CookieG

This was one of Harvey's points....there is ALWAYS some skill player, or someone for the latest new defensive scheme, who seems to take precedence. It has been going on since before Buddy got here...he's just continuing the trend. This is the 4th "new" defensive scheme in a decade, and we seem to need 5-6 new guys to make it work. There is always the RB who is too good to pass up, or the "fits the scheme" offensive skill player who has to be taken before we get around to the Oline. But I'll put is this way...Woods and Levitre went in the 1st and 2nd round, respectively. How many people complain about those picks? How many think they weren't worth their position drafted? Compare that to some of the skill players, the supposed play makers we couldn't pass up. McGahee Lynch Maybin Whitner Hardy McLovin Parrish If we had used a third of those picks on quality OL, we'd have a kick ass Oline by now.

-When Lou Saban came back to Buffalo, he saw they had a superstar RB in the making. Reggie McKenzie was drafted at the top of the 2nd and the next year, Joe D and Paul Seymour (an OT playing TE) in the first the next year. He understood that if you want to get the guy in a position to make plays, you better have the people to do it. -When Knox traded Joe D, (I was in high school at the time), I was shocked. Apparently it was a personality thing. Replacing him with a declining Conrad Dobler seemed like a step back. But Dobler brought an attitude that immediately made those around him better. He brought a "he's our QB and we will protect him by whatever means necessary" attitude. He said himself, Ken Jones and Joe Devlin were very good players, they just needed an attitude. The Bills ended up giving up something like 16 sacks that year, and led the league in 3rd down percentage. Here's the thing with the present O. You just use a 1st round pick on a little scat back, someone who is supposed to be able to take it to the house on every play. Wouldn't you want to protect, or enhance your investment by getting some guys who can get him past the LOS? If he can break it on every play, wouldn't you want to increase his opportunity to so?

It wasn't under appreciated by me. Nor was his ability to make the line calls at the LOS. Hangman made a comment about it during the season. Fitz was so good at placing the lineman in the right area and on the right guy that he just let him go ahead and do it. Fitz did about as good as you can with what he had to work with.

Urbik is a bit like Meredith. Drafted realtively high (I think they were both 3rd rounders). But both were cut early in their careers by teams who needed OL at the time. (Urbik by the Steelers, Meredith by the Packers). Both teams subsequently drafted OL high after they were cut. You have to wonder why a team with a need cuts a relatively high draft choice early in their careers. It will be great if he works out, but I'm not betting the ranch on it. There are several things that come into play here, on the OL situation. Unless Hangman moves to guard, or one of these guys somehow shows more than they have...we need a RG also. Moving him to guard makes the most sense to me. But...Bell didn't give up a lot of sacks, but he needs help. Whoever is going to be a RT is going to need help. When both sides need help, you're really constricting your offense, due to the number of people who end up staying in. If they need help on a running play, you are taking away a guy who would otherwise be taking on someone at the 2nd level.

last year, the same talk was made about Jamon Meredith and Ed Wang. You can replace the names and the comments remain the same, year in and year out. I don't have a problem with bringing in other team's cast off's or low round draft choices. I agree, if you happen to hit on one... great. But the Bills bring these guys in an pencil them in immediately as starters. I can't think of a team that has consistently placed such a low priority on the O-line, for so long, as the Bills have.

Pears just turned 29. When he was with Oakland in 2009, he couldn't beat out our 2 previous RT's (Langston Walker and Cornell Green.). He's been in the league since 2005. He couldn't win a back up job in Jacksonville last year. Wrotto was drafted in 2007. He was with Seattle for 3 years before being cut last year. These are veteran players that are being discussed.

Most likely costs of sale, having the moving guys hang around for a few hours. That's pretty standard in a post judgment proceeding, and they get paid off the top. I've been practicing law for 20 years and this wrongful foreclosure stuff is something that was unheard of until a few years ago. If there was a dispute in a foreclosure case, it was usually due to whether payments were made, how they were applied, interest charged, disclosures, or something like that. But trying to foreclose on someone when you didn't have the paperwork..or worse, in this case, when you don't even have a mortgage on the house...these things just didn't happen. 10 years ago, if a bank filed a foreclosure proceeding on a property they didn't have a mortgage on, any real estate lawyer's response would have been "They did what??"

It worked because it wasn't really a foreclosure, it was execution on a judgment. In most states, you can execute on any non-exempt property of a judgment debtor after a judgment becomes final. Since this was several months after the order was issued, it was no doubt a final order. It happens all the time. People get a bank account or their wages garnished, a vehicle seized, given an order to appear in front of a judge with a list of their assets, etc. A bit unusual that it happens to a bank, but the method used is pretty common. Frankly, B of A got off cheap if they only had to pay attorney fees. And the blond reporter is a hottie.

