OGTEleven

Yet my question was about Vaughn.

Because you type the words end of story does not make it true. When using Vaughn, by what objective measurement did you arrive at your decision?

No reason to shoot you but that guy is deranged. It is a lame excuse because there is no indication whatsoever that either ever used. It would be exactly like refusing to vote for any player that played baseball in 1919.

Ripken played 14 consecutive seasons without playing a position other than shortstop. Why on earth would he be considered a third baseman for Hall of Fame purposes?

In a time that all Shortstops sucked hitting? I asked about the entire history of baseball before Ripken arrived. So all shortstops in baseball history sucked at hitting until Ripken but he didn't have a hall of fame impact on baseball? Are you saying both of those things? Let's get this clear. I'm not even a Ripken fan but I'm a baseball fan. My favortie all time player is Tony Gwynn. There are 8 people out there who did not think Ripken should be in the Hall. There are 13 out there that think Gwynn doesn't pass muster. These people all report on baseball for a living and they all used poor judgement.

Are you guys serious? I ask for two better offensive Shortstops than Ripken and you collectively come up with a second baseman (who wasn't even better) and then turn Ripken into a third baseman? Come on. He hit for as much or more power than any SS that preceded him. Teams think differently about what they need from that position ever since he played it. He was vastly underrated defensively and yes he had that streak thing. He is not on my personal list of 100 favorite baseball players but I know a Hall of Famer when I see one.

Name 2 better offensive shortstops that preceded Ripken. You can't.

And 5 more than that thought Gwynn wasn't quite good enough for the hall. He only won eight batting titles.

The family will owe tax based on the estimated value of the asset, but not necessarily based on the "highest bidder". There would have to be an objective measure of value which may or may not assume the Bills stay in Buffalo. The State of New York would certainly have some incentive to keep the value low whereas the feds would not care. In either case the measure is established already I'm sure. I highly doubt it assumes a move.

Reverse Coach of year awards

The topic of whether Spikes belongs on the Bills moving forward is entirely different than cutting him Monday morning. The Bills gain zippo by doing that. If they retain him they keep options open at the very least. When was the last time you purposely did something that you knew could hurt you but could not help you?

What could possibly be the purpose for cutting him Monday morning? To make fun of him?

I won't say that all of TD's picks were bad or even below average. He did make some good and bad moves on draft day. Above average? Below average? That's hard to say really. You can't knock him for Mike Williams; many teams would have taken him at 4. The lack of other high OL picks is a valid criticism IMO. He should get credit for Nate, McGee, etc. The Bledsoe trade turned out poorly. The problem I have is that the locker room tone set during his tenure was a disaster. The team was completely out of control in 2005 and was a wreck by the end of the season. What Marv and Jauron did this year was remarkable. They turned that disaster into a team. BTW, some of their picks fared quite well for rookies. Mort basically implies that TD built the Bills and they will be great if Ralph doesn't screw it up. Nothing could be further from the truth. I can't see any way 2006 would have turned out this way with TD still here.

The comment on the kick should indicate the stupidity level of Mort. Should Tiger Woods try to drive the 575 yard par 5 with a lake in front because he is 3 shots down and needs to double eagle? That kick was impossible in the literal sense of the word. I do love the set up for taking more shots at Wilson this winter. "If the owner re-signs the right guys." Of course Mort can define which guys are the "right ones" later after seeing who stays and who goes. Mort is a loser.

You are so off on this that it is ridiculous. I was at the Jets game in week three. At the same end of the field under basically the same conditions, Lindell kicked the tar out of a 36 yard attempt. It probably would have gone from 55 on a still day. It looked like it would hit the screen if not go over. The wind made it look like it hit a brick wall. When it fell (barely beyond the crossbar), it fell at virtually 180 degrees to the ground. For him to make it from 45 that day would have been the greatest kick in the history of the NFL. If the Titans game conditions were remotely similar, he had zero chance.

Looks like I was a bit off in the first 14 games, but I'll stick to my predictions for the last two. Link

Every division in the AFC has an 8-6 team and a 7-7 team The divsion leaders' records are 12-2, 11-3, 11-3, 10-4 The last place teams are 6-8, 4-10, 4-10, 2-12 It does not get much more evenly distributed than that. The parity system is working. For now. The NFC is even tighter except Chi and Det are screwing it up a bit

AD is always critcizing both sides for things. Here is an article about Sandy Berger Link and a quote from the article So the former National Service Advisor steals this stuff (I don't care if it was a classified copy of an old Chinese food take out order from the Roosevelt administration) from the National Archives and that is his punishment? Was that his punishment because he is famous and well connected? If you broke in there tonight and stole the same stuff he did, what would be your punishment? Shame on him, democrats, republicans, but mostly us (Well, mostly him, but we're a close second.).

I always found Dan Fogelberg's "In the Passage" sad:

They have to get a little dig in don't they? Losman threw the ball exactly where he wanted to throw it. I heard him describe it in detail during the post game. The DBs back was to the play and he put it there because he knew Evans would make the play. Nit picking I know but the reporter should know better.

I agree with this. 7-9, 8-8 or 9-7 we are coming out of this season with a young and united team. After the jumbled mess at the end of last year, how could we have asked for anything more? The rest is gravy.

WRONG!!!!!! The real country star can look good, sitting, lying, standing, waiting (not for you), and God forbid even singing. Let's see Faith or Shania sing like that.

Can't help with the DVDs but good luck and Thank you.

Once I could understand but 4 times? They kept saying they would catch it.

Here's the way I see it: Every situation a cop walks into offers a spectrum of choices. Sometimes the spectrum is narrow. If he is pulling over a 72 year old woman for failure to signal, there are probably only a few different ways to approach the situation and probably only a few curves that can be tossed. Walking into a situation in which you're being shot at probably has a narrow spectrum as well. You pretty much have to react and likely will have to use tough tactics like shooting back. It seems to me that many situations offer nebulous spectrums. What is this guy going to do? How is this going to end? Those situations have wider spectrums. If a spectrum is 1 to 100 with the perfect reaction being 50 every time, we can expect the cop to nail it cleanly when pulling over the old lady. It's tougher when being shot at because there could be innocent bystanders, etc. but the cop probably has a good idea of where he has to operate. Since this is hypothetical, let's call a reasonable response between 35 and 65. In this situation, he has to gauge the whole situation when he doesn't know if the kid is more like the old lady or the shooter. He has to do it relatively quickly. There is probably a perfect solution out there, but it is simply not reasonable for society to expect cops to nail the 50 every time. We can expect him not to react with a 1 (congratulate the kid and arrest the librarian who carded him) or with a 100 (shoot the kid between the eyes) but if he thinks 50 is tazing the kid 4 times due to the inital behavior and responses but hindsight says your solution is the "true 50" how harsh can we really be? The cop has training so he should be able to deal with the situation better than the average person, but to expect perfection is not reasonable. Was the tazing a 60 on the spectrum? a 55? a 75? To me it was within the reasonable spectrum (bsaed on the facts known to me) but certainly higher than 50. Tazing, while painful, does not permanently hurt the offending person. This person knew what was wanted of him and did not perform this act. He gave the police no indication that he would outside of continuing to yell that he would comply during a time which he was not complying. Maybe the cop should have done what you said after the first zap. But to do what he did, IMO was within the range of possible responses based on the inaction of the kid. (P.S. If the kid couldn't move, he would have yelled "I can't move".)