Fake-Fat Sunny

The criminal case and the civil trial are two different things in terms of the written law, but in practice it is impossible to go forward with a criminal trial of this type if the "victim" refuses to co-operate. Since her co-operation or willingmess to do so will be heavily influenced by the civil case, in fact the criminal and civil cases are integrally linked and related.

I thin kwe keep 6 with Haddad the goner unless he returns a long one tomorrow night. We might even drop down to 5 WRs and if so its between Smith and Shaw with a bias toward Shaw being the keeper.

I was referring both to teams and individuals that represent our country and also had morphed into whether one roots for any individual that you share something in common with like a shared school, background, etc. However, like most things on the web there are no hard and fast rules.

My understanding is also that this was the same injury he had last year though I have not heard whether it is simply continued naggin pain from the old injury or he injured himself a new in the same place. I saw one article which described the problem as being he decided to be manly about this and played without a flak jacket or any extra protection on last year's injury and this is what being a foolish stud gets you. I too have heard that if this was a real game coming up he would play and probably would be 100% given how he played through pain last year and would not make the flak jacket mistake again.

It simply strikes me as way to early to draw any rational or reasonable conclusions. By all means we;re free to draw any conclusions we want rational or otherwise> I just think that to the extent these conclusions prove to be right it is probably more coincidence that will cause this than any wonderful football acumen that the predictor that Mularkey sucks will likely claim. Reality has yet to happen regarding the results of off-season moves and dumb luck, the way the odd-shaped ball happens to bounce, and the too rndom and inconsistent calls of the refs will determine a lot of the results of MM's move and style. To me the most reasonable judgments are those whether he has done the things to put the players in the best position they can be in tot take advanatage of lucky breaks and to weather the slings and arrows of unlucky breaks. To me those factors are: D- I thought they will be in good shape if MM oversaw keeping them the way they were for the most part as players, oversaw the resigning of Gray to deal with the loss of LeBeau, made the pass rush better through player acquisition or getting more out of Kelsay/Denny. Answer to date: For the most part mission accomplished. the jury remains out on the pass rush, but the acquisition of Glidon and the work shown by Kelsay and Denny provides good hope here. O- Retool the scheme, improve the OL, break in new threats, have a good plan B for Bledsoe in case last year;s production is the rule rather than the aberration. Answer to date: Likewise here, so far so good. Injuries to date have set us back in having a plan B for Bledsoe and made it more important that plan A (run the ball and run it again, make Bledsoe throw the damn ball and they have used the 4 second clock not having Tuna's personality for Belicheck's brain) work for us. JMac is not a miracle worker, but even being adequate will be a big improvement by the OL so we'll see. ST- Keep improving the performance of players. Solidity is more important than radical scheme changes. Answer to date: Jury is way out on this one after a good ST performance in the 2nd game and a really stinky one in the last game. Improvement in Lindell results is a pleasant occurence but jury is way out on Bobby April. General demeanor: Who cares what the judgment is here as winning soothes all ills. Answer to date: Seems to be a players coach which ain't a bad thing in the modern league where players need and actually demand discipline. However, you must get the players permission to discipline them as the NFLPA and NFL are partners. My way or the highway styles like Coughlin can give some short-term benefit while the new HC has all the power, but eventually you lose the players and thus the team. There is a lot to dislike about any public figure and the only guarantee is that he will lose his job and likely be fired. Just win baby is the answer to solving or at least paving over the problems and limitations an HC will surely have.

Thanks for some interesting results and comments. its still running at exactly 50/50 in terms of votes at this point with some fairly virulent comments from fellow American patriots who object to US folks not supporting their team. I voted no I don't always support US team despite being a US citizen because I don't always root for US teams and athletes. I watch sports for entertainment rather than for political affirmation because my sense is that this form of entertainment usually has more to do with the efforts of individual athletes and dumb luck that even a way of life and certainly not some philosophical view of political systems. Clearly their are examples like the US team in 1980 where the result in a sport has some political impact or some political statement is mad. However, even in this case, the US won because: 1. Herb Brooks adopted the Soviet style and abandoned a losing US style. 2. The key seemed to be the acknowledgement by brooks that the Soviets would win 99 of 100 games against the US, but not tonight! I simply tend to be motivated heavily in getting entertainment from sports by rooting for the underdog. This feeling can be overcome by issues such as one opponent sharing my alma mater, being from the same country as me, or other trivia (dare I say it, such sports unrelated items as being from my home city, being of the same race, or having the same hair color or increasinlgly being bald). So I certainly am happy to root for the team or an athlete from another country. This is particularly true if I view the US athlete as a jerk. I rooted for Borg over McEnroe before and would do it again.

