leh-nerd skin-erd

filthymc--i'm a long-suffering bills fan as wel, so you're preaching to the choir. i don't necessarily agree that they went backwards last year (other than the obvious record indicates). i don't hold cg accountable for the decade we've been through, he wsn't here and didn't have anything to do with it. he agreed to run the team, it's up to him to build it in his image, and it's up to him to put a good product on the field. i bitched/moaned/complained last year when things sucked, and will likely do so again if we go down that road this year. i expect incremental improvement and agree wwe should eb moving forward. that said, i don't see how this pre-season helps me very much in this regard, especially when the caoch is telling me "we're not looking at it the way you are". as for the offensive line---you might be right, let's see what happens when they open the season. i like what i see from gailey as it relates to his ability to coach. he's on year two, and i'm hoping he moves us forward.

heard a caller to NFL radio discuss his major concerns about Steven Jackson for St. Louis. In thier most recent game, he ran for 10 yards on 6 carriers. Ergo, the caller suggested, there was a major concern for SJ on the short yardage carrier in the upcoming season. if you only average 1.6 ypc in that pre-season game, what's going to happen when you need 3 on 3rd down in the regular season? the reply from ross tucker was basically this: the guy's a beast, he's shown he can get it done, don't be alarmed about the results of a preseason game where he wasn't trying to impress coaches, make the team, or make a statement. however---if the caller was concerned about SJ's body beginning to show the wear and tear after 4 years of league-leading yards from scrimmage, well, at some point he'll begin to breakdown so that may be a valid concern. either way, the message was "time will tell". i think that's a wise course of action. if you have a coach telling you "our plan was to play it the way we played regardless of the outcome", and an LB says they took a quick look at film---why go any further than that? obviously, they may well struggle in the regular season---time will tell.

well, honesty is a good policy. let's hope for the best.

all this, and you post this gem: "Let's not question each other's fanhood. We all want the same thing. I'm just not buying into this "Gailey is a genius thing." -Not yet, anyway. Maybe if we start the season 3-1" All this banter but if he wins 3 of the first 4 games you'll reconsider? Hardly a body of work.

i just called and those thieving bastards told me they had two promotions running; 1. Free Sunday Ticket with an autographed Aaron Maybin draft photo; 2. The ticket at $525 with a free copy of the Rex Ryan Foot fetish video. I'll tell you, I'm really conflicted.

Coaching can make all the difference in the world. Are our coaches good enough on offense and defense to make the most use of the talent we have--whatever it is, to carry the day. Once the day is carried, a bit of luck sure helps.

bingo to the last paragraph. i moved to albany 20 years ago and there seemed to be a fair amount of us around. but when the bills opted to take advantage of the nfl's version of the federal government's extended family leave act---many drifted away. or, maybe they bought pats jerseys...giants jerseys....and now jets jerseys. by the way---on my way back from wny to albany after watching norwood miss the kick, i made it only to syracuse before hearing a radio announcer say "our NY GIANTS did it!". it made me sick to my stomach. i finally bought a satelite dish to catch the games as the bills seemed to be relegated to "Yeah, we'll get 'em on, sure!" status.

interesting. even when someone is true left, he's actually right?

to get back at them, i'm not going to buy the jersey that isn't there. we'll see how they don't feel about not getting my money.

Not a prayer, which is delicious irony in this one case. And stop your crying, sonny.

well, just for starters, the owners seem to have the ability to lockout the players and bring this thing to a screeching halt. as for the owner's not having control over team names and the like...was there a rush to change the NY Giants to the Greater Metro New York-New Jersey And Outlying Suburban Area Ramblers? Seems easier to just stick with "Giants". And correct me if I'm wrong, but can't a team decide to pay a veteran player nothing by not paying him anything? i think you're all wrapped up in the emotion of the game, and that's fine. your thoughts on drew brees hi-lite that very point. he's a talented guy, granted. he's driven, granted. and perhaps he could have played pro baseball, or basketball, become an investment banker, a corportate litgator, or gone on to star in "Friends". my point was simply the business of football is beneficial for all involved, but the lockout/decert is just that---the business end of it all. you're preaching to the wrong choir on the socio-economic issue referenced. i fully understand why tom brady makes $12mill and mother theresa lived in squalor. i don't spend much time worrying about that as it has nothing to do with me. but when i look at the whole picture, i don't see an issue with a minor player making $350k v. a mid-level player making $2 million to Brady/Brees/Manning making $10+mill to Ralph Wilson being owner of a $700,000,000 franchise. honestly, i find it a bit hyporcritical that brees/brady are lead plaintiffs in the anti-trust suit, i've said previously that in most industry guy making $10mill a year or more are the targets of animosity, not the victim. i understand tactically why it's done, but i find it distasteful. i know this much for certain, the fan experience seems to be fairly low on the list of priorities for all the involved parties. i can live with that, it just is the way it is, but ralph wilson has been the owner of the bills for my entire life,and players have come and gone. what keeps the bills in wny is ultimately what's good for me. i'm looking for that solution, the rest is not my concern.

