Mickey

Because the challenge and the fun is in building a team. That team is built and needs only some yearly tweaking. He can't be a mover and a shaker in the draft or in free agency. Its actually kind of ho-hum for a GM in his position. Its like playing chess. He won in Indy, match over. Time to clear the board, set 'em up and play another one. I can dream can't I?

With those guys in place, we could stop the run but even with him, we were still vulberable to a good passing attack, especially two minute offenses. We were unable to generate a pass rush even against just 5 blockers with only 4 down lineman against the better teams. To get pressure, we had to send extra bodies, usually Molloy, and that can leave you naked in the secondary. The ability to stop the run and the patsy loaded schedule we played last year covered up that defensive weakness though it showed on occasion such as in the opener against J'ville. Just about every good defense in this league starts with a top pass rusher on the right side or with a wrecking crew type of DT. Adams and Williams were solid on the run but not so great getting in the backfield and our DE's are so mediocre it is depressing. It was only a matter of time before that weakness was exposed.

I don't think the problem with this team is Sam Adams being a jerk. Missing tackles, not being able to handle a stunt, blown coverages and the inability to generate a pass rush without having to send in 9 guys is our problem. Bruce Smith was a jerk and Thurman could be a real moody SOB. Reed and Kelly could be creeps often enough. Being a good player, one who makes plays, and being a nice guy are not the same. Its nice when being a good guy and a good player go hand in hand but it isn't necessary. For my money, if I want character I'll cheer on a Boy Scout troop and the next jamboree. I want wins and I don't care if it takes a squad of Conrad Doblers to get them.

I think there is a lot less risk in signing a good but not great player like Jonas Jennings than there is in trying to find a diamond in the rough in the draft. That really is why they command the free agent money they do, they are a known quantity. You know you are not getting a dud.

The thing is though, we didn't avoid overpaying for players by letting Jonas Jennings go or Pat Williams. Every penny we are paying their replacements is a waste given their lack of production. The question is, do you want to pay $150 for a $125 player or $75 for a $5 player? Back in the day, guys like Talley and Metzalaars were the Pat Williamses and Jonas Jenningses of their time. They were good, not great but you had to have them to win.

I think we should try and hire back Bill Polian. He likes a challenge and that is what we are right now, a real challenge.

I guess you get to vote if you are an honest to goodness Iraqi and if you are a "potential Iraqi".

TD is not the worst GM in NFL history or even in Bills history nor does he walk on water or crap solid gold bricks. What you get with TD is a healthy salary cap and an occasionally competitive team. His first year was a wash given the state of the team he inherited. In the 4 seasons since, we have been terrible twice and competitive twice (8-8 and 9-7). Our cap looks pretty good, outstanding given where we started. Unfortunately, they don't give championship rings to the team with the tidiest balance sheet. TD has loads of resolve when it comes to refusing to overpay for players. He won't pay top 5 money for a top 10 player nor will he pay top 20 numbers to a top 30 player. That kind of resolve, even if it means losing a solid and popular player like Pat Williams, is rare in this league. Because of TD's resolve, we have not paid "A" level salaries and bonuses to "B" level players. That keeps our salary cap situation pretty healthy. The problem is that it does cause you to lose good football players. Winfield was a good player. Pat Williams was a good player. So was Jonas Jennings. You may get better on the ledger losing players like that but you do not get better on the field. If you want to do better than to be marginally competitive every couple of years or so, you have to find a way to hang on to good players. Yeah, it stinks having to over-pay a guy like Jennings but isn't it worth it to actually win some games? What is worse, paying an A level salary to a B player like Jennings or paying a B salary to D level player like Gandy or Anderson? I'd rather overpay and win than overpay and lose. In any event, that is the TD strategy, don't overpay and stay healthy on the cap so that if a Takeo Spikes comes along, you can sign him. In the meantime, hope you can find diamonds in the rough to replace players like Winfield, Jennings and Willams. I think that time has shown that TD's strategy will not get you a championship but will get you a competitive team every so often. I'm not satisfied with being occasionally competitive. Time for TD to go and his coach with him. Is Lou Saban still alive?

That is because you are relying on the traditional sports media whose liberal bias motivates them to suppress all the good news about all the progress the team is making. They only focus on irrelevant details like winning and losing. The team's economy, its salary cap scheme, is in great shape but you never hear anything about that, just a bunch of weeping about running for only 3 yards per half. Bills=bad.

I guess you were so excited to get off that snarky reply that you didn't have time to capitalize first word of the sentence.

Our line is completely mystified by even the most basic stunts. The result is that they get unblocked lineman through to JP rushing only 4-5 so that they do not have to give up anything in coverage.

Which perspective would that be? Our 4-9 record or their 8-5 record?

Actually, when she was first gunning to be the Prime Minister, she made quite a few people shudder herself. She proved them wrong.

A top pick like that and making millions and he can't beat out a converted TE 7th round nobody at RT nor a journeyman LG who leads the team in holding calls. Yeah, I think he qualifies as a bust. No fire in the belly.

I think you could substitute "AQ" for "Japan" but I'm not sure it works as well by substituting "Iraq".

Whatever else the Act might have been, it was not a declaration of war nor an authorization for an invasion. The bottom line is that either Iraq was a threat to us enough to warrant a pre-emptive invasion and the whole mess that came with that or it wasn't. I don't care if that Act mandated invasion of Iraq or forbid it. The key is the degreee to which it was a threat in comparison to the cost, not some paper and ink. If it was not, then the war won't be defensible by pointing to this Act or anything else. If it was, then it really doesn't matter what it said or meant.

Signing treaties doesn't mean much, getting them ratified is the trick and NAFTA, for good or ill, would not have passed without Clinton's support.

OTR was, it seemed to me, incredulous over Dean's claim, as if the notion that the majority of Iraqi's at this point do no want our troops in their country is total nonsense. I don't know whether the poll was sound or not but certainly, Dean's claim is not the far fetched, couldn't possibly be true nonsense OTR thought it was. Certainly the rest is all debatable. Maybe they wanted us then and don't want us there now. I was sacrificing subtlety for clarity as to the main point. The whole issue of whether we have any support for continuing to be there and what that determination would mean for our policy in Iraq is a pretty complex one. The one exit strategy that might allow us to leave without it being claimed that we were defeated and without having wiped out the insurgency is for the Iraqi people and their government to order/ask us to leave.

I don't have the security clearance to argue with you. That and I'm too effin lazy.

I don't think "right" and "wrong" are the issue in this particular case. If the Iraqi people want us there, we can fairly claim to be "liberators" if the Iraqi people do not want us there, we are "invaders". Whether or not it is "right" for us to be there regardless of what the Iraqi's think for our own reasons such as our national security is another issue entirely. As for the issue at hand, ie, Dean claiming that 80% of Iraqis do not want us there and OTR's questioning of that position, the cited poll is perfectly relevant, decisive even. That doesn't mean that Dean's conclusions based on that finding are sound, just that he is apparently right as to the fact that was placed in question.

Good to have you back. Our strength is gaining. Soon, all will be ours.

Its a progression. First, Dean is wrong because he cited no facts for his claim, then Murtha is Dean, then the poll backing up Dean is wrong. Next, you and I are wrong or partisans or both for pointing any of that out. I smell a Jimmy Carter or Berkley radical reference coming. Maybe regression would be a better description than progression?

Sudoku champs they aren't.

Sir, it is an honor to irritate you.

Gotta love technology. Chalk one up for the geeks.