JMac was pretty clear about saying that he was no miracle worker. I think it is more than OK for fans to be hopeful and even outrageous about their hopes (after all, we're just fans) but it is clear from any rational perspective (we fans don't have to be rational at all) that we likely have a long slog ahead of us in terms of OL improvement. Vinky and Ruel were so bad that things can get much better in terms of OL performance and it still will be true that OL performance is inadequate. i shudder to think how bad it would be with all the OL injuries if we had the same old not-ready-for-primetime OL coaches.

I think many people use this phrase not say that he will go unnoticed (there are some teams which still do not have enough scouts or competent scouts but most do and are well aware of Peters and other potential talents) but what this phrase really refers to is in essence a poker-like bluff that the Bills had made a judgement that there is something inherent in the Peters package which did not even make him close to being a keeper at TE. If the Bills had kept him until the final cuts it would be testimony that they thought there was potentially the final pre-season performances which might merit his making the roster, but letting him go at this point sends a signal to other teams that he is a true project and if they allocate a spot for him they do so with the knowledge there will probably be no payoff this year. Other teams have to consider maybe the Bills are faking and he may develop sooner, but it adds another piece of intelligence they have to gather to truly assess where he is and the plates of other teams are so full amidst the many cuts that happened yesterday that it isn't so much that other teams don't know anything about Peters but that cutting him early raises the level of what other teams better find out before they allocate a slot to him. I think the info of why the Bills felt comfortable letting him go so quick remains a mystery to most teams that can constitute being under the radar.

I certainly love the NFL most of all of sports and the Bills most of all of NFL teams, however, my attention span is too short for me to exist with merely one sport, it would be less of a life without the NFL, but if I have to survive on a diet of Women's Beach Volleyball with the World Series of Poker thrown in on occaision for diversity, so be it.

The World Cup posts and events led me to ask this question. I tend to always root for my country's team amd athletes. but certainly found myself rooting against the US in cases such as my dislike for some members of the US basketball dream team during the Olympics. In reviewing the thread about the Hockey World Cup, there clearly were some posts added by our Canadian friends rooting for their team, but i also saw some comments against the fat cat American team which I think was from my fellow US citizens. So I'm curious, do folks always root for their home country or do they make their judgments if who support based on the athletic event or something about the team?

I think anyone with even half of a brain knows Saddam had and used WMD against the Kurds back in the days when the US generally supported him because he was at war with folks in Iran who we disliked even more than him. I think the WMD question where as David Kay said we were wrong about everything is whether he was building a WMD stockpile today or whether the wild outlandish claims that he was prepared to fire them on England with 45 minutes of notice or that he was developing drone planes which could somehow reach America. No one is arguing that Saddam didn;t and doesn't deserve to die a slow death, folks are aguing that with no immediate threat, he was not worth 1000 or so American lives and that his outmoded weapons threat could have been contained by the inspections of the UN whivh needed the US threat of war to get back in. Outside of Ralph Nader, I don't think anyone advocates getting out immediately. Colin Powell was right when he asked Bush after he was informed we were going in that he realized of course that when we attack Iraq anf beat the crap out of Iraq, we own Iraq. We have finally turned over sovereignty to the Iraqi people (now that early US choice Ahmed Chalabi has been revealed to be a rat) and this is a good thing. However, it is clear from the need for us to lose American lives knocking down Muqtada El-Sadr that we still own it. Even worse we lose American lives on this necessity caused by us taking ownership, but have to sit there and simply lose lives when the new sovereign government cuts deals to bring peace that delivers amnesty to El-Sadr. There was a reason why Bush 41 didn't send in Schwartzkopf to get Saddam after Operation Desert Storm and American troops are now paying the price for Bush 43 trying to out do his Dad. Finally, i for one didn't think everything was hunky-dory under th leadership od Clinton who did not even have the self-discipline to keep it in his pants. Perhaps you mistake some folks feeling better about someone who screws an intern than someone who screws our troops. I think its nice that Iraq is under new ownership, however, I wish that the US focus was instead on bringing terrorists to justice like Osana Bin Laden rather than wasting our time, money and most important our troops blood on Iraq.

