finknottle

Kodak is not the first and will not be the last big dumb company. What usually happens is that stifled and entrepenurial engineers jump ship, start their own companies that 'get it,' and eventually displace the dinosaurs. The question is: why hasn't Rochester become the startup hub of digital innovation the way San Diego and elsewhere did for digital video?

Pretty cool -

I've never understood this obsession with what some dead guys thought or intended. Suppose they were here to share their thoughts - would people defer? Of course not - so why should we act as if their intentions have any currency as long as they are dead?

To AlQ we look like Nero with a fiddle.

Yeah, he's a guy I respect. If somebody stripped the ball from the Bills and ran it in for a score, who would you rather it be: Teddie Bruschi or Brian Cox?

Sure, he'll be better this year than a 3rd round rookie LT, but the question is whether the coaches think he has the same room for improvement in the years ahead as a rookie. (I have no opinion as to that.)

OK, I'll be clearer - I think the devaluing of the RB spot is a long term trend, that will last as long as the trend towards that offensive strategy. I'm guessing 5-10 years? It would be interesting to measure how long offensive styles which gain broad acceptance in the NFL (3 yards and a cloud of dust, West Coast, etc) remain dominant... I think RB's going in the early draft picks this year was more a reflection of the thinness of the draft than anything else. Last year was the year to load up on QB's and WR's, and next year on the OL.

People are not going to like this opinion, but: I do think it is a trend. Teams are no longer beating top defenses by having a star runningback pound it down the throat. They are doing it with depth on offense in the passing game - 3 decent receivers and a catching TE/RB - forcing teams to rely on their #3+ CBs etc. (It wasn't that long ago that everyone around here was bemoaning Chris Watson as our #1 defensive weakness!) Having a star RB is still good; it's just that given the choice of a star RB and a lousy WR versus a decent RB and decent WR, the first gives the fan exciting stats, and the second gives them wins. And remember this key fact: leaguewide, yards per rush always lags yards per passing attempt. While it is true that the threat of the run is neccessary to maintain a decent passing attack, one wonders just how much you should give up to get what is essentially a diversionary player.

The topic on Washington area sports talk radio today has been "Was Kwame the worst pick in Washington sports history?" ha-ha-ha

Here's a real-life scenario somewhat relevent to WM. You go to work for a company. They will pay for you to go to school for specialized training to get up to speed. Typically, if you quit within a specified period of time you are obligated to repay them. If they lay you off or cut you, you don't. So what if you get the training, and pretty good, and now demand a raise? What if you hold out and refuse to show up for work? I contend that they can force you to repay the tuition, and the courts will back them up.

Why would they lose in court? Seems to me they would win. A player agrees to provide a service under the contract. The team can void it, or the player can void it by retiring. The disposition of the signing bonus depends on who voids it. The fact that there is a string attached to the player voiding it - that he must retire, and is implicitely not a free agent - is not that unusual. Professional consultants often have similar contracts wherin instead of 'retiring' they instead have a no-compete clause extending some period of time and which prevents them from working for specified competing companies.

If he has a big year, great. If he wants more money, make him somebody elses problem. Put it another way: what percent of the cap would people here be comfortable with spending on the RB position?

So putting asses in the seats, selling craploads of tickets and merchandise and getting people excited about the team again is a detour, and not part of his plan? Why would you hire a GM who didn't have a plan for marketing the team? Seems to me he might have told Ralph "Year One we gut the team and get a pass; year two we build through the draft, and capwise can afford a splashy move or two to put the asses back in the seats; year three we gell and win it all, baby!" in which case a Bledsoe-like move was part of the plan. If so, it's not necessarily a bad plan; just didn't work out in the long run like we hoped.

I don't think anyone has said this officially, but speculation has been that what hurt Golf was the belief that the best pros would not play, and that the Olympic golf would become in effect a minor tour stop.

