OCinBuffalo

Now that is great post. I admit that this was the last thing I expected. I also admit that I am just as frustrated with Washington in general as you on this issue as well as many others. I honestly don't know what to think about global warming or most environmental issues anymore, and I have no idea wtf they are thinking re healthcare. I.E., Do you remember the VA patient scandal - the one where the VA patient's data was compromised? No schit - I was in DC, looking at that system, and telling them that they had major problems(!@#$ing MS Access database running the entire VA - ridiculous) the biggest being security, 10 months before that - I swear to God. I was told that they were fine and the Ph. D. nurse in charge of that department told me: "Well, that's your opinion. I designed this system and we have been running this just fine for two years." As if a !@#$ing nurse knows how to be a technical architect. I don't tell her how to plan care, why did she think it was ok to tell me how to do my job? When I heard about the scandal I wanted to shoot someone. Here I have the solution to the problem, I have a way to fix it, and lo and behold, I have a way to vastly improve it, for cheap, and they show me and my guys the door, and our Veterans get screwed once again. Arrogance on a massive scale. It is for this reason more than any other that I think I feel what you are feeling when you see three plastic bags for milk. It's like: hey we can fix this problem but, you get: no, we like crappy solutions and things that are patently stupid. I have been running this and other thoughts through my head recently. I have a few thoughts about what I want to do, but they are too preliminary to be shared. However, if there was a way to do a simple FAQ about the environment and every other issue - without the Shrillness - and keep it updated by trusted experts - would that be of any use?

No it is you who have completely misinterpreted historical facts here. This is classic chain reasoning - a happened before be therefore a caused b - but what did I expect, especially from you? In this case your argument is: Black troops started fighting in earnest before prison exchange cancellation happened therefore black troops caused prisoner exchange to be canceled. Wrong. Get yourself any Grant book there is and read it. The guy wasn't doing prisoner exchange in the West, because he thought it was a waste of time. Grant was in command in the West before blacks began fighting on the line as opposed to simply being in the Army. Then, when Grant came East, he started making many decisions, canceling prisoner exchange being one of them, sending Sheridan(not Sherman) on the first real Total War campaign in the modern era,(could argue the Russians did it in reverse with Napolean) and more, all with the firm belief that the South needed to be BEAT INTO SUBMISSION, as opposed to negotiated with. (Hmm. Why does that sound familiar?) It has been clearly documented that it was Grant's opinion, as well as most of his generals(not Sherman interestingly enough - it's funny that he of all people ends up taking the Bad Rap for doing about 20% of what Sheridan did), that the war had gone on for far too long due to the willingness to negotiate rather than simply crush. Hence, yes, there were significant casualties in 1864, because the North dropped the gloves and was finally willing to fight the attrition war that Lee had feared. In essence, Grant was willing to give up 10,000 soldiers(dead, wounded, captured) in exchange for 5,000 from Lee, with no prisoner exchange, because he knew that if he did that enough times, Lee would run out of troops. So that is why the war ended in 1865 not in 1920, and that is why there were more casualties in 1864. (By the way, two of Grant's predecessors had better opportunities to do the same thing, in one battle, but chose no to - and all allowed exchanges to the point of ridiculousness, i.e., letting prisoners go home for Christmas?!?!?!) The last thing on Grant's mind was politics(and at no time the Copperheads ), even when he was President! The guy had failed at so many things, earlier in life, he didn't have the actual self confidence to get into that, and, was "pushed along" into the political side of things simply due to his accomplishments at the one thing he was good at - being a general. Of course, Grant is one of my favorite subjects and I wouldn't expect you to know all this. But please don't attempt to call people out when you have no idea what they know, and, when you have an obviously limited knowledge of the material yourself.

