The Dean

That was one of my "bold predictions" for this year. Seriously though, it wouldn't take many years to include every team if they changed their criteria for opting out. But mostly I made that statement because a couple posters insisted EVERY TEAM would be on the show, at some point. I just don't think the show has those kind of legs. But then again, people still watch professional wrestling. Never underestimate the poor taste of the moronic viewing public!

I'm guessing somewhere in this 101 page thread, this has already been addressed. But believe it or not, I'm too busy to read the whole damn things. A client of mine is a very busy Arbitration judge, mostly dealing with union/management issues. We got to talking about the Brady thing. He basically thinks the issue comes down to this: The NFLPA agreed to give Goodell and the NFL the power to make these decisions, and dole out the punishment. The court only needs to look at the legality of the contract. If it's in order, the court shouldn't be able to overturn the suspension. Now, we know that isn't the way it's going to go down. But it's probably the way it should, IMO.

If there is really no downside, why is it so hard to find teams who will participate? With zero upside to a team (other than the minor publicity, which no NFL team really needs) they will continue to find it hard to attract willing teams. I'm sure the revenue generated by the show is a tiny drop in the NFL's bucket--but, yes they are greedy and would like to keep every drop. But at what internal cost? If you continue having to force teams to appear---well, let's just say that has to be divisive in the owner's room. I predict this show will disappear well before all 32 NFL teams participate.

Apparently, Turner is rethinking that now: http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2015/08/11/jim-turner-opts-not-to-sue-dolphins-or-nfl-for-now/

Pretty sure Tom was a student of mine for a semester. He never looked like that, though. I might have on a morning or two, back then.

Smoke the J.

Indeed. Richie's best move is to be incognito, on and off the field. His penalties call attention to himself on the field and most of his off the field trouble comes from his inability to just shut the f#$k up. An offensive lineman should rarely have his name mentioned during the game. And a moron? Well better to be thought a fool than to speak and remove all doubt. As a Bills fan, I just hope Richie gets it right on, and off, the field this year. But I can't say I'm betting on it.

I'm not yet familiar with his work, as I haven't been around much lately. I will continue to treat him as a respectable poster for the time being. But I appreciate the input. I am not all that into radio. I worked in media for 20 years or so. But mostly TV: local, network and consulting. While consulting I did a bit of radio stuff. I also helped start a (failed) startup company, testing music for the recording industry. I worked in local TV in Buffalo, Boston, San Francisco (twice, once local and once a startup cable network) and LA (network). And while consulting, I worked for many of the major broadcast and cable networks, hundreds of local TV stations, a bit of radio and other companies with media interests such as the NFL and MLB. I worked with, or ran into, people in every market i worked, who started (or passed through) Buffalo. Most of them had fond memories of Buffalo, and great stories. (The best stories came from those were old enough to have worked with Irv Weinstein.) When a local news director in SF (for example) is looking to hire new news/sports/weather "talent" (on air, or otherwise), they look at tapes from smaller markets. I can assure you, Buffalo is a market that is well respected---or at least was when I was in the business up through 2006. Buffalo is/was also considered a good market, for those looking to rise from even smaller markets. Finally, there are many reasons one may not move to a bigger market. Perceived talent, and lack of opportunities are surely among the reasons. But for those with families (especially), who do not want to jump from market-to-market, Buffalo is a pretty good gig. WNY has a very low cost of living. It has GREAT people, good schools and is a great place to raise a family. As a member of the media, you are fairly respected and well known, but not hounded everywhere you go. Some may not want to bounce all over the country to make 20% more at each stop, only to have the money buy less and have less job security. While I am admittedly less knowledgeable about radio, I believe "talent" is even less of an issue in radio than it is in TV. But of course, all of the other variables still apply.

Beautiful!

Well, if you believe talent is what matters in the radio game (I tend to disagree, though it is a factor), then wouldn't it be fair to say, you simply don't move up from any market if you aren't talented? In fact, seeing as how little talent it actually takes to do the job, it's hard to believe you would even be able to keep a job in any market, if you lacked talent. Remember, what you initially said was "A small market radio station will never attract talent so you get what you get.We essentially get radio personalities here that cant go beyond Buffalo". So, what exactly is your position now?

Yes, I'd like to hear that, too.

Good to know. Do we know how he did with a FB when compared to a single-back set, during those years? just curious. Well, I don't think anyone is arguing it is rocket science. But I believe it's fairly clear some backs prefer, and excel, at one-back sets, while others thrive with a fullback. I'm not sure the learning curve is the problem as much as the natural/comfortable style of the back. I'd think most backs would do better with a fullback---but again, I have heard some prefer to go single back.

Well, that's exactly what happens to ambitious talent at small markets: move beyond to bigger markets. Most of the top names in national media started in small markets, then moved their way up. The ones that stay put do so for a variety of reasons. But not everyone is in a race to get to NYC or LA.

