of some of the world's best players, and being near Madrid, became a huge fan - at least at the time. Compared to the NFL and the NHL, I hardly follow soccer, but I do stay up on the more popular/successful clubs. For the dominance argument, Arsenal (out of London) was undefeated for their 2003-04 season - a span of 49 matches. Many consider the English Premier League the most competitive from top to bottom among the big 5 domestic leagues I mentioned above. The last time someone went undefeated in the EPL was 1889. Year in and year out, there are usually 4 teams that have all-world rosters, plus a number of teams not far off talent-wise. There have been a number of other teams that I've seen that are up there with the Real Madrid team I mentioned. Barcelona, Manchester United, and AC Milan, just to name a few, have all put together runs that are equally as impressive in the last two decades. Like I said above, I mentioned Madrid to bring up soccer bc no one else has, and that I followed that team pretty closely at the time. Any other soccer fans out there? I know historically, and even in modern times, there have been better teams, but none that I followed as closely. Anyone care to chime in on what you think is the best soccer team of all time?

I'm only going to mention teams I've actually followed/witnessed: The mid-to-late-nineties Bulls were unreal. Already discussed quite a bit here so I'll leave it at that. Since no one cares about or respects "the beautiful game," I fully expect some jokes at my expense after yall read this... The 2001-2003 Real Madrid squad was insanely good. Even a casual fan will recognize most of the players - David Beckham, Ronaldo, Zinedine Zidane, Luis Figo, Roberto Carlos, Raul, and Iker Casillas, to name a few. They won 2 Spanish league championships during that time, and also won the UEFA Champion's League - a competition including all the top teams in Europe. They also won the Spanish Super Cup in 2003 which is impressive, but not quite as big of a deal. There isn't really a parallel in US based sports- The closest I can come up with is imagine an NFL team that has the best record in the league, wins the Super Bowl, then imagine there's like 6 or 7 more NFLs and then they win the Super-Super Bowl through a playoff type system consisting of the best 32 teams out of those multiple NFLs. Then consider that the pool of talent completely dwarfs that of the NFL, so the level of competition is markedly higher. It is rare to see teams win domestic leagues back to back, much less assemble the "dynasties" we've seen over the years in the major sports leagues here. Not saying Real Madrid is necessarily better than any of the teams mentioned already, just wanted to offer a different perspective. Flame away!

WHY ARE THERE TWO OF YOU?

First of all, my reply was made tongue in cheek- next time I'll be sure to use an emoticon to clarify Second, the reason libraries/librarians are becoming more scarce has almost everything to with politics and budget balancing and nearly nothing to do with the utility of the profession. I don't deny that librarians and libraries are one of the first professions/instituions on the chopping block in the pubic sector. I'm a teacher with a Master's in Library and Information Science, so forgive me for being a little defensive. I obviously read more into what you were saying, TONE, so I apologize for that.

Nice catch! :worthy:

Another Quirk to the Bills 2012 Slate by Chris Brown The subject of the Bills playing the Pats* after the Pats* bye week has come up a number of times here, but here's a ton more fuel for the conspiracy theorists. Seriously though, by nefarious plot or pure coincidence, the Bills are getting a royal screw job here. Suddenly, this schedule doesn't seem quite as easy as it did before I read this article...

Because you don't use the library? Or maybe because you think Google makes them obsolete? I'll defer to my favorite comment on the subject:

Happy Birthday Dr.D! I always enjoy reading your posts but you've been especially on fire today- now I know why. Keep up the good work!

After reading the juror's statement, I can better understand how he and the rest of the jurors decided to acquit. However, I still disagree with them. There is the letter of the law, and there is the spirit of the law. Judges and juries are there to weigh the evidence and make the appropriate decisions. Like many have already said here, the jurors were caught up in the minutia and couldn't see the forest for the trees. This juror's statement seems to back this up. The "reasonable doubt" that this guy came up with isn't all that reasonable when looked at as a whole. Imagine a jigsaw puzzle with a few missing pieces. Aren't you going to be able to complete the image even though you aren't 100% sure what is on those missing pieces? As I said earlier in this thread, I don't have all the facts and I wasn't present in the courtroom to hear the testimony, so perhaps I'd feel differently if I had been. But based on everything that I've seen and heard about this case, it seems like the jury dropped the ball. While it is certainly possible that Alix Rice's actions may have contributed to the accident, to me it doesn't absolve Corasanti from driving drunk and his subsequent actions. However reckless she might have been, the two other driver witnesses didn't hit her. Probably because they weren't drunk. The "blame" I would place on Alix is that she naively assumed the motorists were paying the proper amount of attention to the road and its surroundings. Teenagers are egocentric and have a sense of invincibility. I don't blame Alix for doing something millions of teenagers do all the time - taking a stupid risk. The main reason I don't buy the idea that she is at fault is that an innocent, sober, and attentive driver would've realized what he'd done, or at least suspected the possibility that he had struck someone. That attentive driver would've stayed at the scene and investigated, not tried to see if he could get away with it.

Well, you'll have to wine and dine me first. And who told you I have a thing for pygmies?

In general, that is the case. Here's a quick overview on why it's not so simple: http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/VADefiningSpecies.shtml

Beat me to it.

Who would you suggest gets cut to make room for the vet LB you want to bring in? As it stands now there are already going to be some tough decisions. In general, I'd prefer to keep younger guys that are already being developed in-house.

