Fake-Fat Sunny

Anything to make a buck in today's world. The fact that they get to make a buck wihtout an orginal thought is simply a bonus to a business since rather than paying additional salary to get someone with the brain and heart to create something new, they get to pay a lower wage for a worker merely with the intellect to run a Xerox machine. Oh well, at least there is some usefulness as best as I can tell in introducing a new generation to a history back when things were "cool."

Given the way he ran his restautrsnt into the ground and stiffed a lot of small local vendors who provided food, washed the linen etc. I thought he was already in charge of the Erie County budget which is running way in the red.

The debate in a couple of threads about whether the Indy 500 and/or autor-racing is in fact a sport inspired by the well-promoted participation of Danica Patrick intrigues me. By my own personal traditional definition autoracing has always been a sport. For me sports involve games and competition. The NFL, bowling, autoracing, basketball, torture ball (my own personal favorite as a kid though my summer camp made us stop playing because too many kids ended up in the infirmary) and even lawn jarts were sports as far as I was concerned. I can certainly see how some folks judge autoracing not be a sport because the competition allows a 100 lb. woman to compete with a 200 lb. bigger guy because of her employing better and better applied technology. However, most of the complaining couch potatoes actually are looking for an excuse to either have someone bring them a beer from the fridge because getting up is too much physical exertion for them or they time their beer runs to their potty runs because they aren't wearinf diapers yet, their complaints of autoracing not being a sport are actually mostly laughable. At any rate thanks to the wonders of the Internet (a place where even fact-free opinion can be made to look really cool). I searched the word dictionary and then plugged in the word sport and came oit with the following definifition: sport ( P ) Pronunciation Key (spôrt, sprt) n. 1. Physical activity that is governed by a set of rules or customs and often engaged in competitively. 2. A particular form of this activity. 3. An activity involving physical exertion and skill that is governed by a set of rules or customs and often undertaken competitively. 4. An active pastime; recreation. 5. Mockery; jest: He made sport of his own looks. An object of mockery, jest, or play: treated our interests as sport. A joking mood or attitude: She made the remark in sport. 6. One known for the manner of one's acceptance of rules, especially of a game, or of a difficult situation: a poor sport. Informal. One who accepts rules or difficult situations well. Informal. A pleasant companion: was a real sport during the trip. Informal. 7. A person who lives a jolly, extravagant life. 8. A gambler at sporting events. 9. Biology. An organism that shows a marked change from the normal type or parent stock, typically as a result of mutation. Maine. See summercater. See Regional Note at summercater. Obsolete. Amorous dalliance; lovemaking. This sounds fine to me. By most defintions, particular the first few since driving Indy clearly involves physical exertion under a set of overdefined rules keeping a car from piling into the wall at 200+ mph, this is a sport. It is competition though not fair competition. Just as taller guys and quicker guys have a definite advantage in athletics, a petite person who has the ability to geta job driving for a well-funded racing team has a definite advantage over Joe Slob and would clean their clock in an Indy race. Yet, overall, I think my favorite definition of a sport is the last one the dictionary provided. They may view amrous dalliance and lovemaking as obsolete, but it sounds like great sport to me!

I also think that Sullivan misapplies the quote as it applies to the JP case (actually the military quotes are completely misapplied in that warfare and the military are for real and sports and football are mere games, 9/11 remphasized for folks that military analogies like calling good football players warriors are really completely misplaced, but obviously we have forgotten that lesson so I won't even go into further kicking of that dead horse and will just stick to where Sullivan misses the figurative boat in this case. I read the quote as saying that the important thing about giving an order to the rest of the group is not so much in telling them what do to do, but actually in not making a mistake of having them interpret your orders as telling them to do something even if it is stupid. The thing I think JP should take from this quote is actually not to feel the pressure that it is up to him to do it all and win games. In fact, JP needs to rein it in a lot and rather than feeling like he has to force the play. he needs to bide his time, rely on his teammates and he will win games not by taking a lot of risks but by managing the game and in a Trent Dilferesque undramatic way avoid mistakes. I hink RoboQB had a great year for Pitts last year when he relied primarily on the Bus to carry the ball and on the D to hammer opponents. It was actually when the team had to depend on his play to win like against NE and in a couple of late-season games that the INTs started to flow. I look forward to having a mobile QB next year and the ability JP has shown, but if he is expected to be a stud performer I think it will come from him hitting a well-timed long one to Evans as a change-up rather than him being the next Brett Favre cause it ain't gonna happen. If he plays only as well as Bledsoe did in the final seven games of '04 for the whole season and we end up 14-2 or 13-3 this is one fan that will be overjoyed with JP even iof he proves to be no better than Bledsoe.

