AKC

So you do, of course, offer equal support to the Senate's right to amend their rules?

A once great party now whining like street beggars in the hopes they can make some gain by forcing their opponents to make a rule change. A rule change that has become necessary to stop the Democratic attack on minority and women judicial nominees. The nominees being denied an opportunity represent the same Americans who have voted all the power in the country to the Republicans because most Americans are not threatened by a judge who goes to church, most Americans are not threatened by an African American nominee whose life experience has not been one of perceived biases keeping them from achieving their dreams, most Americans are not threatened by a nominee of Hispanic heritage whose only crime is that he's registered as a Republican. I'm most disappointed in the Dems who I have great respect for, the honorable and decent Senators like Joe Lieberman- it's unconscionable that for the sake of a party strategy (that may prove out to have no long term benefit to the good of the Democratic Party) he's being convinced to hold the party line against qualified and decent nominees who pose no ideological threat to the majority of Americans. Unless the Democratic Party believes that it undermines them to simply allow minority Republican candidates to be brought into the judiciary (something I would hope they are not so small-minded to believe), it seems the only rational explantion for the Democratic Party position to deny these good Americans a chance to serve is that by forcing a rule change the Dems believe they can gain congressional seats in coming elections. And I can't help but think that a strategy like that could be the kind of strategy that might be a serious miscalculation in the long term. A democracy is a democracy of ideas and those with ideas more appealing to the voters will enjoy the greatest power. The Democratic Party has apparently (and FINALLY) recognized that they are losing that battle of ideas within the country, evidenced perfectly by their refusal to offer a single idea on Social Security at a time when the debate is heavy on the public mind. That again might be good strategy in the short term- if you know your ideas will not play well with the public better to hide those ideas- the old axiom of better to be thought of a fool than to open your mouth and remove any doubt. At the same time the long term value of hiding your ideas is a total loser in a democracy. You simply can't get away with it and hold power for any extended period of time. The reality for the Democratic Part is they need to revise their ideas to reflect an America that less and less is beholden to their old cry of "we'll protect the little guy". That Dem ideal is currently on display as false while we watch the Democratic Party prove through their denial to minority judicial nominees that the only "little guy" they really stand for is the one who agrees with them.

That longer torso is a trait of all three runners we're talking about, and probably leads to the upright running by necessity- something a munchkin like Travis doesn't have to fight. I always picture Eric with good hip flexion while Brown in the limited times I've had watching him looks like his hips are welded in place to his spine. Duane Thomas as I recall had the same limitation- stationary hips with that upright style but the one thing both Thomas and Brown have is that open field gear that they can hit in stride to create separation. If I recall ED correctly he was pretty smooth through the full range of his speed?

Brown's a peculiar runner and I can see TN fans watching his style figuring Travis might just be an improvement- and they could be right. In some way's like Duane Thomas, Browns more explosive than Travis but he seems kind of stiff hitting holes; even though he has some success getting through tight holes Travis should be even more productive between the tackles. It's an O that isn't looking for the RB to play much of a role in the pass game so overall the Titans should see Travis as a lot more vaulable than most teams do.

It should bring a smile to all objective voting age Americans to hear any Dem politician talk about "the mainstream of America"- this is, aferall, the party that without Ross Perot would not even be able to cling to any recent Executive Branch success. Mainstream indeed! Their obvious strategy on Judicial votes is to keep the discussion about "the overreach of the Republican Party" and trying to exhibit to voters just how "stupid" voters are to keep voting in Republicans and voting out Dems. One major flaw though is that the people of the United States have voted out not necessarily Dem politicians but instead Dem ideas, and the ideas of the Democratic party continue to be the same body of tired, lame and failed arguments of the past. For instance, this is a party that refuses to this day to offer any idea on Social Security reform- if you intend to be part of any solution do you not need to offer some indication of firing synapses? The stragegy of the Democratic party to virtually "hide" their own ideas while attacking the results of the past 12 election cycles by simply trying to reinforce the point that the people of America have voted them out of power seems to fly in the face of rational logic- I'd think any long term strategy instead of whatever short term gains they get with this "save our filibuster" campaign would require that they come back to the table of ideas with something new. Until then they seem doomed to continue sinking into the quicksand of irrelevance. Clinging to the filibuster as your very last gasp of influence should be embarrasing for anyone who wasn't born in France- it simply points out the lack of fitness of your ideas to attract voters.