Can you explain what you mean by that? I'm taking it as you accept natural selection and variation within a species. But then where do new species come from? I'm not trying to mock you, it just seems like a contradiction to me. Or maybe I'm just misunderstanding what you mean. What are the flaws in the theory of evolution? I agree that believing in God and evolution are not mutually exclusive. To me, they aren't related at all, nor should they be. What I don't understand is why so many people reject evolution (and the preponderance of supporting evidence). And I just don't get why accepting science is in some way at odds with believing in God.

I don't mean to blame the jury outright, but the problem in cases like these rests on the idea of "reasonable doubt." Key word: reasonable. To me, "reasonable" doesn't include everything within the realm of possibility. You look for the most likely explanation, then work from there to determine what other explanations are plausible - not possible, plausible. I don't think you have to be 100% sure of what happened to deliver a guilty verdict, despite what defense attorneys claim in their opening/closing arguments. How many things in life are you truly 100% sure about? Not many if you really think about it. I don't mean to invite ridicule here about things you are actually 100% certain about, but the point is we all operate on assumptions backed up by the evidence we have at hand. I'm not advocating railroading defendants; everyone deserves due process. I also think the burden of proof should remain high to reduce wrongful convictions. I'm just sick of repeatedly seeing people walk when seemingly unreasonable doubt is morphed into some tangible excuse/explanation. In a case like this, I just can't understand an acquittal. Maybe I'd feel differently if I was in the jury box, but the bottom line seems that regardless of whether or not the victim was skateboarding in a dangerous/reckless matter, the fact remains Corasanti was drunk. If he wasn't, perhaps the accident could have been avoided. Since he was drunk, the point there is moot. Furthermore, the "I didn't realize I hit her" defense doesn't hold up, again because he was drunk. Does this mean drunk drivers have a built-in defense - "I'm not responsible because I was drunk??!?!" Of course not, but it sure seems like this played a role.

And here's the BIlls Blog update: http://www.buffalobills.com/news/article-1/OTA-report---Day-1/1c9f19f1-97a4-4050-af83-72f42120a46c Good news: Video highlights to come soon. EDIT: Here they are

Paul Hamilton was just on WGR talking about the practice. -More contact than usual, more hits than you'd expect and "probably not what the Player's Association had in mind." However, they were player initiated, not directed by coaches, for what that's worth - Justin Rogers looked really good - Gilmore ran with the first team opposite McKelvin, with Aaron Williams coming to to spell McKelvin -Vince Young made some nice throws but also had a number of over throws -Defensive line was awesome (shocker!) -Fred and CJ alternated taking first team reps -Stevie, Kyle, and McGee are there, but working out on their own. The Buffalo Bills twitter had some additional insight: http://twitter.com/#!/buffalobills

No pads and basically no contact. There is no hitting and no tackling. If I'm not mistaken, the only " contact" is working on blocking and block shedding technique, and maybe WRs getting off jam coverage and it's not at 100% effort - more of a demonstration. You still get to line up against players and run plays. The coaches get to see how well the players can execute assignments among other things. Here's how the new CBA changes practices: Read more: My link

Bills OTA Primer via Chris Brown Interesting tid bit: While I want everyone healthy, the fact that these guys aren't participating at this point gives extra opportunities to the younger/unproven guys. I think this good, all things considered. No McGee? More reps for the young CBs. No Kyle? More reps for the glut of backup D linemen. And so on... Not only do the "on the bubble" guys get more opportunities to showcase their talent, they get more of an opportunity to learn and gain valuable experience. By bumping up a spot on the depth chart, even temporarily, these guys will be going against a better tier of players. This also allows the coaches to make better evaluations, based on additional on field time for the players in question. Is there any downside? I mean the guys are already injured. Just looking for the silver lining here. One more day til we can overanalyze the 3 minute video "highlights" on bb.com

haha no prob - didn't mean for that to come out so rudely - I shoulda put a smiley in that last post

To the question of the NFL knowing the impact of concussions - disregarding information is different than actively engaging in a campaign of misinformation. Despite all the relatively new research and data regarding the long term effects of suffering multiple concussions, I don't think it is a novel idea that getting hit in the head repeatedly is not good for you. While the medical understanding is far better and more detailed, the basic idea of protecting one's brain is not some recent revelation. I wouldn't expect the NFL at any time to discourage potential employees (read: assets) from participating by painting a picture of a brain-damaged retirement. Especially when it seems the risks of injury are apparent. Maybe not to the extent that they are understood now, but as I said before, did people really think that getting hit in the head had no effect? Players in all eras must have assumed some risk on their own. Now if the NFL were actively telling players and prospects that the conventional wisdom is wrong, and that for example, the helmets that they wear completely eliminate the risk of concussions, or even that the helmets are safer than they actually are, that IMO would be a basis for litigation. That may in fact be what has transpired, but I think some of the players - not saying Joe D - are naive in saying they had no idea of the risks (or the potential extent of those risks) involved in playing a collision sport. Lastly, I know it's easy to spend other people's money, but I think the owners and players should find a way to truly take care of these former players - not because of a legal obligation, but because they have the means to do so and it seems like the right thing to do (helping the less fortunate, and in a way paying tribute to your predecessors). If you think about it, the $ comes from the fans, and isn't that what the fans want? I know I seemed to contradict myself, but in short what I'm saying is that whether or not the NFL is at fault (in a legal or moral sense) regarding player health, I can't understand why the NFLPA and owners can't come up with a way to further compensate these players when the league is practically printing money.

Then use your phone. Put it on speaker. Idk what to tell you.