I disaggree with your ICE-like conclusion that the injury set JP's development back 9 months. Any injury is unfortunate, but it looks to me like it was likely just what he needed IF he took/takes advantage of the forced downtime. Playing the game IS a necessary part of learning the game. However, it is not the ONLY part of learning to play the game well. Looking at what JP brought to the Bills when he was drafted, I am much less worried about his athleticism and his ability to do incredible stuff. He struck me as lacking the ability to make the right choices to apply his athleticism in the right way. Certainly playing the pro game helps an athlete do this. Getting used to the NFL game simply being quicker and making good decisions under the gun without getting the happy-feet of a Todd Collins or suffering the brain farts in crunch time of a Drew Bledsoe comes from playing. However, Losman seemed to have been very good at creating stuff while running for his life behind the porous Tulane OL. From what I've seen in the over-systematized NFL, this method will simply not be successful in the pro. Players do make plays and the best players make incredible plays beating their rivals. However, the game now seems tobe a lot about doing the same thing in the same way each and every time to get yourself in the position to then make an extraordinary play. Lesson 1 for Losman seems to be from what I see to rein it in first and connect with his teammates and then to put it over the top with a great play at cruch time rather than flailing around and improvising right from the start. The most valuable thing Losman could have done for his development last year in my view was to take the once in a lifetime opportunity to sew his ear to Samy Wyche's mouth and sit up in the booth during games and have Sam download HC knowledge about how the plays were setting up and why they did or did not work to hi. If he had been down on the sideline in a uni yukking it up with the boys waiting for a chance to play, this probably would have helped build chemistry, but JP would have missed out on a chance to get pro knowledge which he could only get with his enforced absence. I don't know if he took this opportunity. I hope he did. He will be a better player if he did. Most of all I am glad he healed and can play, but if he used the downtime to improve his game he and the Bills strike me as being far better off than if he had simply patroled the sidelines waiting to play or out of frustration with Bledsoe been simply thrown into the game so he could have a series of the same outings he had last year against NE. The boy needed some work without the pressure of it mattering. He gpt that when he was thrown into mop-up duty against NE, when he came in for mop-up duty and drew a delay of game penalty in his next outing (but recovered to hand off to WM to produce a TD), and when he improved (?) to merely have to take an unnecessary timeout because of his lack of command of the huddle bu again recovered to not only get the TD, but to run for a first down on 3rd and complete a nice pass to Trafford. We'll see how his development goes, but if JP does not fall into the same trap which eventually caught up with RoboQB in Pitts last year and he and the team call on him to simply manage and not win the game, we will be fine.

Folks reactions are interesting. I'd agree that the remake of the Thing was a superior redo to the original. It points out that one good reason for a redo is that new technology can improve an old film, though I agree with folks general Thing comments that reference some great acting which carried the film and made it a good reason to have the better effect. If one redoes a film because of new technology, but the acting is bad it will still be a badly told story and probably a bad film. Someone's comment that Ocean's 11 was a good remake is odd to me because I found the new movie to be inferior to the old film. The new one had so many stars that it demanded a happy ending (I doubt this is a spoiler because business dictated a sequel which became Ocean's 12) and the 50/50 ending of the orginal was one of its finer points from my perspective.

