Arkady Renko

1/3 of an acre and you are getting a rider? I have almost an acre and use a walk-behind. It's good exercise and saves cash.

I think you should just focus on the busts. The decisions to let solid or good first rounds go is not an indication of terrible drafting.

There's no salary cap floor this year. Not until 2013. League wide, however, 99% of the salary cap must be paid to the players. If that is not paid, it is unclear as to who makes up the difference. Those below the salary cap might have to do so.

I like the link to Tim Graham's AFC East blog in the article.

I have to wonder what the Bills offerred him last season. I'd bet it was better than that.

Where's Allen Wilson been lately, btw?

Didn't Belichick show that the 2TE offense is what can destroy the 3-4?

It has just been ESPNNewYork and ESPNBoston stuff.

Recall that around this time last year people were calling for Fitzpatrick to be cut and Brohm, at the very least, to be second string.

That's not official. They have only delayed the start of the season so far.

Jojos is pretty good in my opinion.

In his rookie season, he actually showed flashes of some talent. He made a number of tackles in the backfield and seemed to have a lot of athleticism. He has shown more than Maybin, which I know is not saying much.

Good luck to him. At least he gets to play close to home.

My wife was at a garage sale and told me there was a hat on sale signed by Mike Williams.

Don't forget Levi.

I am an Orioles/Bills fan. Let me say that being an Orioles fan is worse.

Not saying it is a bad thing; it's interesting that it worked out that way.

Fitzpatrick, Thigpen and Brown were all drafted in the 7th round, albeit by different teams.

As I said before: http://forums.twobillsdrive.com/topic/81351-the-death-of-the-tampa-2/page__view__findpost__p__1292946, the problem is that we keep on switching to the hot new defensive scheme. I wish we had not switched to the 3-4, but now that we have, we better stick with it. We can't keep rebuilding the defense.

You cannot look at each piece of evidence in a vacuum and then say, well here is some possible alternative explanation for this piece of evidence, let's move on to the next piece of evidence. You need to look at the entire picture that is painted and ask yourself when you put it all together it is reasonable to doubt that she murdered her daughter. She tried lie after lie to explain her daughter's disappearance. Eventually, after a couple years, she came up with a tale that was implausible but not impossible. Is doing that enough now to get people off for murder? Just about any murder case could be explained by some implausible alternate tale. Supposedly this was an accident that was made to look like a murder? When is that ever done unless to frame someone? And why would they do that? Children drown in pools frequently. And her father, who helped secure her representation in the first place, would prefer her daughter be convicted of capital murder than to admit that he helped cover up an accident? Again, I will reiterate that people are convicted of murder frequently when a body is not even found. Her daughter was missing for a month while she was partying and acting as if nothing was wrong. It was not until her mother called the police that Caylee was reported missing. Casey Anthony ditched her car, which smelled, according to multiple people, like a rotting corpse. There was evidence of decomposition in the car. Because there could have been more evidence of decomposition, that should allow you to doubt the rest? Some of the jurors and others focused on the fact that a motive was not proven. First of all, that is not even an element of the crime the prosecution needs to prove. Secondly, the prosecution provided one that was totally consistent with Casey Anthony's actions and her behavior. Some expert referred vaguely to people mourning differently after certain traumatic events. It is telling that this expert had not even interviewed Casey Anthony to provide any support that the theory was relevant to this case.

People are convicted of murder often when the body isn't even found. It is silly to think that they needed to prove the exact method in which she was murdered. No need to change the law. You just need jurors who know how to look at evidence logically.

The NFL does not operate in the world of free markets. If it did, we might have two teams in Dallas, four teams in NYC, and the ability to form a new team at will in any city.

The NFL could -- I DON'T KNOW -- just expand to LA and end all of this. But they don't. They love having some cities serving as a threat to other cities to force through publicly-financed billion dollar playpens for billionaire owners.

Yeah, I don't quite understand why expansion is off the table. People say owners don't want to split up their TV revenue, but that didn't stop them before. Besides, they can make the expansion fee high enough to compensate them for the proportional loss in TV revenue. The other reason I hear is that the NFL doesn't want to disrupt their precious four team divisions. That is such a silly reason. They were able to make 31 teams work before.

Interesting that Wanny seemed to emphasize the 4-3 look before talking about the others.