GaryPinC

Mike, First of all, thanks so much for these reports. Reporting the good, bad, and ugly PLUS explaining why seems so much beyond the recaps most of the other reporters provide. It's a fantastic resource for people like me who can't be there and besides, it's what I'm most interested in. Lee and Trent never seemed to hit it off from the moment Trent arrived and perhaps it influences things on the field.

Other than jettisoning our loser head coach, how do you think we're improved? Just because we added Spiller? What if he ends up getting pasted in the backfield the entire season? What if he can't grasp the offense in his rookie year or just straight up gets injured? We're still hoping like last year Bell can get it done at LT. Our line hasn't proven anything yet except that there is some talent there. Chances are, we're going to be running basic plays and there'll be lots of mistakes the first half of the year because we have an entire new offensive system and terminology in there. Getting the O-line to gel and work together as a unit takes time, especially considering many of the current projected starters missed significant time due to injury last year. We're hoping Gailey can put lipstick on a pig and make it work at quarterback. Sure, he has a history of being able to pull it off but I thought McNally could have done the same thing with our O-line. We won't know till we see it happen. We've switched our defensive system and are now trying to convert our DE's to outside linebackers. Other than Maybin (who has the size and speed to play out there, but can he play at all?), the rest completely scare me. We're also relying on a couple of draft picks to really help solidify our D-line. Stroud sounds about as happy to be converting to a 3-4 as Langston Walker was to be playing left tackle. I'm not confident we'll be any better against the run. Lastly, we've got an entire new coaching staff who will be turning almost the entire roster over the next couple of years to get "their" people in here. In my mind I think things are equivalent to last year when you factor in the new offensive and defensive systems. I hope to hell I'm wrong and they can contend for a playoff spot but can't realistically buy into that thinking. This year is about finding some hope and things looking up, 3-6 wins. I do think the guy in the article is a bit harsh throwing us at #31 but he could easily be right. Go easy on him.

I also suspect TE is not very good at accepting his fair share of the blame, but if he was strictly coached that way (which I can easily believe) why should he on this one? Where was Jauron in all this? He could have backed Trent up but challenged him to throw downfield more. Did he ever directly address this with the fans/media? Did he ever take responsibility for the crappy playcalling? No, he was all too content to say he's responsible without demonstrating accountability. He hung all his offensive coordinators out to dry with the fans and even the players, so why not his quarterback too? Personnally, I think Trent's done simply because he's too gun shy now but I am willing to give him another chance because of Dick Jauron's putrid offensive philosophy.

I don't think Kelly's throwing AVP under the bus. I think he's acknowledging that Jauron was an idiot managing the offense. It really didn't matter who the coordinator was, offense was strictly limited because of Jauron. Seems like Kelly only realized it sometime in 2010.

Your second-last sentence plays a large part in all this IMO. You've all heard the expression "running around like a chicken with its head cut off", well early in my career I got to witness this phenominon with rodents. While the bodies of these headless animals thrashed about and a couple actually looked like they were jumping around when set on a flat surface, all of this seemed to be a simple random and complete firing of stored nervous action potentials (impulses). It always seemed that once the brain was separated this happened almost immediately. I suspect something similar happens with the head involving jaw and eye muscles, but who knows. It would be interesting (though an inhumane experiment) to do EEG monitoring of decapitated heads and see if the electrograms are organized enough to be considered brain wave patterns or if they are just random firings. Never seen any data on that but it would certainly help answer this question. I suspect it's random firings in the decapitated head but who knows?

The fact that Jauron is not prohibiting his QB's from audibling out of bad plays, there will be a variety of motions and sets installed, hopefully more play action passes and screens, and the probability that Gailey has a sense how to orchestrate an offense (set up certain plays, etc) should keep the opposing defense from knowing what the Bills offense is going to run. This all should make a big difference IMO. Only bad news is that with the new system we will probably have to wait till mid-season before it's all installed and the offense can execute it properly.

They wouldn't have to worry about their legs because they'd have back problems.

great topic. Can't say I prefer just one beer though with so many great ones available. A partial list of my fondest: Most Belgian beers, these guys really know how to make good beer. Delerium tremens, Chimay, Duvel, etc. German Heffeweizens-Franziskaner, etc. Samuel Smith's Taddy Porter. It's from England but if it's not skunked it's simply the best porter IMO. Bell's Two-Hearted Ale (Kalamazoo, MI) -Probably the most unique pale ale I've ever had. Damn good too. Great Lakes Brewery here in Cleveland brews a fantastic Red for those who love hops called Nosferatu. Their Christmas ale is pretty good also.

I was wondering the same thing. Got to be their fault somehow.

Here, read this and be sure to check out his qualifications and that of the Doctor whose info he borrows: http://www.bodybuilding.com/fun/drsquat12.htm "Squats can be bad for your knees. Period. But they're good for everything else." "Among bodybuilders who have knee problems, however, squatting is the only culprit. In both cases, squatting properly can reduce, prevent or ameliorate many, many of the common knee problems inherent in sports. That they will make you a better bodybuilder or athlete is an unquestioned fact." While proper form is essential, even these guys acknowledge knee problems will still happen. Funny how they don't discuss lower back problems.

