Orton's Arm

I'll grant that if you're watching the right college game, it's not the talent mismatch I described. That said, I HATE the college OT system.

I prefer professional ball. There's no point in watching team A just whallop team B; a fact which makes many college games uninteresting. Moreover college games often involve less strategy. If your offensive line can massively overpower the other team's defensive line, you don't need to be a strategic genius to figure out what you're supposed to do. That said, I do like the atmosphere of college ball; the fact the players aren't getting paid millions like NFL guys are, and the fact there's more variety in college teams' playstyles. I wish you could combine the best of the two: the quality of play of the NFL and the narrowness of talent differences on the one hand, with the variety of playstyles and the overall atmosphere of the college game on the other.

Thanks.

I never knew what the commission was. 20% sounds awfully high. If I'm Whitner, I'd drop my agent in a heartbeat, drive straight to One Bills Drive, and tell them that if they give me a deal between #7 and #9 that I'll sign it. Keeping the 20% for myself would more than make up for whatever little extra the negotiator could have squeezed out of Ralph.

Doesn't sound like you've had much experience with women! Hey, this is nothing new here. In Anne Bronte's The Tenant of Wildfell Hall the main female character was ill-disposed towards men in general because of her failed marriage. The woman, by the way, was an amazing one that I'd love to marry were she real and alive today. Even good women, in sober, sane moments, are capable of gender hate under the right circumstances. And this small host of reasons would be what, exactly? The fact Gibson was drunk? The fact he was enraged, and clearly acting against his own interests? The fact his statement about the Jews causing all wars couldn't possibly be true? Wars took place between various American Indian tribes hundreds of years before the first Jew even set foot in the New World. There's no way Gibson himself could possibly believe Jews are responsible for all wars. The fact that he said such a thing to me shows he was in a belligerent mood, lashing out in an animalistic way against a group which he felt had shown him hostility. I won't argue about the truth or falsehood of this statement, because the reality is we just don't know. But even supposing you're right, the question is how Gibson feels about having Jewish leaders attack him. Even if the attacks backfired, they were made with hostile intent. Gibson may well feel angry about this intent, and threatened by whatever future plans these powerful Jews have in store for him. When you get angry, your reptilian brain takes over. This portion of your brain exists nearest the spinal cord. It's the same size as a reptile's brain, and it works the same way, with just as little sophistication and rationality. Gibson's actions clearly indicate his reptilian brain had taken over. In that moment, his actions had the same level of sophistication and rationality one would expect from an alligator. Now, suppose that every day for a year, someone on a bicycle had done something to absolutely enrage a specific alligator. Now suppose that at some later point, someone else had come along and had likewise enraged the alligator. Maybe the alligator's instinctive reaction would be, "I bet you have a bicycle here somewhere, don't you?" Likewise, leaders of the Jewish community enraged Gibson by trying to destroy his career. When a police officer enraged Gibson by doing something which would jeopardize his career, the reptilian portion of his brain formed a connection between the two events. Amusingly, Gibson's alligator-like instinct proved correct, as the officer who arrested him was in fact Jewish!

I've never experienced what it's like to be attacked in the mass media, so I don't pretend to know what Gibson went through when that film was released. I see a potential parallel between Gibson's situation and a woman who's been through a bad relationship. Maybe the emotions from the relationship cause the woman to say that men are pigs, and maybe she blames men for all the problems in the world. But when Prince Charming comes along, the woman forgets every negative thought she had towards men. The bottom line is the guy was drunk, he said something stupid, and he's asking to be forgiven. I've said things I've later regretted. How can I ask forgiveness for those things while refusing the same to Gibson?

There's a way of looking at this situation that maybe hasn't been considered. I watched "The Passion of the Christ," and I didn't see any ways in which the Gospel stories had been altered to make them anti-Semitic. "The Passion of the Christ" was a movie about deeply held Christian beliefs. Upon releasing this movie, Gibson found himself attacked by a number of leading Jews. The accusations leveled against the movie were unfair, and maybe they infuriated Gibson. In a moment of drunken rage, the emotions these attacks caused could have led Gibson to say things he would later regret.

Are you really so blind to what I'm actually saying, or are you deliberately misinterpreting me? Either way, I see no point in continuing this discussion.

Ummm . . . you just don't get it, do you? If Paup was on the left side of the field, the Steelers ran the play to the right. If Paup moved over to the right side, the Steelers ran the play to the left. Before the ball was snapped, Neil O'Donnell would call out "opposite" meaning run the play to the opposite side of Paup. This meant run the play opposite Paup regardless of where he was with respect to Bruce Smith's replacement.

