Dan

Seriously.... do you start a new thread for every random thought that pops in your head?

I would say that right now, we have the best team in the league - by far. We're completely unstoppable. However, I reserve the right to change my opinion once they start playing games.

What's even better is he starts off that very same post stating that our 2 previous DL coaches were yellers. Two coaches that we all know did little with our line. Now we have a "good guy" coach - and before training camp even starts, he's already sick of him. Brilliant.

With JP (both of them) gone, it's nice to see that we've firmly placed a new guy on the top of the "run them out of town" list.

I was just pointing out that the thread posed a few questions about the past season and what happened. I'm not sure that we need to go all historical as to why the Bills sucked up the last half of last year. Yes, I agree, there have been a string of bad decision's that half led to a string of bad seasons. But, Polian, Butler, TD, Marv have little to do with last year's failure. IMO. Do the Bills trouble start and end with Ralph? Perhaps. Jauron is by all accounts an inadequate coach in this league. His teams have largely under performed. I would wager that a new coach could keep this exact team in tact and be in the playoffs. If that were to be the case, does that have any bearing on the past 10-15 years? Or does it reflect a single bad decision right now to keep Jauron. To get back to the original post, why did our season tank? For me its simple. Our players are not being put in positions to win. And that lies on the coaches. All teams seem to get a few wins on luck and I would argue that's what we got early on. But when the level of competition got tougher, our coaching staff had no answer. They could not inspire our players nor could they come up with the right decisions to match our opponents. As the season progressed, it became more and more clear each week that the Bills just weren't prepared for the team they were facing.

So you're saying we sucked it up in 2009 because Ralph let Polian go some 15 years ago?

That article, along with the latest video on bb.com, is really eye opening. It sounds as though our defense and offense have been run like a high school team, for years. They're just now learning... “I think the tendency is with everybody in the NFL you have an initial move and a lot of times you get stuck,” said Williams. “And you don’t know where to go from there. And the things that he’s been doing are teaching us how to have those answers if our initial move is neutralized.” ?? The Offense is just now learning how to change plays at the line and that it's hard to process all this information in a few seconds? My first reaction, quite honestly, isn't one of enthusiasm for the upcoming season. It's one of disgust and amazement. How can a DT that's been starting for 3 years not realize that he needs to have something after his initial move? Or Edwards is just now being able to change the plays at the line? Isn't this stuff that every team in the league does? It's no wonder we've looked so inept and bland for 3 years. How can they ever expect to win consistently when the opposing team recognizes the play or defensive set and audiblizes - and we do nothing in return? So basically, our team has been coached to go out there and try hard. And that's about it. Is it just me; am I wrong in my take from those 2 pieces?

I'm thinkin you'll be fine. Based on the way this team played last year, by about 1:15 on Sunday you'll be able to get a few good hours of solid sleep before waking up and driving home. So no worries.

I would say.. Trent needs to learn how to take a hit. All the best QBs get hit, but if you watch, rarely do they take a direct hit like that. They sense the hit coming and move up, back or somewhere so its not a direct bone crushing hit. Replay the exact same play, but imagine Trent taking a few small steps to his left or back just prior to the throw and Wilson still hits him but probably without the concussing effects and Trent still completes the pass. So I would say Trent needs to learn to anticipate the hits (as well as his receivers getting open) better. However, you could say that about most all 2nd year QBs.

I don't know much at all about Google Fusion. So can't help much there. Base I've looked at very briefly quite a while ago. I'll take a glance at it and see what it can do. I've used Access... a fair amount. Certainly not an expert, but better than average I'd guess. I'll gladly look into it and help. Its kinda like a stress relief for me - databases and websites. Sorry, I glossed right over them not having a server in the initial post. I guess my eyes just couldn't accept that an office in 2009 isn't networked. I think you can set the database up on one comp and share it, like you were saying, essentially making that comp a server. My, albeit brief, experience with internet-based databases is that they cost money. So, I've always shied away from them because when is money not tight. Do they have a website? And if so, how is it hosted?

