OGTEleven

sherm@wrgb.com I exchanged an e-mail with him regarding the last game of the 06 season. He said that CBS in NYC controls the selection. I just e-mailed him again (forwarded the old e-mail as a reminder). Maybe something will change but I doubt it. They are clueless. The choice that was made this week makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. Peyton Manning is Eli's brother and Eli plays for the Giants? That's about all I could fathom.

I don't know. Jauron expressed surprise he had had surgery. Wouldn't you think the coach would know ahead of time? And even if he found out late but knew it was the right thing, would he say anything about being surprised to the press? Maybe the Bills were advocating surgery for months and Crowell said no, only to change his mind 3 days before the season. I doubt we'll ever know, but if Crowell really did spring a surprise on the Bills with the surgery, then I think the IR was the right move. Not only did Crowell's actions screw the Bills and Ellison by messing up prep time, it put the Bills in a bad situation going forward. They now have to find another linebacker. To get him on the roster, they'd have to either IR the guy who has (possibly) been screwing with them, or cut someone else (the lowest man on the depth chart, that isn't a linebacker). This someone else has been working his behind off, and if Crowell really did pull a fast one, then the Bills made the right move.

I don't think we have any way of knowing who is truly to blame in this ugly (and ridiculous) situation. If it is true that the Bills have called Peters and his agent but he has not responded, then I have a hard time blaming Ralph at all. If the Bills said there would be no new contract for a year, and this is Peters' way of responding, then I would feel the blame is split but with most of it on Peters' shoulders. If the Bills said play out your 3 years and we'll talk then, I would blame the Bills. Even with all of the unusual circumstances surrounding Peters (UDFA TE to RT to LT to Pro Bowl), holding out with 3 years left is pretty unusual. The fact that his agent is new to him tells me a lot. Peters also owes a lot of his status to a Bills front office and coaching staff that believed in him and patiently taught him to the point where he could even consider this manuver. They renegotiated his contract once already. Why would he not believe they would do it again? If we took it to the extreme level and he sat until week 10, three years in a row, how much would he be worth to a team and would it make up for lost time and money? I have to believe that the Bills and Parker have spoken and are simply multiple millions of dollars apart and disagree on the timing of a new contract. Which party is to blame is unclear, but personally I can't see any scenario where the blame goes 100% to the Bills.

This is my first football post in a while and I never thought it would be in a thread about Brett Favre. I just saw a scroll on ESPN indicating Favre prefers a cold weather team to playing in Tamps. Scanning a list I come up with viable candidates as Baltimore, NY Jets, Cleveland, Denver, KC, Buffalo, and Washington. I should point out that I would not be in favor of a move by the Bills. I may be one of the only people that likes Edwards and Losman. I do think they both have their issues though so I could see the Bills poking around in the Favre situation. From Favre's perspective I think the best fit is the NYJ (because of the endorsment $ and QB situation). In the next tier I think he'd put the Bills and Denver (strong and loyal fan base, decent teams with questions at QB or at least what Favre perceives to be.) KC is similar but the team seems behind the 8 ball. I could see Baltimore or Washington but I doubt he'd want to walk into Cleveland because there is already a potential controversy. As for the teams' view of Favre I'd rank Washington on top (Snyder more than willing to throw Campbell under the bus), NYJ, Baltimore, KC, Bills, Denver, Cleveland. Combine scores and the Redskins and Jets top the list. Who know really though.

A sad day indeed. A true fan and advocate. God Bless.