The Bills injuries have added a great degree of complexity to our roster situation and created some odd effects in my judgment. For example, I think the Losman and Brown injuries cost Antonio Brown any chance at even winning a job by running back a KO for a TD. The need to keep 4 QBs on the roster on a team which would keep 3 QBs and even did 2 last year meant that our return guy had to also contribute at another roster spot. Brown was a WR on the depth chart only and we could not afford to keep a guy who only did returns. McGee looked pretty good in his chances and even without him playing last weekend he won this job. Dorenbos, another specialty guy is in danger and it remains to be seen Thursday whether there is a position player who can snap who will give us this roster spot. Another interesting occurence is that I think Ryan Neufeld showed enough at TE that he forced project Peters out and I think our hope is that by cutting him early we will lessen interest from other teams into putting him on their PS squads or even storing him on their rosters. It is ineresting how it all fits together.

The call for someone to state their best Pro-Kerry arguments and the difficulty of some folks to do this rather than stating their anti-Bush arguments is actually a reflection of how this election will turn out based on how voters ask the final question leading to their vote. If folks are looking for arguments that convince them that a Kerry presidency will b a good one, they are setting a high standard for him which he may or may not reach but it is a high one. If on the other hand, folks are asking to be convinced whether Kerry is better than Bush they have already made a judgment for change and Kerry will actually need to meet a lower standard of is he adequate and is he good enough to be an adequate President. For me, I have already made my judgement that I really doubt that Kerry is going to be a great President if elected and I seriously doubt he will even be a good one. However, as an American, I think one thing that makes us improve is accountability. I think we will be a better country overall if there are some consequences for actions. For example, on the WMD question, I'm less interested in whether we made the same mistake as others than in there being some accountability for making a pretty serious intelligence mistake leading to at least questions about whether we made a bad warfare decision based in part of this bad intelligence. I know tenet resigned, but he sure didn't resign publicly virtually in disgrace for some horrendous intelligence errors. Perhaps it is Colin Powell's head which should roll since he trotted out speicific WMD intelligence as truth and as a major rational for going to war. He is still around however. Yet, the WMD seems ti be inly part of pretty huge mistakes around this war. i was glad to see the Prez finally step to the plate this past weekend and acknowledge at leastr some miscalculation in terms of judgments around the Iraqi insurgency, mistakes which he linked to the swift victory which no one expected. Excuse me, we pay the Administration to expect just this type of thing and at least be prepared for it. It seems to me the critical mistakes were these: 1. Trying to win the war on the cheap and commiting far fewer troops to the post-war period that recommended by military types like Gen. Shaliskasvili. 2. Undersestimating how good US troops were because if you really believed in our troops you would know there was at least a reasonable if not good chance they would clean the Iraqi army's clock in record time. 3. Not managing the coalition-building for the war in a manner similar to what Bush '41 did in Operation Desert Storm. That coaliton saw far greater sharing of the cost and even part of the risk than this coalition. Perhaps you want to judge the first war as being an easier one to build a coaltion around because it involved a response to an invasion of Kuwait rather than the "voluntary" war this time. Okay, but if this is the case then perhaps you don't go to war this time rather than bear all the risks and cost yourself. This is why the Iraq/WMD claims are important because if the intelligence is correct the war is not voluntary, but it was incorrect and the goals of containing Saddam's threat could have been achieved without costing 1000+ US lives. As far as the goal of deposing a horrible dictator, that's a good thing, but there are enough horrible dictators out there (Korea and Iran for example) that also pose a real threat to the US and now we have shot our wad on Saddam. I don't think Kerry will be a great Prez and he ay well not even be a good one, but I think there should be some accountability for errors and this Administration has made some huge boners and our troops have had to pay the price. Kerry does strike me as meeting the standard of adequacy and that being better than President Bush he will get my vote.