The redo of the Longest Yard has made me think about the artistic merit of the remake. I can easily pass on remade songs which simply strike me as uncalled for. If the original was so good, then the redo sounds wrong and pale to me in comparison. In the case of movies, if I do not even remember much of the orginal so the redo is new, then why the heck do it over. I think a good remake can be done, but for me it has to occupy a pretty narrow artistic band where it was a good piece to start with. but the new version adds something in terms of interpretation or presentation which makes it special to me (art is cool because in the end it is all about you). I'm not flat out opposed to remakes because I can actually watch the original of a good film over and over again (this seems to be somewhat genetic as my wife simply wonders why I can watch war movies like The Great Escape or Kelly's Heores over and over and over again). However. at least the orginal had some novelty and creation which gives it merit and the redo of Oh Baby I Love Your Way simply seems dunb to me. At any rate, I take special note of these remakes I found great: 1. All Along the Watchtower- Jimi Hendrix- This was a remake of a Bob Dylan song and he does the orginal pretty well. However, even Dylan says that this became Hendriz's song based on the way he did it. 2. Fatal Attraction- In essence this like many pieces of art is a redo of something from another artistic form as it is a redo of the opera Madame Butterfly. However, the performances are compelling and interaction is great and the fact they actually added to the presentation by presenting different endings based on market research adds to this redo for me. I'll try to think of some more and will check the thread when I return from a surprise party, but i'm curious what folks think.

Unfortunately, what I think maybe shaking out here is a simple time crunch. One gets the best deal in negotiations simply by holding out until the last minute and forging a deal which your partner (and you) give up on things, but even a not perfect (or even a bad deal) is better than no deal at all (ex. NHL). However, as the owners move toward this last minute reality check on the issue of revenue sharing, the clock is also ticking on reaching agreement with the players who are an essential party to a CBA aggreement. It is setting up that by the time the owners hash out their issues and reach aggreement over whether it is going to be 52-48, or 53-47 on revenue sharing, there will simply not be enough time to reach a deal on their partnership with the players. I would not be surprised to see it com down to the NFL/NFLPA simply aggreeing to extend the CBA as is for 1 year cause they need the time rather than face the reality of an uncapped year or the brutality of the free market (where quite frankly the NFL cannot survive). Even an extension is going to be a hard deal to make because players whose short careers will be over may well get screwed by this process.

I always wonder about the psychology behind remakes. Certainly with music, someone may like a song so much they just want to sing it again. However, for me if I like the original so much, a redo usually sounds so wrong I do not like it. The paradox is that even if they make the redo sound just like the original then why do it over? A movie is a completely different thing than just a song. It can be so long, involved and detailed, its certainly different than a 3+ minute song, but this simply creates another paradox as maybe I don't remember everything so some is new (again), but again if it wasn't memorable then why re do it in the first place. Oh well, I'm probably just over-thinking it. Its simply a marketing and generational decision. The Longest Yard is a great story. How can the modern 15-29 year old be expected to relate at all to a movie featuring a fuddy-duddy like Burt Reynolds that is from his parents age. Better to do the same film with a more modern icon like Adam Sandler and modern language (since Friends made what used to be an R rating PG today) to do the same schtick today to introduce a new generation to a well done great tale and take their nickels to boot.

If you are looking for a non synthetic chemical altermative for dealing with posion ivy or anything you fancy to be a pest (flora or fauna) I would give a call to a group called Beyond Pesticides at (202) 543-5450. Though based in DC Beyond Pesticides is definitely a grassroots based group working with folks across the country. I have had good dealings with them because as a group that deals with the Capitol Hill and the federal regulatory morass they have a very good conection to science on the issue of pest control. They educated me about a lot of non-chemical alternatives for dealing with pest issues from ants, to rodents to stuff we define as weeds. Chemical companies like Monsanto are happy to take your money for a product like Round-uo, though often what your paying for is the large dollars they spend advertising the product (usually with somebody in a cowboy suit carrying the Round-up in a holster as he faces down some deadly plant). It sometimes is the case that a much cheaper common household substance like bleach or lemon juice can be applied to the pest and solve your problem in a cheap way. Beyond Pesticides has the name of several books on non-synthetic chemical alternatives which can give you something to choose from.