I'm glad I didn't miss this. I have a feeling I will finally win it this year. Sept. 7 Seattle Seahawks 1 p.m. Tie Sept. 14 at Jacksonville Jaguars 1 p.m. Tie Sept. 21 Oakland Raiders 1 p.m. Tie Sept. 28 at St. Louis Rams 4:05 p.m. Tie Oct. 5 at Arizona Cardinals 4:15 p.m. Tie Oct. 12 Bye Oct. 19 San Diego Chargers 1 p.m. Tied on an intetional safety as regulation time expires Oct. 26 at miami dolphins 1 p.m. Win Nov. 2 New York Jets 1 p.m. Tie Nov. 9 at New England Patriots* 1 p.m. Tie but awarded a win due to caught cheating Nov. 17 (Mon.) Cleveland Browns 8:30 p.m. Tie Nov. 23 at Kansas City Chiefs 1 p.m. Tie Nov. 30 San Francisco 49ers 1 p.m. Tie Dec. 7 miami dolphins (at Toronto) 4:05 p.m. Win Dec. 14 at New York Jets 1 p.m. Tie Dec. 21 at Denver Broncos 4:05 p.m. Tie Dec. 28 New England Patriots* 1 p.m. Tie 3-0-13 First undefeated team to ever miss the playoffs. Screwed again.

Assuming the Bills stay put at #11 and assuming they take a guy seen as a quote unquote major reach, which player would you regard as ok? I am asking this because of what happened with Whitner. All of the experts assumed the Bills could have traded down and still selected Whitner, but in reality that was anyone's guess. The Bills filled a need and moved on. I'm not saying he is my top choice at #11 (hey, #11, I like that slot), but if the Bills picked Quentin Groves I think everyone would scream, but I would be perfectly happy. How about yours? Reamember, he has to be a major reach in the expert's eyes.

Early on I saw OLB/DE Groves from Auburn going very high, possibly even to NE. I see either him or Rivers as a strong possibility along with Alberts. I don't think the DL guys will be there and am guessing the Bills think they're ok without a first round corner (might be wrong on this). We're pretty much forced to go WR in the second IMO. It will be interesting to see who is there. It would be great if we could trade down a few spots and still get Alberts or Groves along with a useful pick, but I doubt we'll move.

I watched this and found the very basis of the argument to be without logic for many reasons which I'll skip for now. But for the sake of argument, let's go with the column structure for a moment. One would have to assume (since he offers no comprehensive description of the proposed actions) that in this column government(s) gain massive control over the economy(s). We would further have to assume that if the consequences in column B are so devastating that the actions to repel them in column A would have to be drastic. To match the extremity in column B, it could be assumed that we would have to cut all, or a very large percentage of our oil use for example. Sticking to column B but trying to get out and into column A, if the action taken were to truly have a chance of succeeding it would have to ensure total cooperation between governments worldwide as well as whatever is left of private industry along with cooperation of individuals. This cooperation would have to be assumed despite the fact that technologies exist to circumvent it and despite the fact that the temptation to circumvent would be almost irresistible (heating my house when it is 30 below, etc.). This required level of cooperation has never been approached in the course of human history. No grand research project on curing a disease, no space program or development of a computer chip ever required 1/10 of 1% of what this would. It is entirely unrealistic to expect human nature to reverse itself on a dime. Just to get out of column B and over to A we would have to assume all of these things come true. The argument is akin to Marx assuming that everyone would contribute all that he could, but would only take what he needs. It's very nice, but it is a fairy tale. Back to column A (now with the assumption that we somehow attained the cooperation to jump out of column B's inaction into the action of column A), the harmful impact described by the author here is sloughed off as a nuisance. Bad economy, etc; etc; etc. This harm is terrifically undersold. It wouldn't be a bad economy, it would be no economy. We would revert back in history to a time where many people would not be able to survive. There would be opportunistic groups looking to gain power through force and coercion. There would be violence in every street, disease in every corner of the world and general chaos. This has happened to varying degrees every time and every place government has too much power and it would happen again. Progress toward every advance in technology (whether alternative energy or unrelated technology) would stagnate do to loss of incentive and the human race would be relegated to sitting around waiting for a disease to wipe us out or an asteroid to hit or some other outside factor to end our existence.

As soon as their time expires the next team can go. They would risk running into a scenario where teams beneath them selected rapidly. They could end up with the #7 or 8 pick in a matter of minutes.

I play goalie and when I do that with my stick my penalty is that I have to buy a new stick. DP has no such problem I'm sure. His stick breaking technique was excellent.