Just stating facts my friend - if you don't like it - why should I care? I didn't invent anything. Stalin killed those people, and a hell of a lot more of his own people, due to the COMMUNIST IDEAL. Liberals are fine in my book as long as they don't: start preaching the COMMUNIST IDEAL, display socialist propaganda, or stop telling the truth about injustices/the poor/the human side of the equation of any problem, or most importantly accept obvious Communists like these A.N.S.W.E.R. azzholes into their ranks. Liberal thinking is very important in our society because it balances thought. It keeps things from being 100% based on a balance sheet, and it allows us as Americans to retain our "give everybody a second chance" values. It crosses the line for me when it dehumanizes people by making them dependent, or addicts, on the government. We are best when we are first truthful, and then compassionate. So don't make assumptions please, I haven't seen you make one properly yet. The point of the post was about wholesale murder of Jews. I am all ears if you want to start another topic about the wholesale murder - around the entire world - committed by Communists, Socialists, Marxists, Maoists, and all other Leftists, in the name of Saving the Human Race. In fact, you'll be happy to know that the "Saving the Human Race" plan has worked so well that last year, Marxism has now eclipsed God, as the idea that has killed more people than anything else. Congratulations. How about this question - If socialism/Marxism/Communism is such a good idea, why do people that believe in these principles consistently have to kill people in order to convince them? Why does socialist doctrine have to be IMPOSED rather than accepted? Could it be that these ideas are essentially horseshit, and that it's obvious to most people? No, I'm sure that we are all just too stupid to understand this genius - therefore we have to die. Regarding this topic - I asked a question - I didn't say anybody was denying anything. You can't seem to get the difference. "Should we deny Stalin as well?" is not equal to "People are denying Stalin" but I don't expect you to understand the difference. And of of course I expect you to call me names. A person with your intellect, just like the socialists, has to attack rather than convince, because a lot of your ideas are essentially horsehit as well. And, as has been clearly posted by other "liberals" on this board, quite often don't reflect standard liberal thinking. They merely represent your own retarded opinion.

He also got Kowned!

Right, and Miami(6-10 ) won the Super Bowl last year after beating Baltimore(13-3 but predicted 9-7 after how many years of being good?), Pittsburgh(8-8) and Indianapolis(SB) on their own fields in the playoffs. The Giants(8-8) beat the Mighty Redskins(5-11 ) in their first playoff game, then beat the Seahawks, but then lost to the Panthers(8-8) in the championship game as well. Of course all these things happened as predicted due to the intensive study and analysis of the "reporters" in question. The fact that Miami, DC, and the Giants are all in the top ten Media markets had nothing to do with it. Right, and the Chiefs, Chargers(wtf? they had them going 7-9), and Saints were all ".500 or worse" last year, just as predicted, and that fact that they are all in smaller markets had nothing to do with this either. Right, and the fact that Drew Brees ended up as a marginal FA acquisition while Dante Culpepper(about to be released apparently) was a stroke of genius has nothing to do with hyping big markets either. Any more you want to say about what these "reporters" "know"? If I ever start gambling on Pro Football again, I'll be sure to get my plays from you and these guys.

Yep, yep, yep. All true. But of course, FDR wasn't willing to fight a war about OIL! FDR was a liberal democrat which makes that impossible. NO BLOOD FOR OIL!