I think Clements should and will be rewarded for his play in '04. Hpwever. to be accurate his strong 16 game season included Nate giveth (the TD return) and taketh away (the PR fumble) against Pitts and a difficult to forgive mental error when he went for the INT when knocking the ball down against Jax wouldhave sufficed quite nicely. Nate should and will be rewarded for his play and it is to be oped by the Bills. However, the risks of an Andre Reed like injury in his contract year, the likelihood of there being a lot of cap room once the new TV contract gets done and our relative strength for now at CB (I would not feel bad at all if we went into next season with McGee, an aging Vincent, Thomas, Greer and the young Hill at CB). I wouldnot resign Vincent until the off-season unless he is willing to agree to a lowball offer from us he should say no to.

If you don't even see TD giving up on a 7th rounder after 1 year when he produced it does not strike me a following that TD would give up on a 2nd round pick (Reed) he produced also in his first yeareven after the last two dismal seasons. This strikes me as particularly true when though the downturn in Reed's sophomore year was all on Reed as he caved under the pressure of becoming our #2 his disappointing year last year came in conjunction with injury. While blaming last year on injury will not get Reed onto the 2005 roster (the $400+ K in deadspace if he iscut might do that though) it will certainly earn him a real chance to show he has turned his game around this pre-season. While I have real doubts that Reed is enough of a player to recover the level of success he had as a rookie (a level of success which made us quite comfortable in letting PP walk) I actually do not have many doubts that he tends to look better in practice than in games and that he is at least a workout warrior in the training room after he has impressed folks (ahd then let us down twice) 3 pre-seasons in a row. My guess is that under the pressure to perform or get cut, Reed actually impresses folks this pre-season and will earn the starting slot receiver #3 nod. However, Parrish does seem to have the raw speed and athletic talent that I suspect he will take the #3 job away from Reed by the halfway point of the season. Lining up the speed of Evans, the athleticism of Moulds and the speed threat of Parrish will just prove too tempting for TC/MM not to give it a try and if this threat works at all, it will become the O approach for the Bills. I can easily see Moulds demanding a double-team and Evans forcing the opponent to go with their fastest CB on Evans or going with a double team to handle him. If this double-double team is forced on opponents (as Moulds and PP did) then the Bills slot receiver will get to feast on zones and match-ups with LBs and 5th DBs. I can't wait.

The analysis is an excellentread on the situation from what I see and is worth the read and careful attention. The conclusions are what I disagree with as this adding up to 4-12 and i think I see the reason why. Like many posters in TSW who give far too much weight to the importance of the QB for winning football games, Pompei falls victim as well to this disease. Just as folks placed too much blame on Bledsoe for the Bills not reaching the playoffs last year (he sucked and was at fault for some bad play but the more relevant read on him was not that he was so bad he made the bad plays that killed u, but that he was not good enough to overcome a series of other errors like the D giving up over 100 yards to a Pitts scrub RB, like Lindell missing a chipshot FG and Clements giving and taking away as he make a return for a TD against Pitts but only after he laid a PR on the carpet). Pitts drew the roadmap for a successful Bills season with RoboQB last year as they relied far more on an aggressive D and the Bus to roll to their huge record. When they had to turn to RoboQB to win rather than simply manage the game they fell short. So it will almost certainly be with JP this year where if he leads this team to an SB win he wil be the first QB drafted by a team in the 1st round who leads the team which invested in him to an SB witn since Dallas chose Troy Aikman in the late 89s. Pompeii does get it in that he points out in more detail than usual sports (alleged) reporter that this team will be built around a D which was statitically successful last year (despite their weird performance outage in the last game) and will return 10 of 11 starters, and an O which will have a planned full season of WM and will run the ball on the first play and then run it again. MM/Clements are just the men who have shown the ability to not rely on JP to win the game for them and while Pompeii is correct that he almost certainly will not do so, MM seems to be the guy who will not run a game that requires him to do so. I agree almost completely with the Pompeii analysis and disagree completely with his conclusion. The only way I see this team actually ending up 4-12 is if we have miscalculated badly in JMac's ability to get good or at least adequate play out of an OL which to date does not have the LT situation (starter and back-up) nailed down and if we have bad luck with injuries (WM in particular). However, if JMacproduces he same results he produced in multiple years for the Bengals, for NYG's SB run and for the Bills last year and IF WM keeps it together injury wise, this is a team which should make the playoffs.

