Orton's Arm

I'm not sure what I'm doing making a football-related post on this thread. But with luck, Moulds will be traded for a first day draft pick, and the bonus will become a non-issue. That said, if he's that insistent on being released, he should follow in Arrington's footsteps and give back the portion of his bonus that would have hit the Bills this year and next.

Not trying to change the overall analysis. As you point out, Bledsoe has his strengths as well as his limitations, and it's sometimes easy for people to see the bad but not the good (or vice versa).

THIS from someone who accuses people of being KKK members on the basis of "rap video" comments??? If the Christian Right was half as judgmental about extramarital sex as you are about racism, Madonna would have a bullet in her head.

Just got done reading that bio. My biggest concern was the accuracy comment you mentioned, as well as his poor performance in the 2003 preseason. The fact that Green Bay was eager to draft Losman, and later drafted Craig Rogers, doesn't bode well. On the other hand, he hasn't had a world of game experience. He was only a starter in one year in college. He improved during his time in NFL Europe; doing a lot better in the second half of the year than the first half. The bio did mention his strong arm, big hands, quick release, good footwork, and most importantly, his ability to make good decisions. On the other hand, team websites usually aren't known for pointing out every last flaw a player might have. I noticed he played quite well in Green Bay's season finale against the #1 ranked Bears defense. Nall played from the 2nd quarter on, going 7/13 for 131 yards and a TD; including two passes of 25 yards or more. Like you said, the guy's a question mark. But there's a possibility he's a talented player that just needs to be given a chance.

Okay, fine. I'll give you what you want. I will start being affected by other people's opinions of right and wrong. So I'll visit a Muslim country, and come back a radical Muslim. Next week, I'll visit China, and come back a communist. The week after that, I'll visit some African nation in the middle of a civil war, and I'll come back convinced it's okay to kill people if they belong to a given tribe. Or I'll visit Bosnia, where I could learn the same lesson. Is this type of impressionability what you want? It had better not be. Maybe what you meant when you made the mistake of opening your mouth was that I should be affected by the opinions of people in this country, but not in other countries. Who knows what you really meant? Who cares? To be honest, I didn't see much in your post, beyond that you enjoy calling people simple and arrogant.

It's easier to root for a team with your whole heart when you like the players as individuals. For me, it's harder to like a guy if I've got reason to believe he's fathering kids and then abandoning them. Why should I be thrilled if a guy like this succeeds on the field? Because of the uniform he's wearing? This team didn't have the same character it did during the Super Bowl years. I still rooted for it, but it wasn't the same.

I'm not 100% sold on the idea of Wilson pulling back into the cocoon, but beyond that there's a lot I agree with in your post. The Bills' real problem isn't that they're failing to buy a high profile team in free agency, so much as that there's no foundation upon which to build. Look at TD's first round draft picks: 2001: Nate Clements. Result: contract expired after five years, is now franchised. 2002: Mike Williams. Result: cut after just four years. 2003a: traded for Drew Bledsoe. Result: Bledsoe was cut after just three years. 2003b: Willis McGahee. Result: failed to provide enough of an upgrade over Henry to justify first round status. 2004a: Lee Evans. Result: chosen 13th overall, there's considerable doubt about whether Evans can ever be the go-to guy. 2004b: Losman. Result: is in significant danger of losing out to Craig Nall, the Packers' 3rd string QB. While I said pessimism was creeping into your posts, you'll notice I didn't say it wasn't justified!

That link took me to a generalized Packers news page, and I couldn't find any link specific to Nall. Maybe they've changed the page. Lately I've sensed a hint of pessimism creeping into some of your posts.

Interesting that you A) call me stupid, and B) throw in a grammatically incorrect apostrophe in the word Nazis. The rest of your post had no value, but that's par for the course. In case you've forgotten, this discussion is about my statement that right and wrong don't change based on people's opinions. Bringing up the widely differing views of morality that existed in Nazi Germany, Palestine, and the U.S. is clearly relevant to that type of discussion.

Excellent analysis of how the Bills were able to deal with blitzes. However, I'll take issue with one of the points you made: the RB the Bills faced in that season finale was Willie Parker. Fast Willie Parker. Yeah, he was 3rd string when the Bills faced him, but he beat out both Jerome Bettis and Duce Staley for the starter's spot the next year. So the Bills were looking at a starter-quality RB, on whom they had little film, in the final game of the season. Not only that, Parker was fresh, because he'd seen very little playing time up to that point. Not that there's any excuse for a "very good" defense to allow a nine minute drive in a must-win game.

Sometimes, the truth hurts!