Thanks for all the good points. Sorry to hear about your back troubles. Once the damage is done it gets especially difficult because you'd like to strengthen the muscles to help support the frame but it's difficult to do without pain or further damaging your spine. In my 20's I used to work a job clearing trees and we had to hand carry 6-10 foot sections up to 12" in diameter over to the chipper for grinding. I'd put in an exhausting 10 hour day and then head to the gym to workout for a couple hours. Definitely lucky to have avoided troubles like yours.

You should be able to leg press almost twice as much as you squat because of the 45° angle of the machine. You're not working directly against gravity with the leg press. I will never argue that the squat is not a great all around exercise, simply that it can be hard on your back and knees and there are alternatives. Leg press, abducter and adducter leg machine, leg curls, leg extensions, back extensions, and sit-ups when done together can all be a pretty good substitue for squat without putting as much strain on your back in particular. I did find one paper that compared squat vs leg press by recording electrical activity (EMG) at selected muscles of the leg and lower back. Realize that this paper has a number of major shortfalls. Besides being poorly written and the data poorly explained/presented, they failed to account for the fact that the leg muscles were doing much less work at the leg press because they failed to increase the weight to account for the angle of the machine. Also, their standard deviations are monstrous, in the normal group some SDs are larger than the mean! How the hell they claim some of their P values is beyond me, I can tell you as someone who works as a researcher that when your standard deviations overlap the means of your comparitor groups there is no statistical significance unless you're manipulating your data. Bottom line is that even though they show substantial differences between squat and leg press the huge variability in the data means there may be little or no difference between any of them. Anyways, my point is that this paper does show that squat works the muscle more than leg press, but that leg press does work many of the same muscles as squat, including the gluts and lower back muscles. If they had weight compensated the leg press machine I would bet that those EMG #s would be much higher. Here's a link to the paper: http://www.med.und.edu/depts/pt/PT%20Websi...ressvsSquat.htm And here's another site where this woman does a decent job of comparing squat and leg press and also suggesting leg press + partial deadlifts as a squat substitute which I thought was an interesting idea. http://www.bodybuilding.com/fun/shannon1.htm BTW, I played soccer until sophmore year of high school. I weighed around 185 pounds but everyone thought I weighed 135 because I had no upper body. I made the switch to football and started weight lifting for the first time. Our lifting coach grouped us according to how much weight we could lift. Pretty quickly I was squatting with the linemen, but all my upper body work was with the younger quarterbacks/receivers. Took me most of the way through college to correct that imbalance.

My point of my lengthy post is that squats CAN be very bad for the knees and back even when using good form. I didn't say it had to be so, simply that it depends on a number of factors, some of which I discussed in my lengthy post. If you refuse to recognize that variations in the inflammatory pathways, bones, cartilage, tendons, ligaments, or overall joint structure will not allow some healthy people to properly perform this lift without incurring injury, I'm sorry I find that ignorant.

There's no debate, I agree with you completely and they're all very good points. My attitude about machines is that they're a great finisher after a free weight workout. But no matter how conservative or how much prep work you do, you can look at a given lift and find someone whose body can't handle the movement involved very well.

Incredibly ignorant statement. Just to clarify, I greatly prefer free weights to work out. I do believe in doing core exercises such as bench and squat. I was also strictly taught form and always being in control of the weights, 1003 count on the negatives, explode through the positives, never lock out knees and elbows. I had proper depth of squats hammered into me. I don't worry about the weight, I simply worry about form, control, and high intensity. Increases in weight or reps then take care of themselves. Putting hundreds of pounds on your back has the potential to be VERY bad for your back, knees. Oh, I know. With proper form your back is fine. Maybe, maybe not. Even with perfect form, you are still compressing your vertebrae, because that's what happens when your body physically has to support hundreds of pounds to allow your muscles to exercise. After you're done maybe your spine decompresses on it's own. Maybe it doesn't. If it doesn't, you've just increased your chances at a pinched nerve or herniated disc. And maybe you don't injure it while squatting but it weakens the area and then you injure it the next day doing something completely different. There are 2 components to weight lifting: the ability of your muscles to lift the weight, and the ability of your bones, joints, tendons, and ligaments to handle the load of the weight. And as you get older, (I'm 40) there's this little thing called inflammation that you scarcely knew existed in your teens and 20's starts to creep in to your joints even with perfect form . Also, your cartiliage can wear down, your tendons and ligaments lose some strength and elasticity. I still squat, but if I've not done it awhile I need to do leg extensions, leg curls, and leg press to make sure I can handle the weight and the movement without injuring something or overstretching my ligaments. Just as an example, I gave up deadlifting at the end of high school. I am 6'2" and have fairly long legs but arms are not that long. While deadlifting, the bar was always knocking my knees on the way up. Taking an extra wide stance to clear the bar hurt my knee joint, leaning out a little farther hurt my back. Ended up leaning out a little farther but decided to give the lift up. Shorter guys who don't have to bend their knees as much probably never have this issue. Everyone is constructed differently. I mean alignment of muscles, joints, tendons, ligaments, nerves can all have subtle alignment differences which can influence the ability to perform a lift (even with perfect form). The length of the arms, legs, the way someone stands, all of this. There is more than one way to skin a cat. While I agree that core lifts are best, some people's bodies can't handle certain types of lifts even when using perfect form. If that's the case you adjust for core lifts with a series of isolated ones that try to hit all the same muscle groups (and don't completely make up for a good core lift like a squat) but save wear and tear and increase your strength. That's the crux of Ross Tucker's article (tailoring the workout to the individual) and I obviously agree with him. Those who believe that squats won't or can't hurt your back/knees, well that might be true for some of you but the rest will see the truth in time. As for Allaire's crew, I can allow them to substitue core lifts for a series of others to save wear and tear on the back, knees, elbows. It's completely unacceptable that they'd allow the players to cheat their workouts.