(BUMP) For folks thinking about the fate of Freddie Smith, Mario Haggan and probably even Jason Peters, its gonns be all about ST play as to whether they stick or not. What do folks think in these football dog-days?

In addition to the additional nice return someone mentioned above against St. Louis. Sith actually returned 1 KO for 28 yards (a nice amount compared to other KOs besides McGee) and returned a total of 9 PRs. Even if one subtracts the yardage of his TD return the total amount is a nice PR average. Smith seemed a bit out of control in his play from what I saw last year, but it was this willingness to take chances (even if psychotically rooted) that explains to me his success at the return game which goes beyond one lucky return from what I saw. He never was a threat to break into the top WRs and be a position player so he either makes this team or not based on his ST play. The drafting of Parrish probably provides us with another better PR guy, but given that it takes a few games for a rookie to become more like a vet, its probably unlikely that he supplants Smith as the #2 PR guy for a few games at least. The key for Smith is that the acquisition of Parrish probably makes us more comfortable using Clements only as a CB (MM thankfully will use position players on ST, but there is an additional injury risk which should not be ignored at CB). It is also Clements contract year so planning for the future makes Smith a keeper and Clements did get a TD in the Pitts game but also fumbled a PR away so having another return guy is not a bad idea. The key for Smith appears to me in whether he calms down a bit and retains the upside of the TD you say he "lucked" into (apparently he also lucked into a good return against St. L, lucked into catching 8 other kicks without fumbling and peeled off good returns, and lucked into 3 catches as well) while eliminating the risk of a bas play. He will likely not make or break onto this team with his returns, but by demonstrating he can tackle as well. Despite Don Beebe's sale pitch you can't teach speed. If he has the average progress of a second year player the Bills will likely keep him as a 6th WR but rarly use him for position play.

Folks are asking the question which current Bills are going to get cut, but I think that folks seem to be addressing this question in the wrong way. Which players makes it or loses it on the final cut has very little to do with their position play but really is deternmined by how they do on ST. If you ever see Mario Haggan or Angelo Crowell doing extended service as position players it simply means bad news for the Bills because for some reason Takeo Spikes or London Fletcher are not able to answer the call, These two players are valuable Bills because of their ST contribution and that is what got Joe Burns resigned as well. So my question is for folks to take a bow toward reality and state their opinion on who stays or goes due to ST. My personal choice is the #6 WR position which is currently occupied by Fast Freddie Smith. He was #5 on the 04 WR depth chart but the drafting of Parrish obviously pushes him down to #6. However, the real threat which Parrish provides to Freddie's roster spot is that he did great punt return duty in college. However, I still think he sticks as a Bill because: 1. He is behind Clements and likely Parrish as a PR guy, but though MM is quite willing to do it, it is a dicey thing to use a starter as your main PR guy. My guess is that the drafting of Parrish makes us very comfortable using Clements primarily as a CB because we now have two PR guys to pick up the slack. Particularly with Clements in a contract year, having another alternative on PR is a good thing. 2. He did score a TD last year and got off a couple of good returns. Parrish may hit the ground running as opponents will have little film on his return tendencies. However, rookies are rookies and vets are vets and it may take a few games before Parrish up to the PR responsibility or coaches have the confience to put him that role. 3. its tough to teach speed and Fast Freddy has the raw talent to be a threat at this part of the game. I think the key to whether Smith stays or goes will be his ST play and actually not even his return ability but whether he shows the goods as a gunner on the outside or interior ST tackling ability. He will be competing with Aiken and Reed not at all as position players, and not so much as return guys, but in their ability to get downfield and tackle opponents.

