Tolstoy

"I've come to talk with you again..."

Time will tell of course, but for the first time since Jim Kelly we have a QB with both the necessary athletic ability (my apologies to D. Flutie and A. van Pelt) and the swagger (apologies to T. Collins and deer-in-the-headlights R. Johnson) to make it big. The one unknown is game-composure. I don't think you can predict if and when a QB will reach that comfort level with the game such that he can begin to play effortlessly--i.e., enter the so-called "zone." Right now, JP is struggling mightily for all of his gains. My hope is that a patient GM and coaching staff, a decent O line, and a good offensive scheme (all of which seem to be possible this year) will enable JP to reach this Manning, Palmer, Brady level. Until then, I don't think we could ask for more: a young QB with all the tools and a bit of seasoning entering his 3rd year. I think that that at the end of the season we will have a budding star on our hands. Am I unreasonably optimistic?

I'm with BuffaloBud on this one.

My equation is slightly more crude than Jimbob's, but perhaps slightly more comprehensible: Let H=original height of the triangle 1/2(8H)=3[1/2(8H)]-96 4H=12H-96 H=3H-24 -2H=-24 H=12

Well, you are right about sacrifices. Everything, and I mean everything, does have its price. Football is a great game to watch, and the NFL owners know it. As some point, however, fans may start to think the price to pay is simply too high. that the commercials tax our patience and destroy the continuity of the game all too much. It hasn't happened yet, but it may (especially if they continue with these 30 second live action spots). The one manifestation of the owners' greed that really bothers me is the fact that they make you pay to listen to the games over the net. What skin is it off the NFL's bones if some guy in some remote corner of the country wants to listen to his favorite team streaming over the net? It certainly doesn't stop people who can do so from attending or watching games. The answer is that the NFL loses nothing by letting people do this, but the greedy ones saw a chance to profit on people's loyalty to their teams. The NFL has even tried to put a price on the statistics for their players, in order to make all fantasy leagues pay for these stats (fortunately, they failed). Finally, the NFL (and other major sports leagues) consititute an outright violation of our country's antitrust laws (as pointed out earlier by a poster in this thread). Congress has given them an exemption, but when they use this exemption to milk every penny out of their supporters, I start to see red. It is greed, Kelly, sheer greed. I know it when I see it, and it is shameful.

I'm not sure that I buy your premise here. The NFL is an incredibly wealthy league. Are you telling me that they can't sacrifice some portion of their TV revenue to make the game more watchable (and keep small-market teams at the same time)? In fact, making the game more watchable might just make the game more watched, thus compensating for some of the lost revenue! Perhaps some of us might watch more than just the Bills game on Sunday, if the games had less commercials and were shorter! Just curious, Kelly, at what point do you think enough is enough?

I am wondering who agrees with me here: As I get excited for the start of the regular season, I read something that tempered my enthusiasm. Apparently, the NFL is trying to squeeze more water from the stone. This from Zimmerman: "Oh, this one makes me happy. The NFL is encouraging sponsors to pay for vignettes, or 30-second commercial spots, during the live action. This is so horrible I don't even want to think of the butchery that lies ahead. They've already got those miserable crawls that invade the bottom of the screen while the games are going on, and announcements and images that interfere with the action, and heaven knows what else. I am not even mad anymore. I am whipped. I am pleading. Look, haven't you made enough money? Do you have to squeeze out every last penny? For God's sake, leave us alone. Let us enjoy our game, or what is left of it after all the commercials" Zimmerman aside, I am sick and tired of watching a play or two, then five commercials, a play or two, then five commercials. Why can't we have some continuous action? If you have young children, half of the commercials are R rated, requiring turning off the TV every minute or two. Say what you will about soccer, but 45 min of non-stop action for each half is a thing of beauty.

I'm curious: what was the content of the inmate's letter? The contents might indicate what kind of intentions he had. For instance, was it religious? Solicitous? Romantic? Friendly? In principle, it is kind of weird that he would write to you, but without further indication of his reasons for writing, it is difficult to comment intelligently on the matter.

I don't know about the seafood, but I know a great Vietnamese restaurant: Po Pasteur, on Washington St. in Brighton.

I like his music, and think he was a pretty darn good human being.

