Dan

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.

If I were owner of the Bills... I'd walk into the locker room before the game. Lay $15,000 on a table. And tell the team that the first one to knock Brady on his ass gets it. Then, I'd lay $10K beside it and promise that to the second guy that hit Brady. Finally, I'd lay $5K down for the 3rd guy to knock him on his back. Then I'd tell them, if you hit him first and he doesn't get up.... you get all $30 grand.

What does this have to do with Seinfeld?

Thanks you. To ans4e64, I would ask... what is your definition of a Dynasty? It's been 5 years since the Pats* last Super Bowl win. Yes, they were in the Super Bowl 2 years ago. But, they lost that game. Yes, they've been a perennial playoff team. But, does that make them a Dynasty? I would say that winning 3 SBs in 4 years could potentially equal a dynasty, but it would be a relatively short one or perhaps average - certainly not one of the longest in NFL History. Granted, their dominance of the Bills is approaching the Fins dominance of the 70's. So perhaps it seems to us it feels like a long dynasty. But, again, in terms of the NFL at large I'd say they were an average tenured dynasty. If losing a SB is still factored into your dynastic reign, then the 90's Bills were definitely a dynasty. Thing is... no one ever refers to those Bills teams as an NFL dynasty.

If I may offer my completely inconsequential opinion, I think this board is very properly moderated. I'm on the internet every day. I visit a multitude of message boards on a variety of issues. Yet there is only one online community that I would care to register (with my real name no less - I still wonder why I did that) and visit every day. And that, of course, is this board. There a several other Buffalo Bills boards I could frequent but don't. Why? Well, I'll tell you. Because of the way this board is moderated. You guys let just enough of the crap through to make the place interesting, but no so much that the place is completely cluttered with inane ramblings and nonsensical posts. Its a good mix, and I for one, wouldn't change anything about this site. (Well, maybe update the video on TBD site more frequently but that's neither here nor there.) With that being said, I think there's also a fair amount of "community moderating" that goes on here. If I, or any one else, posts something that's completely off base or fabricated, I get jumped on by any number of posters calling me out on my claim. Now some posters may not like that. For example, Dog is concerned that Dean is being too harsh. Perhaps. But, at that same time, as a new poster deciding to post, I think it makes you think twice before making crap up and posting it. At least, that's the only way I can figure that this place doesn't get completely over run with crap threads like so many other message boards do. Perhaps, you moderators do more behind the scenes to quiet bothersome posters. I don't know. So are some posters harsh at times on others? Perhaps. But, I think it gets itself worked out. Taking myself as an example again, I'd never make some crap up and post it in 2 or 3 separate threads, because I know Dean or DC or someone would call me out. Personally, I think that's a good thing in general. Either way, I agree people should try to be a little more courteous to others. They should also make sure they have all their facts straight before they post. I'd suggest they also think twice about whether their post was actually adding anything of value to the discussion as well. But, I guess if everyone did that It be a pretty boring place.

Because the coaches.... ummmm... suck?

Agreed none of us have a choice. I really want this team to succeed as well this season and see no valid reason why they shouldn't this year - save one. But all teams have injuries. The Pats* lost their franchise QB and slotted in a guy that hadn't started in years.. yet they continued to win. You can't call that depth. And, yes, the team was stacked around Cassell. But, Bellicheck did it once before when Drew went down and a 6th round pick took the team to the Super Bowl. Like it or not, sooner or later, we have to say that the Pats* are a very well coached team. And, of course, they cheat. Fins, I agree, are a tough team to get a handle on. Was last year a fluke due to easy schedule? I'm not sure either. But, I would argue that their coaches took a less talented team (than the Bills) farther. Both clubs had a soft schedule last year. Yet one was creative and well-disciplined and made it to the playoffs, another didn't.

I agree with you to an extent. But, can't a good coaching staff turn those average players into playmakers? Put another way, are our players not making plays because they're not competent or because they're not in a position to make those plays? When you motion Reed across the line and run Lynch to his side every time, is it Lynch's fault the defense has completely read the offense and stacks that side of the line? Is it a coincidence that fairly average or aging players suddenly perform well in NE? Or does the coaching staff in NE consistently put those players in a position to make plays. Look at Miami, a decent coach came in, developed a new game plan to take advantage of his players, and suddenly they're 11-5. Can we really say that the fins have that much more talent than the Bills?

But isn't it partly or mostly the coaches responsibility to instill that winning attitude, teach them proper blocking assignments for their system, and emphasize the basics like tackling.

Precisely and that is why this coaching staff sucks. We can all point to several games lost because of a critical call/non call by the coach. The play calling as been amateurish at best. The uninspired, overly predictable, slow decision making, lack of in game adjustments team that we've seen these last few years is a direct reflection of our coaching staff. I would argue that one of the critical elements that a HC brings to a team is an identity. Whether the team is know as tough, hard hitting, finesse, resilient, whatever is typically instilled be the HC. So I ask, what identity do the Bills have? What style of football do we play? I suppose this season will be THE season, again. We have plenty of talented players in most positions. The vast majority have has multiple seasons to learn the defensive and offensive systems (if we even have systems).

I've been suggesting that for several seasons. The real problem is I think you can extend that to most positions on the field.