Fast Freddie is certainly not going to be the 3 WR and actually isn't serious competition for the #4 slot. The thing that will make it or break for him is competing for an ST slot. His return ability gives him a leg up, but as he is also likely to be below not only Clements but even Parrish on the PR slot, the thing that will make it or break it for him is his work as a gunner on the coverage team and as a tackler in interior OL play. I for one have little idea how he stacks up against the likes of Haggan or Aiken as a tackler and I actually doubt most of us do but that strikes me as who and how he will compete for a roster slot. My guess is that you can't really teach speed (no matter what Don Beebe says)and he sticks.

We now have so many OL players (mostly guards by experience) that it really is beginning to look like a shopping mall on the OL with JMac pushing the cart. I see the final outcome as 9 or 10 OL players on the active roster or PS. In the past, the Bills have gone with: 7 (sometimes 8) active OL players on a gameday. 1 (sometimes 0) active OL player who is not available on gameday (often due to injury) 1 or 2 players on the PS who are inactive but Bills players. Of the 7 available players they will need to be: 1 RT starter 1 RG starter 1 C starter 1 LG starter 1 LT starter In addition, we will need: 1 LT back-up 1 R/t back-up (probably the same person as Price occupied this role last year) 1 LG back-up 1 RG back-up (it was essentially the same person last year as we labeld no back-up for Villarial and the RG switch all around as we sought the right person with Tyucker ending up as the starter and Smith as the back-up) 1 C back-up (again double duty is essential as back-up Tucker went from being the back-up LG/C to being the starting LG. I think the Preston acquistion is actually probably a sign that Tucker will remain as starting LG but I don't know). At any rate, these are the candidates to chose from and the position we seem to have them slated for: MW- Starting RT (very likely to start) Villy- Starting RG (very likely to start) Teague- Starting C (likely to start cause moving him elsewhere messes chemistry) Anderson- Starting LG (likely to start due to contract and spoken interest) Gandy- Starting LT (spoken interest by JMac but mediocre at best for Bears at LT) Tucker- Back-up G/C (flexibility will likely make him active back-up) Preston- Back-up C/? (draft position&hope likely gets him on roster but could PS) Smith- Back-up G/T (LT use behind Price& starting n 04 gives hope but maybe cut) Geisinger- Swing guy(Draft position gets him on PS likely) McFarland- Back-up T (Active last year gives hope but probable cut) Jerman- (Late signing indicates some particular interest but likely camp fodder) Gundmunsen- (Likely camp fodder swing guy) Pruce- (Made some noise in NFLE last year as LT but likely camp fodder) Esposito- (On roster last year but likely camp fodder) Peters- (Must be on active roster or he will get signed elsewhere) Sobieski- (Talented guy has remained on roster but likely camp fodder) Bannan- (Still on the depth chart as a G but DT is his most likely way to make team) Overall, it really depends on what happens and what happens depends most of all on JMac's teaching ability and somebody stepping up. Peters is the real wildcard as he probably makes the roster because of his ST rushing skill will translated into a TD last year. If he shows enough ability at LT (which JMac says he can because he is a phenomenal athlete) then he gains a roster spot there and likrly say good bye to Smith/McFarland as back-up Ts. I like JMac but really doubt that Peters is so phenomenal he can be trusted to guard JPs blindside and the injury to Everett and uncertainty regarding ACLs of Euhus/Campbell likely lands Peters in roster as #3 TE. I also think that JMac/Gandy are really going to have to step up at LT if he is going to merit a starting role there. At any rate, somone could really step up (Peters/Gandy) or surprise (Preston, Smith, Pruce) and all bets are off. The upsides and downsides are possible and extremely high.