This presumes that we haven't been fighting a war with Iran since Kohmeni. This is a ridiculous presumption, since we have been at war, from the Iranian perspective - never mind yours or mine, ever since they deposed the Shah. I find it hysterical that suddenly now we are talking about "war with Iran", as though it hasn't been going on the whole time. What's next, are you gonna say the cold war wasn't a war too? How about the civil war? That had 30 years of build-up before actual military confrontation, but - hey, according to your logic, that wasn't a war either, right? This statement is dopey at best, dangerous(if someone actually believes you) at worst. Having a land base for our Air Force and Army = Iraq - and another country in hand = Afghanistan, on two sides of Iran is a much more cost effective way to fight this war you say isn't happening than having to build and station even more carriers in the area at $1 billion a month. Where would your wonderful liberal social programs be if we actually had to do WWII style fiscal planning? = goodbye. No more school lunch, no perscription drug assistance, and generally fug the environment. It would be the end of FDR/LBJ thinking - (hmm, maybe that's not so bad) We can't consistently give our people, and everybody else's people, the handouts you love and fight a war at the same time, unless you want to permanently kill our economy with taxes=socialism(hmm, maybe that is your plan ). The only way to end this confrontation, since the other side is only impressed by barbarism and/or brutality, as opposed to reason and/or economic gain, is to exhibit the things they are impressed with. If they were impressed with economic opportunity, how long to you think it would take for America's EVIL CORPORATIONS to line up to invest in Iran? Hmm, good natural resources, relatively educated public, people yearning for economic independence, right. The over/under is 5 minutes. If they were impressed with wealth or gaining their rightful place in the civilized world, in this century, they are geographically positioned to make a killing. But they are not impressed with that either. So what's left? Better yet, what's your plan to impress them? What do you plan to give them that gets them to stfu, stop acting crazy(supporting terrorism), and stop being a danger to themselves and other's(Jordan, Isreal), besides our current "straight jacket" of troops/planes on the ground on two of their borders? What a great question. Nothing like a false choice to identify a liberal thinker. So, your implication is that if they take military action they WILL NOT get the detainees out alive. Um, you may not know this - but the Brits have these guys known as the SAS. They have a pretty solid track record, better in fact than anyone's, of pulling off schit just like this, getting their people out, and leaving nothing but dead Ts. Just ask the IRA about that, they are a great reference for the SAS. If anyone is in a position to prepare and deploy a special operation - it's the SAS. Also, MI6 is widely recognized for it's ability, unlike our retarded CIA, to do it's job. No. They are in fine position, your BS false choice notwithstanding. I expect a SB victory for the Bills this year with the team they currently have. Who is being more unrealistic? Ahh, prisoner exchange - what a great way to keep a war going . This was why the Civil War lasted so long, and killed twice the guys it should have. Isn't it interesting how fast that war was done with the minute Grant canceled all exchanges. Oh, but I forgot, we aren't actually fighting a war. Maybe the "Iran police action" would make you happy? In any event, all your "solution" would do is give credence to the enemy's actions, thereby solidifying their power in the eyes of other nations in the region. Nope, in this case, we need to do what the Romans did - prove our military prowess so as not to invite further attack, and then make sure we trade with all of their neighbors/use real sanctions with real teeth to cut them off economically from their neighbors. Their economy will collapse and that will be the end of this phony regime. I do want to differ from the Romans in that we don't attack right after the collapse, win, and kill everybody. Yeah, do all that, but don't kill the women and children this time. The PC crowd will kill us because then their won't be enough economic opportunity for women and death for the kids would simply ruin their self esteem.

And why shouldn't this happen? The truth, the real truth - (I know some of you, Molsen_Golden, have no idea what I'm talking about), has been driven from our lives in favor of ideology. This has been going on in social sciences/psychology for years. What's so shocking about it making it's way to history? The PC bullsh!t train had to go somewhere next. Why not history? Since nothing, especially not God, is above the PC ideology, where does history get off being truthful if it doesn't conform to PC? Political Correctness is now a truth-free substitute that has all the taste, without any of the calories and nasty things like, perspective, honor, remembrance, insight, regret, and wisdom. Why bother with those nasty things when we can simply forget that the Nazi's killed 10 million people, 6 million of those Jews, in those camps? Never mind that there is something to be learned from this sordid tale. Never mind the fact that the EXACT SAME reasoning that was in place that allowed that event to occur, IS NOW being used by the crazy Muslims(few, not all) as their pretext for murder. Nope, sitting down young Muslims and MAKING them learn these facts has no possible value at all , since it might offend them , and gives direct contradiction, or at least adds perspective, to whatever BS ideology they are "learning" at the Mosque. It might make young Hassan think twice before he straps on that Suicide Bomb(make no mistake the guys that attacked the trains in London were British subjects and had been for years if not born there), but, it is offensive = can't be tolerated. How about this question? Since it has been confirmed that Stalin killed at least 3 million Jews also(possibly even more than the Nazis), are we supposed to deny that he existed? See, he pretty much killed Jews for the same reason Hitler did: he didn't like them. The difference is: he gave those orders personally. And, the Russians were, depending on one's perspective, too stupid or too smart to keep the exacting records of this atrocity with the same efficiency as the Nazis. So you can't use a word for this, since it wasn't a formal operation - no records, no hierarchy, therefore, you can't deny the existence of a word that isn't used. The only thing left to deny is the person who gave the orders. So, if you don't want to offend Muslims, now you have to deny the existence of Joseph Stalin, or at least his existence as Socialist Savior of the Human Race(all those with Socialist tendencies - please stfu and sit down), because he was the instrument of death, not some abstracted word like the Holocaust. By the time we get done denying things, how much do you want to bet that all we will have left is history according to the Koran? Hmm. Would that be politically correct? How about this: Why don't we simply deny the existence of Muslims? This way when they complain about being offended, we can simply say: we can't acknowledge your complaints, since you don't exist. That makes about as much sense as PC "truth" being used here as "reasoning", so why not?

