Mickey

Ummm....you do realize that the players aren't asking for a raise, right? The owners are asking to reduce their take and are justifying it with the claim that the league isn't doing well. The players, whose own salaries are publicly known so that losers making a hundred times less can B word and moan about how overpaid they are, have simply asked the owners to prove their claim by opening the books. In relation to what they are worth, they are not being paid a "kings ransom", they aren't even getting what the market would bear because they aren't free to sign with whoever wants to pay them the most. The league is playing with fire. If the union decertifies, the players then would have standing to go to court and try their hand at an anti-trust suit. That could end football as we know it and would certainly be the end of marginal franchises like the Bills.

What isn't alwasy considered in these discusions is the effect it would have if the NFLPA decided to decertify itself. No discussion of the strenght of each sides bargaining position is compete without an analysis of the effect of decertification. Doing so would clear the way for an anti-trust suit against he league if it then tried to impose league wide rules governing player retention, salaries and free agency. The league would almost have to do just that in order for it to continue to operate. A lockout would also trigger an anti-trust suit if the Union is decertified. I am not sure what you mean by the "harsh" position the NFLPA has taken. I think their position is simple, the league claims they need to change things to remain financially viable and the union has said, "fine, if thats true we will work something out but first show us your books so we know it really is a problem." The league has refused. On the other side, we know all there is to know about the Union's financial situation, right to the penny. It may be that the players do need to take a smaller cut but I am not willing to believe that on faith. No way. The Saints have already took a vote and it was unanimous to decertify. I hope they are bluffing.

Once again, a reference to female anatomy is the go-to metaphor for weakness. I don't know about the women in your life but the women in mine are as strong as anyone I know. Some of them are looking over my shoulder right now, encouraging me to write this. But it was my idea, really it was. Seriously, I am sure you aren't a misogynist so I wanted to point out that you sound like one.

And if that is not clear enough, no newton, no, newton, for the love of god, no newton, not a fig newton, not an everything thats old is newton, not Sir Isaac Newton, not NEWton Gingrich, not Wayne Newton and not even Becki, Heather or Anita Newton. No &(#*&$(#&$()&)& newtons of any kind, none at all, zero, zip, nada, zilch, zed-zed, and I would go so far as to say: I would not pick Newton in a box. I would not pick him with a fox. I would not pick him in a house. I would not pick him with a mouse. I would not pick him here or there. I would not pick him anywhere. I do not like Newton, Cam. I do not like him, Chan I am.

Perhaps, just perhaps, there is a small, eensy-weensy, tiny-whiney chance that we are over reacting. I know that is a rare thing around here but maybe just this once we are getting a wee-bit carried away.

Soemtimes that can be proven by bac level. Based on height and weight, experts can extrapolate back to what the bac level would have been at the time of purchase. A jury can infer that a person must have exhibited clear signs of intoxication at the time they were served additional alcohol based on the likely bac level at the time...or so I've heard.

I think that Poz draws a lot of fire because of the expectation that he would be a playmaker, the kind of linebacker other teams scheme around. Whatever he may be, he isn't a playmaker. Williams may have weaknesses, no doubt he does. But he also makes some plays now and again. That is in such short supply with this defense that he sort of sticks out more than he would on teams with more talent. In this league, you have to stop the run and you have to be able to rush the passer. We can't do either. That has to mean we need more talent at DE, DT and at LB, especially OLB because that is where the sacks come from and those are the guys who stop the run. I would have thought Kelsay was a goner but then they extended him. I confess that I have no idea why on earth they did that.

I am not sold on Bell at all. He got beat on the play that resulted in the fumble. I think Chan has come up with an offense tailored to cover up the OL weakness. Bell is serviceable against average DE's but struggles mightily against anyone with any talent. The thing is, if you are trying to get to the playoffs and win a championship, you are going to face some top notch DE's in critical games. This is not a weakness that can be covered up for long. Our ability to advance in the post season would be seriously hampered if we have a LT that gets beat regularly when up against top DE's. Unfortunately, the defense is in such dire need of help that I don't know that they can afford to use early picks at LT or QB. I think there is a good chance they are going to go after defensive players and hope that Bell will keep improving along with Wang and some other young guys on offense. Fitz is getting it done at QB, lord knows how but he is. I don't envy Chan on that one, sticking with Fitz or drafting a QB high. I trust him to make that decision but there is a little voice whispering in my ear saying "...but Chan is the guy who decided that Trent was better than Fitz...."

I like Stevie and if he keeps playing this way, he will be high on the list of people to hang on to. At the same time, Lee Evans is a very, very good receiver who had the great misfortune of having to play on a team coached by Dick Jauron during the prime of his career. I don't see why this is an either/or situation. They are both good players and, at least for now, it looks like we have a pretty decent corps of recievers. At least that is one place where we don't have to spend draft picks.

