finknottle

The solution is so obvious we can't see it. Get rid of the helmet altogether. You'll no longer see any defenders leading with their heads. What we are really talking about here is the basic purpose of the tackle. Is it to bring the man down, or is it to give him a hit he'll remember? Defensive play in the NFL has for years been drifting away from fundamentals and towards the highlite big hit. Rugby is played without helmets and with an enforced 'must use your arms to make a tackle' rule, and it works just fine. Throw out the helmet, and ban any tackle (such as a shoulder slam) where you are not wrapping with your arms. You will see fewer injuries and much more effective tackling.

What people are offering as evidence is: getting rid of Jason Campbell and a bunch of other vets like Antwaan Randle El; the whole Haynesworth sitting saga (which still continues); their handling of the running backs - bringing in Willie parker and Larry Johnson to challenge Clinton Portis, cutting Parker at the end of camp, cutting Johnson a few weeks in, reducing Portis' carries in favor of Ryan Torain off the pratice squad, despite Portis playing decently; releasing 2008 2nd round WR Devin Thomas last week; and some more actions that I didn't care enough about to pay attention. Not saying I agree with this take on Shanahan's plan, nor that the Bill's are not in fact doing it already (I think they are). I just want to visit the idea of getting more sink-or-swim time for our backup-backups.

Not neccessarily benching, just getting some others playing time. For purposes of argument, maybe Evans and Whitner? It's less about how good they actually are, and all about the message that nobody's job is safe.

In Redskin-land there is an emerging consensus about what Shanahan is doing to rebuild the culture of the Redskins, which is worth thinking about in Buffalo. What he seems to be doing is side-lining capable, established vets and former high-draft picks. But rather than relying on the free-agent route, he's promoting from untested backups and the practice roster and playing young guys for whom this is their one shot. Why? Hunger. See who emerges. Call it the George Wilson factor. Should we start mixing things up more? Or are we already doing it, and failing miserably? (I'm not talking QB here, which is a special situation and has been discussed ad nauseum.)

Since Conner won't back up his claims... The judege has ruled that this is not torture. http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2010/08/20/khadr-torture020.html

Comparing rankings after only five games is iffy, especially since the Bills are one of the five for each of the teams. If you subtract the Edwards games, what are the ranking of the Packers and the Dolphins? What are the rankings of the Pats, Jags, and Jets without the Fitz games? I'd venture to guess that the Packers and Dolphins defenses are not rated quite as highly, and the Patriot and Jaguar defenses not quite so low (the Jets are probably about the same).

Hmmm... signing a linebacker to line up at right tackle, huh? Why not. It's in keeping playing our trying to use defensive linemen at outside linebacker.

Except that is more like 1 chance in 3 that he will pan out as a decent quarterback. That's a pretty bad bet - even the best (Eli Manning, Rivers, Palmer) aren't showing themselves as more than adequate. Here are the "can't miss" quarterbacks drafted 1999-2008, defined as being picked in the top 10. +? Ryan (3, 2008) - Russel (1, 2007) -? Young (6, 2006) - Leinart (10, 2006) -? Alex Smith (1, 2005) +? Eli Manning (1, 2004) +? Rivers (4, 2004) + Palmer (1, 2003) - Leftwich (7, 2003) - Carr (1, 2002) - Harrington (3, 2002) -? Vick (1, 2001) - Couch (1, 1999) + McNabb (2, 1999) - Akili Smith (3, 1999) This looks pretty grim to me, especially when you consider the cap space. Edit: For #1 over all, it does look like 50-50.

Whether he gets good enough to stick with him next year remains to be seen. The more important thing is this: he's good enough that we can now sustain drives and begin the process of evaluating and improving the rest of the offensive talent. Would we have any idea what our young receivers could do if we still had Trent at the helm? Building a cohesive offense for whoever inherits the QB job next season is far more important than getting a look at our 3rd and 4th string quarterbacks in action, guys other teams did not want. C'mon.

Oh gee, we invested alot of time in Brohm! Guess what - alot of teams have invested a year in their third string quarterback, and you don't see them losing sleep over seeing what they got. They already know: a 3rd stringer. With Fitzpatrick we may finally have the semblance of an offense, capable of doing more that going three-and-out every drive. That means we are *finally* getting a chance to see what our receivers can do, our backs and line, and whether we can sustain drives and set plays up with the play-calling. What's more important to this franchise: seeing Brohm and Levi flail away haplessly, or starting to build something with the rest of the offense so that if-and-when we get a franchise quarterback he has a jelling supporting cast and a cohesive system to work in?