One of these years I'll get it Sept. 9 DENVER BRONCOS - Tie Sept. 16 @ Pittsburgh Steelers - Tie Sept. 23 @ New England Patriots - Tie Sept. 30 NEW YORK JETS - Tie Oct. 8 DALLAS COWBOYS - Win Oct. 21 BALTIMORE RAVENS - Would have been a tie but Willis misses a block - Win Oct. 28 @ New York Jets Tie Nov. 4 CINCINNATI BENGALS - Tie Nov. 11 @ Miami Dolphins - Win Nov. 18 NEW ENGLAND PATRIOTS - Tie Nov. 25 @ Jacksonville Jaguars - Tie Dec. 2 @ Washington Redskins - Tie Dec. 9 MIAMI DOLPHINS - Win Dec. 16 @ Cleveland Browns - Postponed due to flood Dec. 23 NEW YORK GIANTS - Tie Dec. 30 @ Philadelphia Eagles - Tie 4-0-11 and one makeup game which is never re-scheduled because we made the playoffs based on a tie-breaker of most ties. Mathematically I have as good a chance as anyone.

I don't really like Imus but think in this case he was more stupid than racist. I think he was basically calling the Rutgers team ugly. I don't think much of it was based on thier race but he used racist words so who knows? IMO, he should look at his own picture on the current front page of the Drudge Report before calling anyone ugly.

This thing was brutal. I know we can be paranoid as Bills fans but there simply cannot be a question that Mortenson holds a grudge against the Bills. He is incredibly unprofessional. The garbage about "they're not just losing a running back but a very special player" made me laugh out loud. To me, if we had unlimited dollars we should have retained Nate. I understand why we didn't. I like Spikes, and to a degree Fletcher but totally understand why they're gone. Last year and this year are the first time in a long time that the Bills have developed a plan and stuck to it. That is a good thing, not a bad thing. In 5 years of TD our "plan" seemed to change monthly. They drafted for need last year and will again this year. TD drafted for glamour (and maybe for Mort). The only question is what does management see as our need. My bet is that we get Turner if the price is right (2nd rounder or thereabouts) and that Willis is our target in the first. Marv and DJ have stated that we need an attacking LB.

I thought Turner was a Restricted Free Agent. That would give his agent license to talk with every team in the league. Did I miss something?

I love how they use the death of his father to sell the story. Good one.

What irony? Is there any indication whatsoever that if stem cell research had been funded by the government that Tony Snow would not have gotten cancer? Is it so hard to call a jerk a jerk? There are liberal and conservative jerks. Whoever made that t-shirt needs professional help.

I don't think the MEers will belive Iran about the waters. I do think Iran will show that they can use any excuse they want to push around the west. The MEers will believe that and that is exactly what Iran wants.

To show to the people of the Middle East that Iran is the real power in the region. They make the English soldiers look wimpy by allowing themselves to be led about like dogs. They purposely parade the woman to show that the English will not defend her. I think they could give a hoot about what the English government does or how the conflict looks around the rest of the world. If they come out looking like winners in the ME, and they will, it will further strengthen their standing over there. Making another country look wimpish helps them convince the rest of the ME that Islam can once again rule the world with Iran as its leader. It is a small step but that is the message they are trying to convey, IMO.

If that was their goal, why would they parade the english around and make them look silly and issue continuous letters of apology?

Hmmm. How would this outcry to the UN help them meet their goals?

Are you more inclined to believe the Brits or Iran regarding the location of the ship?

Why do you prefer AP over MT and a late firster? Do you feel there is that much of a gap between AP and MT? If AP were still there at 12, we could likely get a king's ransom in draft picks, move down to say 18 and still swap that for Turner and their first. That I can see. AP won't be there at 12 though.

I hate to ruin this contest for the other 63 but Martina McBride.

As much as I'd like it, I doubt it. They signed Lewis for 1 year. There is no way he is the answer for them long term anyway. He's too old for a young team. They are trying to build and need a long term option. Maybe if Quinn is still there he makes sense. 12 is a pipe dream. I don't think trading up makes sense for us unless he lasts until at least 8.