The Bills have cut a player before in the first round of cuts with the intent of appearing to give up on a project early in an effort to sign to the PS later. The most recent example i can't remember his name but he was a black QB they had a couple of years back. Given the buzz around Peters who was a fan favorite but definitely is a project I would not be surprised to see him come back on the new expanded practice squads. In fact is exactly because of this expansion that the Bills might have cut him early as other teams will be doing some heavy shopping for PS projects after the second round of cuts.

This is my understanding of the QB situation, dates for avaiability and what it means. This is my best guess but is simply a marinally informed guess so I'd love to know where it is wrong. This guess is almost certainly wrong as the CBA rules are convoluted and often changing: 1st string QB: Bledsoe- fully active 2nd string QB: Zolman- Matthews who was just signed is better, but he knows the plays and the system far better than Matthews with a Thursday game coming so he will get the second highest amount of game time this Thursday because he will provide better practice and assessment time for those around him though he is most likely to go to the Practice Squad as the season begins. 3rd String QB: He really is our back-up for now but needs to learn the offense and signals pronto to play this role. He might actually be cut after Thrisday game or as the regular season start if the waiver wire provides us with a better alternative as out back-up. Physically Unable to Perform QB (Inactive): Losman- the PUP list seems to be divided into an active PUP list and an inactive PUP list. Both types are banned from practicing with the team but the Active PUP list players can be reactivated sooner when their injury heals but the Inactive PUP list players must wait until after game 6. Losman is a good candidate for the Inactive list because he will not be ready to even practice before game 6 anyway. He will get to remain on the roster if he recovers (he won't on IR) and he still will be allowed to sit in the booth where he belongs and learn the game (and if he is sitting there soaking up Wyche's knowledge I think this would actually have been the best use for him even if he were healthy). There is some dispute over whether he would take up a roster spot as an Inacrtive PUP. I don't believe he will so this seems to be the best place for him to be. Physically Unable to Perform QB (Active): Brown- he may be ready to go as early as week 4 (the early bye really helps us a lot here ironically). My understanding is that he will take up a roster spot here. However, if he takes up a spot and leaves us with only two QBs ready to play in the first three games, this is exactly what we did last year when we went with only 2 QBs on the roster. Hw eill not be able to physically practice on the PUP list, but who cares as physicially he can't practice with the team anyway. I'd love any corrections of this reading of the situation which anyone has that is connected to links or real facts rather than our shared lame opinons (I know folks feel Matthews is an upgrade over Brown but that isn't the issue right now).

This is my understanding of the QB situation, dates for avaiability and what it means. This is my best guess but is simply a marinally informed guess so I'd love to know where it is wrong. This guess is almost certainly wrong as the CBA rules are convoluted and often changing: 1st string QB: Bledsoe- fully active 2nd string QB: Zolman- Matthews who was just signed is better, but he knows the plays and the system far better than Matthews with a Thursday game coming so he will get the second highest amount of game time this Thursday because he will provide better practice and assessment time for those around him though he is most likely to go to the Practice Squad as the season begins. 3rd String QB: He really is our back-up for now but needs to learn the offense and signals pronto to play this role. He might actually be cut after Thrisday game or as the regular season start if the waiver wire provides us with a better alternative as out back-up. Physically Unable to Perform QB (Inactive): Losman- the PUP list seems to be divided into an active PUP list and an inactive PUP list. Both types are banned from practicing with the team but the Active PUP list players can be reactivated sooner when their injury heals but the Inactive PUP list players must wait until after game 6. Losman is a good candidate for the Inactive list because he will not be ready to even practice before game 6 anyway. He will get to remain on the roster if he recovers (he won't on IR) and he still will be allowed to sit in the booth where he belongs and learn the game (and if he is sitting there soaking up Wyche's knowledge I think this would actually have been the best use for him even if he were healthy). There is some dispute over whether he would take up a roster spot as an Inacrtive PUP. I don't believe he will so this seems to be the best place for him to be. Physically Unable to Perform QB (Active): Brown- he may be ready to go as early as week 4 (the early bye really helps us a lot here ironically). My understanding is that he will take up a roster spot here. However, if he takes up a spot and leaves us with only two QBs ready to play in the first three games, this is exactly what we did last year when we went with only 2 QBs on the roster. Hw eill not be able to physically practice on the PUP list, but who cares as physicially he can't practice with the team anyway. I'd love any corrections of this reading of the situation which anyone has that is connected to links or real facts rather than our shared lame opinons (I know folks feel Matthews is an upgrade over Brown but that isn't the issue right now).

