yungmack

I suppose we're drifting a little far from football here, but as this thread has to do with labor/management relations, perhaps its okay. First off, I didn't say I agreed with Lipsyte only that his article was interesting. As to Title IX, I understand why it exists though I don't care for it. And however much Lipsyte may believe in it, it doesn't undermine his main points which, as I understand them, come down to this: the owners want to cut their employees pay while increasing their work load, claiming they are in deep financial doo-doo, all the while refusing to open the books to prove such is the truth. BTW, bigtime college football also funds all the money-losing men's sports as well. And as I understand it, that's pretty much all of them with the exception of an occasional money-making basketball program. The last thing I'd willingly choose to do is defend the UAW. I've known too many knuckleheads who are not qualified to mow my lawn who've made big bucks as rivetheads for me to do that. However, as to the unions "driving the automakers into bankruptcy," I know of no accepted study that shows any such thing. On the other hand, there are many that point the finger at decades-long inept management as the cause. The unions have been "giving back" benefits since at least the 1970s though, interestingly, the heyday of American automakers coincided with the heyday of the unions. Finally, the originators of the Tea Party movement came out of the Ron Paul campaign. But once that "movement" gained purchase, they were fairly quickly marginalized by "Tea Party" groups created, funded and operated out of K Street, with people such as Dick Armey and the Koch brothers playing crucial roles. That's why you saw the rapid pivot from strictly financial concerns to "social issues" such as immigration, abortion, guns, god and gays. In other words, the same old goofy far right nonsense. Kee-rist, I can't wait to get back to some football!

I think you might be missing the point, that whether government employees are union or non-union, they're still getting a check ... paid for by the taxpayers. So, I ask again, why the anger towards unions? Whether you choose to go to a professional sporting event or not, whether you'd rather watch Project Runway than ever watch Path to the Draft, you pay for sports through your cable/satellite fees which bundle the higher prices of licensing sports channels into their packages, through the higher prices automobile manufacturers have to charge to cover the costs of advertising on those sporting events (same for all the beer, pizza and other products advertised), through higher taxes for stadiums, through increased police protection at sporting events, trash removal, wear and tear on the highways, on and on. Whether he likes it or not, a pacifist, non-automobile driving Amish farmer's costs of living are impacted by rising costs of oil, and part of his taxes go to support a military that protects the nation's access to oil and to the sea lanes where it is transported. And just like that Amish farmer, like it or not, some part of your expenses in this country do go to owners of sports franchises and to the people that work for them. Here's an interesting article about the NFL situation: http://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_room/index.html?story=/politics/war_room/2011/05/10/nfl_strike_good_for_america&source=newsletter&utm_source=contactology&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Salon_Daily%20Newsletter%20%28Not%20Premium%29_7_30_110

But look on the bright side: had Stevie caught that pass, the Bills would have drafted lower. Better we should thank him for making Dareus a Bill.

Whether or not there are government unions, those employees are getting paid out of the "taxpayers pocket," as you put it. And the players in the NFL are being paid out of our pockets as well through ticket sales, increased costs to us by advertisers of NFL games, etc. But that's the case with every exchange. Why single out unions?

I noticed that too. And it does speak volumes about his character and how he was raised.

Great analysis, Mickey. You would seem to be the one who maybe can answer a question that's been nagging at me. If the owners stop paying the players, doesn't that abrogate their contracts? In my "real world," I work under contract. Among the terms that break the agreement is non-payment. If that happens, I'm free to shop my services anywhere I want. I believe that's pretty much standard under contract law. So how is it the NFL owners are able to both cease payment AND keep the players under contract? Maybe Rashard Mendenhall was right; it sure does sound like a "peculiar institution."

Way to state your case, Mr. Wilson. Glad to see you've been secretly dropping in on TSW. As long as I have your attention, I'd like to ask why you don't sell the team before you croak.

Yes they did. But I seem to remember that he was hired in the second season after not having one for Losman's first year. That's just my very fallible memory though.