That one year is what I'm looking at. Before 1995, Paup couldn't reach his full potential because he was a 3-4 linebacker in a 4-3 defense. After that year, he got hurt. But what an amazing year! An incredible 17 1/2 sacks, 2 interceptions, a bunch of other good stats. That year, he was declared defensive MVP for the whole NFL. How dominating was Paup? When Bruce Smith got sick for that playoff game, the Steelers ran practically every play on the opposite side of the field to where Paup was. Very few players command that much attention or that much respect.

Some of the key things I'd look for: - Ability to read the field quickly. There are significant differences among QBs when it comes to this, and it's something they need to take a hard look at in preseason. - Accuracy. Okay, maybe Losman would be more accurate on long balls, while Nall might have the edge on short to intermediate routes. Or maybe different quarterbacks would be better at different patterns. You seem to think these differences make accuracy a non-issue. If accuracy is a non-issue for you, I can see why you support Losman! (Sorry, just had to throw that in there.) What they need to decide is if a given quarterback can be accurate in enough different types of situations to effectively operate the offense as a whole. - Leadership and other intangibles. As for the investment in Losman, any good economist will tell you sunk costs are sunk, and should be ignored. To do otherwise is to throw good money after bad. Any given investment is only worth what you can get out of it in the future, not what you put into it in the past. But people develop emotional attachments to past investments, so it's sometimes hard for them to be as forward-looking as logic demands. IIRC, the Rams traded a first round pick for Trent Green, while picking Warner up off the streets. Tom Brady was a sixth round pick, and Joe Montana was a third rounder. It's not about the size of the investment you made in a guy, it's about what he proves or doesn't prove when he joins your team.

The investment in Losman is a sunk cost that should be ignored. As for upside, both Nall and Losman have more mobility and stronger arms than Tom Brady. I'm not interested in physical attributes as much as I am in which quarterback is the most like Brady in terms of accuracy, understanding the game, and reacting to defenses quickly. If either guy shows an edge in that department, I think you have to make him the starter. Only if the two quarterbacks' accuracy and understanding of the game are roughly equal should Losman's athletic gifts be a deciding factor.

Welcome to the boards! Asking Troy to play at 90% of what he did in 2004 may be a little much, because of his age. As for Spikes, I'm a lot more concerned about that injury than most people on these boards. Bryce Paup was a better linebacker than Spikes in his prime. But after Paup's injury, he was only a shadow of his former self. Then there was Sam Cowart, a player who was about the equal of Spikes. At least before Cowart's devastating injury; one which he never fully recovered from. I've heard the logic that even if Spikes only comes back 90%, he'd still be better than most starting LBs in the league. But post-injury, Paup and Cowart were below average for starters.

Wait until the ACLU actually takes formal legal action about this before calling them useful. All they've done so far about this case is to give a few quips to the media.

Good point about the double overreaction. But I'll take issue with this point. Look at the defense of 2004: 2004 DE: Kelsay/Denny. Present: still here, but so what? 2004 DT: a very effective Sam Adams. Present: Gone. 2004 DT: Pat Williams. Present: Gone. 2004 DE: Schobel. Present: still here. 2004 OLB: Jeff Posey. Present: still here, and upgraded by Crowell. 2004 LB: London Fletcher. Present: still here, but getting a little older 2004 OLB: Takeo Spikes. Present: same player, but will likely be slowed by injury. 2004 SS: Lawyer Milloy. Present: Gone, replaced by a rookie. 2004 FS: Troy Vincent. Present: Still here, but older and slower. 2004 CB: Nate Clements. Present: Still here, but will he be as good as he was in 2004, or as bad as in 2005? 2004 CB: Terrence McGee. Present: Still here. Aaron Schobel and Terrence McGee are good players from 2004 who are likely to provide the same level of play in 2006. Everyone else from 2004 either wasn't very good to begin with, or isn't likely to play at the same level this year as he did in 2004.

Now that's one long sentence! You make good points in your post. I agree Green Bay's old regime wasn't sold on Nall. Then again, Mike Sherman was relieved of his GM duties for a reason. Just because Sherman wasn't interested in a guy, doesn't necessarily mean that guy isn't any good. As for Green Bay's new regime, it's tougher to say. Maybe they really liked what they saw of Aaron Rogers in practice. Maybe Nall felt Rogers would get the benefit of the doubt due to his first round status. Suppose the following happened: Favre played for two more years, after which Rogers was put in due to his first roud pick status. He uses another two years convincing the staff he's not the answer; after which Nall is given a legitimate shot. In Buffalo, this process is further along. The established aging veteran is long gone, and the first round draft pick is already eight starts into the process of convincing the staff he's not the answer. Also, it's quite possible Nall felt Losman would be weaker competition than Rogers.