This is my understanding of the QB situation, dates for avaiability and what it means. This is my best guess but is simply a marinally informed guess so I'd love to know where it is wrong. This guess is almost certainly wrong as the CBA rules are convoluted and often changing: 1st string QB: Bledsoe- fully active 2nd string QB: Zolman- Matthews who was just signed is better, but he knows the plays and the system far better than Matthews with a Thursday game coming so he will get the second highest amount of game time this Thursday because he will provide better practice and assessment time for those around him though he is most likely to go to the Practice Squad as the season begins. 3rd String QB: He really is our back-up for now but needs to learn the offense and signals pronto to play this role. He might actually be cut after Thrisday game or as the regular season start if the waiver wire provides us with a better alternative as out back-up. Physically Unable to Perform QB (Inactive): Losman- the PUP list seems to be divided into an active PUP list and an inactive PUP list. Both types are banned from practicing with the team but the Active PUP list players can be reactivated sooner when their injury heals but the Inactive PUP list players must wait until after game 6. Losman is a good candidate for the Inactive list because he will not be ready to even practice before game 6 anyway. He will get to remain on the roster if he recovers (he won't on IR) and he still will be allowed to sit in the booth where he belongs and learn the game (and if he is sitting there soaking up Wyche's knowledge I think this would actually have been the best use for him even if he were healthy). There is some dispute over whether he would take up a roster spot as an Inacrtive PUP. I don't believe he will so this seems to be the best place for him to be. Physically Unable to Perform QB (Active): Brown- he may be ready to go as early as week 4 (the early bye really helps us a lot here ironically). My understanding is that he will take up a roster spot here. However, if he takes up a spot and leaves us with only two QBs ready to play in the first three games, this is exactly what we did last year when we went with only 2 QBs on the roster. Hw eill not be able to physically practice on the PUP list, but who cares as physicially he can't practice with the team anyway. I'd love any corrections of this reading of the situation which anyone has that is connected to links or real facts rather than our shared lame opinons (I know folks feel Matthews is an upgrade over Brown but that isn't the issue right now).

This is my understanding of the QB situation, dates for avaiability and what it means. This is my best guess but is simply a marinally informed guess so I'd love to know where it is wrong. This guess is almost certainly wrong as the CBA rules are convoluted and often changing: 1st string QB: Bledsoe- fully active 2nd string QB: Zolman- Matthews who was just signed is better, but he knows the plays and the system far better than Matthews with a Thursday game coming so he will get the second highest amount of game time this Thursday because he will provide better practice and assessment time for those around him though he is most likely to go to the Practice Squad as the season begins. 3rd String QB: He really is our back-up for now but needs to learn the offense and signals pronto to play this role. He might actually be cut after Thrisday game or as the regular season start if the waiver wire provides us with a better alternative as out back-up. Physically Unable to Perform QB (Inactive): Losman- the PUP list seems to be divided into an active PUP list and an inactive PUP list. Both types are banned from practicing with the team but the Active PUP list players can be reactivated sooner when their injury heals but the Inactive PUP list players must wait until after game 6. Losman is a good candidate for the Inactive list because he will not be ready to even practice before game 6 anyway. He will get to remain on the roster if he recovers (he won't on IR) and he still will be allowed to sit in the booth where he belongs and learn the game (and if he is sitting there soaking up Wyche's knowledge I think this would actually have been the best use for him even if he were healthy). There is some dispute over whether he would take up a roster spot as an Inacrtive PUP. I don't believe he will so this seems to be the best place for him to be. Physically Unable to Perform QB (Active): Brown- he may be ready to go as early as week 4 (the early bye really helps us a lot here ironically). My understanding is that he will take up a roster spot here. However, if he takes up a spot and leaves us with only two QBs ready to play in the first three games, this is exactly what we did last year when we went with only 2 QBs on the roster. Hw eill not be able to physically practice on the PUP list, but who cares as physicially he can't practice with the team anyway. I'd love any corrections of this reading of the situation which anyone has that is connected to links or real facts rather than our shared lame opinons (I know folks feel Matthews is an upgrade over Brown but that isn't the issue right now).