Even if it meets their criteria, the NFL can block the sale to an ownership group. It's a closed club, and they control who gets in. So why would they want to block a sale? Because collectively they have an interest in having good businessmen as their owners, people who will help the league continue to grow and make money. Common sense. So even if we pooled our money and gave 1/3 of it to some clown from TBD to be the head of the group in order to keep the franchise in Buffalo, I'm not sure that the NFL would look kindly on our business acumen. I'm not sure that a group determined to keep the team in a dying city with no access to corporate cash is the kind of visionary business muscle they are looking to add to their ownership club. Indeed, if a Ralph Wilson showed up today with $750m and a plan to keep the team in Buffalo - low ticket prices and minimal corporate boxes - I doubt they would let him buy the Bills. They would see his plan as it really is: a deadweight franchise sustained by the TV revenue generated by everybody else.

So, the Bills were in contention in a high-scoring road game and Fitz threw two costly interceptions in the last five minutes. Oh boo-hoo! At least we *were* in contention. At least we were able to actually work through our game plan, instead of a series of three-and-our checkdowns all afternoon. At least we were able to watch a game without gouging our eyes out, and could even hope for a win as the score went back and forth. Without Fitz we have no hope of being in games. But far more importantly in this rebuilding year, without Fitz we have no hope of sustaining the occasional drive long enough for the rest of the players to settle into the system, and for the coaching staff to evaluate them in real game situations.

Let's put the question into perspective: Where is the biggest gap in what we have compared to what we need, talent wise? a. Fitz at QB b. Our offensive tackles c. Our defensive line d. Our linebackers Depending on how Fitz progresses and how next years talent looks, I can imagine fixing the lines becoming a bigger priority.

Chan understands that this is not a one year rebuilding project. He probably understands that the Bills qb of the future isn't on this roster. So where does that leave us this year? He's got to figure out which of our receivers can play, and will figure into the Bills long-term plans. Evans? Kinda hard to do with Edwards obsessively checking down and never throwing more than 5 yards deep. Fitz may be inaccurate, but he will at least give our receivers the opportunities to show us if they can make plays in the NFL. And what about the running game? Can you really develop it when teams can play 8 men in the box, knowing that you aren't going to throw deeper than that anyway? All backs look the same when there aren't any gaps... IMO the move to Fitz is less about expectations of winning than it is about having some semblance of a competent (if inconsistent) offense, something capable of putting together a drive once in awhile and stretching the field enough to engage all of our offensive weapons and plays. We need to see what our skill players can do. Three-and-outs featuring panicky 2 yard dump-offs is not the answer. If you lose games taking chances, you can at least learn something about your team.

There may be something subtle behind this madness. Suppose Gailey truely understands that this really is a rebuilding year. Then forget preseason, and forget this season as well. He wants to see his qb's in real games, under his tuturledge, before burning a high first rounder on cap-eating qb draftee next year. So - keep all three qb's. Let Edwards have a fresh start as the undisputed leader. Let him go for 5 games. If he isn't the answer, switch. Repeat as neccessary. By the end of the season, he will have (hopefully) set the defense on the right path, and know where we stand with our qb's and our young OL going into the draft.

Talk about being thin-skinned!

Let's not forget the #2 international sport, rugby. If China is going to start taking an interest in big people running over each other, they will turn to that first.

Not to argue with your main point, but remember that nothing stands still in the NFL. Every team looks like it has stayed pat or improved from year to year, at least on paper and in preseason. But there is never a guarantee that a returning player will be as good as he was last year. Jackson, Evans, and quite a few others have another year of mileage on them, and will start losing steps eventually. And there is no reason to think we won't have the same amount of injuries to foil our plans. If the preseason is any guide, we might be on track for more! Do I think we will have a 3 win season? No. But if we have 5 or 6 my head won't explode at the implausibility of it all. Frankly, I don't think we were really a 7 win team last season.

It doesn't matter. Let's assume that Obama's education taught him that Churchill was an imperialist racist responsible for atrocities in Kenya. What the heck - for argument let's even assume he was. (Churchill seemed prejudiced in his views towards the empires's natives. But his real sin was in employing force and repression to hold the empire together.) Churchill is now a historical figure whose legacy represents vigilance and leadership in the darkest of hours. His colonial views are a footnote, rather like the slave-holdings of Washington. If Obama wants to view Churchill legacy in that way, so be it. The mature thing would have been for him to bark at some subordinate to get that thing out of his office. It should have quietly gone into a closet somewhere, with nothing said to the British. It should not have been returned, and Obama's animosity to Churchill shouldn't color his policies towards the UK today.

I believe the correct term is "Sugar Daddy."

Given the influence of the sugar lobby - already one of the most subsidized and protected argricultural markets - and the fact that almost half of sugar production comes from genetically modified beets, will we now see an additional subsidy from the administration to assist farmers switch crops?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20100815/sc_af...efoodbiotechgmo Comment?

Remember, white pants need to be washed separately, and in hot water. It all adds up.

Fair enough. But this isn't some obscure campaign promise of a tax break. It is supposed to be the fundamental difference between his enlightened approach to conducting foreign policy and the same-old same-old of Clinton, Bush, and the Washington establishment generally. If Obama no longer believes in the efficacy of open dialog with adversaries, at least with Iran, it ought to be aknowledged.

I was speaking to Conner.