There are ways to encourage violence without directly advocating that someone take a bat to someone else's head. Denigrating a group of people who historically have been the subject of harrassment and violence and to do so using the same language used by those who have harmed them, won't help in trying to get rid of that kind of violence. CJ's mistake was a small one and not a big deal but it was a mistake. It was a public comment, not a private one. White people have not historically been the subject of such violence simply because they are white so I don't think the situation is the same. However you feel about gay rights, the fact is, they can't get married, in most places they can be legally fired from their jobs simply because they are gay. There are people who will, if given the chance, use violence against them. The situation is not the same. CJ made a minor mistake, he said he was sorry, game over. Its just what happens in my family when my kids say something over the line. Its what civil human beings do. And if political correctness means that we are more respectful of people who historically have been treated abominably, then I am okay with that.

You just move on? Well I gues you are just a lot braver and stronger than gay people and other minorities. I am sure you have been subjected to the same kind of constant harassment and violence that they have. I suppose you would prefer that they should just take their beatings in silence rather than speak out when a public figure uses the same language of those who harm them. People have the right to say what they want in this country, even bigots. But the rest of us have the right to use our free speech to express what we think about what they say and do. No one is saying that you can't use any word you want, but the Constitution doesnt give you a free pass when it comes to what the rest of us think or say in response. There are consequences to using your free speech to express bigotry. When people talk about diversity, they are talking about people of different faiths, political beliefs, races, sexual orientations, gender, etc. Do you really think that its inconsistent to be respectful of that kind of diversity and not be respectful of bigotry at the same time? False equivalency at its finest.

Whoa, such hate. I don't understand why you would hope for someone to fail. He tried his best and he didn't make it which is the fate of the vast majority of college QB's who ever dreamt of NFL stardom. I wish him all the best, he gave it all he had.

He is not good at that either. And he really isn't all that fast. OT's have handled him with ease when he tries a speed rush from the outside, wether he was coming from the DE position with his hand on the ground or as an OLB blitzing.

The line did well but I think that Gailey called a great game that took advantage of Baltimore's rush. Fitz identified the one on one coverage even before the snap so that he took a short drop and *zip*, the ball was gone. We even exectued some quick slants, a play you have to have against a defense like that. The line wasn't asked to hold off that rush for very long. Credit Gailey for coming up with a game plan that didn't ask too much of our weak line, Fitz for executing it as well as he did and the line for doing what they were asked to do and then some. I think in the future, now that we have shown that we can take advantage of a gambling defense, we should see less of it and more of 2 deep coverage. That will ease the pressure on the line somewhat but make it a lot harder for Fitz to find an open man. What the line really did well on was not getting blown up at the snap or missing an assignment so that a guy gets in untouched. Even on a quick slant, as fast as the QB gets rid of the ball, a blown assignment will shut down the play. We have had that happen over and over, guys coming in unblocked from the outside and the interior guys barely slowing a guy down. Execept for the win, and thats a big "except", there was a lot to be happy about with regard to the line. We will all miss Cornell Green, I'm sure. Gailey will have to tell him "hold back the tears little soldier, we'll always have Paris."

Its great to see you excited old man. I agree with all of that but I will quibble with your take on Steve Johnson and Spiller. I like them both. They are both going to just get better and better. You didn't mention Freddie who I think is just about the best "find" this team has come up with since Steve Tasker.

Fitz also finds guys who are open even if they aren't the first read. Johnson said in the post game that he wasn't the first option on his TD. Fitz is smart QB, no doubt, sure is tough enough too. Just seems that every so often, he throws some balls that just have you scratching your head. If he can reduce those to a more manageable level, he could be our guy. I remember when the Chargers drafted Rivers and then Brees had a great year when Rivers held out and the Chargers had a very hard decision to make. Maybe we are going to get lucky and find our guy before we take a top QB in the draft. Maybe. Jeez, that would be sweet. And we are overdue, loooooong overdue for some luck. Amen to that. A loss sux but I gotta say, that was worth watching, I practically bit my nails down to the knuckles and gave the kids a permature lesson in the artful use of obscene language.

This one hurts but after the dust settles and the tears dry, gotta like the game plan Gailey came up with, on the road against a premier defense. Fitz and Johnson played their fannies off today.

its not a bad idea, its just unrealistic for fans to think that they could do it in one year