I've seen this one used a few times for Jasper: Planet Mike. Don't know who started it but I like it.

Pretty good list. It's ugly to see it in black and white, isn't it. If you're looking for more research assignments, I for one would love to see the players we passed over in each of those drafts, like Cushing and Matthews when the Bills took Maynot. As to whether or not Mularkey mishandled Losman, one of the things that the draft commentators talk about every year is how much (or how little) coaching-up QB prospects need upon entering the NFL. Just this year, Newton, Gabbert, Dalton and Kaepernick were all regarded as potentially fine QBs who would need a bunch of work to make them into prototypical NFL QBs. In other words, the expectation is that you don't take one of those guys unless you're prepared to hire one or more coaches to work intensely with them. And he'd better be a good coach too. What does this have to do with Losman? Or Edwards for that matter? Just that the Bills coaches were erratic about focusing on training their young QBs. There were years when they didn't even have a QB coach. And when they did have one, it felt like an afterthought or grudging. Kind of unbelievable if you think about it. You go out and draft a guy, then put the future of your franchise in his hands, but you neglect to spend money on a coach who focuses exclusively on him? Penny wise and pound foolish.

I've seen him called "Planet Mike" by a couple of posters. I like that one.

I usually watch college football for the fun it, not as an analyst, so unless a guy jumps out at me, like an Andrew Luck, I tend not to put checkmarks next to them until later in the year. I don't know how good this list is. But I do know a fair amount about USC and I don't know anyone other than a rabid Trojan fan who thinks Matt Barkley is even the tenth best QB in the nation. And Chris Gallipo at 33? Gallipo lost his starting position last season. If he gets more time on the field this season, it will only be because the roster is thin. If Mac got both of those so far wrong, I wonder how many others he missed. I think I'll wait until next January before I started banging the drum on college prospects.

Looking at the teams outside the AFCE on this year's schedule, I do not see one team that I would call a definite loss. Will the Bills win all ten? I seriously doubt it. But it's do-able.

How much exactly?

You just don't get it. Because you have a perceived need for a great QB, what you do is pick a guy, any guy, and he automatically becomes The One. Don't believe me? Read some of the threads around TSW.

Before the draft, I believed the Bills had their sights set on Dareus or Miller and that only if both of them were gone would they trade down, probably intending to land Cam Jordan as a "consolation prize." But Dareus was there and they took him. I think it was the right call in the Bills particular situation. My biggest disappointment was that Ponder wasn't available at #34. But what the hey...

Fullback? Find whoever tackled him and sign that guy too.

Buffalo is the ideal place for him. There are enough "big heavies" roaming around that he'll hardly stand out.

Great analysis.

Jauron and Gailey both have had to use the TE for protecting the life and limb of the QB. As the O line improves, I fully expect Gailey will "know how to use the TE." And, if his headaches are under control, we already have a great TE on the roster in Nelson.

Did we get everything solved? Of course not. Did the Bills get every player they wanted? No they didn't. As Gailey said, "We didn't get the top 9 players." (Coach humor). And as Buddy says, they won't let us draft more than 9 players. With that said, it was overall an excellent draft. It fixed the area of greatest need while adding some depth at RB and on the line. Four of these guys should be near-day one starters, which would be tremendous. The offense is immediately improved by a defense that should get more 3-and-outs. That means less scoring by the opponent's offense which means the Bills shouldn't be playing from behind nearly as much (which means less desperate passing with all that can go wrong with that). If Easley, Batten, Wang and Merriman come through, the Bills could seriously scare other teams this coming season.

Very entertaining post.

Terrible pick considering Ryan Mallet's mother was still available.

Love your post, but your taglines...not so much. Obama spent the last two years trying to work with the Republicans only to be consistently rebuffed. If you change your tag to "come on republicans start working with the prez" then I'd give you an A+. Until then, it's extra homework for you, young man.

You seem to imply that you have a constitutional right to say whatever you want (which you don't...the constitution only protects POLITICAL speech from infringement by the government) free from any critical response. You don't.