My feeling is the Buck is the easiest spot to fill- look at Jay Foreman, a guy with hands of butter playing at the Mike in a 4-3 yet he became a sure tackler in the Texan's 3-4. We had John Holocek starting at the Buck effectively but when he was released on our move back to a 4-3 and I don't believe he even held a roster spot for a full season in San Diego. It's very forgiving as the second interior LB and there are lot's of 4-3 cast-offs who IMO can plug right in. The bigger question in my mind is the readiness of Tim Anderson to spell Sam on first and second downs. The way we're seeing the 3-4 morph these days REdwards could get plenty of work at DE in a 3-4.

Next time you're there tell Chris R. that "Divot" said hey.

Thanks Eric- you failed to mention that you got them for half the price of the same seats they're selling to any other groups inquiring at this time.

I haven't seen any sign that Edwards can play low enough to be an effective run stopper at this level. He always seems to be trying to leverage from the top, something you can be effective in pass rushing if you've got good size like he does but a sure fire way to get knocked silly in the run game. There are WIDELY varied reports of his numbers from the 2002 season, I typically trust Stats on tackle statistics due to their methodology and the numbers they offer are 25 total tackles in 16 starts. PatW typically doubled that number until his diminished role last season, a season in which he still ended up with 37 stops. Edwards balance reminds me of a spinning top, and I've never seen a great DT with that flaw. As far as Anderson's pedigree, we could start a list right now of recent 1st day DTs who have miserably failed to live up to their expectations. Hopefully Anderson is one of the exceptions, the fact that the team failed to give him time in any but I believe 3 games doesn't have to be an indication of their faith in him but at the same time it may. You don't have to leave our division to see the most effective defenses rotating 4 DTS in the middle- of a 3-4! Denney might be a little better suited to play in a 3-4, but I agree he's a guy who has slowly figured out he needs to get under the pads of his opponent and he should be expected to have his best year yet, but then again if our interior rotation causes us to reduce the pressure we brought up the middle last year it will be a very long and unproductive season for our edge rushers. My own opinion is that DTs are the most important players on any defense who faces West Coast influenced offenses regularly as we do, and while you can use lesser players outside the middle of the interior- the defensive line simply doesn't allow it. It also appears that we're facing a season in which my theory will be played out, and unfortunately IMO much to my dismay as a Bill's fan.

The difference between having a quality DT rotation like we had last year versus having one solid tackle, a one-dimensional pass rusher and a complete unknown is definitely worth about a dozen spots in the contemporary NFL. Anderson could help improve upon that if he's a lot more player than his reps in '04 suggest, but in any case we're still one more interior player away from a comfortable rotation for a 4-3 defense.

Ron Edwards is not a rushing down DT. He can't play low enough to effectively tackle runners nor does he establish his lateral presence well enough to force plays out of his way. If we make no move in bringing in DT help and if Tim Anderson plays anything short of a run stopping phenom our defense will fall to the middle of the pack in the NFL overall, putting us overall in the middle of the pack as a team. The outlook for a MLB who moves and tackles very well but is not a superior player at getting off a big man bodes poorly for our friend London Fletcher.

Dimitrius Underwood might be a better example of what you're hoping against. There are conflicting stories at this time being offered on LA Sports talk radio regarding his behavior leading to the decision. Yahoo Sports

Takhomasak? Fatburger. They make it exactly the way I ask for it.

I had Thai for lunch and would hate to be forced to bill you for the steam cleaning. Anyway, no stadium to play in until maybe '08 at the earliest.

That's true- major for one has to be major for the other- good or bad. On another issue- you're the one with opposing thumbs, I'd assume you could launch even a Lake Ontario carp a good distance further than a common equida asinus.

