Peter

8th Circuit grants stay The 8th Circuit reportedly has granted the NFL's request. We will see when the order is issued. ESPN Link

Exactly. That is why the NFL is taking the position that the NFLPA* is not entitled to invoke the provision of the prior agreement.

How much did the Green Bay Packers net? One of the issues is whether the players decertified before or after.

There is no doubt in my mind that we should have run the ball more in that game. We (Jim) were too impatient. There were so many what ifs in that game (the almost defensive TD, the Giants' third and nineteen or whatever it was, Thurman coming thisclose to breaking the tackle at the end of the game, the laces of the football on the kick). Oh well, that is football. Yet, it was a game we certainly could have won. Billy B (whatever you think of him) did a very good job of coaching that game.

My primary concern in this whole thing that the ultimate resolution is beneficial for the Bills staying in Buffalo. As I mentioned in another thread, the NFLPA* lost its home field advantage once this went up to the 8th Circuit. The three judge panel hearing the appeal consists of two Bush appointees and one Clinton appointee. Guess who wrote the dissenting opinion when the panel granted the temporary stay.

Even if the Bills drafted Luck, I am sure that there would still be people who would complain.

Good post.

This sounds right. It was clear the Bills liked Ponder (as do I). The Vikings' picking him where they did was a surprise. It is not a coincidence that the CIA deliberately did not tell either Pakistan or Andre about the OBL mission.

I agree with your point (and that of others). We spend a lot of time and effort replacing players rather than keeping players. This is not the fault of the present administration. It will be nice if we can build a team rather than continually have to plug holes.

Donte has been a lightning rod here because of where he was picked (he had no control over that) and because of some of the things that he has said/written/tweeted. I think that he was picked too high, but I also think that his tweets etc. show that he actually gives a damn. As far as whether he wants to play for the Bills, didn't he just tattoo the Bills logo on his arm or something like that. I think that Buddy's recent comments are more about the $$$. I think that Donte wants to be with the Bills. He is just asking for more money that the Bills are willing to pay and/or think that he is worth. I have no problem with the Bills re-signing him at the right amount. Our draft certainly gives us flexibility to do what we want. The fact is that Donte is not as bad as some make him out to be. He also is not Troy P. or Ed Reed. He probably is within the top third of strong safeties in the league. One of the things that we all have to keep in mind is that our linebackers and DBs all should benefit from our anticipated improved defensive line. A lot of the very good safeties and other DBs have the benefit of playing behind much better defensive lines than the Bills have had over the past few years. Just my two cents.

NFL's Reply in Support of Motion to Stay (in case any of you are interested)

Butch Davis knows how to recruit.

Joique Bell (spelling?) I liked him too. He bounced around after the Eagles took him off our PS (if I recall correctly).

I think that I read that Iowa did him no favors and screwed up his mechanics -- that he is actually better than many think and that the mechanics can be fixed. Did anyone else hear/read something along these lines?

We had the third pick in the draft and did not draft again until the second round. I would pick Darius over any of these QBs including Newton. If Ponder had dropped to the second round, there is little doubt that the Bills would have picked him. He was not there so that stuck to the board and played the cards that were dealt.

I hate to break it to you, but I was commenting on the fact that some here think that Mallet is the second coming . . . . I have absolutely no problem with the Bills picking a quality kid with lots of production over a dumb, slow kid who reportedly has some issues that caused every team with a need for a QB to pass on him. NE (with Brady and all of their picks) could afford the luxury of hoping that he is not another Ryan Leaf.

I give it an A. One thing that the people who have complained that we should have taken this guy instead of that guy might want to consider is the following: The one constant that I have observed in the two years this regime has been picking players is that they try to pick good guys who are good players. I have no personal knowledge of the character of the players that some of you wanted instead of Williams or Sheppard, but that might help explain why we picked the guys that we did. As for Martez Wilson, I honestly cannot say whether he is better or worse than Sheppard. If you look at the production of the two players, Sheppard produced over a longer period of time in a much better conference. Again, that might help explain why the Bills like him better -- in addition to the fact that the Bills obviously know him very well having coached him in the Senior Bowl.