Like many here, I love great FB play. So I was very happy when they signed Felton---and then again when Felton mention being mentored by Gash. But I do have one concern. Has McCoy every really had to/learned to follow a FB? Should we just assume this will be a big boost for Shady and not something that distracts him/gets in his way? I'm not trying to be a Debbie Downer, nor am I convinced this will be an issue. But I seem to vaguely recall a good back or two having trouble running behind a fullback, in the past. Can't really think of anyone specific at the moment though. I'm just a bit surprised this doesn't get mentioned more.

I think you may be a bit confused on this subject. In fact, small markets are where many (most?) TV and Radio on-air "talent" gets their start. It is very common for some of the most talented young broadcasters to start in a smaller market. As such, Buffalo has been a hotbed for talent through the years. Now, you are right that, as a rule, established stars don't flock to a market such as Buffalo---the money just isn't there to pay them, and they get limited exposure. But that doesn't mean the older local on-air personalities don't have talent. I don't make the mistake of equating fame/stardom/etc with talent. I mean, how can one argue that a guy like Colin Cowheard has more talent than someone like Howard Simon (for example)? Perhaps he has a stronger radio voice than Howard, though I'd say both are adequate for the job. What separates them, IMO, is Cowheard's willingness to engage in controversy for it's own sake. He is willing to make preposterous comments on the air, to make unfounded/over-the-top accusations and bark opinions I'm not even sure he truly believes. All this for the sake of controversy. It's become clear to me, in modern media (and this is more true in talk radio than anywhere) controversy has taken the place of honest/reasonable discussion. And "talent" now means the ability, and especially willingness, to do whatever it takes to stir the pot. Because drawing an audience with controversy is much easier than to attract one with a calm discussion. After all, most every blowhard has an opinion, and is more than willing to share it. Relatively few have an intelligent and informed take on things, and have the eloquence to state it convincingly. I haven't heard Howard in man years now, but he was always top-notch with Empire sports. He was the kind of sports talk-radio host that fostered reasonable discussion. So I guess he doesn't have the "talent" to make it in radio in a big market. OK, end of rant.

Or vice-versa perhaps? I'm not sure what kind of progress Gay is making on punting or Schmidt with KOs. But I believe I'd rather give up a little on KOs to have a superior punter. This may seem like an ignorant remark (and it may in fact be one), but with the KOs coming from the 35 yard line, is it really that much to ask for your PK or P to do a reasonable job with it? I feel like that would be a major focus of upcoming kickers.

You should know that even the creators of the Constitution didn't agree about the interpretation of every word. The 2nd Amendment clearly states there would be no infringement on the right to bear arms in order to create "a well-regulated militia". I'm not sure why you didn't include that context. Also, what was available as "arms" has changed significantly over the years. If you really believe words are stuck with unwavering meaning, then perhaps the "arms" covered are those available when the document was written.

Indeed. But we do have criminal laws limiting certain kinds of assembly, incitement to riot, etc. The 1st Amendment clearly states "NO LAW", but we do have some laws that restrict free speech and assembly. My argument isn't, of course, to say there shouldn't be these restrictions. The 2nd Amendment is far more nebulous, IMO. Yet some want to interpret as a complete prohibition on any regulation with respect firearms. How does restricting certain types of firearms, or the carry of firearms in certain places infringe on the the creation of a well-regulated militia? Not based on the Constitution. There is zero about what qualifies one to own arms in the document.

You should beat that drum for awhile, then. The Constitution is a living document, subject to reasonable interpretation. Words are used to convey meaning and ideas, within the context of the time they are used. I have the same issue with people who believe the bible is literal truth.

He was a rookie who started and played adequately with no support by his side. He'd have to take a HUGE step back to get cut, I think.

I'll be plenty upset with releasing Cassel if they don't replace him with another veteran QB with playing experience. You beat me.

We limit free speech all the time without amending the constitution. Do you think we need a constitutional amendment in order to stop slander, libel and/or deceptive commercial claims? I've said this before (to some criticism) any defense of the 2nd amendment with no limits, should allow me to have a nuclear weapon. If you don't agree with that statement, then you already believe in imitations.

Isn't this time of year fun? Based on limited work in OTAs/minicamp, coaches throw platitudes and/or take motivational shots, fans and the press instantly conclude one guy is a star and the other on the way down/out. Based on observed sub-par performance, Rodak theorizes Cassel might not make the team, simply due to his contract. No input from a coach or team official. No theory about how he will be replaced on the roster. Just some thought-fart emitted by "some dude" (that's exactly what Rodak is without inside info). Now other "journalist" cite the Rodak report and NOW it's a REAL STORY: http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2015/06/20/matt-cassel-is-no-lock-to-make-the-bills-roster/

Josh Reed had phenomenal hands. He had that bad year and a half. or so, where he dropped passes. Apparently he couldn't handle the pressure of trying to be a #1 option. Maybe too much weed, too. But his college and most of his pro careers are filled with great catches.