The owners feel differently, obviously. If you want to use the "but this is different" argument, than you have to acknowledge that the whole thing is different. Drew Brees is a heck of an athlete, but absent the infrastructure of the game he's not a multi-millionaire for tossing a ball to some other guy. they all benefit from the structure in some way, owners included. The difference is the owners have a tangible product that they ultimately control. As far as playing while negotiating, that would seem to make little sense for the owners. Why continue business as usual if you think business as usual is bad for you? It's not unlike the union decertifying. That was a tactical move, nothing more, nothing less. In the end, it's all about the business of football, not the emotional side it. Hopefully, one side or the other cracks and we get to refocus on the emotional side of it before too long.

i don't know the man, i don't know what his issues are, but these words say an awful lot about where your head is at: The death of his son was definately a distraction. yeah, like sunglare, and tube tops. just like that. i'd think you have it backwards, football is actually the distraction here.

it's good to see you're objective. you've taken a complex argument and reduced it to an overly simplistic argument. there has been no proposal anywhere that suggests the players play for nothing. in fact, the average nfl salary exceeds $1m annually. it's a multi-billion dollar enterprise that benefits owners and players, and each party has his own skin in the game. lock-outs, decertification, plaintiff lawsuits, the views of various owners, rookie wage scale, pension benefits for retired players....support the players if that's your perspective, but at least take a gander at the bigger picture. as for the players forming a different league, if it's that simple to form an owner-free league where everyone receives just and equal compensation thereby guaranteeing no labor strife that puts 70,000 people in the seats week after week..why hasn't it happened yet? i'd think many well-to-do players have the resources and contacts with greater resources to make it happen.

the interesting part to me is that in any other negotiation, a top tier guy like brees making the type of money he's making (and getting another boatload in this capacity) makes him the defendant in the lawsuit, not lead plaintiff. it's a crazy game, this nfl.

coupled with the voracious appetite for every cheaper goods by the typical American consumer. se Mart, Wal.

liar. this isn't even close to 'mostly writing'.

i can almost handle dealing with those who "create" that scale as you put it. by and large they have skin in the game, and stand to gain by the policies established. time and again we see that power corrupts. sometimes the corruption is obvious, sometimes much less so. i understand the guy looking forward to collecting his pension after 30 years of service and really don't have an issue with that. but let's be realistic, those that established the pension game here (and let's recognize it wasn't a librarian or fireman) knew, or should have known the ramifications of the system. being a natural cynic, my assumption is they didn't really give a **** and got what they could regardless of the cost. look at the abuses of the pension system reported almost daily. but, i expect that of them--they are liars, cheats and frauds (or morons). unchecked, they did what people do. my problem is with the people looking at it thereafter and only seeing one side of the story. you want to look at the emotional side of things? fine, just balance it with the cost. and when it becomes unsustainable, renegotiate the deal for the greater good.

here's the problem. the article and many subsequent arguments deals with the emotional side of the issue, not the financial side of it. it's a real heart tugger, actually, since apparently the only class of citizens who were thought unkindly by other citizens are those poor souls listed here. on an emotional level, if, say a beloved uncle was featured in this article, i could surely see myself feeling badly for him that he took it all so personally. on the other hand, i'd be hard-pressed not to do a quick internet search and be (not at all) surprised to find that a low-end cost to the taxpayers for the family featured is around $1.7 million. it's likely quite a bit higher, but i used some annuity numbers readily available. Assuming they've accumulated a modest $40,000 in savings thus far, and stash away roughly 10% of their combined gross income and earn 5% or so over the next few years, figure another $250,000 or so is available to fund their retirement, and maybe they are looking at a nest egg of around $2,000,000. i'm going to tell you, if you wrote an article about an attorney who had guaranteed net assets of $1.7m and another couple hundred thousand in other assets-----there wouldn't be many tears shed for him. he might be a real nice guy too. never mind he might have had $100,000 invested in education and another couple hundred thousand in business development costs that resulted in his windfall, that's largely irrelevant in an emotional argument. oh, and let's not forget that when our friends retire at 55 with the $2m nest egg, they likely go out and get another job to stick it out with us other poor schulbs working to 65. so, while not the Rockefeller's, these folks don't qualify as skid row bums either. i'm not ever against working people, i'm one of them, but this heartstring b-s and those who sop it up irritate me. if everyone loves everyone else so much, why not agree to take half the pension value and give the rest back to someone else in society that needs it more than you? i'll stipulate the following: firemen are great people by and large. librarians are too. what does that have to do with anything? i like the way you laid out your thoughts, oc. thanks for that.

i don't remember the game, but it sounds like it was exciting. what happened?

well, oversimplifying the issues is part of the problem. you watched the video and saw what you wanted to see, something the supported your point of view. i saw a politician ask a series of questions designed to elicit the answers he wanted to support his point of view. it's done all the time. talk radio hosts make a killing off that. you see a hack, i see a hack, but we both see hacks. as for the concession(s) and corporation(s) arguments, here's the difference. corporations have other options. they can relocate to other states or countries that offer a better business environment, taking their jobs with them. our politicians are charged with finding the balance between tax rates and budgetary needs and have failed miserably in most cases across the board.

why not just tax the tax? cut out the middle man, or in this case, toilet paper.

Interesting read. No mention of what went down in Wisconsin, use of phrases like "Hail Mary", and in one section, this: "Normally, a two-thirds vote of the Legislature is needed for the government to place a question on the ballot, and Republican lawyers say they will challenge any simple-majority measure in court" coupled with a reference to the republicans fighting a simply majority. Is it..."normally" or "legally"? Seems to spin left.

he who does, is. he who does not, well, who can say?

it's like Roots, Part Deux over there.