How many teams with a need for a QB passed on him. This is reminding me of the outrage last year with Clausen. Mallet has a lot to prove. He is lucky that he gets to sit for a while and has no pressure on him (as he would in Buffalo before he would in NE). In the end, he still is going to be slow and dumb. Gil Brandt said on Sirius earlier that he would not take Mallet in the seventh round. Given the wide range in opinion about him, I just do not know how anyone can be so sure that Mallet is going to be great in the NFL. I think that it is more likely that he will be a bust. We will not know until he gets a chance to start. For our team right now, I have no problem with the Bills not picking him.

You are missing the point again. The issue is whether the 8th Circuit views her decision of one of law, fact, or mixed question of law and fact -- regardless of whether it is in the context of an injunction or anything else. Appellate courts also can review different aspects of the lower court's ruling with different standards of review depending on the issue being reviewed. It is not as simple as you suggest. Second Circuit Donovan v. Bierwirth, 680 F.2d 263, 269-70 (2d Cir. 1982) "Despite oft repeated statements that the issuance of a preliminary injunction rests in the discretion of the trial judge whose decisions will be reversed only for “abuse”, a court of appeals must reverse if the district court has proceeded on the basis of an erroneous view of the applicable law, Ring v. Spina, 148 F.2d 647, 650 (2 Cir. 1945); Carroll v. American Federation of Musicians, 295 F.2d 484, 488-89 (2 Cir. 1961); Douglas v. Beneficial Finance Co., 469 F.2d 453, 454 (9 Cir. 1972), or of the standards governing the granting or denial of interlocutory relief, Exxon Corp. v. New York, 480 F.2d 460, 464 (2 Cir. 1973); Dino DeLaurentiis Cinematografica, S.p.A. v. D-150, Inc., 366 F.2d 373 (2 Cir. 1966). A line of cases in this circuit, apparently having its source in Dopp v. Franklin National Bank, 461 F.2d 873, 878-79 (1972), has gone beyond this and held that, even when the district court has not thus erred, where that court did not hear live witnesses, whose credibility played an essential part in its determination, and the case was decided on the basis of pleadings, affidavits and depositions, which the court of appeals is in as good a position as the district judge to read and interpret, the appellate court is not limited to reversal for abuse of discretion. The description of how far the limit is transcended has varied-the appellate court has “broader discretion on review”, Dopp, supra, 461 F.2d at 879;it is “able to exercise its discretion and to review the papers de novo ”, San Filippo v. United Brotherhood of Carpenters & Joiners, 525 F.2d 508, 511 (2 Cir. 1975); it “is not limited to reviewing the district court's exercise of discretion”, Forts v. Ward, 566 F.2d 849, 852 n.8 (2 Cir. 1977); it may exercise “full review”, Jack Kahn Music Co. v. Baldwin Piano & Organ Co., 604 F.2d 755, 758 (2 Cir. 1979); *270 <a href="http://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?referencepositiontype=S&serialnum=1980147460&referenceposition=701&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&sv=Split&rs=WLW11.04&db=350&tf=-1&findtype=Y&fn=_top&mt=24&vr=2.0&pbc=F4F4F55D&tc=-1&ordoc=1982123207" target="_top" style="color: rgb(0, 0, 255); ">Crouse-Hinds Co. v. Internorth, Inc., 634 F.2d 690, 701 n.19 (2 Cir. 1980); and it “may consider the record de novo”, at least when mandatory relief changing the status quo has been granted, Doe v. New York University, 666 F.2d 761, 765 (2 Cir. 1981). Two recent opinions have suggested that the use of the power to go beyond the “abuse of discretion” standard is itself discretionary, New York v. Nuclear Regulatory Comm'n, 550 F.2d 745, 750-53 (2 Cir. 1977); Vidal Sasson, Inc. v. Bristol-Myers Co., 661 F.2d 272, 276 n.9 (2 Cir. 1981), with the former suggesting some guidelines as to how the discretion should be exercised. Factors favorable to the exercise of appellate discretion to engage in full review are that interlocutory relief has been granted rather than denied, lack of specificity in the findings of the trial court, and “defects, apart from the findings themselves, in the district court proceedings, which this court apparently believed justified a broader review of the lower court's proceedings....” Eighth Circuit Entertainment Software Ass'n v. Swanson, 519 F.3d 768, 771 (8th Cir. 2008) "We normally review for abuse of discretion a district court's grant of a permanent injunction.Qwest Corp. v. Scott, 380 F.3d 367, 370 (8th Cir.2004) (citing Forest Park II v. Hadley, 336 F.3d 724, 731 (8th Cir.2003)). Where, as here, the “determinative question is purely legal, our review is more accurately characterized as de novo.” Id.; see also Ways v. City of Lincoln, Neb., 274 F.3d 514, 518 (8th Cir.2001)"

