UB Bull
-
Posts
32 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Gallery
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by UB Bull
-
-
If he can announce to the world that he enjoys anal sex with men? Then is it cool for a straight guy to announce to the world that he enjoys anal sex with women? If so, where is our parade? I know that I am not alone here. Will male athletes be misunderstood if they admit to such a thing at a press conference? Will Mike Mayock speak of the need for dialogue on the issue? Should we keep some things private? Are we ready for a women's feet float in the Thanksgiving Day Parade?
Honestly? Do you really not understand the difference between sexual orientation and sexual behavior?
-
Helmets don't affect the change in speed, but they increase the time over which the change in speed takes place, lessening the impulse to the brain.
More padding leads to a more gradual change in momentum, and thus a lower impulse. This is the important factor.
The density of the padding is the result of helmet manufacturers "guessing" at the momentum of the most common and most dangerous collisions the helmets will see, and then optimizing the density of the padding for those collisions. There is, of course, some margin-of-error
While I agree with you about needing better helmets, concussions would not come to an end. Concussions happen because of a sudden change in speed causing the brain to hit the inside of the skull. While the helmet would lessen that crack of hitting, the change in speed that happens when the helmet hits something would not be changed. Fixing the hard shell exterior wouldn't do much to reduce concussions, although it is probably still worth it.
-
I think you're missing the point, with due respect. Nobody is stealing crap. We're paying for a product. Instead of paying $300, we're choosing something of inferior quality, and God Forbid, something that isn't really "authentic," in the name of saving money. This recession was no one on this board's fault. I'm assuming the money being spent has been earned by making an honest living (mine was). So, speaking only for myself, I will say this, "It's money that I've worked hard for and I'll be damned if I shell out $300 on a shirt of any kind. And since I earned it, I can spend it wherever the hell I want to. If it was illegal, DH Gate wouldn't be in business." That's my story and my $28 Dareus jersey, and my $32 Johnson jersey and I are sticking to it.
You're really burying your head in the sand. Of course it's illegal - it's a violation of trademark. DH Gate is still in business because it's in China, where international trademarks are not respected.
Of course you can do it if you want - just own the fact that you're doing something unethical - don't try to justify it with sob stories. That might work for necessities, but not for Bills jerseys.
-
I have never heard a rational explanation as to why the NFL insists on requiring teams to designate a number of players as inactive on game day. With all the "concern" the NFL expresses about player safety, a full game day roster which gives the team greater flexibility in terms of rotation, special teams etc would certainly be helpful in terms of player safety. At least as helpful as moving the kick off forward.
A team can have a few injured players on its roster, and still field the full number of active players on gameday
That's why
-
My cousin is in Ann Arbor, he hasn't found a place yet that's showing bills games but when he finds one I'll let you know. I've been told Scorekeepers is a good place to go on sundays. There are a few of us in Auburn Hills (50 mins away) that are trying to find a good spot in metro detroit to meet other bills fans. Refer to this thread http://boards.buffalobills.com/showthread.php?t=286744&highlight=detroit
So far I have been to Buffalo Wild Wings and Scorekeepers.
BWW is usually pretty crowded, but there are usually one or two other Bills fans there, and if you get there early enough they have personal speaker boxes that play the sound for any game you want.
I only went to Scorekeepers once, but it was less crowded, had better beer, and decent 25-cent wings.
-
I'm new in town.
Are there any other Bills fans in Ann Arbor?
-
That's interesting. I heard the knock on Spikes was that he was lacking in foot speed. Maybe combine run times aren't as important as we'd like to think.
Let's just hope he doesn't eye gouge anyone in the NFL like he did in the SEC.
It's always nice when a player you root against joins a team you root against.
-
How many D-linemen does that make?
Carrington, Marcus Stroud, Kyle Williams, Spencer Johnson, Dwan Edwards, Chris Ellis, John McCargo, Chris Kelsay.
That's not counting Schobel and Maybin who will likely move to OLB.
-
Great for Mel. Please tell me, what is the VALUE of this exercise?
what's the value of football at all?
It's fun.
Some people think mock drafts are fun to look at, even if they have little grounding in reality. I'm one of them.
relax
-
Let put a numerical example to this so we can all be clear....
Let assume player is given the following simple 3 year contract that includes $3M Signing Bonus, $1M in Year 1, $2M in Year 2 and $3M in year 3
NFL rules allow that contract to be counted against the cap as follows amortizing the bonus over the life of the contract:
-- Year 1 $2M, ... Year 2, $3M, ... Year 3 $4M
The Bills would account for the player in their internal budgeting as
-- Year 1, $4M, ... Year 2 $2M, ... Year 3, $3M the entire bonus counting in the first year
That overstates the first year of the contract and limits other signings whenever signing bonuses are paid. They could achieve the same thing by not paying a signing bonus, making the first year of the contract guaranteed and giving the entire bonus amount as salary.