This is my understanding of the QB situation, dates for avaiability and what it means. This is my best guess but is simply a marinally informed guess so I'd love to know where it is wrong. This guess is almost certainly wrong as the CBA rules are convoluted and often changing: 1st string QB: Bledsoe- fully active 2nd string QB: Zolman- Matthews who was just signed is better, but he knows the plays and the system far better than Matthews with a Thursday game coming so he will get the second highest amount of game time this Thursday because he will provide better practice and assessment time for those around him though he is most likely to go to the Practice Squad as the season begins. 3rd String QB: He really is our back-up for now but needs to learn the offense and signals pronto to play this role. He might actually be cut after Thrisday game or as the regular season start if the waiver wire provides us with a better alternative as out back-up. Physically Unable to Perform QB (Inactive): Losman- the PUP list seems to be divided into an active PUP list and an inactive PUP list. Both types are banned from practicing with the team but the Active PUP list players can be reactivated sooner when their injury heals but the Inactive PUP list players must wait until after game 6. Losman is a good candidate for the Inactive list because he will not be ready to even practice before game 6 anyway. He will get to remain on the roster if he recovers (he won't on IR) and he still will be allowed to sit in the booth where he belongs and learn the game (and if he is sitting there soaking up Wyche's knowledge I think this would actually have been the best use for him even if he were healthy). There is some dispute over whether he would take up a roster spot as an Inacrtive PUP. I don't believe he will so this seems to be the best place for him to be. Physically Unable to Perform QB (Active): Brown- he may be ready to go as early as week 4 (the early bye really helps us a lot here ironically). My understanding is that he will take up a roster spot here. However, if he takes up a spot and leaves us with only two QBs ready to play in the first three games, this is exactly what we did last year when we went with only 2 QBs on the roster. Hw eill not be able to physically practice on the PUP list, but who cares as physicially he can't practice with the team anyway. I'd love any corrections of this reading of the situation which anyone has that is connected to links or real facts rather than our shared lame opinons (I know folks feel Matthews is an upgrade over Brown but that isn't the issue right now).

This is my understanding of the QB situation, dates for avaiability and what it means. This is my best guess but is simply a marinally informed guess so I'd love to know where it is wrong. This guess is almost certainly wrong as the CBA rules are convoluted and often changing: 1st string QB: Bledsoe- fully active 2nd string QB: Zolman- Matthews who was just signed is better, but he knows the plays and the system far better than Matthews with a Thursday game coming so he will get the second highest amount of game time this Thursday because he will provide better practice and assessment time for those around him though he is most likely to go to the Practice Squad as the season begins. 3rd String QB: He really is our back-up for now but needs to learn the offense and signals pronto to play this role. He might actually be cut after Thrisday game or as the regular season start if the waiver wire provides us with a better alternative as out back-up. Physically Unable to Perform QB (Inactive): Losman- the PUP list seems to be divided into an active PUP list and an inactive PUP list. Both types are banned from practicing with the team but the Active PUP list players can be reactivated sooner when their injury heals but the Inactive PUP list players must wait until after game 6. Losman is a good candidate for the Inactive list because he will not be ready to even practice before game 6 anyway. He will get to remain on the roster if he recovers (he won't on IR) and he still will be allowed to sit in the booth where he belongs and learn the game (and if he is sitting there soaking up Wyche's knowledge I think this would actually have been the best use for him even if he were healthy). There is some dispute over whether he would take up a roster spot as an Inacrtive PUP. I don't believe he will so this seems to be the best place for him to be. Physically Unable to Perform QB (Active): Brown- he may be ready to go as early as week 4 (the early bye really helps us a lot here ironically). My understanding is that he will take up a roster spot here. However, if he takes up a spot and leaves us with only two QBs ready to play in the first three games, this is exactly what we did last year when we went with only 2 QBs on the roster. Hw eill not be able to physically practice on the PUP list, but who cares as physicially he can't practice with the team anyway. I'd love any corrections of this reading of the situation which anyone has that is connected to links or real facts rather than our shared lame opinons (I know folks feel Matthews is an upgrade over Brown but that isn't the issue right now).