Cool, the Tony George business model. The IRL/CART split, with the most popular drivers leaving for CART, became the doom for open wheeled racing in the US. The Indy 500, once the crowned jewel in US motorsports and an American memorial day institution, now gets ratings on par with an average NASCAR race. Other IRL races get ratings of around .1 to .2. And that's 15 years after the split. CART went out of business. The big beneficiary..NASCAR. Maybe Danica Patrick can play QB.

I meant unsecured creditor. It was after midnight when I typed it. And yes, it is. An unsecured bondholder has no greater rights under 11 USC 507 than any other unsecured creditor. They aren't listed in the priorities. Unless the bondholder was secured, they have no greater rights than any other unsecured creditor, a supplier (the ones who really got screwed), a guy who fixed the air conditioning and hadn't got paid, a person providing office supplies with an outstanding invoice, or any other unsecured creditor. And the claim of the UAW had nothing to do with whatever stock, bonds or other corporate paper they owned or may have owned. The basis of their claim was the $20 billion GM owed to the VEBA trust. The actual creditor was the trustee of the VEBA trust. The claim, approximately $20 billion, was the largest single unsecured creditor of GM. Not by Executive Order it doesn't. LOL. The government was acting like a financier or a potential purchaser. "We'll give you the money if you do A,B,C and D. If you don't, the company will cease doing business, and you'll get what you can get." Happens all the time to companies in trouble. The shareholders were in trouble years ago, and their bond position wasn't much better. Their position was tenuous in 2005, when their bonds were downgraded to little more than junk bond status. It was over when Wall St. went under, credit disappeared and people stopped buying cars. People act as if GM could have cashed out, the bondholders would be paid in full and then the shareholders would get 50 cents on the dollar. If GM was liquidated, the bondholders stood a very good chance of getting...nothing. The shareholders had a nearly 100% chance of getting nothing. That's why, despite some public complaining, there were few serious objections filed in the case.

Oh Jesus, the Union WAS a creditor. The VEBA trust was underfunded by about $20 billion at the time of filing. This was an agreement GM agreed to pay years prior. As such, they are, at minimum, an secured creditor, as is an unsecured bondholder. They weren't in bankruptcy? Oh...ic...it was because they had the agreement worked out when they filed. Ah. Believe it or not, that does happen, especially with a business. A company gets in trouble but wants to stay afloat. They approach creditors, potential new creditors, government entities, anywhere they can get financing. To the existing creditors, they say, here's what we got, here's what we owe, here's what can be sold if the company is liquidated. Here's what it would likely bring. Here is what your share would be. They try to obtain a consensus, or at least a majority before they file so they can expedite the process. It isn't done in all cases, but it happens, especially with a large company. What they were owed, or what they would have received in a Chapter 7 liquidation? THAT'S the test. It is called the "best interest of the creditors" test or the "liquidation test." It is a requirement in a Chapter 11. An unsecured creditor has to judge their claim on the basis of whether the company was in a Chapter 7, a liquidation was conducted, and what the likely recovery for the unsecured creditor would be. I'll just repeat what the judge said in the ruling in this area: In light of GM’s substantial secured indebtedness, approximately $50 billion, the only entity that has the financial wherewithal and is qualified to purchase the assets—and the only entity that has stepped forward to make such a purchase—is the U.S. Treasury- sponsored Purchaser. But the Purchaser is willing to proceed only under an expedited sale process under the Bankruptcy Code. 8. The Liquidation Alternative In connection with its consideration of alternatives, GM secured an analysis (the “Liquidation Analysis”), prepared by AlixPartners LLP, of what GM’s assets would be worth in a liquidation. The Liquidation Analysis concluded that the realizable value of the assets of GM (net of the costs of liquidation) would range between approximately $6 billion and $10 billion. No evidence has been submitted to the contrary. This was in the context of an assumed $116.5 billion in general unsecured claims, though this could increase with lease and contract rejection claims and pension termination claims. 16 While the Liquidation Analysis projected some recoveries for secured debt and administrative and priority claims, it concluded that there would be no recovery whatsoever for unsecured creditors. The Court has no basis to doubt those conclusions. The Court finds that in the event of a liquidation, unsecured creditors would recover nothing. http://www.scribd.com/doc/17123143/Judges-Ruling-Approving-GMs-Sale-Plan If "cram down your throat" means, "here's what you'd get if the company was broken up and sold by a bankruptcy trustee"...yeah, well...then it is legal extortion, because it is a required analysis in a Chapter 11 confirmation proceeding. Or not. They bypassed the proceeding? By having an agreement in place before confirmation? Yeah, OK. Forcing a deal down everyone's throats? Pretty much what happens in a reorganization proceeding. Massively violating shareholder rights? Did you mean bondholder or shareholder? Shareholders have rights, but only if there is equity in a company. They're generally the last to be paid, and rarely are, in bankruptcy, especially when a new company is formed through the confirmation plan. Firing the CEO in the process? Believe it or not, it happens. I don't know if its something for a POTUS to be proud of. But it does happen. My wife's company, a medium sized financial company in the midwest, nearly went under in the subprime debacle. They were bought out by a reasonably large equity firm. As a condition of the buyout, the CEO of her company was required to leave. He took his $50 million buyout and "retired". That's how it was announced, anyways. Most at the company knew otherwise. No one was sorry to see him go. They knew better than let him do a farewell speech. As a part of the negotiation process, the company fronting the financing can demand a change in management as a condition. I don't know if it is illegal.