They have been saying on the talkshows that Europe was targeted because we've hardened things here. Not that I disagree with the assessment, but there is an element of spin in taking credit.

I agree. Baseball and Softball are not really international sports, and only the competatively challanged would get excited about the US getting a medal for them. Rugby, on the other hand, is global, and is as close as we'll ever get to 'international football.' Plus, Rugby 7's is still competative in the less-developed nations, is a more exciting version of the game, and is particularly well-suited for an Olympic venue. For anybody who has never seen the Hong Kong Sevens tournament, there is nothing cooler than spending the day at a packed stadium, watching country after country take the field for high-octane 15 minute games. It's kinda like being at the track - one minute you're cheering on Fiji, and twenty minutes later you're screaming your head off over Kenya or Japan or whomever... Pool play is one day, and all the playoffs and consolations are the next. So guess what the IOC has decided to do to update their sports? Nothing! In voting their first two choices were Karate and Squash, but neither made the 2/3 bar! What a bunch of dinosaurs!

In the mid-nineties, on the 10th anniversary of the folding of the league, I got curious and tried to come up with an objective, distanced assessment of the talent in the USFL. I looked at the NFL rosters at those players still playing with 10+ years experience - in essence, the USFL generation. What I found was that a higher percentage of the USFL players were still playing in the NFL 10 years later than the percentage of NFL players! In fact, what got me thinking about it at the time was the annual 'all nfl' selections. It seemed to me that even in 1995 you could have formed a USFL alumni team that would have hung with an NFL all-star team. Off the top of my head I only remember a few of the guys who were still playing at a top level around then: QB Kelly, Young RB Walker (?) OL Hull, Adikes, Zimmerman DE Reggie White LB Sam Mills

Now we just have to wait and see if Rugby is voted back in for 2012. The reigning champion US needs to defend it's 1920's olympic titles from all the uppity countries who have been winning since... For those who don't care about rugby, I have to warn you that alternatives include golf (yawn) and inline skating (yikes!).

Sorry, I meant the runningbacks. Both teams had established runningbacks (TH and Corey Dillon) being pushed by promising youngsters (WM and Rudi Johnson) who started mid-season due to a convenient 'injury' occuring at a time when the starters play was being questioned, and who was unhappy when not handed the job back. Both teams tried for a trade, with the Bengals getting their late second in April. The Bills asking price in April was also a second. Not trying to read anything into it, just thought it was an interesting parallel.

Japan winning the Rugby World Cup. They have great fans and despite being overmatched on the world stage always show some spark no matter how far they're down. For that matter I'd take the US, Canada, or any of the lesser countries, but Japan deserves a magical season...

I'd like to see it written in the contract that a game held out is a game check lost, and I'd like to see that extended over the preseason too. A player who shows up two days before the opener (Hi Bruce!) and misses training camp should be seriously docked.

I think if McGahee goes down we open it up. JP takes a beating, but we still put a ton of points on the board, and win a few. I'm more worried about Adams. It will be a long season if we can't stop the run.

Another curious coincidence: Dumping an established back for a new one. Not that it's not a no-brainer or anything, but in both cases it's been accompanied by a bit of turmoil at the position by the former starter.

No, not just because of the uncertaintity at LT; I said that assuming you believe they were a subpar unit that played above their talents down the stretch, you have to conclude that they are most likely to return to form. Remember, I'm arguing the case of a national observer, who is not going to put as much stock in McNally thoughts as in the plusses and minuses he sees on the wire. Subpar unit, losing Jennings and picking up Gandy. If I thought their late-season 2004 performance was a bit of a fluke, I'd predict they'd regress in 2005 too.

In reference to Dillon, whom the Bengals let go? Doesn't sound like a one in a million back to me. And as for carrying the team to the title, I'm not sure I'd personify the Rams and Cowboys offense as Faulk and Emmit Smith. A better argument can be made for Terrell Davis, and especially for Jamal Lewis in 2001.