Supreme Court: Pierce v. Underwood, 487 U.S. 552, 557-58 (1988) " We first consider whether the Court of Appeals applied the correct standard when reviewing the District Court's determination that the Secretary's position was not substantially justified. For purposes of standard of review, decisions by judges are traditionally divided into three categories, denominated questions of law (reviewable de novo ), questions of fact (reviewable for clear error), and matters of discretion (reviewable for "abuse of discretion")." First Circuit last month: Milward v. Acuity Specialty Products Group, Inc., 2011 WL 982385, at *1 (1st Cir. March 22, 2011) " The appellate standard of review for Rule 702 rulings is abuse of discretion. Gen. Elec. Co. v. Joiner, 522 U.S. 136, 146, 118 S.Ct. 512, 139 L.Ed.2d 508 (1997). "This standard is not monolithic: within it, embedded findings of fact are reviewed for clear error, questions of law are reviewed de novo, and judgment calls are subjected to classic abuse-of-discretion review." Ungar v. Palestine Liberation Org., 599 F.3d 79, 83 (1st Cir.2010)" 8th Circuit Halbach v. Great-Wesst Life & Annuity Incs. Co., 561 F.3d 872, 877 n.3 (8th Cir. 2009) "We note for clarification that we are applying a de novo standard of review because we are reviewing whether the affected welfare benefits were vested or not, an issue of contract; a question of law."

The question is whether she made any factual determinations. If not, it is a de novo review. If she did, it is abuse of discretion. This is an issue where the NFL and NFLPA* will cross swords. We will find out what standard of review will be employed when the 8th Circuit issues its opinion.

Exactly. While no rules would be great for Brady, Manning, and the superstars, most of the players could really be hurt by this. I also agree that this would hurt the NFL as a whole (both the league and the players) and in particular the small and medium market teams. This is why I want the owners to prevail in the litigation - which may still happen if the owners are patient enough to let the Eighth Circuit or Supreme Court decide before caving to any deal.

It was a very interesting show. Fortunately, I remembered to DVR it and watched after the Sabres game.

One of the most deflating aspects of the series was the Sabres' propensity to handle the puck as if there were 5 Richard Smehlik's on the ice trying to beat the Flyer's forecheck. They really need to be able to break out of their own zone rather than get stuck playing large parts of each game scrambling around in our end of the rink. All in all, I am proud of the way of the team came back from the hole they dug for themselves at the beginning of the year. They were just a few minutes away from closing the series in game 6. As much as I cannot stand the Flyers, they have a lot of skill (in addition to all of their BS). The experience of this year should serve the team (especially the younger guys) well going into next year.

Let's go Buffalo - Beat those freaking Flyers.