Jump to content

the_franchise

Community Member
  • Posts

    514
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by the_franchise

  1. Watched Conan for as long as I can remember. I enjoyed the show a lot during the writers strike imo. But then again I've always been a fan.

     

    Walker Texas Ranger Lever

     

    I don't think him moving up a time slot helped him out at all. Wrong crowd for his humor if you ask me. Maybe NBC wanted Fallon on late night(who I think sucks, but having the roots is pretty cool).

     

    I should note that I haven't watched him once since he went to TBS. So I have no opinion on that.

  2. If teams want their coverage units to make some hits and try to get a field position advantage then they will just kick the ball high. The only thing that this rule change does that really annoys me is that I have to watch a commercial after a score, then a touchback, followed by another commercial(and in our case being bills fans a 3 & out). I bet if the advertising was limited as part of the new kick off rule people wouldn't mind it so much.

  3. Newton did look pretty good in his first game zipping the ball around. I don't think he ran the ball once (at least that I saw). Thats the part of his game I want to see after seeing him complete a few ropes.

     

    I think I can speak for all of us when I say good thing Brees didn't go to Miami. :thumbsup:

  4. Lee came and left this organization in the same manor; a class act. Evans Statement Via BB.com I wish the guy success and a solid end to his career outside of Buffalo. The only thing about the trade that gets to me is what we got. Sure he can only run "one route" and doesn't light it up on the stat sheet. However the guy worked his tail off for 7 years for us and that alone is enough to respect the guy(given the state of the franchise). He didn't complain, quit, leave when it could've been his choice, or cost us any games... wait... did he?

     

    Maybe the board will shutdown after we make the draft choice with the pick we got for him...

  5. I think it's hilarious that all of us Zubaz-wearing, mullet-styled Bills fans are making aesthetic value judgements on the new unis… I had no idea what a fashionable bunch of people we are.

     

    Aesthetics mean nothing in relation to classics like zubaz and mullets. :thumbsup:

     

    Even though the mullet is one of the worst (yet somehow awesome) haircuts ever.

  6. Actually, it is the same.

     

    When the current CBA extension was signed prior to the 2006-07 season, both sides knew it was being done in "band-aid" fashion. Neither side was ready to confront the possibility of either an uncapped year or a work stoppage, so they hastily threw together a deal at the last moment. The players got the upper hand in terms of the revenue division, which made them happy to sign the deal. The owners recognized this, and requested that a clause be added to the agreement that provided them an opt-out that they could exercise prior to the 2009 season; that way they could (1) prevent a work stoppage in the short-term, (2) further evaluate the ramifications of an uncapped season--which turned out to work in their favor as opposed to the players', and (3) get out of a "bad" deal in the event that their nest eggs took a hit in the coming seasons. They chose to opt-out prior to the 2009 season, which gave us 2 years of uncapped league operations prior to the early (by 2 years) expiration of the deal.

     

    Now that the deal is expired (or rather, will expire on March 4th of this year), the Owners can lock out the players. Unless, of course, the union chooses to decertify, in which case there's no players union to lock out. Then, of course, the owners will further pursue their charges to the NLRB that the players' union had no intention of reaching a deal because they intended to fall back on decertification the entire time, and there will be a lawyer vs. lawyer pissing match for who knows how long...but, there would be football.

     

    P.S. congrats on your new fatherhood

     

    Double thanks, good breakdown and fatherhood is something else. :thumbsup:

  7. Oh boy. The players are not "holding out." In fact they are not going even on strike.

     

    Short of an agreement, on March 4th, when the league year ends, THE OWNERS ARE INTENDING ON LOCKING OUT THE PLAYERS.

     

    You don't even know what the situation is and you're commenting on it?

     

    The players were content to work under the existing CBA which was to have continued until 2013. It was the owners who decided to start a fight with the players.

     

     

    The players are "more ignorant and less deserving of cash?" Because…if you're ignorant you deserve less? Nonsensical statement number one.

     

    The players are "coddled" by whom? Society? Why is that? Is that maybe because you and millions like you pay to watch them play, buy their jerseys, purchase DirecTV, and watch games on television all of which conspire to make the players (and don't forget the owners) very rich? Are they coddled because our society chooses (by voting with their dollars) to make players (and don't forget the owners) extremely wealthy? The players are coddled because we as a society (including people who post on message boards and talk about players) put the NFL and its players on a pedestal.

     

    "Sure many owners are !@#$s but not much you can do about that" That's an interesting statement. We can't do anything about some owners being !@#$s but...we can call the players names? Nonsensical statement number two.

     

    "The players are basically spoiled children with entitlement issues." Nonsensical statement number three.

     

    If you were in their shoes, you would be any different? If you were switched at birth with an NFL player, you think that somehow you innately have greater character and would not be spoiled and have entitlement issues?

     

    The players are a product of society. We are a part of that society. By judging the players negatively, you imply that you are a better person than they are.

     

    From what you've written here, I have severe doubts about that suggestion.

     

    My mistake slick, I had it backwards. I didn't care to read into during the season and from what I've read (very limited with the arrival of my son, :thumbsup: I digress) It seemed like it has been both sides having a pissing contest with each other. My opinion on the ordeal changes slightly now. If the agreement is good through 2013, what makes it legal for the owners to lockout the players? This isn't the same as the NHL lockout is it as their agreement did expire?

     

    You don't have to yell either, the babys sleeping :nana:

×
×
  • Create New...