I'm not sure I agree there. First you have to look at the subtractions; and none loom larger than Eric Moulds. Then there's the offensive line. Whatever chemistry developed with Teague under center is now gone; so the Bills have to start from scratch. Expect the line to take a good 6 - 8 games to gel, just as it did back in 2004. Speaking of starting from scratch, the Bills will be learning a new offense and a new defense. But, you say, the Bills have improved on paper at a number of positions. Fowler over Teague, Reyes over Anderson, Whitner over Milloy. I'm not completely convinced the first two are necessarily going to be improvements, thought they might be. As for the Milloy/Whitner situation, Whitner's rookie mistakes might cancel out the benefit of his added athletic ability. Other than Triplett, I don't know the Bills have necessarily improved themselves at any given position--at least not for the first half of 2006. Hopefully this team will start to build up some steam later in the year, and will be ready to compete in 2007.

With Aaron Rogers on the team, I don't think Nall was that interested in doing an extension.

Obviously, the best-case scenario is for a quarterback like Nall to come back from his injury and be the next Kurt Warner. But if nobody steps up at QB this year, the next best scenario is for the Bills to lose enough games to take Brady Quinn. But, you say, how could a quarterback like Quinn find success on a team bad enough to lose that many games? Well, hopefully many of those losses would be caused by players adjusting to the new system, or rookies making rookie mistakes, things like that. By 2007, players like Whitner, McCargo, and Youboty could be contributing a lot more to this team than in 2006. Hey, maybe even some of those low round offensive linemen Marv took could start contributing in 2007.

I'm not sure why so many people feel this way. Levy wasn't GM when Losman was picked, nor Jauron head coach, nor Fairchild the offensive coordinator. If the plan was to give Losman the starting spot all along, why bring in Nall? Why give Nall so much practice time, when that time could have been given to JP? You could say that they needed a charade of a competition anyway, so that Losman could earn his teammates' respect. But with Holcomb on the roster, it could have been a two man charade; with Losman getting more playing time than he's getting now. The bottom line is that Nall's done well in the preseason, NFL Europe, and in what little regular season playing time he's been given. He's the only one of the three QBs selected by the new regime. He's highly respected by many Green Bay fans. Other Favre backups have gone on to have successful starting careers elsewhere. Why not Nall?

Who're you calling a sissy? I really hope Nall recovers quickly, so that he can be given a fair chance to compete for the starting spot.

What?! You of all people are against editing out swearing? This is so not like you.

George Will once made an unflattering comparison between Clinton and a jelly donut. Between the jelly donut of Clinton and the waffle of Kerry, it seems the Democratic Party has a penchant for nominating fattening breakfast foods for president.

A mildly creative response, but nothing special. The implicit refusal to drop your meaningless vendetta is stupid. But your behavior towards me has been moronic from the very beginning, so why change now?

The problem isn't Tedi Bruschi per se. The problem is that the media is looking for good stories to try to draw in marginal fans. When they find a story that's worth telling at all, they beat it to death. After all, the media needs to talk about something, and of course a deep analysis of the game is out of the question. Any unusual story is going to be beaten to death. This coming season, you'll wish Ben Roethlisberger had never heard of such a thing as a motorcycle. You'll probably hear yet more about whether this will be Brett Favre's last year; and about whether Jrerome Bettis's retirement is affecting the Steelers. You'll be beaten to death with stories like this. I mean it--the media will keep hitting you over the head with the same stuff, until your bloody corpse is sprawled across your living room floor. Then they'll keep attacking you with that stuff, just to make sure. But none of this is Bettis's fault for retiring, nor Favre's fault for staying in the game. Nor is it Bruschi's fault for being a good player, a good comeback story, and a good guy on a Super Bowl team. I mean, seriously. What would you do if you were in Tedi's shoes? It's not like you can stop the media from turning your story into a circus. You could say he ought to leave the Patriots, but that would mean walking away from guys he's gone to battle with, guys he's close friends with, guys he has a chance to win another Super Bowl ring with. Yeah, it happens all the time, but maybe Bruschi's more loyal than most. Not everyone has the "I can't feed my family with Super Bowl rings" mentality.