If I may offer as a rebuttal to this line of reasoning.... you don't need to cheat all the time in all situations if you're a good team. Think of it this way, you're taking a test. You study, you know most of the material, but you just can't remember that tricky little Nitrogen Cycle. So you write that down on a piece of paper. During the course of the exam, you may only use that cheat sheet 2 or 3 times, but that's enough to give you an A over a B. So was it worth it? That may be the only exam you cheat on, but without that A, you don't maintain your A average. So, you haven't cheated on all tests (games) on all questions (plays), but you did do something that was unfair that gave you an advantage. How extensive was the Pats* cheating? How much did it actually help? These are questions that a more thorough investigation could have answered. But, no investigation, no answers, no problems. I guess. Just for kicks.. take the Rams walk through they allegedly taped. It's been argued that wouldn't help, what could they get from that. It's of no value. However, if your a coach trying to prepare your team, you look over all the tape of their games during the season and end up with maybe a couple dozen formations and plays you feel are likely to be used. However, upon reviewing a tape of their walk though, you see that they're only utilizing 6 formations and plays. Does it give you a big advantage knowing you can forget about all those other formations? Again back to the test analogy. If you're given a 24 chapter text book and I say you'll be tested on this in 2 weeks, you have alot of studying to do. What if you then find out 2 days before that the test is only going to cover a few chapters? Now you can forget all that other crap, concentrate on the right chapters and greatly increase your chance of success. Again, a more thorough investigation could have answered the questions of exactly what was done, how much of it was done, and what advantages it had.

That's what I was going to suggest, as well. Do they have MS Access? I could put together a simple address database in a few days. But, they'd need Access and someone to setup the ODBC connections and all that.

Again, the point of my post was not to say that Macs are better or that they're not over priced. My point was that there does not appear to be a 300% markup on Macs (nor any other of the items iSuppli looked at). Yes, the iMac teradown was dated 2006, but just as the price of components has changed, so has the configuration of the computers, as well as Apple's price. I would assume that their markup is similar on a computer sold today. And, yes, none of these numbers are for a MacBook Pro. However, it would seem odd that all these items have relatively small margins and the MacBook Pro is triple marked up. Maybe it is, but I doubt it. If you think you think you can go on Newegg and buy a computer just as good as a MacBook Pro for 1/3 the price, go for it. I'm sure you'll get exactly what you wanted. However, if you want a computer with all the details of a MacBook Pro, you'll pay quite a bit more than $800 - whether its a mac or a PC equivalent.

Of course.

Edit to my original post: Here's a synopsis of the article I was initially referring to. These prices, unless I'm mistaken, just take into account cost of the parts. Not software, marketing, development, etc. I thought it was interesting just because I would have assumed the margin on electronics would be much higher than what these guys claim it to be. I'm not arguing that Macs or better than PCs or vice versa. My point is that the idea that Macs are marked up 300% (more or less) is false. I'm sure you can price a machine with the basic components as a Mac for next to nothing, but I'd wager you're forgetting all the extras - firewire, gigbit ethernet, weight, battery length, software, etc.

I couldn't find the original article, but its somewhere on the iSuppli site. About a week ago they had an article listing the cost to produce various computers, game station, and phones. None of them had 300% markups. The margins were actually quite small. Most all the gaming Xbox things are sold at a loss because they're trying to get people hooked on their game platform. Thne they make their money on the games and other peripherals. Pretty interesting when you think about it.

Seriously, stop and read that and think for a minute. ... So, the fact that the league, the media and former coaches insist that its no big deal, that's what makes you think its a big deal? I'll be the first to wonder how important the taping was, but if anything, the fact that everyone says its no big deal is what makes me think ... well maybe it really isn't/wasn't that big of a deal.

Trick question. Chuck Norris IS the most interesting man in the world.

I'm pretty sure you're supposed to only believe what you want to believe. Then search out some form of "source" to back up that opinion. Right?

Apparently you paused that clip more than I did!

MTV and VH1 are horrendous! You wanna watch the complete degradation of human society, turn on one of those channels some time. I've been waiting for years for this reality trend to stop, but it just won't go away. Thank god for the TSW. I read here far more than I watch there.

Apparently you don't watch much TV because that's pretty much what all TV looks like nowadays.

My biggest problem with the whole spygate thing was the was the NFL handled it. There was a very cursory investigation, complete disposal of all evidence, and utter dismissal of the entire situation. IMO, questions like: How many other teams actually do it? How beneficial was/is it? How extensive was the Pats* use of these cameras/tapes? What other methods of cheating were/are going on (stealing audio)? They taped games and possibly practices, but to what end? Who viewed the tapes? What did they do with the information? How did it cost the team? Just to name a few. Again IMO, the NFL did a great job in covering this up and completely silencing everyone on it. I guess if you're preserving the integrity of the league then they can call it job well done. But, the bottom line for myself is that we have very little information on the whole situation to draw many informed conclusions. I've repeatedly heard "all teams cheat" and "it didn't give them any competitive advantage". OK... fine. But, I've never seen any proof of other teams cheating nor have a seen any investigative reporting on exactly how they used this information and what they did or did not gain from it. If I may ponder a small bit, but why would anyone spend money and time for multiple years, breaking known NFL rules, and not get anything in return?

Great! No sense starting my own billion dollar internet business and buying the Bills this summer. And I was sooooo close.

Hey.. I laughed.