This is my understanding of the QB situation, dates for avaiability and what it means. This is my best guess but is simply a marinally informed guess so I'd love to know where it is wrong. This guess is almost certainly wrong as the CBA rules are convoluted and often changing: 1st string QB: Bledsoe- fully active 2nd string QB: Zolman- Matthews who was just signed is better, but he knows the plays and the system far better than Matthews with a Thursday game coming so he will get the second highest amount of game time this Thursday because he will provide better practice and assessment time for those around him though he is most likely to go to the Practice Squad as the season begins. 3rd String QB: He really is our back-up for now but needs to learn the offense and signals pronto to play this role. He might actually be cut after Thrisday game or as the regular season start if the waiver wire provides us with a better alternative as out back-up. Physically Unable to Perform QB (Inactive): Losman- the PUP list seems to be divided into an active PUP list and an inactive PUP list. Both types are banned from practicing with the team but the Active PUP list players can be reactivated sooner when their injury heals but the Inactive PUP list players must wait until after game 6. Losman is a good candidate for the Inactive list because he will not be ready to even practice before game 6 anyway. He will get to remain on the roster if he recovers (he won't on IR) and he still will be allowed to sit in the booth where he belongs and learn the game (and if he is sitting there soaking up Wyche's knowledge I think this would actually have been the best use for him even if he were healthy). There is some dispute over whether he would take up a roster spot as an Inacrtive PUP. I don't believe he will so this seems to be the best place for him to be. Physically Unable to Perform QB (Active): Brown- he may be ready to go as early as week 4 (the early bye really helps us a lot here ironically). My understanding is that he will take up a roster spot here. However, if he takes up a spot and leaves us with only two QBs ready to play in the first three games, this is exactly what we did last year when we went with only 2 QBs on the roster. Hw eill not be able to physically practice on the PUP list, but who cares as physicially he can't practice with the team anyway. I'd love any corrections of this reading of the situation which anyone has that is connected to links or real facts rather than our shared lame opinons (I know folks feel Matthews is an upgrade over Brown but that isn't the issue right now).

Whether they are keepers or not probably has as much to do with how they do perform when they actually play in games on ST as their ability to potentially play in games if a starter gets nicked. Its hard for the outside to tell about any of their ST output as the second game looked pretty good and the third game ST output simply sucked. There were simply too many mistakes to accurately asses blame without a review of the tapes and a focus not available in TV coverage. In general, last year Stevenson's ST play and Stamer's ST play give them a leg up. When one adds in the 2nd string possibilities, Stamer also had a leg up last year as he fought his way up the depth chart with his effective play as a reserve. This year, the big wildcard is actually Jason Glidon. He has not impressed us outside watchers, but who knows what is going on in practice. If he commands a spot on the team it both endangers Stamer (whom he is behind on the depth chart) and Stevenson (who is also an outside LB). Crowell seems relatively set as the backup MLB but he is just ahead of Haggan on the depth chart. if Glidon stays and Stamer and Stevenson show the same output on ST they showed last year then Haggan is probably the goner.