Well let's see. Why in the world do you think he said that? Is is possible that we have seen the same thing("It's always Bush's Fault") from the same group of people so many times("Bush haters") as to become immune to whatever they say? Or, better yet, to have realized that there is now a need to disclaim every piece of relevant data in an effort to maintain reasonable dialog, about any issue, such that the Bush Haters cannot attempt to end the sentence with: "and that is also Bush's fault". Who created that need? You accuse him of creating a strawman for this argument. On the surface, it appears you are right, or, at least that is what you get to tell yourself - and your like-minded buddies. However, why does he feel a need to create this strawman? Is it possible that after the 22nd time he hears you guys phony-up an argument or create an entire ethos based on false choices, i.e.: "We need to spend more money(apparently unlimited money with no attached accountability) on education and anyone who doesn't agree doesn't care about education"., he might start to look at things in terms of a PREDICTABLE pattern? Or does it take 23 times? 40 times? After seeing the same pattern, over and over again, to the point that it becomes so predictable, what other response do you propose? At what point does your Pavlovian negative response to everything Bush does get called into question here as the ROOT CAUSE for his strawman? This ain't about me, nor is it about him, this is about you. Problem: You don't like others using straw arguments? Solution: Stop using them yourself. Calling out every 16 year old in America and saying that they don't know what bees do creates a much larger strawman that Nanker's. Problem: You want "people" to respect the environment? Solution: Stop talking down to "people" and/or making sweeping statements about 16 year olds and start convincing "people". Let's start by replacing the word "people" with me -> OCinPhilly. What are you going to do to convince OCinPhilly to care more about what you are saying? If you don't care about the answer to that question, you don't care about me. If you don't care about me, why in hell should I care about you? Better yet, why should I care about what you are saying? Best of all, if you really care about they environment so much, aren't you willing to use the best approaches to get the word out to people? Or, are your content with your membership at Club Smug? And, are you and the other members too good, in your infinite wisdom, to bother with "people" like us? Which is it? Or, are you gonna be happy telling yourself that I've created a strawman too? In that case, enjoy the club, you and the other members are well on your way to the land of the irrelevant. And, whether you think that is a good or funny thing is: guess what? IRRELEVANT.

Maybe at best - but you also said that he helps them get YOUNGER which he doesn't. Look - I know the history, SB et al., BUT, I don't see these FA moves THIS YEAR as "great" moves. Welker? Stalworth? for that money? Moreover, we are being asked to believe that we see the "Emporer's New Clothes", just because it's the Patriots - who haven't been active in FA for years. Now suddenly building through the draft is a bad idea? Or, I forgot that's what the Bills are now doing so, yeah, it must be bad idea, this year. Btw, the same guys who see these as "great" moves, are the same guys who told us Culpepper and Archuleta were going to make Miami and Washington SB/playoff powerhouses. Oh yeah, and these same guys said Brees would be a marginal help for the Saints. This all goes back to my original theory: "Tell the big media market teams that they will be great every year, because telling a lot of people what they want to hear is a great way to make money". You watch what happens with the draft. This year, I guarantee the Patriots, Jets, Giants, Dolphins, Bears, Cowboys, Texans, Cards, 49ers, Eagles, Redskins and Falcons will have "won" the draft according to these guys, who just happen, - LA, to be the top 11 media markets. (hell they'd love to add Detroit to this list but they have been exposed too many times) Remember all the Arizona/Detroit hype last year? Why do they keep telling us about how good the 49ers are gonna be? Why do we hear about Atlanta all the time? How many more times can we hear that Kubiak(texans) is a "great" coach? How can this all be an accident? Some of these teams continue to suck, year in and year out, but they are always ranked high in the pre-season power rankings, and all their FA decisions are always "great". This is just more of the same.

I respect you as well Bill, but in this case it is you who needs the head-from-ass removal. Whitner was a great pick - all the evidence is there already and it's undeniable(um never mind the stats - how about Rookie of the Month, playing in Buffalo = no small feat). You weren't right about this because the guys you wanted us to take have ended up so far as: =, or worse, or much worse, than Whitner. Of course, this all will be clearer after this year and a lot can still change. But, with Milloy and Vincent either gone or on the way out, and, with Clements only around for one more year, we had to do something about the defensive backfield, which we did. In hindsight, these draft picks have worked out great, again, undeniable; and have allowed us to focus on other areas. Primarily they allowed us to use all our FA $ on OFFENSIVE LINEMAN. Which accomplishes your goal, as well as giving us a strong D backfield for years to come. Look, now we have 2 and 3 decent players competing for each of only 2 "open" positions on the O line. When is the last time we have had that? Plus it gives us depth. IF we had drafted lineman last year, we would be rolling the dice on ALL our skill positions this year in the draft = stupid. That is not a plan, that is a crapshoot, and, Wire would be one of our starting safeties right now. The only thing positive about your draft plan last year is that we would probably be picking at #2-4 in this year's draft.