I don't think the Bills do that. I think they're amortizing the signing bonus contract per the NFL rules, while voluntarily limiting further signings when they've reached their salary + signing bonus cap level (cash to the cap) for a given year, simply as an internal budgeting process.
CORRECT! excellent post
to sum it up: Signing bonuses are amortized whether the team wants to or not. The cash-to-cap philosophy is simply an internal method of accounting.
Everyone should re-read this post.
-
Are you sure that scoring is correct? If that was the case, then a score of 2 would show the same intelligence at a score of 10, just with some bad luck thrown in. I don't think that is how it works, since I've heard that '10' indicates basic literacy, and lower than that is indicative of something less.
Do they deduct points for wrong answers to discourage guessing, like on most standardized tests I know of?
The Wonderlic test is a 50 question multiple choice test given to every attendee at the Combine. Hence, if you could teach a parrot to say "A" 50 times, the parrot would theoretically score a 10 (random guessing = 1 out of 5). Tracy Porter, NO's best corner, scored a 4. That's about the most recent "low" on record. Last year, Tenn DT DeMonte Bolden got a 5.The rules for the DUMBEST TEAM comp are that the team that scores the most positional lows on the Wonderlic at the Combine gets the title. For years, that was always either the Cokes, Gators, or CrimiNoles, but times have changed, as the Cokes and CrimiNoles just aren't putting enough dummies at the combine to contend. Them Gators, however, are loaded this year.
Last year, in a shocker, LSU and Nevada tied with 2 each, Nevada actually having only two at the combine, a stunning 2 for 2 in dumbest player by position. LSU was one point away at OG, as Herman Johnson, the biggest OG at the combine, was one point shy from being also THE DUMBEST OG. Ray Feinga permanently stained BYU with a 12, edging Herman's 13.
Current 2010 Wonderlic Odds
1. Gators 3-1
2. LSU 4-1
3. University Somewhere in FLA 4-1 (you can't call it "South" Florida when it is in the NORTHERN HALF of the state of FloriDUH - Tampa is NOT in "south" FLA)
4. Onor Ul 7-1 (them Okies don't know how to spell Honor Roll)
Rest of Field 25-1
-
How can someone wear a U.S. Flag to Ralph Wilson Stadium, don't the Bills have that color scheme trademarked in their stadium? (Just being the Devil's Advocate.)
again, think about context.
The American flag is obviously not trying to capitalize on the Bills, so there is no problem.
If someone wanted to sell a shirt with the words "Let's go Buffalo" on it in the Bills colors, then it's obvious that he is trying to capitalize on the Bills. The NFL would have a case.
-
From what I understand, the brothers do have copyright rights on who dat, so hopefully the NFL loses, one issue is the color scheme though, I think the league owns the color scheme rights, so any shirts printed without NFL approval would have to modify their color scheme possibly, not sure how that works. I do know that the league has NO CLAIM on the fleur-di-lis, whatsoever.
It's all a matter of context. You're correct about the color scheme business.
Trademark issues are not blind to context. While the phrase "Who Dat" might be in the public domain, it is possible to trademark its use in the context of the New Orleans Saints. If someone is selling shirts in Saints colors outside the stadium, well I'd say the NFL has a case.
Here's an analogy: If your last name is McDonald, and you want to open a restaurant named "McDonald's", then you will probably be sued. You can argue that your family name existed well before the fast-food restaurant McDonald's opened, but it doesn't matter. McDonald's has the name trademarked in the restaurant business. You would be free to open an electronics store and call it McDonald's if you want, as long as there is no allusion of an association to the popular restaurant.
So, it doesn't matter that "Who Dat" may have existed before the Saints - the NFL has it with regard to the Saints.
Same goes for the Fleur-de-Lis. The NFL/Saints own the trademark with regard to the Saints, and any product that uses the fleur-de-lis in a context that alludes to the football team (in a judge's opinion) is probably infringing.
-
Patience grasshopper. We intentionally drafted a project DE with the #11 overall pick. He's not even supposed to be good for 3-4 more years. So relax, the plan is right on schedule!
I hope you're joking. It would be the worst value ever to pay that much money for only one or two useful seasons after a lengthy "project" period
-
nope uh. uh sorry, killing dogs is much worse
If he's only getting 30 days then there must be a mitigating circumstance.
-
I'm surprised they think Lee Evans is a better #2 receiver than Anquan Boldin. I'm not sure who is better, but it surprises me because Boldin is a much bigger name
-
I am sure lots of GMs round the league are pissed at Brandons precedent. Hold out for an offseason, you can get traded to a better team and make the money you want.
I don't think Russ set this precedent
Deion Branch?
Pete Kendall?
There are probably more that I can't think of right now
-
KC's theory might be outlandish, but he backs up everything he says with actual investigation
His theory will probably never be tested, and that's too bad, but his methods look sound to me.
-
Enough to make millions of dollars.
And Lynch did go to one of the best schools in the country. Supposedly, he got a 14 then improved to a 42. And McKelvin scored a 13 and 34, which is very respectable. http://potencial.wordpress.com/2008/03/23/...nderlic-scores/ But he talks different so he must be dumb. Classy.