Folks do need to recognize that there is a difference between initial negotiating "truth" and the achieved "truth" at the end of negotitians. The initial offer is presented as though it is some sort of objective truth, but it really is not as it is merely one view of th truth from an advocates position. Whether it be the assertions of the small market or the big market teams, or alternately the assertions of conservatives about judges or liberals about judges, advocacy positions are presented as dead-lock certain truth when in reality we are going to end up with a compromise solution that completely satisfies no one, but everyone can live with. Are Ralph's assertions about small market teams untrue? Sure. Does is matter that they are untrue? No, because in the end we should get to an aggreement of achieved truth that will not at all be the principled initial stand, but will be something that all parties can live with. The NFL situation is one that is relatively easy compared to the stickt wickets that dominate today's political warblings. The NFL question is one not of beteern choosing who will be rich and who will be poor, but is merely a choice between who will be rich (players) and who will be richer (NFL owners). Unless the NFL owners insist on adherence to THEIR principles, a deal may be difficult to bring off (unfortunately people are involved), but actually easy to conceive of something that everyone can live with.

Folks do need to recognize that there is a difference between initial negotiating "truth" and the achieved "truth" at the end of negotitians. The initial offer is presented as though it is some sort of objective truth, but it really is not as it is merely one view of th truth from an advocates position. Whether it be the assertions of the small market or the big market teams, or alternately the assertions of conservatives about judges or liberals about judges, advocacy positions are presented as dead-lock certain truth when in reality we are going to end up with a compromise solution that completely satisfies no one, but everyone can live with. Are Ralph's assertions about small market teams untrue? Sure. Does is matter that they are untrue? No, because in the end we should get to an aggreement of achieved truth that will not at all be the principled initial stand, but will be something that all parties can live with. The NFL situation is one that is relatively easy compared to the stickt wickets that dominate today's political warblings. The NFL question is one not of beteern choosing who will be rich and who will be poor, but is merely a choice between who will be rich (players) and who will be richer (NFL owners). Unless the NFL owners insist on adherence to THEIR principles, a deal may be difficult to bring off (unfortunately people are involved), but actually easy to conceive of something that everyone can live with.

Last I checked Ralph already had a wife. This actually is only meant in part as a joke, because it would not surprise me if the concept of his taking on a real business partner to run HIS NFL team is the same thing as taking on a spouse as a partner. Either the new partber is a true partner and this means RWS sharing decision-making with the partner owners and making joint decisions about items such as who to hire, scheduling meetings with TD and staff, uniform colors, etc. In other words simply a royal pain in the butt if you are the sole owner as Ralph is and what you say goes and people bow and fetch as the natural act rather than trying to gameplan asking Dad (RWS) but if he says no is there a way i can pretend not to have heard him and then run get permission from Mom (the partner) to do what I want to do. RWS could easily only sell 10% or 20% of the team to a junior partner whose job it is to be rarely seen and never heard, However, this is not Tom Golisano's or most rich guys style. Even if their investment of 20% of the value of the team to buy their stake is clearly for them to be the junior partner. They are unlikely to want to lat out $50-100 dollars to have zero control over how it gets spent in exchange for having an inside track in the futuire. RWS seems unlikely to successfully take on a partner because sharing is a tough thing to do in this world.

The thing which concerns me about the Bills LT situation is that the key to this position last year was not merely Jonas Jennings but also the play of Marcus Price was critival to this team putting up Ws. The question on our OL is not simply who will start in the JJ role, but who will play the Marcus Price role if out future LT is sidelined by injury as much as JJ has been and MW has been to boot. I like Gandy, but I like him in the Marcus Price role because I think it is questionable whether he can be even as inconsistently good as JJ. I think we have 1.5 slots to fill and that even on a good day for the roster we have right now Gandy with Peters backing up strikes me as about 1.25 players worth of LT.

