Dan

Actually, I haven't. Just looked into it though and looks like a great read. Thanks! Just spent the day calling friends around the country (in between work calls), getting the preseason trash talking going. Low but the Fin fans are truly delusional.

Yeah... what he^ said!

Can it be that I have survived? I awoke this morning to see a plethora of fresh articles on TBD. And like the relief of weary traveler emerging from a desert to see an oasis of hope within reach, I gazed upon TBD glistening with anticipation. Yes, the offseason is long. But, the season now sparkles on the horizon. Training camp starts tomorrow. HOF is within a couple of weeks. I have coffee in hand and the seed of hope in my heart. Yes, today is a good day because I know tomorrow will be better. Go Bills!

I understand what you're trying to say, but this is a completely different scenario. He didn't make a bad decision and then have some bad luck. He made a multitude of conscious decisions to live a dual life of organized crime. Granted, maybe not on the level of the mafia. But, organized criminal activity for years, none the less. Sure we've all done some dumb things in our lives and hope for forgiveness. But, I'd say Vick's transgressions are a little more deliberate and, therefore, a little harder for some to forgive. Don't get me wrong; I'm not trying to judge or forgive him. I figure that's for someone other than me. I'm just trying to wrap my brain around what's best for a silly little sport like football.

Good find. I hadn't recalled all those details. That certainly changes my opinion somewhat; to see that the league actually said he was suspended indefinitely and they would revisit at the end of his legal proceedings (i.e. jail sentence). I'm still not sure I like the idea of jail time being considered as part of your suspension. As others have suggested, I view a suspension as being barred from the game when you're legally and physically capable of playing. Otherwise, it's kinda like taking the easy way out. You mentioned the perception earlier and as I see it, the perception is he hasn't been suspended, he's been in jail. That may not be reality, I agree. So, if you're in the hot seat how do you reconcile that perception with the reality? IMO, you give him a year. I see it kinda like the Pats*. The reality is Goodell gave out the biggest fine he had ever given out when they cheated. The perception, however, is that he coddled them and brushed it off (at least in this fan's mind). A 4 game suspension for the coach, IMO, would have helped to balance the perception to the reality a little more. I know Vick probably should be cleared to play again, whether it be this year or next. But, I really don't envy Goodell in this situation. He's going to be crucified by all sorts of activist groups the moment he's reinstated regardless of the time frame. On the other hand, if he doesn't reinstate, he probably gets the NFLPA coming down on him.

Well, there ya go again. Ruining perfectly good baseless discussions with facts. Thaaanks. I'll still contend that I think Vick deserves more than 4 games, but I'll withdraw my "Goodell is a tool" statements for the time being.

Very good points. But, the NFL is completely different from the court system. Remove the prison sentence for a second, how many players are suspended with no jail time? They plead, the court gives them community service, yet the league determines their behavior warrants more than just community service - it deserves multiple games suspension. So, in this case, the league has only decided the behavior is worth an additional 4 games. At least that's how I see it. I thought the Falcons cut him or suspended him and went after his pay? Not so much a league action, but a team action. I could easily be wrong though. Yeah, huge assumption any of us - myself included - read the article. Personally, I try to read as little as possible.

I agree, Goodell has to deal with facts and real world scenarios. But I still don't see how you can argue that he's been suspended from the league for the past 2 years. The league didn't suspend him at all. They routinely said it was a mute point to discuss because he was in jail. OK, my initial analogy was poor. Let's say, Vick took it to trial. And spent the last two years fighting it in court. He wouldn't have been able to play because he would be too busy in court. Yesterday, the judge declares mistrial. Do you allow Vick to play tomorrow? Maybe that's bad ananlogy. I don't know. My point is, at some point the league needs to acknowledge what he did and dish out an appropriate punishment. If you're giving other guys 4 weeks for misdemeanor drug charges, how can you call this fair? Are they going to say, we think he's been punished enough? What is the perception of that statement?

So, if Vick didn't do any jail time, but decided to take a year off and tour Europe, does that still count as suspension? The league has repeatedly said they don't have to comment on any possible suspension for Vick because he's in jail and it's a mute point. If the jail time was part of his suspension, why didn't they say he's currently serving a 2 year suspension? Fact is, Goodell dodged the issue for 2+ years and now hands down a "slap on the wrist" punishment.

Yes. IMO, Vick's crimes are quite a bit more serious than being caught with some weed or starting fights in strip joints. To put his suspension in that same ball park is to trivialize what he did.