You are correct that I overstated the case in describing Nancy Reagan and others as reacting to Bush's blanket opposition of stem cell research. He actually has tried to carve a course which both provides red meat to his political base that is interested in blanket opposition and a more moderate view which bans only federal funding for new stem cell lines and allow federal funding for research on exisiting lines (which currently number at 22 rather than the triple digits talked about when the pre made his original proposal). Perhaps a more accurate thing to state is that Nancy Reagan and others are reacting to the lack of effective leadership shown by the President in dealing with the issue of promoting good scientific research and doing our best to help kids and others suffering from debilitiating diseases. It is an overstatement (again my apologies) to even imply that the President has blanket opposition to stem cell research. Yet it is also an overstatement try to claim as the article you link to does that the President is leading the charge on stem cell research and not hurting the best pursuit of good sciience, that his policies have not slowed the process of helping people with horrible diseases and that he is letting other countries get an economic lead in these areas. Federal funding for research is a key to us getting the most rapid advances possible in scienific research and actually the restrictions fostered by the feds on funding cause researchers to slow their work as they try to serve the masters of both realistic research and federal restrictions. There was a clear statement by the Feds and the President of the number of stem cells lines which would be available for federal funding (a number which offered restrictions to research even if it were true) and the actual number of lines has been quite small. I'm more thn willing to admit that the concept of describing the bush policy as a :blanket" opposition is wrong. i hope that those who also make the claim of President Bush being a leader in stem cell research are willing to admit they are overstating his production in this area. People can honestly disagree about the priority they give to abortion issues. However, there seems to be little doubt that many who are committed to exploring stem cell research and potentially finding cures to many horrendous diseases have been retarded in their efforts by the ban on federal funding for research into new stem cell lines.

Again, the key to good analysis of line play seems to be not merely looking at individual performance, but really analyzing how the unit plays together as a group. When one has the best OL play, the whole ends up being much greater than the sum of the individual parts. Perhaps the best training that Teague has had was being part of a Denver unit which all recognize are generally underweight and many analyze as being adequate to mediocre individual players at best, but generally this unit leads the way for 1000 yard plus rusher after 1000 yard plus rusher seemingly regardless of the skill level of the RB. Obviously individual skill level makes a big impact, but the case seems to be that the individual skill level a player has working with his peers (a skillset us fans have difficulty judging from outside) is a bigger factor in success than our sttic judgments of his individual play and certainly the demographics of how big a guy is. In the end, the concerned fan needs to weigh the value of the observations of fans (honestly concerned though they may be) against the judgments of the coaching staff who someone has made a judgment to actually pay them big bucks for their expertise. For sure, the professional are not always right. One only need look at the horrendous pass protection performance of the Bills line last year to draw that conclusion. Yet, it seems quite facile and probably incorrect to attribute our problems to Teague's play or him being underweight when the fact remains that the OL has operated under Vinklarek and Ruel for three years who had little experience as OL coaches on their resumes and both were fired from the OL position coach job. A new OL position coach is now in place who is roundly heralded as one of the best by those who spend time professionally on football, who has a recent SB appearance to his credit and 25 years of NFL experience. McNally had all sorts of opportunities to find teague lacking and to beg/demand TD get him a new center from FA or the draft. Further, he had all sorts of opportunities to experiment with moving Jennings (a college center) to the job. Nevertheless he has made Teague his guy and done little more at center than push Sobieski and Tucker as back-ups and he cut Koons when a potential alternative was found. Will Teague astound us all and become one of the best centers in the league? No, almost certainly not. However, there appears to be something there which explains more adequately the problems the OL has had in pass pro than a simple judgement that Teague sucks. Further, there also appear to be good reasons for hope for Bills fans that our center play will still have occaisional problems but overall will be adequate because: 1. McNally is no miracle worker but there has been a huge and obvious upgrade in OL coaching. 2. The Bills OL has actually been part of a quite successful running attack the last few year despite some horrible pass pro and the new mantra is that the O will run a lot more and we have WM now reinforcing our RB talent. 3. Teague has some clear shortcomings but proved to be an FA with some demand for his skills from other professionals in the league a few years back. he has not been a center since college, but led a good O attack his first year in the job with a ton of inexperience around him. I think there is good and logical reason for hope that Teague will prove adequate this year. He should prove not to be anywhere near perfect, but i think it is quite reasonable to hope for at least adequacy.

Its a tough balance because they need some time together, but folks like Jennings are recovering from injury. After seeing the Sullivan performance however, I think we have to take some risks so i say play them together at least a half.