The Dean

Nice article. I read about him a couple of weeks ago (an article not half this good) and wondered the same thing as Kelly. Why doesn't someone (the Bills?) give this guy a shot? He's a victim here, too.

What does that say, really?

Drink the Heiny and quit your bitchin'! For the record, I despise Delta.

Excellent detective work, my friend.

Duh

Try this: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2010/writers/ross_tucker/08/25/tebow.orton/index.html?xid=FanHouse&icid=main|main|dl3|sec4_lnk1|166182

That's some funny stuff, right there.

This ain't twitter, bub.

Wasn't he an offensive line prospect for the Bills a few years back?

Short memory? The 2008 Bills were 5-1 after the bye. They were shooting up the power rankings and some here were comparing Trent (favorably) to Montana.

Now that I read this: http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/story/13815243/bills-camp-report-chan-the-man-that-can-help-qb-edwards-needs I'm starting to think it very well might be this:

I think if you see it more with one QB than another, if isn't likely all on the WRs. In fact, you should expect it more with Brohm and Brown and the younger WRs than you should with Trent and the returning WRs. IMO it has happened more with Trent than the others.

Another view, just for the hell of it: http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_kVBIKsx0ZqQ/SxKjDGEV1MI/AAAAAAAAB4I/NB0gBBUNpoo/s1600/20091203600Alex-Flanagan.jpg

Excellent points. I admit after my last post I also red Chan's criticisms or the WRs and wondered if they might be an issue. I still have a hard time believing a guy like Evans isn't running his proper route. But right now I accept a WR issue as a possibility. (Still from watching the game it was clear that Trent remains the most tentative. He did a far better job against the Colts even though he was still a bit tentative, IMO. But whether it be QBs, WRs or a combination of both (and their inability to be consistently on the same page) I still think there is a coaching issue here. It's too late in the year for this to be a big issue, IMO. Look I'm not an NFL coach so maybe I don't know what the hell I'm talking about. But in the OTs and in Training Camp, I'm telling the QB to throw the ball where the WR is supposed to be. If the QB are accurate passers and there are a lot of balls hitting the turf, you know where the trouble lies. The WRs and the WR coach are then on the spot. Hell maybe that's the wake up call Chan is trying to give now, but it seems a bit late.

? I don't comprehend.

OK, if a "hot topic" is simply based on the number of posts, then I think 25 is better than 15, and still maybe a bit low. But I wasn't a big use of that function, so I think maybe those who actually used it should decide. For the record, I would assume "Hot topic" is something that is getting a lot of responses NOW. So a thread that got 5 responses in one minute is very hot. Of one that got 20% of all the reply posts in a certain time frame. Then, after a while, the topic would no longer be "hot" as the discussion has played out. But it is obvious from your post that it doesn't work this way. So I can't see any purpose for the feature.

I never understood that, and almost asked you on an occasion or two.

No doubt the education system in this country needs to be revamped. But it costs some $$ (oh NO!) and we (as a country) will never be able to agree on what are the right changes, IMO. But just because the entire system isn't overhauled doesn't mean positive changes can't occur in pockets/individual situations. What better place to make some progress (if it is real) than in an area that breeds failure at an alarming rate? If a remarkable facility like this helps keep more kids safe, and in school; if it inspires more young minds to grow/create instead of joining gangs and selling drugs, how can you call it a "false idol"? I don't think of this as a hindrance to educational reform, but rather an attempt at such. An experiment, if you will. A facility like this could be a testing ground for different kinds of programs/curriculum/etc. Will it be? Well I can understand your skepticism, some of which I share. (To be truthful I think I'm a bit skeptical and you're more cynical, but let's not pick at nits.) Will there be used for political purposes? Of course. Will there be some money wasted? Without question. But if it actually brings improvement, I will consider that positive change. Virtually everything is politicized. Money is ill spent on almost every project, private and public. We can't stop trying because of that.

I wonder how often their players hold out? I'd guess it isn't often. From what I recall, Leigh Steinberg used to have a pretty good rep as a quality agent with high character players, too. I don't hear much about him anymore.

Sometimes, when people who have lived in dire conditions, they can come to value something of worth, something to be proud of. I think that community may look at this as a great opportunity for improvement and treat it with the respect it deserves. It's tough to live in blight, to go to schools that have no supplies and is filled with teachers who dread going to work every day, etc. This is an opportunity to have a place that can be a refuge from their everyday despair, if implemented correctly. I believe there is a good chance the community will come together to protect this jewel in their midst. Time will tell, of course.

Who's better than you, Fearless Leader? They said you were a heartless, uncaring dictator that couldn't give one rat's ass about the poor user, and they were WRONG!

SDS has mentioned, a number of times, that the reputation feature (that's the + and -) is not yet functional.

I'm going to go full Nostradamus here, and predict 10 years from now (and beyond) it looks FAR better than many of current schools and parks in the area.

Since the Bot's observations were that it was all the QBs, and didn't single out one or two WRs, I will assume it is the QBs and/or the coaching.