1. The Cleveland/Baltimore example shows that the NFL is very beatable in a showdown with a municipality that wants their team. Just because the NFL does not want it does not mean it will not happen. 2. I do not trust Joel Giambra and Tony Massiello, but i trust John Rigas and Mark Hamister even less. Ralph has been great and I am quite thankful to him that he invested in the Bills in Buffalo and has kept them here. However, one should not mistake the interests of the free market as being exactly the same as the interests of the community or Bills fans because the two are quite different. I'm all for the free market regarding the Bills if all owners were like RWS. However, they ain't and as stupid as GOP folks like Giambra are or Democrats like Gorski was, I choose them over John Rigas everytime.

I just got back to this thread after posting a response late last night (early this morning) after doing some conference call business at an off-hour due to a timezone shift. Wow, it triggered a number of posts I found quite interesting before some moderator made the judgment to exile it to the politics board which I rarely visit (I support this decision being made by the moderators for their reasons even if I disagree with them in some cases because they have done a good job of keeping the board semi-focused on the Bills). I just wanted to add a note to say thanks to the posters for any interesting back and forth on this issue. I'm still in the same place of wanting a society where individuals are judged by merit and their individual character rather than issues which do not measure the level of their character like the color of their skin, their hair, their height or whatever. My comments were simply that I find it troubling that items such as quality of schools, housing, etc which in my mind can be variable but should be variable based on factors like the quality of one's character, drive, intellellect etc, seemed to still be determined by non-character determinants like the color of ones skin. I do not perceive any maliciousness on the part of those who identified this girl as a black girl. What strikes me as troubling is that there seems to be such segregation in this particular school (amd unfortunately in a lot of US society) that it was such a notable thing that she was Black that this could be a definite identifier. If they had merely identified her as the Brunette Girl, would folks have known pretty clearly whicj individual they were talking about? If they had identified her as the short girl would this have been a distinct idenifier? This school seems to be so segregated that racial identifiers are significant. To the extent that school quality relates strongly to location quality the fact the identifier is relevant is the thing troubling to me. Interesting and thanks. Adios and see you on TSW.

I also could not care much less how a specific player looks or acts on game day. A TEAN needs to have all sorts of different types of leadership styles because different players respond to different types of leadership styles positively at different times. The good teams find the right space where different players step in and say just the right thing at the right time. Sometimes, the right thing is a leader like a Darryl Talley who is vocal and intense. His singular focus on the game and intensity strikes me as something like what the poster finds fault in Lindell for not having. However, one of my favorite NFL stories is the one where it was down to crunch time for the 49ers and the results of the next series of plays would make or break their season. Players went into the huddle intense and revved up and actually a bit too pumped which is when mistakes often happen. The group turned to Joe Montana for inspirational leadership because their individual game actions would make or break the season. Montana looked around at the group and said. Hey, look at that guy sitting in the endzone about 6 rows up. Isn't that John Candy? Boy, I love his films. The huddle laughed. He then called the play like they did this well all the time because they did and the 9ers executed well. Sometimes a rah-rah guy is just what you need, but other times a rah-rah guy is a pain in the neck. The best TEAMs not only have a bunch of types, but the winners know instinctively when its time for a vocal rooter like a Daryl Talley, a take charge leader like a Jim Kelly, a cerebral hitman like a Steve Tasker, or an individual like a Bruce Smith to step up on his own and lead by example. The folks who read meaning and diagnosed intent or effect on the team from Travis Henry's quiet scowl last year actually say a lot more with accuracy about themselves and what the hold to be important than they do about what motivates a player like Henry or his impacts on the team. Reading the tea leaves of Lindell's attitude based on a reading of his facial expression strikes me as the same flight of fancy.