I'd guess it'd have to be a sign and trade with our cap limits- Simon is Franchised and due to earn too much for us to take him on. I don't even know if the Eagles can trade him unless he's redesignated a NER FA, and if he were he'd be back on the open market anyway. While I'd like to see a deal made here, there's nothing in the recent management moves of the Eagles to suggest they'd misjudge talent in such a foolish way. The other major "surprise" would be that the Bills had been able to keep the agents/players involved quiet about this relatively high profile of a trade without some numbskull spilling the beans.

That would require a number of assumptions and outcomes, only one of which is that Willis would have to possess similar ego and loyalty characteristics as TO. I see no indication that Willis is amped up on 'roids as clearly TO is, and I find it hard to believe from reading between the lines on WM interviews that he's ANYTHING like the narcisitic Owens.

The Texas Hot in Wellsville- 3 hots, an order of fries with gravy and a Cream Ale "Pounder" to make sure none of it hangs out in your system long enough to do permanent damage. MMMmmmmmm.......................

If the Eagles gave up Simon for Henry it'd be the biggest day for the Bills since the Pitt game last year. But assuming the Eagles aren't prepared to make that catastrophic error, I'll assume Henry's agent would be able to explain to his client the value of getting the marquee time in the event of any McGahee injury and the impact that would have towards any 2006 Henry offers in FA.

Henry's value as a 2005 backup, including his very friendly cap number for a guy who is a known quality running back in the league, is higher than a 3rd round pick and probably even a 2nd round pick IF the team sees this roster as capable of making a run at the playoffs. This deep into TD's time at OBD I have to assume he's under pressure to field exactly that.

Hard to say- but unlike some observers of the game I don't hold myself out to be smarter than Parcells.

Of course you're correct, because every losing NFL team in history has been quarterbacked by Drew Bledsoe and followed by the band of losers whose obsession with Bledsoe forces them to be cursed to reprise his name at least once every day not only in this life but into the next.

Mularkey has shown that he will play to JPs ability to move even in pre-season last year. It's safe to assume the offensive strategy will be use of the big guards to pound the running game inside and take advantage of the mann cover and personell packages that draws on the defensive side by rolling the pocket with regularity and using our newfound speed at WR with intermediate crossing routes designed to offer JP his primary targets in the same area of the field- making his reads on who has shaken coverage much easier. Vermiel has had a lot of success running a more stationary pocket version of this supplemented with slants where the defender cheats up to jam their man, the whole key to it is the speed at the 2 and 3 WR spot. If Parrish overtakes JReed or gets an equal number of plays it will become a way to keep pressure off JP by forcing the defensive line to read before reacting to the play and then burning the defensive backfield above by virtue of the time it's bought the QB and the routes gaining separation in that area 15 yards downfield due in large part to the speed of our WRs. The bottom line for us is that it will continue to be set up by play action because that's the theoretical advantage to us- put your run stopping D in and bring a safety for help- opening the middle of the field for the cross route with the man CB protecting the post and almost being forced to concede the inside break. It's not deep ball football but it does offer HUGE opportunities for RAC, plus obviously it offers the WR to take the post if the defender blows coverage low and also breaking to the sideline once you've established in route inside. It's not what they ran for Bledsoe- they preferred him throwing out after out. I believe the changes in personell will move this offense in a new direction and I can;t imagine they want bascialy a rookie to learn the hard way about a sideline passing offense in this league.

Welcome Rupp. I'll pop a string below from a few days ago with Henry discussions. There's little if anything to gain by moving Henry in this season of more complete, in fact much more complete backs, offered for poor value. I like Henry right where he is- a very good insurance policy at running back for the '05 Bills. That alone to me is worth his cap hit. You related to any former basketball coach? ;-) Henry String

We reserved all three of you jokers seats- do you mean to tell me you were never there? I could have sworn I saw...... I'll share one thing with you- at the Bills Raiders PreDraft Golf Tournament the opening 3 holes offered rain, about 3 more full sun, the next couple with puffed rice size hail and then the freakin' snow hit. I noticed Bob Lamb sneaking off towards the bar around the 9th hole, but don't let anyone still living in WNY know about that ;-) I know, I know- it only proves he's the only smart one among us. But since I realized we'd spend the next 32 hours at the bar maybe I'm not so naive after all....