Good point. I'm sure there will be some excuses made for why it is now OK for Atlanta to take a safety at #8 and it wasn't for us. Oh, I see one already: "Landry is projected to go in the top 10". But, I'm sure it was ok to take Huff at #7, but not ok for us to draft Whitner at #8. Lame at best. Of course, it was OK for Oakland to draft a player they wanted to start at SS, we were "crazy" or must be "senile" to do the same. Right. Maybe we should ask: How many awards did Huff get last year? = 0. As I recall Donte Whitner got Rookie of the Month. Oh and I already know the other excuse for Huff: "He was on a bad team". Not true at all in terms of defense - Oakland ended up ranked 3rd. And, as far as Whitner vs. Huff in terms of stats? Year Team G Total Tkl Ast Sacks Int Yds Avg Lg TD Pass Def Huff 2006 Oakland Raiders 16 78 64.0 14 0 0 0 0.0 0 0 1 Whitner 2006 Buffalo Bills 15 104 67.0 37 0 1 10 10.0 10 0 4 But I'm sure LaRon Landry will put up 120 tackles this year and at least 5 picks , which is why it will be ok to take him at #8. The Bills are still nuts for taking Whitner at 8. Edit: And, if you have a guy rated high, which Marv obviously did - and based on results was 100% correct, you don't !@#$ about and trade down hoping he will be there later. You take him now. Why? Because there is a reason the press "experts" aren't GMs, and the real experts - the guys who have the job, are. Chances are that Marv wasn't the only guy who had Whitner rated high - therefore no reason to !@#$ around. I hope we do the same thing this year with our top rated guy.

I posted out there earlier in the week and put the retards on that board(they do seem to have some smart people) in their place in my first post(BillsGuyinPhilly). Read the rest of the thread. They couldn't come back because what I said is the truth. Now they are asking me to post more. Which is surprising since I don't think I know that much. There are guys here who can certainly do better than me. Maybe they are asking because they don't get the benefit of the good info/analysis around here. (can't wait for the wise cracks ) It seems like the whole board is a bunch of one-line cracks with not much substance so I wouldn't let it get you down. Or, another way to look at it is: If retards are making fun of you, laugh along at them. Just bringing the high standards I have learned here to their board. Why complain when you can lead by example? Also, my posts are 5 times longer than theirs - I'm bucking for pyrite status over there.

OMG! After saying that the ENTIRE media is subject to profit motive, and that is the main reason for bias, now you are saying that some are better than others? Does that mean that some are less subject to profit motives than others? Which one is it? Or is it that some newspapers are agenda-driven and others aren't? Next you be telling us: "All animals are equal. But, some animals are more equal than others!"

Hey! Plagiarism is a crime! Nalls_Balls is mine! J/K just happy to see someone remembered that.

These are great posts guys. We will have to wait and see :lol: on this but, overall, Marv's job is less about wins/losses, that's Jauron, than about our position as a team with respect to FA, the draft, post-draft FA, training camp cuts. So, my grades as of now on the team's position: Prior to FA: C (might be A if Marv was playing the media) As soon as it became clear that Nate, LF would be gone, we were in a bad position with regard to bringing in new defensive FAs. Everybody knew we had holes therefore we were in a one down position. Marv's press conference was a nightmare(unless, again, he was being coy). However, in hindsight we are now seeing the overall plan unfold, so, this is not as bad as originally thought. But cash to the cap was/is making everybody crazy. FA: B The only reason this is not an A is that I would have liked to see at least one solid defensive FA. To me it's just too risky to use the draft only as a way to replace the guys we lost. However, it appears that Marv has a plan and is sticking to that plan. It is decisive, not muddled, and as tough as it is to deal with now, I am starting to see the value of it. (Kelly - Clements had to go, IMO. I didn't see what you saw in him. I guess we will have to agree to disagree.) We are now in decent position, with the extra cap room, to pick up a D FA at any point along the way here. The offensive lineman signings were also decisive, and even if one of them doesn't work out, it makes it clear to everyone that this team is willing to move if the right opportunity is there, small market excuses aside. Draft: A I know it's too early to judge the results of the draft, especially since it hasn't happened yet! But this post is about the team's position going into the draft. IMO, we couldn't be in a stronger spot. We have a high draft choice, we have extra picks, and we have addressed some of the holes to the point that they won't be huge distractions/allow us to set our priorities and stick with them. Post Draft FA/Training Camp Cuts: so far B We have to expect a decent draft based on last year, which will put us in a relatively strong position to sign guys still out there. I.E. "hey player's agent: we just drafted a LB/CB/RB so tell us why we need to pay your guy again?" Also, because our holes have relatively narrowed in focus now, we can afford to take extra chances on guys at those positions. More guys should = better competition = best guy for the job. So I overall I like the moves with regard to the team's position entering each phase of the off-season. Thoughts?