I think you're reading the list wrong. The first number is the questions answered correctly, and the second number is the questions attempted.
-
A lousy year. Yup. Did you notice that he missed training camp? Think that might have something to do with it?
And every time somebody posts this same set of stats - I'd guess it's been done 175 times, but I might well have missed a hundred or so - I invite the person to post the same stats for the year before. Strangely, not one person has taken me up on that. So, I'll invite you, UBBULL, and the OP, THEDRIZZ, to get up the guts and the energy to post the same stats for 2007. Come on, if you have the stones.
Of course, I don't expect that you will, because that would show what Peters can do when he DOES go to training camp.
Why don't you actually read the last few sentences of my post before you huff and puff.
I'm not talking about Peters' previous years, or his future potential. I'm only talking about his 2008 stats.
Nor am I discussing the reasons why he had a bad year. His holdout probably had something to do with it. Regardless, that was not the subject of my post.
My only point was that the stats, while not official or precise, do have some meaning, and are not rendered completely useless by their lack of accuracy. In stating that they do track something, albeit with a large margin of error, I was supporting the idea that Peters had a sub-par year in 2008.
I have no idea where to find 2007 sack stats. I assume Peters' 2007 sack numbers are good, as it is universally accepted that he had a good year in 2007. If they somehow explain what kind of year Peters had in 2008, then I'd love to hear why.
-
Sure, the "stat" is imprecise, but that does not make it a matter of opinion. There may be some interpretation involved, but even if we add a reasonable margin of error, Peters still looks bad.
Let's be reasonably scientific here.
Say we assume the statistic is so imprecise that we give a margin of error + or - 3 sacks. Does that sound reasonable?
Now, the 15th ranked tackles gave up 4 sacks according to the chart. Peters gave up 11.5 according to the chart.
Given that big margin of error, even in the best case Peters still isn't in the top half.
I'm not one of the folks saying Peters is terrible. That's ridiculous.
But it's also ridiculous to deny that he had a lousy year. The stats may not be exact, but there is a such a huge gap that they can tell us he wasn't near the top of his position in 2008.
-
You're not exactly right. Just because he's playing somewhere else doesn't mean he wouldn't have his primary home in Florida and pay his taxes (or lack thereof there).
I got a friend in the Nats farm system and he says a lot of players on the east coast have homes in florida for this exact reason, but its for weekends and off season.
BUT, what you're forgetting is that professional athletes pay taxes in the towns/cities/states where they play. So yeah, if he played 8 games in FL compared to Buffalo, he wouldn't have to pay taxes on that, but the other 8 games could be potentially taxed in NY, FL, TX or AZ, depending on where they pay this week. At least that's how he explained it to me for baseball players.
It must get complicated, and I would understand why they'd get an accountant.
State income taxes are based on where the earner lives, not where he works, so they definitely don't need to pay taxes in all the random states that their teams visit.
This is all that I am sure about. I do no know how the whole "offseason home" thing works.
-
You're not clearing anything up, man, you're just confusing things.
1) You said "Cash to the cap is an organizational strategy, but it does not affect the way signing bonuses are counted." You're right and wrong about that. As the league calculates it, you're right. However, as the Bills calculate it, you're wrong there.
2) You said "It's a self-imposed limit." Absolutely right.
3) However, here's the point you missed. Teams operating in this way (cash-to-cap) are forced (yes, by their own self-imposed decision, but that's beside the point) to act in certain ways. Those ways to operate virtually guarantee that the teams will never even get close to the league-imposed salary cap limit. It just won't happen and therefore these teams don't have to worry about the salary cap. This is good. It's still there, but has no bearing on the team.
Essentially, they're not borrowing money against future promises to pay, so yeah, there's a limit to how much money you can borrow, but it doesn't come up for the guy who doesn't borrow anything.
I think you need to do some more thinking about what you wrote.
The notion that do not need to worry about the salary cap is ridiculous. Of course they don't need to worry about the salary cap - they only need to worry about their own "cap", which is even more restrictive.
Over a prolonged period, there is no advantage to cash-to-cap other than saving money
-
Not that I have any reason not to believe you, but I have yet to see this from a credible source. (Only posts on various message boards).
I know the NFL allows teams to amortize signing bonuses, but I have not seen a rule that forces teams to amortize the bonuses.
I am by no means an expert in the CBA, but I did not think the signing bonus language forced teams into amortization.
Roster bonuses are not amortized. A team could sign a player on April 1 and give a roster bonus of 6 mil on April 2. If a team was using cash-to-the-cap to avoid amortization, they could use roster bonuses rather than signing bonuses (if signing bonuses must be amortized).
I don't know how credible this guy is, but he seems to know what he is talking about http://www.askthecommish.com/salarycap/faq.asp
scroll down to question 1.7e
NFL networks coverage of Michael Sam
in The Stadium Wall Archives
Posted
This comment hits the nail on the head.