"Some guys haven't squatted since they left college," Whitner said. "My max was 405 [pounds] and that was three or four reps and I haven't done that since college. The way that they do it, you're not skipping a rep. They stand there and watch you. Every rep that you take they tell you what to put on there and if you can't do it, you go down a little." I think this last part of the quote bothers me more. Without getting into a philosophical debate, squatting and cleans can be hard on the back and knees. There are alternatives, such as leg press, and some S&T coaches may prefer to utilize alternatives. Regardless of what exercises the players are told to do, Donte's quote implies that the S&T coaches really didn't keep tabs on the QUALITY of the player's workouts and that is simply unacceptable.

tomtraubersblues, no worries. I am neither a physician nor a med student/resident. I don't work directly in the medical profession, I am certainly not a genius and there are countless other people who know more about medicine than I do. You, however, are not one of them. Not by a long shot. Best of luck with your quest to dispense medical knowledge, unfortunately I won't be taking you up on your offer.

Toradol is an NSAID. "ANSAID" is the trade name of flurbiprofin, also an NSAID. http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=...em4LHmWLTxRoULQ Various internet sources cite renal colic pain as originating in the lateral, upper middle back and eminating anteriorly to the groin area. Can't see how an ER doc would confuse severe stomach cramps with this type of pain and diagnose kidney stones.

Toradol and the other NSAIDS are indeed painkillers. I've heard toradol is especially effective for deep bone pain but haven't seen any hard evidence (haven't really looked either). NSAIDS basically block prostaglandin synthesis which will reduce fever, pain perception and inflammation. In certain situations it can be more effective pain management than lower dose ranges of morphine. It has some pretty significant GI side effects (much more than ibuprofin) and generally is not used for more than 5 days. The rest of what you and birddog1960 said is correct. And I agree that the article sounds suspicious. On the other hand, I wouldn't expect most football players to have a firm knowledge of all these drugs and maybe he's confused about the names but the rest of the article may have some merit. Who knows.

I kind of wonder if Brohm is more devoted to partying and trying to hook up with hot chicks than becoming a starting NFL quarterback.

Great analysis Gabe. It certainly worries me, but on the whole I thought they had a decent draft for 2009. Even with the Maybin pick. At a minimum they managed to draft 2 promising O-lineman and a safety who showed it in their rookie year. Shawn Nelson, Nic Harris, and Lankster may be solid players also. But given the ineptitude of this franchise to draft decent linemen over the last 8 years or so, I have to admit getting Wood and Levitre have at least given me hope our current talent evaluators (with Buddy) may actually be able to do their jobs properly.

Because it has a low addiction potential.

Most laws are regulatory behavior legislation. Murder is illegal, yet people do it everyday. Does this mean the law doesn't work and that it's ineffective? Laws aren't solely meant to prevent behaviors.

Well, I never been stoned and will never willingly get stoned. Been known to get drunk, especially in my 20's but generally I prefer dealing with reality. Getting laid is certainly more challenging because I have two young children and the wife and I both work, but I'll go get right on that. Thanks for your suggestions. Please feel free to escape into your pot-induced stupor since you must be incapable of facing the real world without it.

Marijuana is illegal because it is addictive and a psychoactive (mind altering) drug. That gives it a high abuse potential and lands it on the DEA's list of scheduled drugs. Since it has no accepted medical use that lands it in the schedule I category. Look, I don't mind or care if you or anyone else enjoys smoking pot regularly. That's your business, and that's fine with me. But when people want to characterize marijuana as "harmless" and that it should be legalized because so many people have tried it, well that's just plain ignorant. I have never done it, would never do it and I know many people who are the same way. I also know many people who have tried it (like my wife for one) and would never do it again. And having known a couple of intelligent people in high school who got addicted to it and threw their life in the crapper because of it, I will certainly step forward to voice my opinion when all the pot smokers try and pretend it's harmless. You can do what you want, but this is a forum on opinions and now you know mine. I fully realize marijuana has a great tox profile but that does not make it "harmless" and meriting legalization. BTW, I am not a socialist and am not a proponnent of socialized medicine.