I think Craig Ochs? is one of them.

Great post - and here's something else to think about. For the last two days I have obviously been talking about this trade with my friends here in Philly, and the bar tenders, and the servers, and even the bums that hit me up for money outside the store, anybody who knows I am a Bills fan :lol: I'm not going out tonight and I'm not answering my phone . All of them are saying the same thing. "Walker wants to penetrate the line of scrimmage too much and they run away from him" or "Walker is always trying to rush the passer instead of holding his position" or "Sure Walker got 6 sacks last year, but they were mostly against Dallas(playoff team so WTF?) and New Orleans(another playoff team so WTF? - I just laugh when I hear this one). So what does this mean? IMO, Walker is perfect for us. We want him to penetrate the line of scrimmage as much as possible, we don't want him to hold his position - we do want a sack threat up the middle because that makes Schobel's job easier, and who doesn't want a guy who wreaks havoc against playoff teams? All in all, it sounds like the things that makes Walker struggle in a zone-blitz scheme is the same things that will make him thrive in a cover 2. Haven't heard anybody really question his heart and he's supposed to be pretty smart - so I think we might have something here.

:lol: I have a similar family and the same is true about my sister - after all is said and done it's my mom who would simply kill ya. Great idea by your daughter btw, I will check to see if my sister has any old dolls she doesn't want.

Those are Jersey guys and we don't like it any more than you do. Hate to admit it but I did that last year - something that I had to do for no other reason than it was there. No one actually from/lives in Philly has any reason to go to New Jersey unless you are buying gas, getting groceries, or on your way to NYC or AC. Dude there is a lot to do here. But, IMO, things have been declining in the last couple of years. Prolly cause we have a mayor whose entire staff/appointees/office has been/is about to be thrown in jail. If you are gonna bust on Philly, this is how you get at em! As much as I like it here, it might be time to move on. I don't think it's a good idea to live in a town that hasn't hired a new cop in 6 years. The other day, with the influx of bums, I got that icky San Francisco feeling walking down the street. You're right WGR is a treat compared to those guys. Btw, the best way to get at native Philly people is start comparing them to NYC - they lose their minds. They will instantly start falling all over you apologizing for why they can't be more like NYC. It literally makes them crazy here. Which is why we just got the smoking ban in the city. The dopes around here act like NYC's annoying kid brother who is always trying to tag along.

Just think the draft is more than 30 days away, the season is more than 160 days away. I like torture.

You have to give him some credit for sticking with the handle. But, and that concludes the nice part of my post, I think Donahoes_Brain might be a fit.