There is nothing wrong with America. Screeds like this are sort of a less insane version of "the end is near" or "the sky is falling" notion that things are just so, so, so bad. America is not perfect and no one, least of all me, can solve all of its problems with perfection. One thing is for sure though, a single, overall, one size fits all diagnosis of everything that is wrong with America is no answer at all. It is however, a simplification that appeals to those who earnestly want things to be better but lack the time and the ability to get down to the nitty gritty of each individual problem and try to solve it. Problems are complex things, if they were easy to diagnose and solve, we would have done it. There is certainly an element of the past being better than the present in this kind of thinking. Of course, the good things about the past stick out and the bad things are forgotten so that the past always wins out over the present. I for one think we live in an age of wonders and that there very likely has not been a better time in all of our history to be an American. Getting tougher is an idea which is pretty timeless, it always sounds so good, especially if the counterpart to the "tough" solution is a "weak" solution. But I would argue that the real counterpart to tough is not weakness (or the sexist version of it "pussification") the counterpart to tough is compassionate. One can be strong and empathetic, one can be strong and sympathetic, one can be strong and compassionate. On a side note, as for the sexist thing, I understand that nothing sexist at all was meant by the poster. However "kitty" is slang for female genitalia and has, for many years, been used by men, including me frankly, as a go to metaphor for weakness. But half the population has one of those and I don't know about the women you guys know but the women I know are not weak at all. Quite the contrary. Though unintentional, it does send the message that women are weak, so weak in fact that being compared to one or even part of one, is the ultimate insult for a man. It is an insult though here I am sure it's not meant as one. It is a relic of the past when such sexism was so universal that it was hardly noticed. Maybe, like terms such as "groovy", "daddy-o" and "23 skidoo", its time to send "kitty" into retirement. I suggest that if you really want a metaphor for weakness, the Bills run defense, as in "weak as", would do the trick pretty well, at least around here. Agreed, the only time I have ever spanked my kids was on safety issues where getting through to them could't wait, where a very strong message had to be sent and in a hurry. There are better was to teach kids but sometimes there simply isn't the time to do that. I was at a bonfire once and all the kids were going to the woods near by to get stick and then running back to the fire and throwing the sticks in. This was in the dark with wood and other debris from setting up the fire was strewn all over the lawn. I saw two kids trip and fall on their faces while running towards that fire and were just lucky that they fell short of the flames. I didn't have kids then but I listened to these parents trying to explain the danger to 5 year olds and it was a lost cause. A whack on the fanny would have stopped that crap right away. I couldn't stand it anymore and played catcher in the rye the rest of the night positioning myself between those kids and fire. By the way, trust me on this one, drinking and bonfires don't mix.

Normally I would agree but I think that a franchise QB vs. a serviceable OT is a lot harder to find. Hopefully, this is the only year for a long time we are going to be drafting that high so I think we should use it to get a QB. I am very, very worried about Modrak making the pick though. At this point, I would trust Mel freaking Kiper's opinions on talent over Modrak. That pick will be the most important pick this franchise has made in years. They need to get it right. I think Mallet is probably the guy I would go with if the draft were held today. Yeah he is a statue but so was Montana, Kelly, Marino, Rothlesberger, Payton and Eli and on and on. A big guy who sees the feel, throws rockets and can make a throw without all hell breaking loose around him may be just what we need. He doesn't need to run a 4.5 40, he just needs to be able to keep his eyes down field and feel the rush enough to make that step or two one way or the other that buys him that extra second. I want someone who is emotionally tough, who can take a beating and keep on fighting. I think in the pre draft interviews we should sucker punch each QB candidate and any one who says "what did you do that for?" we eliminate and bump any guy who comes up swinging and mad as hell to the top of the list. I am tired of guys who are "students of the game" and who think they can be an all pro by spending more time watching films. I want a guy who doesn't care what defense you are running, doesn't care who is covering who and doesn't give a damn how many guys are blitzing, a guy who believes in his gut he is going to beat you no matter what you are doing. It aint all X's and O's.

I disagree, CJ is running behind a terrible line. I have seen enough of what he can do with a crack of daylight to be sure he is the real deal. I recall OJ struggling until a decent line was finally assembled. Yeah, I'm that old. Every year people hear abouts go on and on about trading down as if doing so is simply a matter of choosing that option at the buffet. You need a trading partner. There are always, always more teams that want to trade down than teams who want to trade up. We have no idea if that option was open to them so getting on their case for not doing it is just pure guesswork. This is a team that hardly had a player worthy of being an NFL starter anywhere on offense. On defense, switching to a 3-4 requires a complete overhaul of your defensive roster to get the people with the right skill set to thrive in 3-4. That is way more than can be accomplished in a single off season. In retrospect, we would have been better off going with the 4-3, at least in the short term. They bit off more than they could chew. Instead of a 2 year rebuild, we are probably looking at 3-4.

I am more likley to see Brady Quinn on Dancing with the Hasbeens than starting for an NFL team. He gets my vote for "NFL Quarterback Most Likely to be Selling Insurance" next year.

I disagree, the man is on death's door and you can't take money with you. I think he wants a championship before he dies. We are essentially spending our cap limit now so its not about how much Ralph will spend, he is all ready spending as much as the rules allow. The sad thing about Ralph isn't that he is too cheap to build a winner, its that he has a poor record of hiring GM's and coaches.

One of the things that makes the 3-4 work is you don't know where the pressure is going to come from. If Kelsay can't cover and always has to rush the passer, something he doesn't do very well at all, then our defense is hamstrung. If we are going to stick with the 3-4, Kelsay has eventually got to go. We can't turn over the whole defensive roster in one year but eventually, we need to fill it with players who the right skill set for the 3-4.

We need players who can play, not a pack of boy scouts.