So wrong, so many ways. 1) accrued wages and employee within 180 days of filing of a petition have a higher priority than unsecured bondholders (the majority of GM bondholders) This obviously isn't the majority of the UAW stake but wages DO have priority. 2)How is a contractual obligation to a healthcare trust fund eight levels junior to that of an unsecured bondholder? At most, they are in the same class of secured creditor, at least for past due payments to the trust fund. I don't think Sec. 507 is written that way. Well, I know it isn't. Secured bondholders were/are to be paid in full. That was the plan submitted anyways. 3) In terms of due process, a majority of bondholders agreed to the proposal before they filed their Petition. It was then ratified during the Chapter 11. Bondholders not agreeing to the plan had a right to object to the plan. A small minority did in fact object. I think they called themselves the unofficial minority of unsecured bondholders, or something like that. Every creditor has a right to object in a bankruptcy. 4) The bondholders could have rejected the proposal, let GM file, convert the case to a 7 and get what they could get from the liquidation. I think WorldCom brought about 30-40%, if I remember, and I think Enron brought back around 12-15%. 5) WTF is the "several hundred years of contract law and precedents" hysterical nonsense? The bankruptcy code gets revised continually, with an overhaul every decade or 2, the last being in 2005. What was a right yesterday may not be a right today, or tomorrow. The bankruptcy code changes contractual rights and obligations. Creditors get screwed, debtors get screwed. Cramdowns for secured debt, rejection of leases, priority for recent taxes, super priority for domestic support obligations, reworking of contracts, revision of retirement benefits, discharge of debt, nondischargeability for other types of debt, adequate protection, stays of execution, etc and so on down the line. All of these are violations of most contract law, but are permissible under the code. At least as it exists right now.

Possibly. Pears was on the Raiders at the same time as both Langston Walker and Cornell Green. (2009) He couldn't beat either out of a job and ended up being cut in the Raiders' 2010 training camp. Now, Buddy is talking him up as no 1 for the starting job at RT. If he wasn't better than Cornell Green, how is he the favorite for the starting position? So do I. And they seriously need to bring someone in.

Sigh. The guy we cut in 2009, (Langston Walker) was picked up by his old team, the Raiders. By the end of 2009, the guy we signed for 2010 (Cornell Green) was replaced by the guy we cut. The guy behind both of them was Eric Pears. The guy we have as our favorite for starter in 2011 was playing behind the last 2 RT's we cut. Isn't that a few steps backwards? It isn't like the guy is a 2nd or 3rd year player that finally caught on to the game, he's 29 and has been cut by 3 teams.

Lots of people's stats were inflated, apparently. He was 5th in the Big 12 in yards last year, (25th nationally), 5th in TD passes (in the lower half nationally, 50th something), and a whopping 8th in the Big 12 in passing efficiency (64th nationally). 3 other QB's in the Big 12 threw more than twice the TD passes as him. So your argument is that everyone else's stats are inflated and/or at least everyone else has better weapons. So much for a QB actually making his team better. If you watch him play, it is easy to understand why. He doesn't handle pocket pressure well, he rushes this throws too many times and misses. Hence, the 44% completion percentage on 3rd down. I'm not as worried as most about what system he played in. Frankly, I think he might be better in a pro style offense, where he has a chance to get his feet set, and isn't worried about getting rid of the ball in 1.25 seconds. But watching him play when he's rushed....I'm not willing to take that chance, not at No. 3 anyways. Too jittery in the pocket for my tastes, especially with knowledge of how serious Buffalo has been with protecting the QB. He's going to have lots and lots of pocket pressure with the Bills, as long as they keep getting half their line off the waiver wire.