Agreed. How can you possibly say you're being fair and instilling discipline to the league if a convicted felon, engaged in racketeering only gets a 4 game suspension? I really don't see how a year wouldn't be the minimum. Pacman's gotta be thinking WTF right about now. I was going to post it in the other thread, but thought it absurd, then someone mentioned it here; I can only imagine the Pats*, Skins, or Cowboys must be interested in signing him. Wow is all I can say. Wow.

That's my question. Let's just say, for the sake of the argument, Trent has a great 1st half to the season. TO is on his way to 10+ TDs, so is Lee. Our record is 5-3ish, and Trent is largely responsible for those wins (ie the offense is clicking pretty good). What would be an appropriate price for Trent? Cassell money? Eli money, whatever that is? Honestly, I haven't given it a second's thought other than to post the question here. So I have no idea. Doesn't he have another year on his contract? If so, would it be wiser to see how he does over the course of a full season?

Yeah, that's why I was thinking non-contact type participation. I guess they could still get hurt standing on the sideline or something. And certainly, there's only so much meeting room/book learning they could do. I was just wonder aloud if anyone's ever thought of it before.

Here's an idea.... Could the rookies without contracts show up but not participate in contact drills? So they're making a "good faith" effort to be there, learn and get/stay in shape, but not risking injury that would hurt their contract/career.

Just watched the video about it on bb.com. They show clips of the OTAs and guys running around with colored, stocking, hat things over their helmets. Never saw that before; anyone know what that's all about? I assume some way for people to learn positioning or assignments?

It's for this exact reason that I find it hard to understand the immense dislike for JP around here. Yes, he was drafted high. Yes, he didn't work out as a QB for the Bills. But, that's all not entirely his fault. He's always tried to do and say the right things. He embraced the City and the team. And here, he could easily take a shot at the organization. Yet, he takes the high road and says all the right stuff. By all accounts, he gave everything he could to try and succeed as the Bills' QB. I thank him for the good times, hope to forget the bad times, and wish him health and great success in his future.

Why you gotta be bringin the King into it? The King crosses all time and space to eclipse the sun itself. No need to hate.

Thanks.

Excellent read. Thanks.

True. What I found most interesting about the link to the Tampa forum was that Skoobs initial post and those 2 posts were identical. I'd guess... he googled, got that link, and pasted with no further evidence to support the opinion. Hence, right (or so it appears) but for the wrong reason (i.e. he really didn't know; just copied the first thing he saw). To insert a little logic into the thought process, I would suggest that the article where TO stating he was clocked at 4.6 was during his college career. So, through workouts and training, I'd say we can assume he clocked a little better at the combine. However, being 35(?) he's probably slowed down. So, I guess 4.6ish is about as good as you could expect; although, its entirely possible that he's slower. For whatever it's all worth. Actually, I see 40 times as kinda like GPA. When you're coming out of college, employers will often consider your GPA as a means to measure your ability. However, once you've been in the workforce for 10+ years, does it really matter that much any more? It's far more important to look at the past year or 2 and see what you've done.

Seeing as I as bored and googling anyway, I thought I'd give it a shot... the general consensus seems to be about a 4.6 for TO. Nothing too solid though (its a shame there's not some kind of NFL Combine archive). However, TO did state that he ran 4.6 while at UTC. TO didn't exactly take Chattanooga by storm at first, catching just six passes as a freshman. "We had to do our 40s [40-yard dashes], and guys were clocked at 4.4 and 4.5 [seconds]," recalls Owens. "I got clocked at 4.6, and I knew that was slow. So I just kept lifting weights." Link. Another interesting find while I was looking... Post #2 (first line) and #3 look rather familiar. Looks like ya may have been right but for the wrong reasons, Skoobs.

I'm sorry, but you keep stating this. I try not to read all the stuff about the potential sale of the Bills, so its very likely I missed it; but is your statement based on personal knowledge of Ralph's will or was it published in the Buffalo News or something? Just really curious.

Well, first you generalized the 3rd down conversion rate to 40% to claim that we couldn't stop people on 3rd down. Then when pointed out the actual numbers, you disregard these facts and hold fast to your opinion. Then you contradict yourself by stating you don't generalize, which is exactly what you initially did. And ultimately resort to name calling rather than find alternative facts to defend your position in an effort to cause general disruption as opposed to intelligent conversation.

hmmm... from this thread alone, just a few contradictory, factless statements clearly meant to cause disruption.

Hence the plethora of contradictory, factless statements clearly meant to cause disruption.