Answer some of my questions correctly: 1. What is the name of the bar at Citizen's Bank Park? 2. What intersection is the Chinese Arch on? Hint: it's in Chinatown 3. Which Philly Mayor has a bronze statue of him walking down some steps, across from city hall, that, if it was life sized, would have that mayor weighing in at about 450 lbs and being 7' 3'' tall?(I run by this every day) 4. Which train do you take to get from New Jersey to the Philadelphia Airport? 5. What is Rock Lobster? 6. Which company is building a new skyscraper in Philly and do you like the guy who is known for that company? Hint: Physical Therapist/Trainer 7. Where is NFL Films located? 8. Do you hate people from New Jersey? Edit: Do you outwardly accept and are you nice to people from New Jersey, but secretly hate them and wish they would go back across the bridge? Or, is Right on Red legal in Philly and do people from New Jersey know that? 9. What is scrapple? 10. Can you find me a parking spot in Center City that costs less than $150 a month(thought I would throw that in just in case you are for real - but the right answer is no, unless you like to park in the Gayborhood) Any real Philly guy can answer most of these questions in 30 seconds. If you can answer 4, that'll do. Incidentally, I live on 10th and Arch (another hint). Now, on to business. You guys needed linebackers - if there is one thing I have heard around here, it's that the Birds need linebackers. I can't take a piss in a bar without hearing that. SO it's no surprise that you would trade to get Spikes because at this point starting a cone is better than starting Dhani Jones. On the other side, we can't carry the money nor can we take the risk on TKO, and we might as well bring in another young guy since that is what we are doing anyway - so it makes sense all around. On Walker, you guys can try to disparage him all you want, but I was out tonight and I asked a ton of people here what they thought about Walker. TO A PERSON they said he was solid, most even said he had a great year, and while they were sad to see him go, it made sense to move on since they have the newly drafted DTs. On the other side, we have to get new D leadership on this team, and when I asked about that everyone said: hell yeah Walker can do that, so, we get what we want, you guys had more DTs than you needed - so it makes sense all around. Overall, you are taking a much bigger risk than we are, IMO, which is par for the course with our GM. On the other hand, that big risk may pay off in a big reward if Spikes finally comes back. Risk vs. Reward is a matter of perspective - but for my money with our team we need to be safe, cause we don't have the 50 law/pharma/hospitals/consulting firms buying the $.5-$1 million corporate boxes/suites you guys do. I like living here, but I will always be a Bills fan.

Just saw it. I'm paraphrasing the interview: He started off by saying that he and the Bills came to a mutual agreement to trade him. He saw what was happening overall on D and thought that it was the best thing for both him and the team. He said that he thinks both him and the Bills feel good about the trade. Q: How do you feel about the Bills? A: I get along great with them and Marv Levy is great. I have never had a problem with the Bills front office we have had a great relationship to this day. Q: With all the guys(Fletcher, etc.) leaving this team, and with the changes you saw did that have something to do with your thinking(stupid question)? A: Yeah, from 2003 on we had the the #2 d in the league, and then Mularkey resigned, the new guys came in and released Milloy and Adams without even evaluating them(a lot of us thought that this didn't sit well with him) and I knew at that point that big changes were gonna be made. Q: What about the system in Philly vs. Buffalo? A: That was the big thing for me, I made my money as a Will linebacker in a zone blitzing scheme - that's what Philly runs. Buffalo needs different guys in their scheme. If you look at the film, you see Philly running exactly what I do. Q: With all the change that the Bills have made, don't you see them having leadership problems(another leading question) and how would you describe the Bills approach? A: I would call it a youth movement, but Nate Clements, LF, and myself aren't that old(big paraphrase). London is going into his tenth year(this confused me). Yeah as far as leadership goes you want to have those veteran players who can make a big play and get the team out of a hole. It's hard to say with that many losses how things are going to go(he could have easily talked smack here but he didn't and then said:). But, there are definitely guys on the roster who will step up - Angelo Crowell is ready and he will do the job. There are other guys as well.(It seemed like he genuinely gave a schit about what was gonna happen to the Bills) Q: What does it feel like to know you have a solid offense in Philadelphia? You haven't been anywhere that has had a solid offense yet.(Espn words not mine) A: Well if you think about Philly you think about Brian Westbrook, and Donovan McNabb - both guys bring "instant credibility" to the game. (He didn't say anything negative about the Bills or Bengals - he ignored the reporters obvious and lame attempts to get him to talk smack and then changed the subject) What I'm really excited about is playing with Trotter, Dawkins, etc., in the scheme I am best suited for...if you look at the film, etc.... The rest was about what he expects in Philly. So, for me this interview makes it even harder to be happy about him leaving from a "this is the kind of person you want on this team" aspect. However, by his own admission, he simply isn't the right guy for the job here in Buffalo. I think that there is absolutely nothing wrong with that, since it's the truth, and, it was quite refreshing to hear a professional athlete actually sound like a professional for a change.

Me too. Oh, and depending on how big it is, I might be able to get my sister to help out with corporate sponsorship if you want. She just did something similar to this idea a few weeks ago. She's into sports marketing and events - i.e. she did the ESPN fantasy baseball stuff last year. I will ask her about it - no promises of course. Or, we could just have a keg party and keep it simple. Let me know what you think. Regardless, I will be there and try to bring along friends and family.