The comparisons people are making to Bradford are incredible. The consistency of accuracy isn't even close. Bradford completed over 67% of his throws on 3rd down, Gabbert 44%. Bradford threw twice as many TD's in 2008 than Gabbert did in his best year, more than 3X than Gabbert did last year; In Bradford's freshman year, he threw a third more TD's than Gabbert did in his best year; Bradford was first or second in the nation in passer rating, Gabbert was 5th or 6th in the Big 12. When you watched them play, Bradford rarely threw a bad pass, it was on time, it was on the money, you didn't have receivers sitting around waiting, coming back to the ball, or diving. A guy with that type of accuracy doesn't come along every year. Its a gift. Its like watching a baseball pitcher nail the corner of the plate consistently. You sit back and say, "how the hell is this guy doing this?" I can't say the same about Gabbert. Watch the Nebraska game sometime and see how many passes he missed. Even the Oklahoma game, which was actually a good game for him. He gets jittery and throws errant passes. That was REALLY apparent in the Nebraska game when they put pressure on him. He'll see a lot of that on Sundays. People act like he tore up the Big 12, when he was in fact, very average in a very pass happy conference. I dunno, I have a hard time taking a QB at No. 3, who's best year in college, in the Big 12 no less, had one more TD pass, in the NFL, than the guy you want him to replace. If his ceiling is as high as people think it is, he certainly hasn't shown it to date. You take a guy like that, you end up playing him early, and then you will start hearing the excuses. "Oh, he doesn't have the WR's, he doesn't have the line, he doesn't have the running game, we're running the wrong scheme for him". We went through 3 years of this with Edwards. I really don't want to go through that again. Not with Gabbert at least.

Bradford threw 50 TD passes in a season, not 16. One was great, the other...average to below average.

Oh yeah (and I don't hate Cam Jordan)..it isn't even his first step, which is inconsistent. Its steps 2,3,4 and 5. You could see how quick he could get to a QB or a RB after he disengages. You can see a number of his sacks where the QB didn't even begin to scramble. It looked like the OT would have him decently, and the next thing you know, he's on top of the QB. That's the part that reminded me of Bruce, that 5-10 yard closing speed from the line, where he switches to 2nd gear.

If they do that, they might as well just throw up the white flag and say, "we give up".

A more explosive Cam Jordan. But that was before the surgery.

Taking a franchise QB is like taking a spouse, you will live with the decision for years. If an Aaron Maybin or John McCargo busts, you just don't play him. It doesn't work that way with a first round QB, and mostly for QB's taken in the 2nd. They are going to get at least a year and a half of playing time, no matter how bad they are. How many times over the past 5-6 years have we heard "we have to see what this kid can do" in relation to Losman, or "he's still young, in relation to Edwards". Not saying you don't look for a franchise QB, not at all, but taking one just for the sake of taking one is...a coach and a GM killing move. The 49ers went through 2 GM's and at least 2 coaches with Alex Smith. And hell, they didn't even want to take him, but couldn't trade out of the 1st pick. It was a classic case of taking a QB for the sake of taking one. Roll the dice with Newton? Dunno. They're putting in their time studying him. If they don't take him, it won't be because they didn't want him. Gabbert- not even the best QB in the Big 12 last year, questionable as to whether he was in the top 3 in the Big 12. The production has never matched the talent. That, together with his less than 50% completion % on 3rd down, and less than 50% completion percentage against a blitz should be red flags. That's not something Mayock or Casserly brings up. Personally, he seems to be as much of a product of the NFLN as anything. Could he? Sure, physically he's there. The others - taking a 2nd round QB historically has pretty long odds of being a franchise guy. The Fins spent every 2nd round pick in the last decade, I think, looking for one. They're still looking. I agree with Chan Gailey, there probably IS a franchise QB in this draft. More than likely, someone is going to overcome their red flags. Will Mallett overcome his issues? Will Locker suddenly become accurate? Will Ponder be able to read a blitz? (He was horrible against Oklahoma). Good questions. I think everyone knows a good franchise QB is essential (or at least very close to essential). But it isn't a matter of running down to the Home Depot and just picking one up. If one isn't there, one isn't there. They're putting in their time looking for one, I don't doubt that. but I really hope they don't take someone they don't like, just for the heck of it.

Newton? or do you have someone else in mind?

Maybe we're taking a DE/OLB from Kutztown State? Don't be shocked to hear the name Greg Rotkowski called at 3 http://www.kubears.com/roster.aspx?rp_id=701&path=football

Stronger, faster, meaner. Straying from this plan will result in another decade like the last.

Watch the Nebraska game. You can find it on Youtube. Search "Missouri O vs. Nebraska D" It isn't pretty.