KRC

You are 100% correct. That is why Graham is the best ever. No discussion needed.

I am not at liberty to discuss the details, but the NFL wants to minimize/eliminate NFL Films. They could not care less about the mountain of fantastic footage in the vaults in Mount Laurel. If it were up to them, it would all get tossed in the trash.

Wins and championships are a good start, as long as you make the appropriate adjustments for the shorter seasons in the earlier days. The problem is that with quarterbacks, there are too many intangibles that need to be considered (leadership, etc.). You can't quantify those things. You have to rely on film study and talking to the players who played with and against that person. Not many people are going to put in that kind of effort (or have the access to the films or have the desire to talk to the players). It is easier to just look up a bunch of numbers in an encyclopedia and see who has the biggest numbers.

We also have to remember that statistics only tell a small part of the story. Unfortunately, too many people these days use fantasy football as a gauge. For example, Drew Bledsoe has more completions, more yards and a better completion percentage than Johnny Unitas and Otto Graham, but nobody in their right mind will list him as one of the all-time greats.

It is not the Bills' fault the videos are not there. You can blame the NFL for not making that stuff available. They control all of that kind of stuff.

Unitas isn't better than Favre? What about Graham?

I have the same regrets, that I am not old enough to have seen the Bills win the championships. I will have to pull out the 1964 and 1965 radio broadcasts and listen to them again. RIP #15.

The Telephone Pole thread wasn't bad, either.

It's not at the same level as the ones mentioned, but the Independent Bunny Party stuff was pretty good. BiB did good work there.

Nope. Anyone can write a book. Just don't expect me to respect it if it is tossed together.

Time to bump the thread again, huh? I am sorry that you can't handle any criticism. The authors I deal with spend years researching and writing their books. They are not slapped together quickly to capitalize on an anniversary. I am entitled to my opinion, just like you. More power to you. You will probably be bumping this thread in another hour or so.

OK, so half of the book is written by someone else (of course, that is just in chapter count and not page count. Page count pushes it well above the 50% mark, according to your outline.). Look. I am not new to this game. There is going to be a flood of junk coming out this year to shamelessly capitalize on the 50th Anniversary. There will be very few items of quality. The only one in the pipelines that I know of would be Jeff Miller's new book. My latest book will be out late this year or early next year. It is not on the current franchise, so it has nothing to do with the anniversary. So, let's break this down by chapter: Chapter one: If it is the history of the team, there is no way that it will be done properly in one chapter. If so, it will tell nothing of substance. If it is just the history of the stadiums, then it will just be filler to get the page count up. Chapter two: Mostly written by others. Chapter three: Mostly written by others. Chapter four: Possible substance, depending on how it is written. If written poorly, it will appear to be more filler to get the page count up. So, what are your plans for sharing the royalties and copyrights with the other 49 authors of the book? You never mentioned any of that in your posts. You just talked about how this book is unique because you mention the 50th Anniversary in it.

You are right. Usually, the author actually writes his own book instead of having others do it for him. Yours will definitely be unique.

The NFL is charging a crap-load of money for their channel, but forcing the cable companies to offer it with their basic package. The cable companies do not want to increase their rates to accommodate that request and have told the NFL to pound sand. Comcast is dropping the NFL Network entirely on May 1. The others might follow suit. Honestly, other than the games, it is not worth the $1.99/month fee. The programming is junk. Don't get me started on them. TSW doesn't have enough bandwidth for the rant.

Because the NFL doesn't want that. They want to be on the basic tier to make sure they are available to the most subscribers. Comcast put them on a sports tier that costs an extra $1.99 a month. The NFL hated it and is taking Comcast to court over it. There is no way the NFL will allow the NFL Network to be a premium channel.

Don't worry. You have plenty of time.

HFBD, James. I'll have something gueuze-like in your honor.

Great News!!

I've been called worse. I still sleep at night. Again, nothing to get worked up over.

After which, you will promptly receive the "It's Photoshopped" accusations. Some people will believe it. Some won't. I wouldn't get yourself too worked up over it.

That is a whole other thread, my friend.

I would disagree with this. Tampa 2 is just another way of saying that you toss in a Cover 2 look pre-snap and morph it into a Cover 3 after the snap. You don't have to have 2 CB and 2 LB underneath to make it a Tampa 2. You just need three on the over zone, 4 in the under zone and 4 rushing. There is nothing saying who needs to make up the particular zones and what they are doing in those.

A lot of posters here are getting caught up in the Tampa 2 and 1) not realizing what it actually is and 2) thinking that is the only defense we run. To address the point previously, just because we are in a Tampa 2 (or Cover 3, Cover 4, etc), doesn't mean that the pressure strictly comes from the DL. You can change things up with various types of firezone blitzes, where the DL will drop back into the underneath zones for coverage. This works perfectly for undersized DL, where they are more athletic and can act more like a larger LB and can cover the middle underneath zones. Rotating the players around will still give you the Tampa 2 (or other coverages), while messing with the blocking schemes of the OL. To address R. Rich, I completely agree with your take. DL in the first round, OL in the second and fill in with a TE in the third or later rounds. I haven't looked at an available free agent list, but I would not be opposed to bringing in another OL FA (position would be dependent on who we draft in the second round). If Peters is gone, we have another player to fill in. If Peters stays, we have depth.

Who is ~NG~? Thanks, Lori.