It's hard to judge a guy based on some interview like that. A lot of times those things can get edited down, or the reporter may only write down part of what you're telling him. I'll go by what I see on the field--or at least by what scouting services say--rather than the man's own words as filtered through a reporter and an editor.

Sure. Blame your personality problems on me why dontcha? My original statement was that right and wrong are what they are, and people's opinions don't change them. Let's pretend the opposite was true, and that people's opinions do change what's right and wrong. In Nazi Germany, Jewish culture would be deeply immoral, because it would be considered such by the majority of the people there. In the modern U.S., Jewish culture would be moral, because most people consider it so. We're talking about the same underlying thing being evil in one place, and good in another. Or how about the suicide bomber? In the U.S., we consider such people evil terrorists. But many Palestinians view such people as heroic freedom fighters. So a would-be suicide bomber would morph between good and evil depending on whether those determining his moral status were Americans or Palestinians. This is moral relativism. Moral clarity is the opposite: it states that the suicide bomber is either good or evil, and that those who see the situation differently need to be persuaded otherwise. Instead of being guided by the conclusions of the people of, say, Nazi Germany, I look at the validity of the process by which the people came to have their beliefs. The average person in Nazi Germany probably knew very little about Jewish culture beyond what he or she had heard in the media. So an investigation into widely held opinions quickly becomes an investigation into the media, its actions, and the intentions of those controlling it. The same could be said about widely held views in the U.S. I'm not trying to lump the Nazi and American media together, because clearly they're very different. But both have (or had) enormous influences on what people believe.

That's the biggest compliment I've ever seen you give!

I don't know where Moulds' kids are. If you're right in suggesting they're scattered about the country--which seems likely enough--then that casts his decision to leave the Bills in a less unfavorable light. I don't have a problem with Moulds' comments about Holcomb, and I agree he was voicing the sentiments of most of the Bills in saying what he said. You say there are people who might disagree with my comments about the morality of fathering kids out of wedlock. Not really sure what your point is there. Right and wrong are what they are, and people's opinions don't change these things. I'm more interested in the process by which society came to increase its acceptance of out-of-wedlock fatherhood. If you were to show me the thought process itself was valid, I'd be more interested. As for my remark about Moulds not working out with Losman during the off-season, the original source is here: http://www.stadiumwall.com/index.php?showt...ndpost&p=627853 If the information's incorrect, I'll be happy to take that into account.

Mine is that it's either Holcomb or Nall!

Tom Brady and Dan Marino have the mobility of three legged tortoises. But they've done okay. What Brady had that Bledsoe didn't was the ability to see the field quickly, and to get rid of the ball in a hurry. If Nall has this same ability, he'll do fine.

If I was Holcomb, there's no way I'd be talking about Nall unseating me as starter!

C'est moi. Holcomb's proven the most of the three, and he knows how to dump the ball off when the protection isn't there. He's a solid player. That said, Nall is the first QB the Bills have brought in with input from Fairchild. You need a big arm to run the Fairchild offense, and Nall certainly has that. So I wouldn't be shocked to see Nall under center on opening day.

Good point. Clearly, Holcomb is the most known commodity, while Nall is the least known. I'd also say Nall may have the most upside of the three, just based on the way he's taken advantage of the opportunities he's been given. I guess we'll know more about him as the season unfolds.

Nall's had success in garbage time and NFL Europe; so I'm curious if he can have success in the more difficult task of playing an NFL game where the outcome is still in doubt. I hope he's up to the task. Holcomb's a solid QB, but his career won't last forever. The Bills need a younger guy who can step up.

I like what I've heard about Nall, and it wouldn't shock me if he unseated Holcomb as the Bills' starter.

He's got nine kids with many different women. How much time could he really be giving them? I mean, does he say, "Janet, bring over kid #1 on Monday, Tomika, bring over kid #2 on Tuesday . . ."? Maybe, but I highly doubt it. If you ask me, it's more likely he's spending his time looking to father child #10.

I felt the same way about Flutie and Johnson: namely, that Flutie got the safer, more run-oriented game plan, while Johnson was asked to go pass-happy, and attempt a lot of deep throws that could result in sacks. I'm not saying this means Losman's the next RJ. You know, the more I read what Packers fans have to say about Nall, the more I'm beginning to like the signing. With none of the Bills' QBs knowing the Fairchild offense, it's the same starting line for all three guys. Hopefully one of the three will clearly outplay the other two, giving us an obvious answer to the QB question.

Not sure why you picked the Palmer post to make your "crusade territory" remark. That post added solid information to the discussion. To me, a crusade is something where you offer the same opinion over and over again without bringing in new facts or new reasoning to support it. JDG hasn't done this.