The Italians will be very, very hard to beat today. If the USA wins, it will be our greatest World Cup victory yet, since it would be the first time we have beaten the Italians, ever, and the first victory over a European team on European soil. It would also be a first Italian loss since 2004 (something like 20 straight victories for Italy). The US will have to be relentless on the attack, waiting for an Italian error that may never come. Meanwhile, the Italians will play cautiously, since a draw will not hurt them too badly. But when the counterattack comes, the US better have men back on defense.

So, World Cup fans, while we are waiting for Friday's games--what are your top three teams based on what you have seen so far? My three: Czech Republic Netherlands Germany Except for a few minutes, I have not seen the Spanish team play. So they may look good, but I wouldn't know. I was not impressed by Brazil. No intensity. They may pick it up in the next game or two. I want to see more of Argentina and Italy before making a call on them as well.

My apologies to those of you who feel soccer is being rammed down your throat. SI has a nice article on soccer in San Quentin. My favorite line comes when the visiting Irish players (not convicts) are informed of the prison's no-hostage policy: "Let me tell you what that means," he said. "If an inmate has got a weapon, and he has got that weapon at your throat and is holding you in front of him, the guards will shoot through you to get to him. They will shoot through you like this." And then he punched his index finger into his chest three times, each in a different spot, showing us exactly where the bullets would rip through our chests. Here's the link: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2006/writ...etin/index.html

You are one lucky bastard.

I am well aware of the population of the world. In fact, the numbers here refer to the combined audience of all the World Cup games.

Today begins the biggest football tournament in the world. It also happens to be the biggest sporting event in the world. Last time around it netted close to 30 billion (yes billion) viewers. In the words of one writer: "This is big, dude. Bigger than the Super Bowl. Bigger than the Beatles. Bigger than Brando's undergarments." ESPN has transferred one of their top baseball men (Dave O'Brien) to cover the event (and he has been cramming for 6 months) Who will watch the World Cup of Soccer? I will. Who is with me?

Pimsleur is probably the best in the business, but very expensive. I have used their German series, and it is very good. A friend of mine has used their Chinese program, and he was very impressed.

The US really needs to get its groove. I am hoping for a nice 3-0 win tonight.

Make that 12 of us, and thanks for the reminder about the game tonight!

For all the crap that C. Byrne has been taking for his realfootball365 editorials, he does have some good insights. How about this one: Posey should be considered as DE Byrne first proposed this on May 11. Here is the link: http://www.realfootball365.com/nfl/article...ills110506.html Now today, we are reading that the Bills D Coordinator, Fewell, is actually giving the matter some thought: http://www.buffalobills.com/news/news.jsp?news_id=3783 Kudos to Conor. It must be his CHS roots that made him so smart. We CHS alums see things long before the unwashed masses.

Sabres/Hurricanes Game 2 The Jumbotron at the Hurricane's Arena reads: "The Carolina Hurricanes have won as many superbowls as the Buffalo Bills!"

I just posted under the BC team. Thanks for doing this service. I'm sure things will heat up as fall approaches.

Actually, he did, and he did a damn good job at that. What he failed at was building the offense. To some degree, he can't be blamed for Williams. But he can, perhaps, be blamed for Losman, McGahee, Parrish, Everett, and a few others. I happen to think the jury is still out on these players. In fact, it would be a nice story if all of the above exploded into NFL stars, and Donahoe was recognized as the builder of that offense and given due credit. Wishful thinking, of course, but stranger things have happened.

If you had to choose between, on the one hand, a strong defense and a weak offense, and on the other, a weak defense and a strong offense, which would it be? We all know what the answer should be--so no one should be complaining about the decision to go defense in this year's draft. As I see it, we have a lot of young players on offense, some of whom might step up to the proverbial plate this year. Until we know what kind of players JP, Nall, Everett, Peters, Preston, Evans, McGahee, Parrish et al. are going to be, why start replacing them now with a Leinart or a Vernon Davis etc.? Sure, we could use the OL help, but if I had to choose between a strong D and a strong O-line, I would always choose the former. Hey, the O-line can't possibly get any worse this year, can they? Umm, forget I said that, and knock on wood.

Better yet: Ralph should just do a poll to see who the fans think is best. That would ensure a higher approval rating!